Achi news desk-
The panel could include several professional judges or one judge sitting with two lay members, according to her response to the justice committee’s report.
The government has been facing a backbench rebellion from some SNP MPs over the trial without jury plan when the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill is voted on in the chamber in its first parliamentary term on April 23 .
READ MORE:
Former Cabinet minister Fergus Ewing told The Herald in February that he would vote against the legislation if the pilot continues.
Mr Ewing said that “a fairly large number” of SNP backbenchers shared his doubts about this aspect of the bill.
“If this legislation does not remove the proposal for non-jury trials then I cannot in conscience support it and I will vote against it,” Mr Ewing, Member of Parliament for Inverness and Nairn told The Herald in February .
“That is because I believe that jury trials are the foundation of a free and fair society that values ​​personal freedom. It is an essential protection for the individual in serious criminal cases. It is a fundamental pillar of our criminal justice system. ”
READ MORE: What are the plans for sexual offense courts in Scotland?
Last night he told Yr Herald that he wanted to study the details of the changes the government is now proposing to the pilot before considering how he will vote.
SNP MEPs questioned Mr Yousaf in the Holyrood chamber last September on the non-jury trial pilot scheme after the proposed reforms came under fire from some judges.
Christine Grahame raised concerns, first reported by the Herald on Sunday last weekend, made by some critics.
Ivan McKee, the SNP for Glasgow Provan, also pressed Mr Yousaf on the same issue referring to the work of an academic he suggested before suggesting “anything as drastic” as alternatives should be considered in non-jury trials.
Lawyers said last night that the changes to the pilot scheme currently being considered by the government did not persuade them to support it and that they would still plan to boycott the scheme.
Holyrood’s justice committee was split over government proposals to hold rape trials without juries, although the committee backed other aspects of the justice reforms including scrapping Scotland’s centuries-old unproven verdict and establishing a new dedicated sex crimes court.
Committee Convener Audrey Nicoll MSP said in her report that they agreed with the general principles of the bill on the basis that it was designed to improve the system for victims and witnesses. But the committee said further evidence, data and scrutiny was needed.
In their report MSPs asked the government if it would consider running the pilot with panels presiding over rape cases rather than a single judge.
Ms Constance said the government was exploring the idea and could see advantages in a panel where a judge sat alongside two lay people over one judge.
“The single judge model is established, effective and respected in Scotland. However, we have listened carefully to the views that witnesses have expressed to the committee and we recognize that some stakeholders are keen to see joint decisions for cases in the pilot scheme, and a greater variety of decision makers than the single judge model offers,” he said.
“We have examined a number of different panel models used by other European jurisdictions, engaging with judges, defense lawyers, lay panel members and prosecutors to hear their views on how these models work in practice.
“We believe that a panel has the potential to address concerns about a single decision maker, while remaining consistent with the goals of the pilot.”
He added: “We see particular advantages in adopting a mixed panel model where one professional judge sits alongside two lay members: there is a long-standing precedent for this type of approach in our specialist tribunals, and it would increase the diversity of the decision makers who hear cases. in the pilot.
“The alternative method would be a panel of professional judges. We will continue to explore, and to discuss with partners, how a panel model could be introduced.”
He added that he would write to the committee before the bill returned to its members in Stage 2 to be updated.
He said: “We welcome the members’ support for the pilot, and their recognition that it offers a unique opportunity to gather meaningful empirical evidence on the most effective way of responding to cases of rape and attempted rape.
“We recognize the desire to include more information about the operational details of the pilot on the face of the Bill and confirm that amendments will be introduced in Stage 2 which set out the criteria for cases to be included in the pilot.”
When responding to Assembly Members’ concerns about how the pilot would be assessed, he added that ministers were “keen to ensure that there is clarity on how the pilot will be evaluated.”
The committee had asked for more details about conviction rates for rape, and in her response Ms Constance emphasized that “the conviction rate for rape is consistently much lower than for other types of crime”.
It said: “In 2021/22 the overall conviction rate in Scotland for rape and attempted rape was 48%, compared to 84% for all offenses (and 88% for all offenses and offences).”
He went on to say that the pilot scheme would only apply to cases where there is one complainant and one charge involving one accused, noting that in such cases “the conviction rate is even lower”.
He said official data showed that the conviction rate for rape and attempted rape where there was one charge was between 22% and 27%.
Simon Brown, vice-president of the Scottish Bar Association (SSBA), which has been a vocal opponent of the proposal for non-jury trials, and which intends to hold a vote among its members on the scheme, said that lawyers were surprised by the government’s plans to press on. with the pilot scheme.
He added that he did not think the panel idea would work as there are not enough judges to participate and that lay members who sit with a judge are likely to be influenced by them.
“None of those options would change our position,” he said.
“The SSBA is surprised that the Scottish Government seems determined to go ahead with the pilot scheme for non-jury trials despite the clear reservations expressed by the justice committee.
“Their response to the justice committee’s report makes it clear that much more information is needed before such a pilot scheme could be considered, but without any coherent plan on how to obtain such information.”
He added: “They also continue to beat the drum for low conviction rates with misleading and meaningless comparisons of conviction rates for all cases.
“As was patiently explained to the committee, sexual violence is an unusually complex case that is very difficult to prove, often relying on a jury’s perception of who they believe with very little independent evidence. I compare these to a case of shoplifting where seeing the accused on CCTV committing the crime is frankly offensive Doubling and using conviction rates in a specific subset of rape trials, single accused cases, to justifying the dismantling of the jury system for all rape cases is again misleading.
“The Scottish Government also ignores the deep-seated opposition of almost the entire legal profession to this proposal. Discussions in every bar common room across Scotland show an almost unanimous refusal to participate in such trials, and without participation the criminal bar, the pilot is doomed before it begins.
“Finally, and most importantly, nothing detracts from the fundamental difficulty with this plan, which is that these are real people who will have real conviction whether or not the plan is judged.” n unconditional success or abject failure, and no government should be willing to experiment. with people’s freedom.”
