Chamber and committees

Good morning, minister. This situation stemmed from the UK Government introducing legislation unilaterally, and I am interested to know whether any cross-border issues still have to be ironed out or whether any other concerns have arisen.

Good morning. I have listened carefully to the points that have been raised. Given the actions of the UK Government, would not passing the order have much more serious consequences than doing so? We have been pushed into a corner; we have to introduce this, and it is necessary. Does the minister agree?

I want to ask about floating trial diets. I think that it is generally accepted that they are not a good thing. They bring uncertainty and cause great distress to complainers, and the Lord Advocate has said that she would like them to disappear. Will the sexual offences court alleviate that problem? Is it at all possible to legislate to end them, or is that best left to the independent judiciary?

I completely appreciate that. What I am trying to do is to break the impasse in the problem with convictions in sexual crime cases compared with the rest of cases. Rape Crisis is concerned that the bill will make it harder to convict because of the jury configuration, which will not help victims.

I totally understand.

Conviction rates for rape are the lowest of any crime type; indeed, I think that the Lord Advocate said that the conviction rate for single-complainer rape cases is 20 per cent, which is quite shocking. Cabinet secretary, you will know that Rape Crisis is very concerned about the two-thirds majority in a 12-person jury and feels that it would make it harder to get convictions, which is clearly the last thing that we want.

Before we go on to talk about the new sexual offences court, I have what is quite a left-field question, but I am going to ask it anyway. We are talking about jury balance and sizes. Do you envisage the Government ever making provision for a different configuration of or different criteria for juries in that court, to try to balance out Rape Crisis’s fears in relation to corroboration and all the rest of it? Given that we are setting up a new court anyway, is that something that the Government would ever consider?

Good morning, Mr Brown. I go back to the first question that you answered. You admitted that there is a lack of diversity in the profession. Your submission says:

“Judges are picked from a very small section of society: they are all middle-aged, ... predominately male, often privately-educated and almost exclusively members of the Faculty of Advocates.”

That sounds like an old boys club to me. Does that not say a lot about the profession?

I understand that, but the Lord Advocate, Lady Dorrian and women’s organisations that deal with women victims of rape every day want this to happen. They have all said that there needs to be radical change. If you do not accept what is proposed, what proposals would you put forward for radical change, or indeed, for any change?

In answer to my colleague Fulton MacGregor, you said that you could not understand why sexual crimes should be dealt with differently from other crimes, yet you have spoken at length about how difficult it is to get convictions in such cases and about the uniqueness of such crimes. What I am getting from you is that you do not want to see any change at all. Would that not be letting women down?

I will go back to conviction rates. Your submission says:

“if the Scottish Government wishes to increase the convictions . . . we simply ask, what is the correct conviction rate?”

You quote someone called Tommy Ross KC, who said that

“the correct conviction rate is the number of cases that are proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe we are achieving that at present.”

Do you think that a 20 per cent conviction rate for single rape complainers is acceptable?