Chamber and committees

During the committee’s transactions, I very much agreed with Pauline McNeill on the importance of there being open and transparent criteria for the evaluation of the pilot. That is essential before we go any further. That detail must be in the bill, because it will give the Parliament the confidence that there is an established basis for evaluating the performance of that measure. We should consider the evidence because, as the committee has wrestled with, there is not always an abundance of evidence on many of these questions.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way and for the remarks that she has just placed on the record, because this is a significant issue.

In her further consideration, will the cabinet secretary take into account the Scottish jurisdiction’s requirement for corroboration? That is a significant material factor in the judgment that she needs to make about the content of the proposal.

If Mr Marra will forgive me, I will not. I do not have much time, and I want to make another substantial point.

I am wholly supportive of the proposal to abolish the not proven verdict, which is, in essence, a not guilty verdict, but it does not always come across as that. For an accused, the verdict can leave a stain on their character. For a victim, it can leave the impression that they have not been believed in court. We heard in evidence the unsatisfactory nature of the verdict’s application, so I support its abolition.

However, I have serious concerns about how the abolition of the not proven verdict has been linked to proposals to change the size of the jury in such trials and to increase the threshold to deliver a guilty verdict. I am concerned that such changes will make it more difficult to obtain convictions in sexual assault cases. The Parliament would do well to consider with care what the Lord Advocate told the committee on that question on 31 January 2024:

“Fundamentally, however, if we are going to increase the percentage of individuals that we require to vote for a guilty verdict, we will make it far more challenging to secure a guilty verdict in a system that requires corroboration.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 31 January 2024; c 15.]

The Parliament needs to consider carefully that serious warning, given the significance of corroboration in such judgments.

I understand the conclusion that the Government reached after studying evidence from mock jury research that having a two-verdict system is more likely to lead to a tendency to convict, but I am profoundly concerned that we might undermine the bill’s purpose if we establish a connection between the abolition of the not proven verdict and the changes to jury size and composition. I recognise that many people have long campaigned for the abolition of the not proven verdict, for entirely understandable reasons and invariably because of tremendous personal suffering and anguish, but if it is considered that changes to jury size and composition are necessary to go along with the abolition of the not proven verdict, I would withdraw the proposal to abolish that verdict.

This debate has been advanced due to the courage of victims in speaking up. In the committee, we benefited from hearing that evidence. Their testimony is profound and should shape the approach that is taken by the Parliament. This is the moment for the Parliament to undertake fundamental reform to ensure that our criminal justice system addresses the legitimate concerns of victims and witnesses. They deserve nothing less.

Given the degree to which many of the practical changes that will require to be made in order for us to achieve our climate targets are often contested or are the subject of criticism and are frequently resisted by some members of Parliament, what significance does the cabinet secretary attach to efforts to overcome those obstacles by working with local community-driven initiatives, such as the one that she visited in my constituency yesterday, where people are coming together in Dunkeld and Birnam to encourage real commitment to climate action in their own community? Does that not offer us more hope than the hot air and empty rhetoric that we have heard from the Opposition today?

Good afternoon, Ms Robertson. You have made a powerful case about the need for what I might call a significant hurricane of fresh air into the system. You have obviously seen the bill that we have before us; am I right to deduce that, given your experience, you do not think that the bill is adequate to address the degree of scrutiny and transparency that is required of the system?

Good morning, Stephanie. Thank you very much for coming in today and for the courage that you have demonstrated in facing up to the circumstances that we are discussing, which we are truly sorry about.

A moment ago, you made the point to Russell Findlay that, essentially, you were having to work against the system and you were pleading for help from the police. That strikes me as being entirely the wrong position for you to have been in, as a mother who was searching for your son. Could you say a little bit more about how you felt about how the police acted towards you when you began to raise your concerns about how they had handled your case?

Thank you for sharing that with us. The point that you have made highlights to me that, in the short period of time between Rhys going missing and his body being discovered, the police made mistakes. Is that fair?

So, what would your message be to us about what it is that we need to fix here? We are all human, so we make mistakes. The police will make mistakes, because we all make mistakes.

I have been a politician for years, and I have made mistakes and got some things wrong, but it is important to be open.

Mr Johnstone, you raise an important issue, which Stephanie Bonner also raised with us in the earlier evidence session, that there appears to be a necessity for the initial investigation of complaints about police conduct to be handled by a body outside Police Scotland. Is that your reflection on your experience?