Hansard

I am pleased to participate in this stage 1 debate on the Criminal Verdicts (Scotland) Bill. Michael McMahon has waited some considerable time for the bill to come before the Parliament. I believe—and I think that he confirmed—that it was as far back as 2007 when his first member’s bill on the subject fell at dissolution. As members have said, in this session, scrutiny of the proposals was delayed for a couple of years as the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which had provisions whose scope overlapped with the Criminal Verdicts (Scotland) Bill, completed its parliamentary passage.

Having had experience of how much focus and commitment are required to introduce a member’s bill, I commend Michael McMahon and pay tribute to his resolve and his continued efforts to generate discussion and debate about the three-verdict system by introducing the Criminal Verdicts (Scotland) Bill.

Although the bill is short, the changes to Scots law that it seeks to implement are substantial and should not be underestimated. It has two primary aims: to remove the not proven verdict as an option in criminal trials and to change the rules on the number of jurors who must support a guilty verdict, which the member in charge has rightly recognised as a connected issue.

When the member gave evidence to the Justice Committee, he presented many valid points in favour of abolition. In addition, I acknowledge that some stakeholders consider the three-verdict system to have had its day, and I fully understand and appreciate that there are individuals in those stakeholder groups who for varying reasons, including deeply emotive and personal ones, argue passionately for the abolition of the not proven verdict.

However, I remain hugely concerned about the piecemeal approach that decision makers have taken to changing elements of the Scottish criminal justice system, especially following the corroboration debacle, in which abolition was proposed without consideration of the implications of such a change in the round. As the Faculty of Advocates argued in its consultation response, the reforms to the three-verdict system

“should be considered in the context of a review of the criminal justice system as a whole”.

The Law Society of Scotland summed up the situation by pointing out in its consultation response that, as far back as 1994, it had argued that

“the three verdict system should be retained in that this system was part of the organic whole which constituted the method of determination of guilt in Scottish criminal courts.”

Put simply, it is impossible to amputate one part of the system without considering the impact on the whole, and a failure to consider that could result in unintended consequences that might make the problem that we are trying to remedy worse.

The Scottish Government has stated that it is

“open to the possibility of the Not Proven verdict being removed”,

but it has also said that it will take forward Lord Bonomy’s recommendation that jury research be carried out before any reforms are implemented. The Bonomy review indicated that that could take around two years. I welcome that approach, but I note with considerable concern that jury directions in certain sexual offence cases are being placed on a statutory footing before that research has been completed.

As Michael McMahon said in his evidence to the committee, the not proven verdict

“has always been there in the background; it has never gone away.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 19 January 2016; c 12.]

As a result, the opportunity that his bill presented to scrutinise the issue, especially given recent developments in the criminal justice system, has been worth while and appreciated, for which I thank Mr McMahon. However, the Scottish Conservatives are not convinced that there is a compelling or persuasive need for reform at this time, although we await the findings of the jury research. For that reason, I do not support the bill’s general principles, and I confirm that we will not support the bill at decision time.