Chamber and committees

Thank you.

You also said that the jury is not there to find the truth, that it is for the legal system to prove the offence and that, if it does not, it is a failing of the Crown. Do you understand why victims feel crushed and let down by a not proven verdict? They feel that the system is weighted against them and in favour of the accused, for the reasons that you have outlined. Many witnesses have said to us that they would much rather have had a not guilty verdict than a not proven verdict, because they are left in limbo.

Why would that be? I know that that must be laid down somewhere, but do you think that it is fair that nobody knows?

Obviously, it is not to identify people, but even having the numbers would be at least some information.

I have a short supplementary question on the conviction rate in sexual offence cases. Laura, will the Lord Advocate’s recent ruling that distress can be used as evidence have an impact on the conviction rates?

Thank you. That is helpful.

—and that, after decades of campaigning, there is still confusion. That speaks volumes.

That must have been difficult.

You prefer 12.

I do not have much more to ask, but I echo my colleague Russell Findlay’s comments to you, Mr Duffy, about your campaign. It is astonishing that, even after all your work, families still do not understand what the not proven verdict is—

Good morning. Joe, I want to pick up my colleague’s point about reasonable doubt. As I understand it, in order for a case to come to court, there must be reasonable evidence. If that evidence cannot be proved, the verdict must be “not guilty”. That is a simplification, but that is how I see it.

You also made a point about not knowing what the jury majority was in a not proven verdict. I had not even thought about that. As you put it, that muddies the waters even more. I agree with that.

I want to ask you both about not majorities but jury size. For the record, would you keep it at 15, or would you make it 12?