Chamber and committees

I just want to clarify your role in this first. There have been other cases in which the victims did not meet the procurator fiscal or have contact with them prior to the trial. Everything was new to them and they had no chance to process things. On some occasions, when the case came to court, there were errors in the paperwork and it was too late to correct them. Again, is that within your remit?

I want to ask what I think is a really important question about juries. We have heard in evidence that some complainers felt that the jury did not fully understand not just the legal process, but the evidence that was given. There is also a specific question about the Moorov doctrine, which I will park for a minute.

In general, given that juries receive no training and might not have an understanding of the subject at hand, and given that there might well be unconscious bias or prejudice against certain aspects of a case—for example, the complainer might have had too much to drink or whatever—do you see it as part of your role to promote the training of juries? Would that be a good thing? I would have thought that, for the specialist court, it would be essential for juries to have some training. Do you give any instructions to juries at all? Does that fall within the court service’s remit?

Is that happening at the moment? Is that information being given to witnesses and victims?

We will go on to discuss juries, so I will leave the matter there. I simply wanted to ask that question in relation to the specialist court.

No.

My colleagues have further questions on that area, so I will not ask any more just now.

I would like to ask about cases of domestic violence. By its nature, domestic violence differs from other offences because it is a continuing offence. We know that there is a huge backlog of cases. Do you have a remit to prioritise domestic violence cases? If so, are you doing that?

Following on from the convener’s questions, I want to ask about the new women’s custodial estate. I believe that there are about 230 places for women in the new estate but, just now, there are approximately 400 women, including remand prisoners, in prison. Will you comment on the capacity of the new estate? I would like to think that it has been made that size because fewer women will be sent to prison—I really hope that that is the case. Has there been any thought or planning on whether there might not be enough space in the new women’s estate?

I think that everyone is agreed that we have to keep children out of prison. I will ask about the current funding model for secure care for children. I am aware that the money does not come from the justice budget. I am also aware that you, cabinet secretary, are meeting the director of a secure care unit in my constituency next month.

Will the funding model be looked at? The committee heard about that issue in last week’s evidence session, and the current situation seems odd, to say the least. The model is not adequate in the view of the people who are delivering secure care, so is that on the agenda?

On alternatives to custody and community justice, the emphasis will be on third sector organisations, whose involvement will be even more crucial than it is now once such disposals are expanded. In the previous parliamentary session, the Justice Committee called for multiyear funding settlements for third sector organisations, as is the case in the health service, for example. The benefits of that are obvious, such as security and forward planning. Is there any chance that the Government will consider multiyear funding for the new policies that are being introduced so that third sector organisations have security?