Chamber and committees

Are findings and learning from pilots and trials arising from initiatives such as the UK rape review, which is the underlying principle of some of the reforms to the way in which sexual assault cases are tried in England and Wales, shared between SCTS and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service or the Ministry of Justice? What conversations take place in that regard?

You will be relieved to learn that I am not going to ask you to comment on the Moorov principle. Those matters are for other judicial partners, as you have said. However, it is clear that there are two sticky areas in the Scottish system—first, the use of three verdicts and the issue of corroboration, and secondly the complexity of navigating things such as the Moorov principle. Our initial questions were about whether jurors really understand the intricacies of all of that and the consequences of any decisions that they might make, which is an issue that arose as a result of evidence with regard to a case where that aspect was not clear to the jury.

With regard to the comments about responsibilities, I presume that the judge or sheriff has a duty to counsel and advise jurors from the day that the jury is picked. Danielle McLaughlin mentioned the Judicial Office, by which I presume she means the one at St Andrew’s house—in other words, in the Scottish Government. The ultimate responsibility therefore lies with the cabinet secretary for justice, not the Lord Advocate or the Crown. Who would have overarching responsibility for making any reforms?

I have some questions that I want to ask, but they are not on support for victims.

My questions will follow on nicely from yours, convener.

I think that it is fair to say that there is a spectrum of views on the subject of video links and technology. Some people would prefer an environment in which the accuser or victim gives a pre-recorded statement that is played in a court in which not everyone is present—the use of remote juries in different buildings has been trialled in that regard. On the other hand, there are people who want everyone to be in the court—the accused, the accuser, the jury, the judge, the witnesses and everyone else. Between those two views there is wide spectrum of opinion. Obviously, we are trying to modernise how we do things—the pandemic is forcing us to do that, in any case, but it is also the right thing to do.

I want to ask about the issue of pre-recorded cross-examination, which we have not discussed yet. You will be aware that trials of that approach have taken place in London and elsewhere in England—I know that Durham Crown Court is running one. Does that happen in Scotland? If not, why not? Are there any plans to run such trials here?

Absolutely. I do not disagree that it is a common theme. The problem is that much of that work is currently taken up by the third sector and, in some cases, by volunteers. It is not formalised in any sense. People have access to Victim Support Scotland or to victim information and advice, which is the Crown Office’s process. However, in many cases, people are directed to charities such as Rape Crisis Scotland or Scottish Women’s Aid, or to their MSPs or MPs if they are really stuck, as we can write letters to people and generally get answers back.

I think that the lack of centralised support to hold someone’s hand through the process has led to accusations that the system is geared and weighted towards the accused. They have a single point of contact—their lawyer—who will hold their hand and educate them as they go through the process, whereas the victims often feel that they are passed from pillar to post.

With regard to your bit of the process, you manage the estate, but you have little control over the physicality of the estate. Many people have said to us that the estate creates difficulties—it is not a pleasant place to be, and victims often come face to face with the people who have attacked or abused them. In addition, the physical layout of the buildings, many of which are antiquated, is not conducive to a trauma-informed experience. What will you do to improve that?

Five years is a long time to wait for a case to come to trial, whether you are the accused or the victim. It is horrendous.

You make fair points. It is difficult to model the situation. As you say, given the scale of the congestion in the courts and the nature of the trials that are likely to come through the system, on which we have heard evidence, there is an expectation that non-custodial options simply might not be suitable in a large chunk of those cases. Therefore, there is an expectation that the prison population will rise. I presume that there are limitations on what you can do. You can magic up only so much space in the prison estate, so there will be overcrowding, eventually. Do you foresee a California-type scenario in which you simply must release people because of overpopulation?

Those are the words of Police Scotland.

Thank you for that clarification. I am not sure that there is much of a precedent for the committee telling the Government what more to spend and where the money should be cut from, but if that is the new budget scrutiny process I will be happy to engage in it.

If the SFRS is being asked to do more, as it is being asked to do—and we have heard concerns about that from management and the unions—that must be backed up with investment and, in this context, resource investment, whether we are talking about the requirement for training or the requirement for additional assets. If the budget remains static, as it has been since 2017, and there is no more investment up front, the service will find it difficult to offer a wider range of services. What discussions have you had with the service about what will be asked of it and how much more might be required from the budget allocation to help it do what is asked?

My other questions relate to other areas of the budget, so I am happy to come back in later, convener.