The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
The Official Report search offers lots of different ways to find the information you’re looking for. The search is used as a professional tool by researchers and third-party organisations. It is also used by members of the public who may have less parliamentary awareness. This means it needs to provide the ability to run complex searches, and the ability to browse reports or perform a simple keyword search.
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
Depending on the kind of search you want to do, one of these views will be the best option. The default view is to show the report for each meeting of Parliament or a committee. For a simple keyword search, the results will be shown by item of business.
When you choose to search by a particular MSP, the results returned will show each spoken contribution in Parliament or a committee, ordered by date with the most recent contributions first. This will usually return a lot of results, but you can refine your search by keyword, date and/or by meeting (committee or Chamber business).
We’ve chosen to display the entirety of each MSP’s contribution in the search results. This is intended to reduce the number of times that users need to click into an actual report to get the information that they’re looking for, but in some cases it can lead to very short contributions (“Yes.”) or very long ones (Ministerial statements, for example.) We’ll keep this under review and get feedback from users on whether this approach best meets their needs.
There are two types of keyword search:
If you select an MSP’s name from the dropdown menu, and add a phrase in quotation marks to the keyword field, then the search will return only examples of when the MSP said those exact words. You can further refine this search by adding a date range or selecting a particular committee or Meeting of the Parliament.
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
There are two ways of searching by date.
You can either use the Start date and End date options to run a search across a particular date range. For example, you may know that a particular subject was discussed at some point in the last few weeks and choose a date range to reflect that.
Alternatively, you can use one of the pre-defined date ranges under “Select a time period”. These are:
If you search by an individual session, the list of MSPs and committees will automatically update to show only the MSPs and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of MSPs and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of MSPs and committees will update to show the information that was current at that time.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 1264 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Pauline McNeill
That is helpful. Finally, given the hundreds of cases that you have—
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Pauline McNeill
I understand most of it, but I just want to clarify that, as the proposals stand—not for the other suggestion—it is still the Crown’s position that there should be the option of a retrial under the Government’s proposal for a majority of eight to four. Would you still argue for that?
12:00Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Pauline McNeill
That is in your seven to five scenario.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Pauline McNeill
Good morning. Have you any comment to make on some of the evidence that we have heard on the use of not proven in rape cases? I am trying to understand this. There is the use of not proven in not guilty verdicts in rape cases, and then there is the comparison with other crimes, which, I imagine, will look different. Is there anything that you can tell the committee from your experience or practice about the use of not proven in rape cases? Do you have any concern that it is used too often, or do you have no concerns at all?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Pauline McNeill
Finally, your submission suggests that, if there were an increase in the majority that is required for a jury to convict, consideration should be given to the prosecution being able to seek a retrial where the higher majority is not reached. Is that your policy position? In other words, are you arguing for that anyway? Why would you not argue for having a retrial policy in the current verdict system? How radical a suggestion is that? From a layperson’s reading, it seems quite radical to introduce that question. While we have been debating the three verdicts and the majorities, you have thrown into the mix the idea that there should be scope for a retrial. I have absolutely no idea how radical that is. If you could speak to that, that would be great.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 6 December 2023
Pauline McNeill
Earlier, you said:
“If you accept that the not proven verdict might be contributing to wrongful acquittals”.
The Government has not said that. That might explain where it is coming from. The Government has explicitly said to the committee that it is not, through the proposals, trying to make any change to the number of acquittals.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 6 December 2023
Pauline McNeill
I have a few questions for Sandy Brindley. Would you accept that the committee has been asked to scrutinise the issue and to make a decision in relation to all cases, not just rape cases?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 6 December 2023
Pauline McNeill
Yes, I understand that, but a judge or sheriff also say, “If you’ve got any reasonable doubt in your mind, you shouldn’t convict.” Is that right?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 6 December 2023
Pauline McNeill
Good morning. I will start with Joe Duffy.
First, thank you for your evidence. You are quite convincing on the issue of whether the not proven verdict is well explained. I do not have a strong view either way on the verdict, so I am just listening to the evidence.
I turn to my first question. When the judge gives directions to the jury, they will presumably, as well as explaining the three verdicts, say, “If you’ve got any doubt in your mind, you shouldn’t convict.” Some people think that if we strip away one of the verdicts, it is more likely that we would simply get more not guilty verdicts. I wonder what you think about that.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 6 December 2023
Pauline McNeill
I want to establish what happens. We are all lay people here—