Chamber and committees

Good morning. My amendment 92 would require a jury to deliver a unanimous guilty conviction or, where that threshold was not met, allow a supermajority of 10 out of 12 jurors. That is the approach that is taken in England and Wales, and it has been tried and tested in jurisdictions around the world. In comparison, the Scottish Government proposes that we require a two-thirds majority with a jury of 15, which would make Scotland an outlier as the only jurisdiction in the world to follow that approach.

Lord Renucci, a former vice-dean of the Faculty of Advocates and a senator of the College of Justice, said:

“If we are going to change the numbers, we should be striving for unanimity. In all jurisdictions that operate a jury system of 12, either unanimity or a majority of 10 to two is required. No system falls below 10 to two.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 13 December 2023; c 7-8.]

My amendment is in line with that and is modelled on the amendment on jury verdicts that the Law Society of Scotland published in December. Time and time again, the committee has heard legal professionals express support for unanimity and a 10 out of 12 supermajority verdict. That proposal has been endorsed by the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society, the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association and the Edinburgh Bar Association. The Law Society wrote to the committee to support the amendment and reminded us that, although the Government’s proposal follows the position of the senators of the College of Justice, who have indicated support for a 15-person jury with a two-thirds majority, that was with the safeguard of a two-verdict system in which the rules on corroboration remained in place.

The Lord Advocate’s letter last week denied that this is the case, but the Law Society has said that the corroboration requirement was radically changed by the Lord Advocate’s reference decision in November. That is concerning and should lead us to question whether the Government’s proposal now comes with the safeguards that are required to meet the needs of our criminal justice system.

As we all know, there are four cornerstones of Scotland’s criminal justice system: the not proven verdict, the jury size of 15, the eight out of 15 majority and the corroboration rule. Three of those four cornerstones are impacted by the bill and the other has been significantly changed. I have deep concerns about whether those changes are based on hard evidence. We must ensure that any changes are made with the care and due diligence that we owe to everyone who is involved with and affected by the criminal justice system.

The Scottish Government has gone back and forth on its position on jury size and majority. First, it wanted a simple majority with 12 jurors. Then it changed that to a two-thirds majority with 12 jurors. It has now changed its mind again and wants a two-thirds majority with 15 jurors.

I would say that, at the moment, none of us can put forward a proposal that is completely based on concrete evidence, because of the lack of evidence that we had at committee. Pauline McNeill said as much in her contribution—we needed a lot more evidence on this. We could have done with seeing the research before we lodged our amendments, but we do not have it. I will come on to this, but I do not think that the mock juries gave us the research that we needed either.

Actually, I am going to come on to it now. I am deeply concerned that no real research is available to us on jury deliberations in Scotland. We have no idea how juries reach their decisions or what the split is between those who believe the accused is guilty or not guilty. Alisdair Macleod, from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, made the point that

“It might well be that every jury in the land comes back with a unanimous 15 to nil verdict or a 14 to one majority verdict. There is no way of knowing how many cases are decided on an eight to seven verdict”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 13 December 2023; c 46.]

Moreover, Lord Renucci made the point, which I agree with, that

“we should not change our whole legal system based on research with mock juries, which, in no way, mirrored what happens in courts.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 13 December 2023; c 9.]

He said that the mock trial in the Scottish jury research lasted one hour, but he had never in his career experienced a rape trial that had lasted less than a day. That is not the way to build an evidence base for reform of the system.

It was still not a live setting.

My amendment 63A would have been supplementary to Katy Clark’s amendment 63, which would have allowed for research into jury deliberations. My amendment would have prevented jury deliberations from being compromised by ensuring that that research could be conducted only after the jury had delivered its verdict. However, given that, as Katy Clark said, those amendments were lodged in advance and the Government has now lodged different amendments, I will not move my amendment, either.

Amendment 26 was not agreed to. The cabinet secretary said that complainers want a better experience of the court system. I still think that small practical changes would make a huge difference. I also still have concerns about the practicalities for the legal profession of using up to 38 courts and about the costs, the implementation and whether this will make a difference. However, I will not move the other amendments.

Amendment 91 would require the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to prepare and publish an annual report to the Parliament on the use of floating trial diets and their impact on victims. The amendment tries to find a commonsense compromise between two arguments, balancing the traumatic experiences of victims with the unfortunate reality that our courts are overstretched and backlogged.

We have heard from victims that floating trials can add to the trauma and stress that they face. One victim of sexual crime told the committee in our informal session that

“floating trials are not very good because you are having to remember 10 or 11 dates that will always be significant to you ... Dates are massive for people suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder and complex post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Rape Crisis Scotland highlighted that floating trial diets can have an impact on the quality of evidence that victims are able to give. Chief executive Sandy Brindley said:

“People have a trial that is allocated to a certain period, and every night they are waiting on a call to tell them whether it is going to go ahead the next day. That is far from trauma-informed practice, and it is not how we get the best evidence from vulnerable witnesses.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 January 2024; c 49-50.]

