Meeting of the Parliament 28 January 2016
I add my thanks to the Justice Committee team—the clerks and members of the committee—for putting together the stage 1 report, and I thank the Scottish Government for its response. We are all going in the same direction when it comes to tackling revenge porn.
I said “revenge porn” because “abusive behaviour and sexual harm” will not do. Revenge porn is really what it is all about.
We heard a lot of evidence on cases of revenge porn, which we are calling abusive behaviour and sexual harm. We took some of that evidence in private. It was heart-rending and very difficult to take. The cabinet secretary used some of the words that were used in his opening remarks.
The bill’s policy memorandum says:
“Concern has been expressed that certain ill-founded preconceptions held by members of the public, who make up juries, about the nature of sexual violence make understanding victims’ responses to such crimes more difficult.”
However, to me and many others that is where the problem is. Members of the public—us—have ill-founded preconceptions about the nature of sexual violence. We need to admit that. We do not understand how a victim can feel after such an attack; we do not get it unless we have been a victim, as Christina McKelvie said.
That is why I agree with the majority of the committee on supporting jury direction. We received plenty of evidence on it and how it should be set out in the bill. It should be regarded as part of judicial knowledge.
On 24 November last year, the legal officer for the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Eleanor Deeming, said:
“Article 6 of the ECHR ... protects the right to a fair trial. Article 6.1 sets out a number of general aspects for a fair trial and articles 6.2 and 6.3 set out the minimum rights to be afforded to a person accused of a criminal offence.
The commission understands that the proposal is being introduced to address a particular issue.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 24 November 2015; c 26.]
We know that the perception is that people hold misconceptions about the conduct of victims of sexual offences. I agree with the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Jury direction, as the bill proposes, will not prejudice an accused person’s article 6 rights as long as directions are essentially factual and uncontroversial statements. That is very important. They need to be exactly that.
I was very much concerned about the impact that the bill could have on young people, but I did not need to be, as the convener of the committee stated. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, Tam Baillie, put my mind at rest when he gave evidence. He agreed that we do not need to have concern about judicial direction being given. He also agreed that calling expert witnesses to give context is not the most efficient way to proceed.
I want to emphasise one particular point. As the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland put it:
“In the fullness of time, as a result of public education and greater awareness, judicial direction may not be needed.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 24 November 2015; c 28.]
That is a very important point to repeat.
I am short of time, so I will not be able to develop what I wanted to say about another part of the bill.
One in four women will experience domestic abuse in her lifetime. One in 10 women in Scotland has been raped. Some 21 per cent of girls and 11 per cent of boys in the UK have experienced child sexual abuse. That is why Parliament needs to back the stage 1 report and to agree with the majority of the committee that jury direction is an important part of the bill. Attitudes need to change before we can consider dealing with that.