Meeting of the Parliament 25 February 2016
As is evident from this afternoon’s debate, changes to elements of criminal justice procedure are famously difficult to achieve and sometimes take decades—and, on occasion, centuries—of debate. The cabinet secretary’s commitment to maintain an open mind on the matter is welcome. It is regrettable that he rejects Michael McMahon’s proposal and I hope that, in the next session of Parliament, that open-minded approach will be maintained by whoever becomes the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
The majority of members of the Justice Committee appreciated the need to reassess the use of the not proven verdict and questioned whether it provided an effective way forward. During the debate, it has been explained that there are reservations about section 2 of the bill, and I understand the arguments behind that concern. However, in its submission, Victim Support Scotland indicated that
“a not proven verdict can be confusing and disappointing.”
There is no doubt that those who go to court as witnesses are often left in a difficult situation upon hearing that there has been a not proven verdict, which leaves them in limbo, feeling they have neither closure nor a declared outcome from the court. The notion that one is innocent until proven guilty is black and white, and provides for a definite outcome at the conclusion of the process. For many, the inclusion of a not proven option is confusing.
The Faculty of Advocates has indicated:
“It is patronising to jurors to assume that they cannot or do not understand what this means.”
However, as my colleague Elaine Murray suggested, the evidence that the committee received from a justice of the peace on the use of that verdict was that it indicated a lack of clear thought about how the issues should be decided.
It is evident that there is controversy around this whole area of the criminal justice system. The Government has proposed changes to corroboration, and there is still a great deal of heat in connection with that debate that must be addressed.
The size of juries has been mentioned and the nature of a majority has been debated and obviously causes a great deal of concern. I congratulate Michael McMahon on allowing us to debate such issues, to which his bill adds the important issue of the not proven verdict.
I am pleased that Lord Bonomy’s review and recommendations will be examined in the next session of Parliament. I hope that the Parliament will keep the issue at the top of its agenda and commit to dealing with it as a matter of urgency. The issue has been a running sore. The not proven verdict has stigmatised the accused on many occasions and has left victims—and others—unhappy.
I ask the cabinet secretary to leave a note on the issue for whoever takes his place—the note might be for him if he is fortunate enough to go back into that post. The Labour Party’s intention is to support Mr McMahon’s bill, as much as anything to put down a marker that we did not all agree today that the principles of the bill are without credibility.
16:46