Chamber and committees

Thank you—that was helpful.

Thank you, convener. As you said, in evidence from survivors, we heard that they sometimes got the impression that juries had not fully understood the legal implications of what was going on—the legal process. We also heard that there was a perception of unconscious prejudice to do with, for example, the way a complainer was dressed or whether they had been drinking. Many victims’ groups support single judge trials, but opinion is split within the legal profession. What is your view on the issue? In what circumstances could single judge trials be used?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to ask about an aspect of the specialist court, which, as you referred to, was one of Lady Dorrian’s recommendations. Last week, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service told us that it does not envisage any specialist training for jurors in that court. What is your view on that? Given the nature of the court and the need for trauma-informed practice, should there be such training and, if so, how could it be provided, practically?

Just to follow up my colleagues’ questions, I think that the process that you have described sounds very encouraging but, according to the evidence that we have heard, it is certainly not happening in this instance. We have heard that survivors are often asked to make statements while in a traumatised state and that officers did not make them aware of available support. In fact, one said that their statement was taken by a male SOLO; the process took hours during which they were not allowed to take a break or have a drink of water; and then they were immediately given a forensic examination. I found that pretty shocking. You do not need to be specially trained to know that such treatment is not very considerate.

The example that I have highlighted might be an extreme one, but when you hear of situations in which the guidance has not been followed, what action do you take? Moreover, what redress does the complainer have if they have such an experience? How do they make it known to you that the guidance has not been followed?

Perhaps DCC Graham can respond first, and then DCS Faulds.

Thank you.

Thank you—I understand that.

That was helpful. I do not know whether DCS Faulds wants to come in; she might have addressed the issue in her earlier response.

I will leave the Moorov doctrine for colleagues to ask about, but—I am sorry for this diversion—I would like to ask about support for victims and witnesses. I presume that this does not happen, but do you produce any guidance for victims and witnesses who are going into the judicial system for the first time that sets out what they can expect and so on? Has that ever been produced? Would that not be sensible? Because the victim is the Crown, they do not get any independent legal advice. I am not expecting you to give them legal advice, but is there step-by-step guidance on what they can expect when they come to court, who will say what, and what the process is?

During our evidence sessions, we have heard about a situation in which the Queen’s counsel representing the accused was acting unacceptably. The victim and the witnesses felt intimidated; they claimed that the QC behaved no better than the accused and that the whole thing felt like a boys’ club, and so on. They were very intimidated and demoralised, and no one called the QC out on his behaviour. Is that within your remit?

Before we leave the subject of the specialist court, can you say whether it would include specially trained jurors?