Meeting of the Parliament 25 February 2016
I am sorry, but I have only a few minutes. Perhaps the member can address the issue later.
I would have been happy to consider abolishing the not proven verdict, if that was to happen in isolation. However, we are where we are, and the clear majority of the committee supports the bill’s intention to abolish the not proven verdict but does not support the proposal about jury majorities. We received evidence that opposed changing jury majorities in isolation and we were told that that should be considered alongside the other reforms proposed by Lord Bonomy.
We said in our report that further research is needed on decision making by juries. I am not so sure about that and I would not support amendment of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. In my opinion, using mock jurors is fine. I would like to hear the cabinet secretary’s views on the matter. I know that he talked about the issue and said that he wanted to take evidence. I say that I am not sure about the need for further research because we would not be here today if members of the Justice Committee had supported the abolition of the absolute requirement for corroboration.
I hope that Mr McMahon understands that some of us wanted the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to progress as introduced. I supported then and support now the abolition of the absolute requirement for corroboration in Scots law. The cabinet secretary reminded us in January that one of the safeguards for the abolition of corroboration was changing the majority provision for juries from the existing simple majority. I was all for abolition but, despite the evidence that was received, we could not move forward and instead we got a post-corroboration safeguards review.
I feel for Michael McMahon because, after all his efforts, he could see his bill fall at stage 1. However, I gently remind him that he took a view on corroboration. In 2014, he voted for Margaret Mitchell’s amendment to call for the removal of the provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to abolish the absolute requirement for corroboration. Further, and perhaps more important, Michael McMahon voted on that day to prevent the bill from going forward. Therefore, I will have no hesitation in voting down his bill tonight.
Here is what Highland violence against women partnership told us:
“We urge the Scottish Parliament not to take this Bill forward without considering other measures, such as the removal of corroboration, as to do so would be damaging to those seeking justice for experiences of Violence Against Women.”
There is unfinished business. I was one of the members of the committee and the Parliament who wanted to further reform the criminal justice system, but others disagreed. Members of Parliament in the next session will have to move the issue forward.