 Fyeldech chi, everybody, a welcome to the 13th meeting of the criminal justice committee. We have apologies this morning from Russell Finlay and Fylten McGregor is joining us online. So our first item is to agree whether to take item 3, which is consideration of the evidence this morning in private. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Our next agenda item is, I'm sure you'll all be aware, that we've been reaching esonwch ddechrau'r ystafell, provider honi, i gyd o'r cyffredinol sy'n mynd i gyd yn ymdwyr ond hyd o'r ffordd a'r wych oldithau. Mae gyd i'r ffordd o'r hyffredinol ond i'r cyfrif feddwl i'r cyfrif edrychwyr arall, sy'n dweud cyfrif wedi gyd yn cael ei ddechrau, ac mae'n gyd omfacol i'r cyfrif nodi fadau o'u prif yn dechrau, ac mae'n gael i'r cyfrif wedi'r cyfrif wedi'u llyr i'r drafodaeth. Mae cyfrif wedi'i gyd yn cram gyffredinol i'r gweld cyntafion ddefnyddio cyffredinol. Felly, rydych chi gyrdwyr careddiaethau ystafell senseidau ydyn nhw, yn gwneud a oedden nhw'n gwelwch felly fydd yn gwneud o lystau mewn gaelol, y Cabinet Secretary For Justice and Veterans a'r Lord Advocate. Rwy'n credu i siarad ar gyffredinol, gwleidio, ac i gael gwirioneddau i'w wneud amfant yn gweithio ystafell. I'm pleased, therefore, to welcome to today's meeting to senior representatives of the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service. They are Mr David Fraser, executive director of court operations, and Ms Daniel McLaughlin, head of the Lord Justice Clerk's review implementation. Thank you for joining us both. Before I start, I want to thank all those people who we have spoken to about the subject. We recognise that it takes immense courage to talk about the subject area, and I want to pay tribute to everyone who has done so, as this really does help to inform our views. I also want to thank Daniel and David for coming along today. I expect this session to last between six days to 90 minutes, and I'll make my usual plea for succinct questions and answers. If I may open up questioning, we're obviously aware that Lady Dorian's review was published back earlier this year, so we're nearly a year on from its publication. I'm really just wanting to open up with a general question in relation to progress that has been made in relation to looking at the recommendations that were made in the report and what steps are now being taken to implement some of the recommendations that were made. I'll maybe come to you first, David Fraser. Yes, it was a report that has got the potential to fundamentally change a lot of things that happen within the court service. Personally, from my perspective, I learned an awful lot as supporting Lady Dorian in the process, and sometimes when you're within an organisation, you don't fully understand exactly the impact that you and your staff's actions can have, and that was brought home to me very fundamentally by some of the evidence that was presented before Lady Dorian. Since the report has been published, we have had limited progress, I would say, due to Covid and the pressures that we've had in relation to that. My colleague Danielle has been appointed specifically to implement the recommendations from our perspective, but it is very much a collaborative effort. We've been in contact with the Scottish Government. There's a governance strategy that has been put about, and we've determined the different work students that will need to be taken forward, and we're just in the cusp of really launching that implementation. Thank you very much. I'll maybe hand over to Danielle just to pick up on that. No, thank you, committee, and thank you for inviting us to give evidence this morning. Following on from David, I would just merely reiterate the transformative effect that the review could have for complainers that use the justice system generally as we go forward. As David said, I've been in particular appointed to assist with implementation from the SCTS's perspective and from operations perspective. However, as David also highlighted, creating the implementation of aspects of Lady Dorian's review is just as part of us working with the Scottish Government and key stakeholders to implement its rationale and its objectives. While, as David indicated, we are at the initial stages of looking at the whole-scale review, there are immediate steps that have been actioned from an SCTS perspective. For example, there are one of the key recommendations that the committee may have seen is in respect of taking evidence by commission and the presumption of recording evidence. In that initial stage, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service has taken steps to provide additional facilities and support the use of evidence by commission in particular. That occurred even during the early stages of lockdown when our courts could not open due to public health and safety requirements in social distancing. During that initial lockdown period, we did encourage justice partners to use evidence by commission, and that was taken up supportively. As a consequence of that, by the end of this year, our financial year, i.e. April 2022, we are anticipating around 300 commissions, which is a significant increase on previous years. For example, last year we had just over 160, and previous years, i.e. 2016-17, we were talking numbers below 40. That is one of the key steps that is encouraging justice partners and working with justice partners to look at elements of the review