Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 20 May 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 4236 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 31 January 2024

John Swinney

The senators’ submission goes on to make a point about a connection between the abolition of the not proven verdict and a change in jury size. I will explore that in a moment.

What are the judiciary’s points of anxiety about a simple majority in a two-verdict trial? We are all told—and all the evidence that we have heard tells us—that, in effect, we actually have a two-verdict system already, but with two variants on the not guilty side.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 31 January 2024

John Swinney

I wonder whether Sheriff Cubie has a perspective on these questions.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 31 January 2024

John Swinney

The submission from the senators makes the point that

“Given the standard direction that a jury can only convict where the Crown has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and where there is the requisite majority for guilty, votes for not proven would not logically transfer in whole or in part to guilty.”

The way that I read that observation, I think that it helpfully lays the emphasis on the remaining necessity for the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, whatever we do in these circumstances.

What is underlying a lot of the motivation behind the bill is a recognition that it is already difficult to secure convictions in cases of a sexual nature. Given the absolutely central principle in criminal cases of the necessity for the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, is that not sufficient assurance for the preservation of the simple majority?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 31 January 2024

John Swinney

The point that I am trying to get at is that the necessity—which nobody is trying to change—of the Crown having to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is, as I think we all acknowledge, a big hurdle. In the absence of three verdicts and with the potential scenario of two verdicts, I am trying to get at what would materially change about that requirement, because it still feels to me like a big hurdle to get over.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 31 January 2024

John Swinney

In a sense, therefore, the fact that the bill is predicated on the assumption that publishing is the preserve not of institutions but of individuals gives you confidence, with regard to the research work that you have undertaken in looking at other jurisdictions, that it represents what one might describe as the strongest foundation for providing lifelong anonymity.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 31 January 2024

John Swinney

Convener, could I come in before that?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 31 January 2024

John Swinney

It would be closer to £1 million, I would say.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 31 January 2024

John Swinney

My last question relates to your comment that Scotland would be in a unique position if we were to embark on these proposals. Of course, Scotland is in a unique position just now, because we have three verdicts. I am not yet persuaded that replacing one unique situation with another in that respect is much of a step forward, in particular given the serious issues that you have placed on the record today.

Given your formidable track record in the prosecution of crimes in the area that is of concern to the committee, what do you consider to be the standard and the scale of the challenge that corroboration, as a unique feature of the Scottish criminal justice system, places in the prosecution of crimes of this nature? Comparatively, how much greater is the hurdle to get a conviction given the requirement for corroboration, which is not being challenged or changed in any way by the legislation that is before us? How high is the hurdle resulting from corroboration that needs to be overcome? What do we need to be mindful of in addressing the implications of the height of that hurdle, in respect of the sensitive decision on which we have to comment to Parliament?

09:45  

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 31 January 2024

John Swinney

I have questions on part 4 of the bill in relation to the composition of juries. Will you share any issues that you believe that the committee needs to be mindful of in the consideration of the parts of the bill that relate to the change to the jury majority provisions from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority? What should the committee consider in relation to that proposal?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 31 January 2024

John Swinney

Is it the position of the judiciary that, if we abolish not proven, we should retain 15 as the jury size and a threshold of 10 should be arrived at for conviction?