Chamber and committees

So, when you heard jurors deliberating in the mock trials, did you hear them say, for example, “I don’t think there is enough evidence for that, so we might as well say that it is not proven.”?

It is quite surprising to hear that juries will have to make that decision even though they do not fully understand the difference between the two verdicts. Should more training be given to juries? Is the manual adequate in that respect?

My question was going to be exactly the same as Russell Findlay’s question—I was going to push you both to say what your preferred balance would be.

However, to go back to sexual offence cases, I just want to get on record that the not proven verdict is used disproportionately in rape cases. Not proven made up 44 per cent of rape and attempted rape acquittals in comparison with 20 per cent of all crimes and offences. That is a huge imbalance.

Your research has led you to believe that we should abolish the not proven verdict, and you have answered the question that I have just outlined by saying that you cannot really say what your preferred balance would be.

My next question is another tricky one. In your estimation, if the verdict were to be abolished, what would be acceptable to the legal profession? What do you think that it would suggest as an optimum?

I just wondered whether there was an easy path that you thought might be acceptable. However, I appreciate what you are saying and that we would need to ask the legal profession.

I know—I just thought that, with your background, maybe you would have a view.

I accept that—I understand. That is fine.

Good morning. Does the judge explain what not proven is at any point in a real courtroom, either in his summing up or in direction? That is my first question. I genuinely do not know what is actually said.

To put into context some of the things that we have been hearing, I note that a pilot project was started in September for the new process. That will be evaluated to assess resource requirements, whether the process is workable and so on. That started in September, as I said, and it is on-going. We need to wait to see what the outcome of that is. There is also the short-life strategic leadership group, which reports to ministers through a cross-portfolio ministerial group for prisoner health and social care.

There are things happening as a result of our meeting with Gill Imery. It is easy to cherry pick things that may still need to be implemented, but I think that the wheels are definitely turning now, and I hope that things come to a good conclusion.

The cabinet secretary talks in her letter about the round table and the working group, which meets again this month. She will feed back on the outcome of the discussion, including the finalised terms of reference for the group. We expect that to be imminent.

Following on from your comments about changing practice and culture when it comes to trauma-informed practice, I want to ask you about floating trials in solemn cases. We have heard from witnesses and some women’s organisations that floating trials prolong the trauma and anxiety of rape complainers. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has defended their use, and there is nothing in the bill to address the issue.

What are your thoughts on floating trial diets? Can you understand the anxiety that it is claimed they cause victims?