Meeting of the Parliament 23 April 2024
We will of course consider the debate in and around the jury majority with sensitivity and in depth, and we will look at all the relevant issues and engage with all the relevant stakeholders. This is an area of the bill that involves finely balanced judgments. We need to proceed in a manner in which we all work together and give careful and deep consideration to the issue. I reiterate the importance of this part of the bill and I reiterate that the Government will reflect in detail on the wide range of comments that the committee has scrutinised.
The proposed victims and witnesses commissioner will provide an independent voice for victims and witnesses, champion their views and help to ensure that their interests are at the heart of the justice system. I note the committee’s reservations, particularly around resource and the impact on victim support organisations. However, I believe that the role can be established in a way that is cost efficient and which will enhance the work of support organisations rather than diminish or duplicate their efforts.
During the evidence sessions, lack of accountability was an issue that kept being raised. No existing public body or organisation has the statutory power to hold justice agencies to account in relation to how the rights of victims and witnesses are met or upheld, nor can that role be given to a third sector organisation. The commissioner will provide that accountability.
I turn to parts of the bill that focus on sexual offences and where there are mixed views. Both Lady Dorrian and the Lord Advocate emphasised that we need to make seismic and structural statutory changes to ensure that victims and survivors have meaningful access to justice. The bill does that through the creation of a new national sexual offences court. Complainers’ experiences will be improved through greater use of pre-recorded evidence, better judicial case management and mandatory trauma-informed training for all involved in the court. A new and distinct court will bring about the necessary shifts in culture, practice and procedure. Cases will be brought to trial more quickly through more efficient use of existing court and judicial resources, helping to reduce delay, which is a significant cause of distress and trauma for complainers.
Victims cannot afford for us to rely on the historical status and structure of the existing court system to deliver changes that we all agree are needed and which the status quo has singularly failed to deliver. If we fail to take ambitious action now, we risk consigning victims to unnecessary retraumatisation through a court system that is not sufficiently specialised or focused on improving victims’ experiences. That is a risk that I am not prepared to take. I recognise that the committee has concerns about certain aspects of the court, and I will work very hard with members and justice partners to address each one.
The bill enables a time-limited pilot of single-judge rape trials. The proposal for the pilot is informed by complainers’ experiences of the trial process, by numerous studies on rape myths and by the fact that the conviction rate for rape is consistently lower than the rate for other crimes. Soberingly, new data that is based on management information from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, and which we have included in our response to the stage 1 report, shows that, for the kind of cases that the pilot is intended to focus on—namely, single-charge, single-complainer rape and attempted rape cases—the five-year average conviction rate is just 24 per cent.
The purpose of the pilot is to provide much-needed evidence to let us have a properly informed debate on an enduring issue that undermines confidence in our criminal justice system. I acknowledge that there are differences of opinion on the court and the pilot. I will reflect on that, as I have already done in the response to the committee. I have intimated that I will lodge amendments at stage 2, and I will speak more about that in my closing remarks. However, it is clear that our justice system needs to change the way in which it responds to serious sexual offending.
As legislators, it is our role to determine the legal frameworks that ought to be in place, and no part of our justice system should be exempt from review and, if necessary, reconsideration.