Chamber and committees

From what Mr Cowan has said, it is likely that the Crown would have criteria for referral of a rape or other sexual offence case to the High Court or the specialist court.

To go back to the issue of downgrading, the concern is that, if there is a cap of 10 years on sentencing in the specialist court, that makes it look like a lower court—similar to the sheriff court. The sheriff court has a range of disposals, and if a longer sentence is desired than is within its powers, the sentencing aspects are referred to the High Court. I understand that the thinking is that that is how the specialist court would operate. Even though a High Court judge was sitting in the specialist court, they would be able to impose a sentence of up to only 10 years and, if they thought that a sentence of more than 10 years might be appropriate, that would have to be referred to the High Court.

Will the kinds of issues that the governance group looks at include consideration of whether the specialist court is subject to that sentencing cap or has a full range of disposals? Is that still a live issue, cabinet secretary?

That is helpful. My main question is: does DCC Graham believe that there is a cultural problem?

I will be interested to hear from Mr Cowan. The High Court is, obviously, a higher court than the sheriff court. We would not want there to be an impression that the specialist court was a lesser court than the High Court. My understanding is that, depending on how the legislation is constructed, the specialist court would, in effect, be a specialist part of the High Court. Is that fair?

The minister has already addressed some of what I was going to ask about. To what extent has it been possible to implement any of Lady Dorrian’s recommendations already? You have outlined the future timetable, but has there already been any implementation of the recommendations?

Yes, of course.

We know that repeated concerns have been raised about misogynistic and sexist behaviour in Police Scotland and that there have been numerous complaints. We have tried to get more detail about that, but gender-specific information is not available. On the complaints that reached the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner in 2020-21, we understand that only 202 of 279 referrals were investigated at the time of reporting.

If we open the newspapers, we see the Sarah Everard case. Obviously, the detail of that case will lead women to lose trust in the police. According to what is written in the media, there is a very high level of domestic abuse and violence by police officers. Harassment cases have been reported to the police, although we do not know the detail of those cases.

What work is being done to implement the recommendations in the “Independent Review of Complaints Handling, Investigations and Misconduct Issues in Relation to Policing” from November 2020? How will you address the issues that Dame Elish Angiolini raised in that report? What needs to be done? Is there a significant cultural problem within the police that needs to be addressed? If you do not think that there is a cultural problem, how do you explain what is being reported and said?

Thank you. That is very helpful.

I warmly welcome the debate, and I will move the amendment in the name of Pauline McNeill, which says that we recognise that many survivors of sexual crimes find their experiences of the justice system to be retraumatising, that we believe that improving the experience of women and girls requires changes throughout the justice system, and that we recognise that the current backlog of cases disproportionately impacts on women and girls.

Although the figures for most crimes in Scotland have fallen over the past decade, the figures for sexual offences continue to rise. That might be because more women are reporting offences or it might be that overall levels of sexual violence are increasing. In 2019-20, which is the last year for which we have figures, 44 per cent of rape and attempted rape cases resulted in a not proven verdict. That suggests that there was evidence but that the jury felt that it did not meet the threshold of being beyond reasonable doubt.

In many rape cases, the issue of whether there was consent is the main issue at trial. There is no doubt that society’s attitudes towards women and girls impact on the decisions that juries take. Lady Dorrian’s report looked at that issue and suggested providing better training and support for juries. Trials without juries have also been suggested, as well as a range of other changes, including the introduction of specialist courts.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I say that the justice system needs to be more responsive to survivors’ experiences, and that includes the police and the courts. There is much agreement across the political parties that are represented in the Parliament on what needs to be done. However, the policy as outlined by the Government and the authorities is very different from the testimony that we hear from survivors, who continue to describe their experiences of a justice system that they feel fails them, that they find to be traumatic and that does not work for them. The Criminal Justice Committee has met survivors, some of whom still have cases going through the system, and it is clear that they feel that the justice system continues to fail women.

We need a justice system in which staff dealing with cases in every part of the system are trained in trauma-informed approaches. Problematic attitudes towards sexual violence need to be addressed in all parts of the justice system, including in the courts and the police service, through education and changing the way that we deal with cases. It is clear that a range of measures need to be taken to deliver the justice system that victims of crimes often feel they are denied.

The Lord Advocate has said that cases of sexual violence make up 70 per cent of the workload of the High Court. That proportion has increased dramatically over the decades. Of that 70 per cent of cases, 80 to 85 per cent go to trial. Therefore, the current backlog disproportionately involves women and girls as victims of crime. We need to consider how we can deal with those cases more quickly and whether changes could be brought in, perhaps as pilots, that could speed up how those cases are brought to a conclusion.

I welcome the debate that has been secured today by the Conservative Party to consider the not proven verdict as part of a wide range of changes that need to be made to the legal system. Our legal system should have criminal laws that reflect the values of the society that we aim to have. We have a justice system that continues to work in the interests of male perpetrators of violence and against the interests of women and girls. In other cases, too, the interests of victims are not in the centre in the way that I believe we would all want.

I welcome the fact that we are debating these issues today, and I look forward to the rest of the debate. There was previously a member’s bill on the issue, and I know that we will be considering it again. I welcome the fact that the Government has come forward with a consultation to consider the not proven verdict, in particular, so that all voices can be heard before draft legislation is brought to the chamber.

I move amendment S6M-02553.1, to insert at end:

“; recognises that many survivors of sexual crimes find their experiences of the justice system to be re-traumatising, and believes that improving the experience of victims will require improvements throughout the criminal justice process and that this must start with clearing the backlog of court cases, which disproportionately affects access to justice for women and children, as a priority.”

It is clear that further restrictions are necessary, but does the First Minister agree that people are willing to comply with restrictions when they think that they are consistent and fair, and that it will be difficult to explain why people are allowed to mix at large events when restrictions are being put on small family gatherings?

I have no doubt that the minister agrees that it is important to have the community on side, with maximum consultation on all aspects of drugs policy. I know that that was raised with her previously, when North Ayrshire Council, community councils and the local community found out from the media about the national drugs facility that is intended for Saltcoats. Will she outline what she can do to ensure maximum consultation, and will she provide an update on what is happening about the Saltcoats facility, so that that can be shared with the community?