Meeting of the Parliament 25 February 2016
It has been a rollercoaster ride since I joined the Justice Committee in 2013. We have scrutinised many pieces of legislation, some of which we stopped, some of which we passed and many of which we amended. The committee is a lovely place, and the fact that no party has a majority on it is perhaps quite healthy. Sometimes there is a need to agree to disagree, and we do so when we have to.
A few members’ bills have come before the committee in the past three years, and I was delighted that we passed Margaret Mitchell’s Apologies (Scotland) Bill last month. It is important to think about that in the context of today’s debate.
I thank and commend Michael McMahon for introducing the Criminal Verdicts (Scotland) Bill. As everyone has said, the debate on the not proven verdict had to take place; like any other system, Scots law needs to be reviewed and updated from time to time.
I note Elaine Murray’s proposed amendment. The only thing that I would say is that we agree, and I am one of the majority. Maybe one of the reasons why that amendment was not accepted is that we agreed, and that was in the committee’s report.
Most of the evidence that the committee received was critical of Scotland’s three-verdict system. I truly believe that the case has been made and I would not hesitate to abolish the not proven verdict. Unfortunately, Michael McMahon asks us today to agree to all the bill’s general principles. The part of the bill that sets out those principles begins:
“An Act of the Scottish Parliament to provide for the removal of the not proven verdict as one of the available verdicts in criminal proceedings”.
So far, so good. Unfortunately, the bill goes on to say:
“and for a guilty verdict to require an increased majority of jurors.”
It was suggested to Mr McMahon that he could remove that second aim. I understand his reason for not doing so, but I do not understand why he did not say much about it in his speech. I am sure that he will address the issue in his winding-up speech. I wonder whether, if the aim in the bill had not been so specific, the member might have chosen to drop his proposal to change the jury majority that is required for a conviction.