Ditch plans for juryless rape trials, say lawyers
Controversial proposals to pilot rape trials without a jury should be ditched, lawyers have said, after a Holyrood committee failed to give its backing to the move.
The Law Society of Scotland has urged the Scottish Government to abandon plans to hold trials for rape and attempted rape before a judge alone, instead of having a judge and jury. It is also urging ministers not to go ahead with the abolition of Scotland’s unique not proven verdict if new “balancingprovisions”forjuriesarenot included in the changes.
Themeasuresareallincluded in the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is currently being considered by Holyrood.
However, in a major report, MSPS on the Criminal Justice Committee revealed they were split on the proposal to hold juryless trials for rape and attempted rape cases – with the four SNP MSPS supporting the move, while the two Labour and two Conservative MSPS on the committee were opposed to it. Members of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association have already threatened to boycott such trials if they go ahead.
Meanwhile, Law Society of Scotland president Sheila Webster said the committee report “further underlines” its concerns about “key elements of the Bill”. Describing the proposed pilot for juryless rape trials as the “most controversial” part of the Government’s legislation, she added: “The lack of consensusconfirmsthisplanis flawed,andislackingdetailand supporting evidence. It should be removed from the Bill.”
Ms Webster went on to say the society had “significant concerns” about the section of the report dealing with the not proven verdict.
She stated: “It appears that committee members support scrapping the third verdict despite acknowledging they don’t know what the impact of that decision will be.
“Scrapping not proven without any balancing provisions would be an entirely unacceptableoutcomewithunforeseeable
outcomes. If there is insufficient evidence to decide on jury size and verdict majority, then not proven must be retained.”
As well as abolishing the not provenverdict,thebillalsoproposes to reduce the number of jurors needed for trials, along with changing the proportion needed to find an accused person guilty of an offence. Currently, a person can be found guilty if eight members of a
jury of 15 agree that it is the correct verdict, but the Bill proposes at least eight members of a smaller jury of 12 people would be required for any conviction.
After Scotland’s most senior prosecutor, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, warned this could make it harder to secure convictions, the committee said it could not support the proposed changes to jury size andmajority,withmspssaying theyhad“notheardcompelling
evidence to support this”.
Justice Secretary Angela Constance said: “These proposals arearesultoftherecommendationsoftheindependentreview carried out by Lady Dorrian, Scotland’s second most senior judge. That review recommended that we should pilot an alternative to jury trials, on a time-limitedbasis,toletushave a properly informed debate on how our system delivers justice for victims of rape.”
The lack of consensus confirms this plan is flawed