Cases involving these elements may cause more difficulty for jurors than say, a straight-forward assault. Whatever the complexity, we do allow the most difficult cases to be dealt with by a jury, properly directed, as is to be expected.

However, if the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill is passed, in the near future, rape cases will be dealt with by a judge without a jury. Jurors give up their time, perhaps not willingly, and many will have employment, or been employed, or are self-employed, or been self-employed. The thinking is to have a cross-section of people who bring some “life experience” to their deliberations. By contrast, there are many in the Scottish Parliament, who have had no involvement in anything other than politics. Their “life experience” is as close to non-existent as possible. The message of this bill is simple: it is saying that that jurors cannot be trusted in rape cases to “get it right” by which is meant getting a conviction. Thus, the notion of a fair trial becomes less important than getting “justice for the victim” – not the alleged victim. Clearly, it is inconceivable than any one would make up a story to get another person charged.

The Scottish government obviously hopes that the judges in these “judge-only” trials will “get it right” by which the government means “get more convictions”. I, too hope these judges will “get it right” but by complying with their judicial oath, and, in so far as any judge would do, wave the internationally-recognised two digits of derision at the notion that the only thing that matters is a conviction. What if the “judge-only” cases do not result in more convictions? I assume that the Scottish government, or some of the members, regret that they will not be able to deal with these people by disciplining or dismissing them. Perhaps, the next step would be to have “jury-only” cases – the jurors can get advice on the law from Judge Judy.

Moving swiftly on, we will have a jury, if there is one, of 12 and verdicts of “guilty” and “not guilty”. No surprise there, as the former first minister made it clear, prior to the closure of the consultation period, that the “not proven” verdict ought to go. It was said by some that the existence of the verdict created a stigma. No evidence was provided, as presumably, none was needed. There are others who were fully supportive of the “victims”. Not “alleged victims”. The irony is that by having only two verdicts, the “not guilty” verdict in a case, but, in particular, a rape case may send out the message that the “victim” was not be believed, or worse, was lying. There is nothing to be said against, and everything to be said I favour of asking the jury the simple question: “Has the Crown proved the case beyond reasonable doubt?” If the answer is ”No”, the accused is acquitted.

I have not read the bill in detail, but the opening clauses create another “interesting” post – victims and witnesses commissioner for Scotland. No doubt, this post will be well-remunerated and, of course, the holder will require staff and upmarket premises.

It is not clear exact what the commissioner’s function are to be, but they can relate to both civil and criminal cases. However, there is one astonishing provision which is that the commissioner will have the power to summon the lord advocate, so much for the notion that the Crown are independent prosecutors in the public interest. Perhaps, the lord advocate could borrow, or acquire the two digits mentioned above. It seems, but is is not entirely clear what role, if any the commissioner, will have in dealing with those who are witnesses in an ongoing case.

The bill merits careful reading, but it is unlikely that anything said will divert this ship from its course.

Douglas J. Cusine is a retired sheriff and a respected author of articles and books on legal and medico-legal topics.