Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 15 December 2021
I am glad that the member raises that issue, and I will cover that point explicitly in my comments.
I hope that there is consensus in the chamber on the need to act, because I think that there is consensus that the current three-verdict system is simply not fit for purpose, not least for the victims of the sort of crimes that we often talk about in this chamber—women and girls, mostly, who suffer gender-based violence including domestic abuse, rape and sexual assault; the very people we so often make promises to.
We are very good at talking the talk when it comes to those promises, but now it is time to walk the walk. There must be more than 60,000 criminal cases in our backlogged courts—a number that is growing by the day. More than 70 per cent of trials in the High Court relate to serious sexual offences. We know that the prosecution rate of rape trials is abnormally and unacceptably low. Last year, out of more than 2,000 reported incidents, only 130 were successfully prosecuted.
We also know that 30 per cent of acquittals in rape trials were down to not proven verdicts compared with just 17 per cent of acquittals for all crimes and offences. That clear imbalance must be addressed. That is my view, and that is also the view of the victims of crimes, many of whom are left utterly confused, perplexed, bewildered and even angry after a not proven verdict.
Equally, it leaves a cloud—a shadow of doubt—over those who walk free; those who have been found neither guilty nor not guilty. It was put by Professor James Chalmers as being a verdict that
“stigmatises the accused, operating by a nudge and a wink, carrying a meaning which no-one is willing to articulate”.
I make the case today that, if the accused is not guilty, they deserve to be labelled as such. Our proposition is widely backed by those on the front line who are helping the victims of crime, including Scottish Women’s Aid, the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre and Rape Crisis Scotland, which publicly stated that there are
“real worries that the existence of the not proven verdict gives juries in rape trials an easy out and contributes to guilty people walking free.”
The First Minister was very clear on the not proven verdict. She said that
“there is mounting evidence and increasingly strong arguments that the not proven verdict”
is part of the low conviction rate.
Humza Yousaf, when he was the justice secretary, said that the research was absolutely clear that the not proven verdict causes
“confusion for many jurors”
and
“causes significant distress.”
I do not disagree with Humza Yousaf, nor do I disagree with the First Minister. Neither do I disagree with Lorna Slater, who said that the
“ambiguous third option ... is confusing ... and unfair on both complainers and the accused”
and that
“its time needs to end.”
Its time does need to end, which is why I am asking them and every other member to demonstrate today that we mean what we say and that we will deliver on what we promised in our manifestos.
I will address the point that the not proven verdict cannot be changed in isolation. I accept that. Corroboration, the size of juries, majority verdicts, juryless trials and dedicated specialist courts are all live, connected and important issues. However, those should not act as barriers to change or reasons to delay. The fact that something has always been that way does not mean that it should always be that way. The question that we should be asking ourselves is what we need to change in our trials, courts or juries to facilitate that move. We need to consider the “what”, not the “if”. In doing so, we should make the voices of dissent part of the solution to change, not a barrier to it.
At the end of the day, we sometimes need to make difficult decisions. We often say that the issue has been rumbling on for years. It has been. I am asking members to set aside their prejudices against or views on the motion. I am asking them not to kick the issue further into the long grass. Doing that is simply not an option. Doing nothing is not an option. Delay is not an option. By voting for my motion, we can and will send a strong message to the victims of crime that we, as a Parliament, are willing to act now. We must act.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that the current three verdict judicial system in Scotland’s criminal courts is not fit for purpose, as it frequently does not deliver justice for the victims of many heinous crimes, including gender-based violence, rape and domestic abuse, and therefore calls for the removal of the not proven verdict.
16:59