Sandy Brindley also told us that some victims end up having to rehearse their evidence every day, saying that

“they wake up and go through”

it all

“in their mind”,—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 January 2024; c 49.]

just in case they are called to give evidence. The traumatising effect that that could have on victims is deeply concerning.

The Lord Advocate also shared with us her experience of prosecuting sexual cases in the High Court and the trauma inflicted on victims by making them wait by the phone to find out when they will be called to give evidence. She called floating trial diets “a profound problem”, explaining that

“They are deeply upsetting for victims who are waiting for their case to be heard, and challenging for the prosecutor who is waiting for the case to come in”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 10 January 2024; c 30.]

However, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service estimated that moving entirely from floating trials to fixed trials in the High Court would add an average of at least 11 weeks of delay to each individual case and worsen the court backlog. As we know, this Government has presided over an extreme backlog in the courts, and the Courts and Tribunals Service makes the point that floating trial diets allow for better flexibility in scheduling cases and using the finite resources available to it.

In its evidence, Victim Support Scotland acknowledged that there is, unfortunately, a trade-off between certainty for victims and the impact on courts. However, when it has spoken to victims, they have said that they prefer certainty about the date of their trial, even if that means a delay.

I note that the cabinet secretary has heard both arguments and supports reducing the use of floating trial diets, because of the anxiety and uncertainty that they can cause to victims, while also recognising that the state of the court system means that abolishing them might do more harm than good. That is also the position of the committee, which has concluded that it is unfortunately not realistic to stop the use of floating trials completely at this time.

However, given the impact on victims and in the face of the testimony that we have heard, it would be wrong simply to do nothing. As a result, my amendment provides for an evidence-led approach to ensure that the proper research is conducted before we take any further action on changing the use of floating trial diets. There is no reason not to do that research. After all, if we want to reduce or phase out floating trial diets, we need to know exactly when they are used, how they are used and their impact on victims, as well as how we balance that against the impact on the courts of the practical realities of abolishing floating trial diets.

I hope that the cabinet secretary and members of the committee will support my amendment, which is a sensible compromise. It allows for an evidence-led approach to this difficult issue and would be a first step towards reducing floating trial diets and ultimately helping victims, which we all want to do.

I move amendment 91.

Amendments 258 and 259 seek to safeguard victims by ensuring that, when the Parole Board decides to release a discretionary life prisoner and there is a victim of their crimes, the board must provide a summary explaining why it has chosen to release them. That summary would then have to be provided to the victim, or to a family member if the victim is deceased.

Those who are given life sentences will have committed very serious crimes, and we must ensure that, when they are released, victims or their families are notified and given a full account of the reasons behind their release. Victims deserve transparency, but unfortunately, as we have seen in recent years, not all victims get informed when their offender is released from prison. The amendments will safeguard victims and ensure that they and their families have transparency when it comes to the release of dangerous offenders.

I agree that yearly reporting might be a bit onerous on the system if it is not going to have any real impact, but I would ask that the matter is kept high on the cabinet secretary’s agenda so that, when she is talking to various officials in the justice system, she can make sure that it is high on the list of things for which solutions need to be found. I will not press amendment 91.

Amendment 91, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 89 seeks to ensure that witnesses are given information on the special measures that are available to them in all cases. It also means that, where victims of certain sexual offences request to give their evidence in a particular way, that must be how they give their evidence. For all other vulnerable witnesses, the approach will remain as it is at present. That will ensure that victims and witnesses are listened to and it will improve their experience of the justice system at what is a deeply distressing and traumatising time for them.

Moreover, Victim Support Scotland has pointed out to the committee the need to ensure that victims have a choice in how they provide evidence. I hope that the Government will reflect on the need to do more to ensure that victims do not feel like witnesses in their own cases.

I move amendment 89.

I lodged the amendments to ensure more transparency for victims and their families when people are released from prison. As Jamie Greene has said, there can be a cost implication in producing reports. As the cabinet secretary said in relation to the earlier amendments lodged by Jamie Greene, there are times when we do not need primary legislation to do something; it could be done by a change in procedure or policy. If we do not need legislation, I am happy for more of that information to be given to victims on a person’s release. It would be interesting to hear the cabinet secretary’s views on whether we need legislation to get more information out to victims, or whether that is something that we can work on and bring back at stage 3.

As Pauline McNeill mentioned earlier, we did no work with the Parole Board in the course of our scrutiny of the bill. This is the avenue that my colleague has managed to find to bring in all the amendments on the Parole Board. It is not something that we looked at in great detail, although maybe we should have done.