Chamber and committees

I thank Emma Roddick for her question. I am not sure whether this is the first time that she has spoken in the chamber, but I welcome her to her place here.

The issue that Emma Roddick raises is similar to the one raised by Pauline McNeill. It is an important issue, but I hope that members understand that the Scottish Law Commission will prepare the final report with recommendations and deliver it to ministers; therefore, I do not want to pre-empt the consideration that ministers will give the final report once it is provided. However, I think that there is a compelling case for giving serious consideration to that specific area of reform, and I look forward to hearing what people have to say in response to the discussion paper. It is likely that many people will express the view that has been expressed by Emma Roddick before the commission makes its recommendations for reform.

I thank James Dornan for his question and, like him, commend his constituent, Fiona Drouet, for the #EmilyTest campaign and the work that she has tirelessly undertaken to support effective gender-based violence interventions in colleges and universities. I commend Fiona for all her efforts and, in particular, those that were focused on improving students’ wellbeing and ensuring that victims of abuse do not blame themselves for crimes that are committed against them. As I said, I am aware of the work that Fiona has done in further and higher education institutions.

The effect of the changes to the law in England and Wales is that it is now a matter of statute that a person cannot claim a so-called rough sex defence, whereas it was previously a matter of common law.

The United Kingdom Government has acknowledged that it was not a new law but that it involved the position being made clear in statute for the first time, as I have said. For that reason, the new statute is not yet in force; it was passed only recently. However, I commit to answering the member’s question through engaging directly with the UK Government to understand what plans it might have to monitor and evaluate the effect of the new law.

I thank Jamie Greene for his question. I also welcome him to the role of justice spokesperson for the Scottish Conservatives and thank him for the constructive discussion that we had once he had been appointed to his post.

We are pleased that the Scottish Law Commission has published its extensive discussion paper on reforms to homicide law. The Scottish Government asked the commission to undertake that project in light of various court judgments that recommended a fundamental study into homicide law, and the progress that the commission has made is positive.

In line with the normal process for Scottish Law Commission reports, we are awaiting the commission’s final report, which will be developed from, and informed by, the responses to its initial discussion paper. I do not want to pre-empt the commission’s final recommendations, but I welcome its inclusion of certain aspects of homicide law for consideration for reform, including consideration of whether Scots law needs to be made clearer with regard to the so-called rough sex defence; whether new defences are needed in respect of those who experience domestic abuse; and consideration of reforming the defence of provocation in that area of law. It is right that Parliament will have the opportunity to consider the commission’s final recommendations on those matters when it reports.

Jamie Greene will know about a number of the actions that have already been taken by my predecessor in the Scottish Government, such as the £50 million of funding to help to deal with the backlog, and the unusual citing of additional cases that are being taken through the system just now.

Jamie Greene is right that there is a significant court backlog, as there is in every developed country in the world. However, to go back to the point that he first raised about the Scottish Law Commission’s report, he is right to say that there is a need to reform different areas together—the Scottish Law Commission has taken a number of different aspects of the justice system and put them together—because if we uproot just one part of it, we could cause unintended consequences elsewhere. Therefore, it was important that the commission did a comprehensive review. The review is now subject to consultation, and it is important that everybody who is interested has the chance to make their views heard. Of course, we want to carry out the consultation in such a way that, as we make progress with the backlog, we do so in as fair a way as possible, taking into account the much better appreciation that there is in the justice system these days of gender-based violence against women and girls.

I am not sure that that was a question; rather, it was a statement on an issue that, in the SNP’s manifesto, we committed to look at. It is linked to other potential reforms of the justice system, some of which Russell Findlay might well support, and it is important that it be taken forward in a considered way, and that time is taken to get it right. I understand entirely and do not disagree with Russell Findlay’s point that women, in particular, have been badly served by the not proven verdict.

As I said, it is important that the matter is taken forward in a considered way. To that end, I repeat my invitation to all members—whether that is the justice spokesperson for the Scottish Conservatives, Russell Findlay or any other member who wants to contribute to the process. I am more than willing to listen to their points.

The purpose of the report is for us to be able to look at what comes back from the Scottish Law Commission not just in its interim report but in its final one, after it has had submissions and consultation responses, including from anybody in the Parliament who wants to respond.

There is an acknowledgement that some of the defences for homicide and murder need to be updated—there is no doubt about that. I take into account, understand and accept some of the points that Jamie Greene makes about gender-based violence and about some of the language and notions that are used in the law in relation to it.

Some confusion exists about whether the rough sex defence is a defence that relates to a crime that has been committed or whether it can be used not in mitigation but to reduce the charge—by ensuring that a murder charge is not made out, if you like. It can also be used subsequent to a finding of guilt to inform sentencing.

It is important that we have clarity on that point, which is one of the things that the report is seeking. I hope that that will be welcomed not only by Jamie Greene but by everybody else who is interested.

made a solemn affirmation.