Chamber and committees

There was some evidence in support of the proposal, but the majority of evidence, as was set out in detail in the stage 1 report, was opposed to it, for good reasons. I am glad that you, as a member, and the cabinet secretary now agree with our position.

It is extremely frustrating to have lost two years to arguing about something. It is welcome that the Government is now doing the right thing, but I think that the cabinet secretary has a duty to explain why it has taken two years to finally reach this position and do the right thing.

I apologise for my manner, but I provided a factual summary of events. Indeed, it is a matter of fact that some members were for it and some were against it, as the stage 1 report says. I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I have three amendments in this group, 53, 54 and 59, with amendments 54 and 59 being consequential to amendment 53, which is the most significant one and is my focus.

Amendment 53 would remove from the bill the proposal by the Scottish Government to remove juries from rape trials. In the committee’s stage 1 report, Scottish National Party members supported the proposal for juryless trials but, having listened to the evidence, my party took a different view, which we set out in detail in that report. In summary, we opposed the fundamental departure from the long-established right of an accused person to be tried by a jury of their peers and we stated that the proposal

“would amount to an experiment with people’s lives”

and would risk creating

“a two-tier justice system”.

It was clear from the evidence that ministers had not taken into account recent developments to address rape myths and that they had no answer to the very real prospect of lawyers boycotting juryless trials. In addition, some of the most compelling evidence came from rape survivors who said that they supported trial by jury. It is therefore welcome that the Government, and presumably the SNP committee members, now agree with us and with all those who warned that that was a bad idea. The Scottish Solicitors Bar Association described that as a “humiliating U-turn” and said:

“Our opposition was a principled campaign based on a simple premise: either all of us matter or none of us matter. Once you start taking away some people’s rights, it never ends there.”

They, and many others, will be glad that the cabinet secretary has now seen sense. It is a victory for common sense.

I have some brief further observations to make before hearing from the cabinet secretary. Fighting to remove juries has taken a monumental amount of Government, Parliament and committee time. The bill was published almost two years ago yet, throughout the process, the Government has failed to provide basic evidence to justify that radical experiment, to explain the intent behind it or to address the consequences and concerns that have been raised by so many people. My concern is that that has been an example of this Government’s cavalier approach to legislation.

I think that we are in full agreement. My speech was a very brief summary of two years’ worth of work and evidence, but the stage 1 report is in black and white. The SNP members supported the proposal, in spite of all the evidence that we heard explaining why it was a bad idea. The stage 1 report also sets out in great detail why we believed that it was a mistake. We are where we are, and that should be welcomed.

Would the member take an intervention?

I was just going to say that you misunderstood the point that I made—

Will Katy Clark take an intervention?

Thank you. My apologies for the unconventional approach, but the cabinet secretary was unwilling to take an intervention. If I understand her contribution correctly, she seemed to think that I was accusing her of being the cause of the two-year process, which I absolutely was not. I do not think that there was anything that was not respectful about my contribution. I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary did not take an intervention. It is good that we have now reached this position. In the future, however, much greater preparation in respect of legislation would be better.

I have six amendments in the group. One aspect of the criminal justice system that causes significant distress to victims is plea deals. We all understand and accept the premise of those: when an accused pleads guilty at an early stage, it spares victims from giving evidence. We do not oppose plea deals per se—they have long been an important feature in the justice system. Our concerns are about the way in which they are sometimes used and the general lack of transparency around those decisions.

My six amendments in the group—amendments 79 to 84—all relate to plea deals. Amendments 79 to 81 deal with solemn criminal proceedings, which cover more serious cases involving a jury, and amendments 82 to 84 deal with summary cases, which are of a less serious nature.

Counterintuitively, I will start with amendment 81 and talk only to the three amendments relating to solemn cases in order to avoid repetition, because my amendments relating to summary cases seek to do exactly the same thing in the lower courts.

Amendment 81 would require Crown Office prosecutors in solemn cases to inform victims if a plea deal was reached with an accused. Amendment 80 would require Crown Office prosecutors in solemn cases to take the views of victims into account before agreeing a plea deal. Amendment 79 would require Crown Office prosecutors in solemn cases to discuss plea deals with victims and would give victims a veto on any plea deal decision. For what it is worth, I believe that amendment 79 overreaches, as it could be seen as meddling in the independence of the prosecution service, but I lodged it to demonstrate the seriousness of victims’ concerns and to seek the Government’s views more generally.

As I said, amendments 82 to 84 seek to do exactly the same things as amendments 79 to 81, but they would apply to summary cases.

I have been raising issues about plea deals for many years—predating my time as a politician. In one particularly shocking case, it took four years for the Crown Office to prosecute the perpetrator of extreme and prolonged domestic violence. The victim suffered relentless retraumatisation as her abuser used his lawyers to play the system. Despite all that, four years down the line, he was offered a very favourable plea deal—the seriousness of some charges was watered down, and other charges were dropped altogether. In that case, the victim was not even told about the plea deal, which, in my view, was an affront to justice.

More recently, the BBC broadcast a “Disclosure” documentary called “Surviving Domestic Abuse”, which put a spotlight on the culture of plea deals in domestic abuse cases. The documentary featured seven cases and five plea deals. Again, solid charges were either watered down or dropped altogether, and victims were not informed. It was due only to the presence of a BBC journalist in court that they knew what had happened. In one of the cases, there was video evidence of a woman being choked by her male partner. It was black and white—he was guilty all day long, in my opinion—but the charge was dropped from the indictment. That was perhaps for convenience; it was certainly not in the interests of justice.

On behalf of the brave women who featured in the documentary, I raised the issue of plea deals with the cabinet secretary in the chamber last March—almost 12 months ago—and she said that she would be willing to engage with me on any amendments that I wanted to lodge. Last December, I raised the issue directly with John Swinney, and the First Minister also said that the Government would look at my amendments. I believe that the Government has had sufficient time to do so. Fixing the problems is long overdue.

I accept that amendment 79 and the corresponding amendment for summary cases overreach by giving victims a veto, which could be harmful to the justice process, so I do not intend to press amendment 79 or to move amendment 82—if it is not premature to say that now.

However, amendment 80 is entirely reasonable, because it would give victims a voice and the right to be informed while stopping short of providing a veto. If the Government does not like amendment 80, surely it must deem amendment 81 and the corresponding amendment for summary proceedings to be acceptable. All that the amendments would do would be to inform victims if plea deals were struck and inform them of the details. In many of the horrific cases in which I have been involved, the deals have been hugely harmful and distressing, and being deprived of that basic information, as commonly happens, can often add to that distress.

My amendments would go some way towards tackling a recurring problem in the justice system: a lack of transparency. Disclosing that basic information might even give prosecutors greater cause to consider the impact of plea deals and whether what they are agreeing to is, in fact, reasonable and in the interests of justice. Basic transparency is the very least that victims deserve.

I move amendment 79.