that can be implemented now or encouraged to be implemented now without immediate legislative change. Thanks very much. I am interested in your comments on, for example, taking evidence on commission, which we know is something that is under way already, albeit limited. If I can just follow up on your comments, it is helpful to hear that update. Obviously, in my introductory remarks, we spoke about the evidence sessions that we have been running. I think that it is safe to say in respect of the court experiences of some of the witnesses that we have spoken to, that they were less than complementary about a range of aspects of their experience. I would like in that regard to pick up on your comments in relation to some of the early course changes that could potentially be made, such as expanding evidence on commission, and to ask a little bit about what we consider to be the oppressing nature of many aspects of the court system in light of the evidence that we have been given. Really, what more can be done in short course, if you like, to start to address some of those challenges? I will come back to Mr Fraser. The Evidence Commission is one of the key dimensions that Lady Dorian has highlighted. In fact, the evidence in chief and removing the complainer from the court environment entirely is one of the key things in our recommendations. What we have been doing is scoping out the capacity that we have within the organisation. You will be aware that we have got Atlantic Key, Ember Ness, Edinburgh and Aberdeen coming online. We are looking beyond that, because the increase in the amount of people that will potentially be required to use the evidence commission's suites will be significant. At this point, we are scoping out what additional accommodation we will require in order to ensure that we have the capacity to deal with the potential numbers that will come in due course once Lady Dorian's review is recommended. I might be back to your self, Daniel. Is there anything that you want to add to that? I can merely add to David Scott's comments in that regard. One of the many aspects of Lady Dorian's review in which initial steps can be taken is that the committee may be aware in relation to trauma informed practice and training. That was something that the review identified and highlighted as an essential aspect of going forward, both in respect of the specialist court that is recommended under recommendation 2 and also just the future generally. That builds upon our own experiences already at SCTS. We have, as the review identifies, implemented training for our key personnel at our evidence suites at Atlantic Key and in Inverness. It is an organisation along with other justice partners, because there has been a commitment since 2018 with other justice partners to work with the Scottish Government to identify trauma informed training and progress and courses to that effect. Trauma informed training is something that we are developing and working on. Separately, while I work for SCTS, and I am here representing SCTS's position, the training of the judiciary is a matter for the Lord President, the judicial institute and the judicial office. They are similarly looking at and rolling out training with reference to trauma informed training. Separately, there is the experience of the complainer generally during the course of a trial hearing. That is something that is continually looked at both from an SCTS perspective in relation to our staff and in relation to the judicial training of members. I believe that those are the two key aspects that I would probably add on, but I am more than happy to address anything else, because I feel appreciate that we have got some time and there is quite a lot in the review to discuss. That is very much. Certainly trauma informed approaches are something that we have certainly been quite aware of and it has been raised. Members might come back to that down the line. On that note, one of the final things that I was going to ask about was another key issue that was raised. That was around communication and engagement with witnesses. I am using that in the context of survivors' complainers. That was an area of where that came in for some commentary and, frankly, some criticism. One of the suggestions was around a single point of contact and advocate, somebody that could essentially chaperone an individual through the process. Are you interested in what, if any, consideration has been made around that provision? We seem to be in a rhythm here, but I will answer in the end. I will give you the fine details. I think that each organisation within the justice system does its very best in terms of the communication that it tries to do from its own perspective. What became absolutely clear in terms of the review, as we spoke to all the individuals, was that, from their perspective, it was not a joined up process. They were moved from one organisation to another. While each of us were trying to do our very best, when you sat in their shoes, it was not a good picture. We all accept that. A single point of contact is, in terms of the recommendations, something that we resist absolutely, the complainer, to understand exactly the process and where we are going through it. It has been looked at in a number of different places, because the victims task force as well. It is well known that this is an area that we actually need to make some progress on. We have a lot of victims charters and