Hansard

The bill has had a tortuous passage. The cabinet secretary said that it has been a marathon, not a sprint, and that is certainly true. It was originally going to be called the “Criminal Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill”. It was introduced in April 2023, but it did not reach stage 1 until a year later. Since then, it has been through repeated rounds of evidence taking, fundamental amendments, extensive scrutiny at stages 2 and 3, and the introduction of novel and unscrutinised amendments at stage 3. The Government even amended its own draft only to realise its error and reverse course again. The bill’s name was changed to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill.

On Sunday, the cabinet secretary said:

“This Bill should modernise our criminal justice system in the most radical ways ... putting victims right at the very heart of everything.”

She is absolutely right: it should—but it does not.

To be fair, there are some welcome measures. Thanks to Russell Findlay, victims will have greater access to notifications about the outcomes of plea deals, and Sharon Dowey and Pam Gosal have strengthened victims’ protections through non-harassment orders. The bill also includes improved rights to information for victims of crime and better recognition of child victims and witnesses. Those are steps in the right direction.

However, the bill misses so many chances to do so much more. It could have launched an inquiry into grooming gangs in Scotland to uncover the scale of the problem and prevent further victims of this vile crime, but it does not. It could have extended the parole period from two years to three, giving victims both peace of mind and respite from the revolving door of parole hearings, but it does not. It could have introduced a genuine Suzanne’s law—no body, no release—but it does not.

Instead, the headline reforms are deeply flawed. The so-called specialist sexual offences court has been described as little more than a sign on a door. Simon Di Rollo KC has called it “window dressing”. It will use the same judges in the same buildings with the same overstretched staff, and it could potentially add to the existing backlog. Rape survivors have deep concerns about what their cases not being heard in the High Court will mean. Ellie Wilson told the Criminal Justice Committee:

“Rape is one of the most serious crimes in Scots law; such cases are only ever heard in the High Court. That solemnity is sacred, and it is important that we maintain it.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 January 2024; c 4.]

The sexual offences court will cost millions of pounds that could instead have been invested in trauma-informed practice in our existing courts and in tackling the backlog, which leaves rape victims waiting for up to three years for justice. The Law Society of Scotland—of which, I remind the Parliament, I am a member—warns that it will increase complexity, noting that “specialist divisions” could achieve the same thing. Children First has said that it could

“distract from efforts to make the clear practical changes that victims and witnesses consistently tell us would make things better”.

The bill also establishes a victims commissioner—an idea that England adopted more than 20 years ago. However, the commissioner will have no power to intervene in individual cases. They cannot investigate grooming gangs or address the crisis in legal aid or, indeed, the court backlog. That is why it is unsurprising that Scottish Women’s Aid has said:

“We maintain our opposition to the creation of this Commissioner”.

It will add a layer of bureaucracy, and the funds could be better utilised in improving services and advice to victims.

I come to the changes to the trial system. The cabinet secretary candidly admitted that the Government originally proposed juryless rape trials, which was abandoned only after overwhelming expert opposition, threats of legal boycotts and warnings that it would lead to miscarriages of justice.

As the cabinet secretary noted, the Conservative manifesto committed to abolishing the not proven verdict. That could have been done simply and effectively. Instead, however, the Government has decided to go much further, with changes that strike at the heart of the Scottish criminal justice system. As well as changing the verdicts in the context of the Lord Advocate’s corroboration changes to a system that has consistently featured since at least the 1600s, the Government has also changed the size of the jury majority, following a back-and-forth about its size.

If we are going to change a system that has worked for more than 200 years, we need a strong basis to found the change on, but the Government does not have that. Three of the four key features of our criminal trial system will be altered, largely without evidence, largely without precedent and against expert advice. We have all received the warnings that the rebuilt system could be counterproductive. It could reduce conviction rates and lead to more miscarriages of justice, and outcomes for victims could be even worse. The Law Society has been clear. It stated:

“We are concerned that the model proposed ... has never been proved effective in any other comparable jurisdiction ... The lack of evidence to support the proposals ... may lead to unintended consequences in the fairness of criminal trials.”

The bill is called a victims and witnesses bill. It does some good things, but it fails to do what it could have done, and it will make changes that may well fail and could even be counterproductive. It is a victims bill in name only and it represents a massive missed opportunity to truly put victims at the heart of justice. The bill that we have in front of us is neither for victims nor for witnesses, and that is why the Conservatives will vote against it.