Chamber and committees

It is not a question of knocking it down; I am just questioning you about the 43 per cent. You are saying that action was taken on that, which proves that some rape myths are evidential.

Does that happen a lot?

That is why I am questioning you on it. That is fine—you have answered the point.

Finally, did your research include taking any evidence from survivors?

Did it have an impact on the scope for rape myths et cetera to impact the outcome?

Do you think that the victims commissioner could incorporate that in his or her duties? They will not be able to intervene in individual cases, so it would seem to me that having oversight of what is actually happening would be a good role.

Hello, and thank you for being here. Before I ask my questions, I want to briefly follow up on what you have been talking about. I go back to your point, Hannah, about being listened to. If the message comes across from today’s meeting that being listened to is so key to your experience of the process, that will be brilliant.

On trauma-informed practice—you spoke about the one-size-fits-all approach—surely trauma-informed training should train people to understand that they cannot take that approach. People need to listen to that message, too.

I want to discuss the issue of specialist courts. Ellie, you explained very well the solemnity of High Court proceedings and how that reflected the seriousness of what happened to you. I completely understand that. The committee has had the same concern, but I will put to you what we have been told when we have asked about that. We have been told that it will not be a downgrading of the High Court process and that matters will be treated in the same way. The sentencing will be the same as it would be if the case was heard in the High Court. The upside is that the judge would be specially trained in trauma-informed practice in order to deal with your unique experience and the seriousness of the crime.

If you could be convinced—or rather, if you could be reassured that that would be the case, would you support the use of specialist courts for that reason?

Good morning. I want to pick up on a couple of the points that have been made about judge-only trials. Some of the women whom we heard from earlier said that they found the prospect of judge-only trials scary because they would not have confidence that that one person was not biased. However, I submit that there is more chance of a few people in a jury being biased than there is of that one specially trained judge being biased. The key point that must be remembered is that, in a specialist court, judges would have to have had all the necessary training and would have to understand the very sensitive nature of the issues.

That brings me on to my question, which relates to a point that one of the women made about the role of the victims and witnesses commissioner for Scotland. They felt—and I agree—that members of the legal profession must be held to account in some way for their conduct. We can pass all the legislation in the world, but if members of the legal profession do not implement it, it is pointless. Could keeping an eye on how cases are conducted and how the legal profession implements trauma-informed practice be a key role for the victims commissioner?

That is something to think about. Does anyone else have a view on that?

Jennifer, you said that you were worried about possible delays and backlogs in a specialist court, but we have heard that that would not be the case. Last week, I asked the Lord Advocate about floating trials, and she said that she does not want them to remain and thinks that a specialist court might alleviate that. That all sounds quite encouraging, but I think that the message that we are getting from you is that it has to be done right and you need to be reassured that it is not going to make matters worse.

I will make another comment, which is about a plus side of judge-only trials. We have had powerful evidence about rape myths that exist among some jury members. Judges are trained to know about that and, although there is never 100 per cent certainty in anything, we have been told that the probability is that the rape myth element would not be there so much in a judge-only trial. We have heard stories from survivors where there was clearly huge bias because of some of the evidence that the defence had led.

I do not really have a question to ask you; I just wanted to tell you that that is what we are hearing. We are aware of your concerns about the issue, which is why it is important that you have told us about those today.