Chamber and committees

Lady Dorrian, I will put this question to the senators when they come, but given that the convener asked about juryless trials, I will ask you. Am I right in saying that, normally, the jury would decide the evidence that it believed but that the judge would decide the law? Does that mean that, in a juryless trial, the judge would also decide on the evidence? Does that mean that there is a different process for a judge to go through in a juryless trial because they would not normally decide the evidence and the jury would make those decisions?

Thank you. I think that that is what those interested would expect. In the many proposals in this Parliament over the years about how we should deal with rape cases, maintaining the seriousness of rape, which currently can be prosecuted only in the High Court, has been really important. It is important to me, certainly, and, I know, to many others. Should we legislate to ensure that, because a future Lord Advocate might take a different view? That would be my worry. I am very content with your answer, but I am interested in protecting that fine line. I can think of cases that should, in my opinion, have gone to the High Court, but that fine line—because of the seriousness of the offence—has not been understood. I completely take the point that there are many factors to consider, but I feel really strongly that there should be no change to who prosecutes, who has rights of audience and who represents the accused, even if we are changing the nature of the court. Could you respond to that?

Thank you very much. Some of us attended a round-table discussion with Rape Crisis Scotland. As you would expect, and as you have said in your evidence, we heard that the experience of rape and sexual offences victims is just appalling. However, one survivor who came to the round table had had a completely different experience, which was very recent. She talked about how she got some time with the advocate depute and her positive experience. I take from that that perhaps there are already some changes in the system.

I appreciate all the implications for resources in asking this question, but is being able to have a meeting with the advocate depute prosecutor a standard practice? I have heard of cases where victims have sat in complete frustration in the court because they feel that the prosecutor has not mentioned something that is really important. I fully appreciate the independence of the practitioner and realise that that is an important principle, but should there be more exposure of victims in relation to the prosecution of their cases?

So it could be in Glasgow High Court, but it would be called something else.

I think that you have, in relation to the trauma-informed aspect. However, I would like some more clarity. An important distinction—we have had this exchange previously—is that rape cases can go only to the High Court. In a sense, therefore, a two-tier system is a legislative necessity, because of the seriousness of those kinds of cases. I worry that it is being suggested that there is something wrong with having two tiers of crime, as is currently the case. I think that you are saying—if I have understood you correctly—that the level playing field approach concerns the specialist nature of the crime.

Would a murder case with a sexual element go to the High Court?

That is exactly the point. Who do I need to address that question to? I do not understand why that would be consistent with what the bill is trying to achieve. Do you see what I am saying? We have heard evidence about—

You know that I have very strong views on that—

Thank you.

You have given the committee some helpful figures: around 11 per cent of such business will come from the sheriff court, while 47 per cent of business will come from the High Court. That is a significant difference. What will the High Court look like in the new circumstances? Will it just be quieter?

Good morning, Lord Advocate. Thank you for being so vocal on the importance of doing something in Parliament about the scandalous increase in the number of sexual offences cases.

I am interested in the mechanics of the specialist court. You and the Lord Justice Clerk have made a good case for it, but my questions relate to how it would operate and how it would fit in with the current court system. You gave the committee some useful figures earlier on the cost of cases being prosecuted in the High Court and in the sheriff court. Does the Government fully appreciate what the resource implication of the specialist court would be?

I am trying to get my head around what the specialist court would look like. It looks as though it would be a substantially large court with a substantially large number of cases, and it would not be part of the High Court. It would be separate from the High Court, although as Lady Dorrian said, her vision is very much that it would be a parallel court. That is not enshrined in the proposed legislation, and I questioned Lady Dorrian on that.

That aside, does the Government fully appreciate the resource implications for setting up such a court?