Hansard

Although I welcome the debate and the publication of “Trauma Informed Justice: A Knowledge and Skills Framework for Working with Victims and Witnesses”, the cabinet secretary will recognise that the focus of debate over the past few days has been the publication of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill—indeed, I heard her on “Good Morning Scotland” this morning. I will direct some of my comments to the bill, but the framework, which was published on Friday, is a welcome contribution to the aim of improving the experience of victims and witnesses in the justice system.

Victims of crime, particularly victims of violent and sexual crimes, have described feeling let down and retraumatised by their experience of going through the criminal justice system. The adversarial system involves victims reliving and being challenged on their experiences in the courts, but that is often not what they expect.

The backlog of cases is a significant issue that must be addressed. Delays to justice are, in themselves, traumatising and stressful for victims. In research for the victims task force, people describe the process as like being in limbo. The anticipation of going to court and the anxiety that comes from waiting to go through the process add to the stress and trauma of being prepared to give evidence and have your case brought before the courts. The Scottish Government must tackle court backlogs and properly resource the legal system if the aspirations that are set out in the framework are to be a reality.

Trauma-informed justice is a necessary starting point for improving the experience of victims, but the next steps should include expanding independent legal representation for victims in cases of rape. That is, to a limited extent, included in the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which will provide an opportunity to explore the merits of the approach further, as my colleague Katy Clark outlined. In particular, the way in which victims of sexual crimes are treated through the courts, through the investigation and by the media is a concern that I have raised a number of times in Parliament. All those experiences contribute to the trauma that victims experience.

There is broad support in the Parliament for improving the experience of victims and witnesses, particularly in sexual offence cases, and a recognition of the retraumatising impact for victims of experiencing the current system, but the framework that was published last week needs to demonstrate how a trauma-informed approach will be embedded throughout the justice system and how it will lead to a consistent approach for vulnerable witnesses. In her opening speech, the cabinet secretary referred to the role of the bill on that point. The recently published bill also needs to be clear how proposals such as a dedicated sexual offences court will better serve victims.

However, trauma-informed practice will not deliver justice for victims of sexual assault and rape alone. There are persistently lower conviction rates for rape and attempted rape. In Scotland, the most recent figures show that 51 per cent of rape and attempted rape cases result in a conviction, compared with an overall conviction rate of 91 per cent. In 2021, 2,176 rapes were reported to the police, but only 152 of those came to prosecution and just 78 led to a conviction. That is in the context of less than 20 per cent of victims of rape reporting the incident to the police. That is unacceptable.

Rape is a crime that is overwhelming committed against women, by men, and it is a crime that causes extreme distress and trauma, yet it remains difficult to bring it forward to a case and even when it is, it is difficult to successfully convict. Rape is a crime that is often not even recognised as a crime, and one where there is a reasonable likelihood of there being no consequences for the perpetrator. To focus on the bill, would changing to a single-judge trial improve that situation?

The Government must be clear about what defines a successful pilot. International comparisons tend not to show an increased conviction rate, but they demonstrate a more empathetic approach to the case that is victim centred. Will a measure of success be how efficient the change is in reducing delays and delivering quicker decisions? The Government’s proposal is for the judge to issue a reasoning of the decision, which is not required from a jury. How will the victim’s experience be measured and how will that be part of the evaluation? I have some concerns that leaving the detail of pilots to secondary legislation will make it harder for the Government to grow consensus, and the question of what is to be gained from the pilots needs to be answered.

In recent years, there have been two cases in which women have taken their case to the civil courts in the pursuit of justice and to have the offence—the crime—acknowledged. That is not the appropriate route, given the severity of the crime. I have previously raised concerns—following the case of Denise Clair, who bravely waived anonymity to speak about her experience—that women would resort to civil courts. In 2018, Miss M successfully sued Stephen Coxen in a Scottish civil court, with the sheriff saying that the evidence against Coxen was “compelling and persuasive”. That followed a not proven verdict in 2016 and was the first time that someone who had been cleared in a criminal trial was subsequently sued. There is a lesser burden of proof in a civil case, but for women to be resorting to that route indicates that the current system is not working as it should.

Although the framework may improve the experience of victims and witnesses, it requires that action from all partners is co-ordinated and that there is a shared understanding of what it means to be person centred and trauma informed. There are clear advantages for the justice system if witnesses are supported and listened to in a supportive environment, so the cabinet secretary will need to work hard to ensure that that is a priority of the courts and that the objective is shared. For example, Rape Crisis Scotland has repeatedly called for specialist training for judges and sheriffs who preside over sexual offences and mandatory training for legal representatives involved in sexual offence cases. It is important that the introduction of the framework addresses those calls.