Angela Constance: Victims Bill is landmark legislation

Angela Constance

In the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, members will vote on the general principles of the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill – landmark legislation that is among the most significant since devolution.

The bill’s purpose is to improve the experiences of victims and witnesses while protecting the rights of the accused and building a trauma-informed justice system that meets the needs of modern Scotland.

Behind the drive for change is the evidence of victims and their families. They have told us that current processes compound the trauma they have already suffered. Indeed, some have described this trauma as being worse than the crime itself. We cannot accept a situation where victims tell us they wish that they had never reported a crime and that they would deter others from doing so. This shows the system has failed. We need to ensure there is confidence in our justice system to treat victims with compassion, to support them to give their best evidence and to deliver fair and transparent outcomes. That is a fundamental to ensure its integrity and its ability to hold perpetrators of abuse and criminality to account.

Independent research and experts with academic, legal and practical expertise have echoed the need for transformational change.

In March, the Criminal Justice Committee published their stage one report and I am pleased that they recommended support for the general principles of the bill.

I particularly welcome their agreement that the ‘not proven’ verdict should be abolished. The case for reform has been built over many years and we have engaged widely with the legal profession and others to inform our proposals. It is clear to me that Scotland cannot sustain a verdict which has no definition in law, is not well understood and can cause further trauma. Its abolition will create a clearer, fairer and more transparent decision-making process.

The bill proposes associated reforms intended to maintain balance within the system by introducing a qualified majority for guilty verdicts. The committee heard a range of views on this proposal and ultimately was not persuaded to support it. I have always acknowledged that these are finely balanced decisions and the distinct features of the Scottish criminal justice system must be carefully weighed. I will continue to listen to all views on this matter as the bill progresses.

The committee heard compelling evidence from many witness that our justice system in not working for victims of sexual offences. Lady Dorrian and others have been clear that we need to make seismic structural and statutory changes to how our system response to sexual violence and the bill takes those forward.

That includes proposals to pilot an alternative to jury trials, on a time-limited basis, to let us have a properly informed debate on how our system delivers justice for victims of rape and sexual offences.

The pilot has attracted strong views on both sides of the debate. Concerns have been raised around fairness. That is a fundamental issue: all accused people are entitled to a fair trial, and I am committed, indeed obligated, to upholding their rights. But we need to recognise that juries are not the only way to deliver fair trials. Countries across Europe and around the world use different approaches to hearing the most serious cases. The pilot gives us the opportunity to examine what the best approach for rape cases in Scotland is, and to ensure we have confidence our approach is robust. Written reasons for verdicts will play an important part in that, increasing transparency for the accused and providing clarity on the reasons for convictions and acquittals.

Last week we published new data which shows that for the kind of cases the pilot is intended to focus on – single charge, single complainer rape and attempted rape cases – the five year average conviction rate is just 24 per cent. I fully appreciate that these cases can be challenging to prosecute, but it would be complacent for us to simply accept an approach that is failing to secure justice for so many women, particularly in the context of the evidence of the prevalence and influence of rape myths.

I recognise that some stakeholders, including legal professionals, are keen to see a greater number and diversity of decision-makers than a single-judge pilot offers. I am actively considering changing the model, so that cases in the pilot would be heard by a panel rather than a single judge, and I am open to that panel including lay participation.

My response to the committee’s report sets out a range of areas where we plan to develop amendments on the pilot, to provide more information on how it will operate. I would welcome the profession’s input on these issues, as well as other issues raised by the bill as a whole, and I am committed to continuing engagement as the bill progresses through Parliament.