I open the debate with my thanks to the Criminal Justice Committee for its stage 1 report on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. It represents comprehensive scrutiny, over many months, of an important bill that aims to improve the experience of victims while protecting the rights of the accused.
I welcome that the committee took evidence from victims and survivors, and that it did so in a way that supported them to tell their story and be part of improving the justice system. I thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee, particularly victims and survivors, who—quite rightly—are at the centre of bill and the process of reform.
I want to reflect on why the bill is needed. Scotland’s justice system has evolved over centuries. Similarly, our definitions of what is criminal behaviour have changed over the years, reflecting changes in societal attitudes. Those two elements go hand in hand: our system must be capable of delivering justice for victims of all crimes and adapting where it is not serving us well. No part of the system should be exempt from scrutiny.
Although there have been positive, iterative reforms over the years, the committee has heard compelling evidence that, for many, the process of getting justice is just as traumatic as the crime itself, or, where a case results in a verdict that has no definition and cannot be explained to the victim or the accused, it can feel like there has been no justice. That is simply not good enough.
The bill proposes a package of reforms that responds to the views and concerns shared by victims and survivors. It is informed by the work of the victims task force; Lady Dorrian’s review, “Improving the Management of Sexual Offence Cases”; and independent large-scale jury research. I very much welcome the committee’s view that the not proven verdict has “had its day”. It is a verdict that is not defined or well understood, and which can lead to confusion and trauma for victims and stigma for the accused. The bill will abolish the not proven verdict in all criminal cases and retain the widely understood verdicts of guilty and not guilty.
I recognise that the bill raises challenging issues and that some proposals were not supported by the committee, including the jury reforms that accompanied the removal of the not proven verdict. The bill proposes reducing the number of jurors in a criminal trial from 15 to 12 and changing the size of the majority required for a conviction from a simple majority to two thirds.
The Scottish Government’s position is based on evidence that suggests that moving to two verdicts while retaining a simple majority will lead to an increase in convictions in finely balanced cases. No other similar jurisdiction in the world considers it appropriate for convictions to be based on a simple majority decision. The evidence also tells us that groups of 12 deliberate more effectively than groups of 15. However, we have always recognised that a range of experts have differing views on what reforms, if any, should accompany the abolition of the not proven verdict. I respect that the committee came to a different conclusion from what is proposed in the bill and I will think carefully about the issues that the committee has raised.