Hansard

First, I would like to thank Michael McMahon and the non-Government bills unit for their work on this legislation. Like other members, I commend Michael McMahon for all his hard work in bringing forward this proposal on such an important issue. From my meetings with him and from listening to his evidence to the Justice Committee, it is very clear to me how strongly he believes in the changes that are proposed in the bill. His commitment to this area of reform has been unwavering.

I realise that the changes to the timetable for the Government’s Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill have had a significant impact on the consideration of the Criminal Verdicts (Scotland) Bill. That was unavoidable and, given the recommendations by Lord Bonomy, it proved to be appropriate that we all await the outcome of that piece of work and the Government’s Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.

The Government gave Lord Bonomy’s review non-exhaustive terms of reference that specifically included jury majority and size. In fact, it was the report by the academic expert group that went further and considered Scotland’s three-verdict system and whether the not proven verdict should be abolished. The expert group was of the view that the review had to take into account the three-verdict system. In its view, consideration of the size of the jury and the majority required for a conviction is inextricably linked to the number of verdicts that are available to a jury. The Government has accepted that view and the approach that any major changes to the jury system should be considered in a holistic manner. There were therefore good reasons for the delay in considering Mr McMahon’s bill, but I understand that it must have been a frustrating time for Mr McMahon. I am very grateful for his patience during that period.

The recommendations of Lord Bonomy’s group form one of the main reasons why the Scottish Government has opposed the Criminal Verdicts (Scotland) Bill. I note from the stage 1 report that the majority of the Justice Committee have been unable to support the overall package of reforms contained in the bill. It is with regret that, as a Government, we have had to take the position on the bill that we have.

Both Mr McMahon and the Justice Committee, in its consideration of the bill, have raised legitimate concerns about Scotland having three verdicts. I have stated previously that I am completely open minded about whether Scotland should retain three verdicts or move to two. However, as I have just mentioned, the key components of the Scottish jury system—the simple majority required for conviction, the three verdicts and the size of the jury—are interlinked, and the fact that the Scottish jury system has unique features makes it difficult to make clear comparisons with other jurisdictions. Other countries allow conviction by simple majority, but their overall procedures and built-in safeguards differ from those of the Scottish justice system. We also have other unique features in Scotland. As well as the three-verdict system, we have a larger jury size—15 jurors—than most other countries do.

In any substantial reform in this area, the potential impacts on other areas of the Scottish system must be a key consideration. The responses to the consultation on the bill illustrated not only the necessity to consider those impacts but some of the difficulties with the bill. There was clear support for removal of the not proven verdict, but there was no general consensus that it should be removed alongside an increase in the jury majority.

I am of the view that there must be a strong evidence base for any future reform so that we can make an informed decision on how major reforms to one part of the system might have an impact on others. That is why I agree with Lord Bonomy’s recommendation that jury research be carried out. That should enable a future Administration and Parliament to take an holistic and evidence-based approach to any substantive reform in the area, and it should give us a much better understanding of how Scottish juries operate.

This debate is about Michael McMahon’s bill, and I do not want to dominate it by talking about jury research in great detail. I simply update members by saying that my officials will have completed their engagement with interested stakeholders and organisations by March. With those meetings, we are seeking views on whether the research should be wider than the topics that Lord Bonomy suggested and whether it should use mock or real jurors.

I had hoped that the research could commence before the pre-election period. However, it is important that we get the remit and the methodology right, and for that reason it is worth taking our time to consider all views before we reach a final decision on the scope of the research. There has been a general consensus among members of all parties in favour of the Government’s intention to undertake the research, and I hope that the work will be taken forward in early course by the Administration that is elected in May.

It is, therefore, with some regret that I ask members not to support the general principles of the Criminal Verdicts (Scotland) Bill and that I propose that the bill should not progress to stage 2.