Chamber and committees

Does that have anything to do with the legal profession wanting to carry on without any changes?

Do you recognise that a judge would be specifically trained and trauma informed, and that therefore bias and the belief in rape myths would not be as great?

As I understand the matter, that is the conviction rate.

Will your members come up with any constructive alternative proposal?

But you have said that you are not going to do that in this case.

If I understand you correctly, with regard to the not proven verdict, you are saying that, if we get the balance right with regard to jury size and majority, it would work. With regard to your point about retrials, would that not be an enormous burden on an already overcrowded court system?

Good morning. On the point about pre-recorded evidence, we have heard from some survivors that they would prefer to have a choice. Do you agree that they should have such a choice?

Thank you. I appreciate that.

The bill provides that judges of the sexual offences court will be appointed for a period that will be set by the Lord Justice General, who will also have the power to remove them. What are your thoughts on that? Last week, we heard evidence from the Faculty of Advocates casting doubt on the seniority and experience of the judges who could be appointed to the court. They were dubious about that. Will you set out how it will work in practice? There is fear that, when rape is involved, a sexual offences court could be a downgrading from the High Court.

The Faculty of Advocates was very insistent on that, and I was also struggling to understand. That is why I am keen to ask for both your views.

Sheriff Cubie, do you have a view on that?