standards within the organisation to make sure that we do the best that we possibly can, but we recognise that more can be done collectively, and we need to work with our justice partners to get and move that forward. It is probably not one that the Scottish Court Service is able to progress, but, as I said, there is a governance structure that has now been set up in order to move forward the report, and that is due to meet imminently. I will hand back to Danielle before we move on and open it up. Yes, again, justice partners work collaboratively. I have entered into, for example, SCTS, Victim Support Scotland and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have entered into protocols in relation to our management and communication with victims. All partners have signed up to under statutory obligations and, otherwise, standards of service for victims and complainers, and we work collaboratively producing our own standards but also working together and producing a joint report annually in relation to the standards and also to reporting on them annually. That is an on-going review, both internally and from our perspective. We have five standards that we are committed to, but we take it on an on-going basis that we will review and update those standards and identify areas for additional development as required. As David said, justice partners work collaboratively and work hard to communicate the process and the aspects of attending and being involved in the criminal justice sector, but inevitably and perhaps, unfortunately and unintentionally, sometimes that communication can go wrong. That is why what was identified in the Lord Justice Clerk's review is the benefit of having all partners sitting on the table perhaps again and looking at what we are doing and what can be improved and expanded upon and perhaps consolidated to ensure that there is a universal message going across the justice sector and to minimise the chances or the instances that the committees had the opportunity to hear from first hand and from complainers. During some evidence sessions, we heard of a situation where the QC, representing the accused, was acting really unacceptively. The victims and witnesses felt intimidated and claimed that the QC behaved no better than the accused. It felt like a boys club, etc. They were very intimidated and demoralised. No-one called them out and no-one called him out on that behaviour. Is that something that is within your remit to do? To answer in the first instance, it is not within SCTS's remit to do. The broad answer to that is that justice partners involved in the trial process have to work collaboratively and identify if such circumstances arise. It was a theme that, unfortunately, was picked up in the course of Lady Dorian's review. It is something that partners are encouraged and those involved in the trial process are encouraged to bring to the attention of the judge, to bring to the attention of, if necessary, the relevant regulatory body. I believe that David can expand on that. Clarify your role in it. Another instance was cases where the victims did not meet the pro-creator fiscal or have contact prior to the trial. Everything was new and they had no chance to process things. In some occasions, when the case came to court, there were errors in the paperwork and it was too late to correct them. Is that within your remit? May I come in? Just to clarify on those particular points, the role of the SCTS is very much one of supporting the judiciary in terms of delivering justice. For circumstances where individuals within the court environment and what you are talking about, if they felt the behaviour of the member of the judiciary was inappropriate, there are independent ways in which complaints can be made against judicial members. That goes through the judicial institute, which has nothing to do with SCTS. On the other ones, in terms of communication, I will come back to your point about paperwork. The role of the SCTS is very much one of taking in and looking after these people once they enter our building. The communication to them outwith that is the responsibility of the Crown Office. That is a question that we would have to be directed to them. Similarly, the paperwork and the meeting of the fiscal is something that would be organised by Crown Office and it is not something that the SCTS would have control over. I am going to hand over to Collette Stevenson now just to think that you have a general question and then we will move on to issues around safety, physical environment and care of witnesses. I really want to touch upon the trauma informed and the standards. I want to drill a bit more into that. What training does the court service provide to staff to give them the skills to deal with traumatised and vulnerable victims and witnesses? For our evidence suites, we recognised early on that the staff that those people interact with, both victims and witnesses, really need to have the best support that they can. We have provided training to those who will have direct contact with those vulnerable people when they come into our environments at our specialised evidence suites. We have also provided training more generally to our STB2 grades, which are those again who generally will be the ones that will interact with our witnesses. That training was provided before we went down to lockdown, but it was very much at an elementary level. What we are currently doing following the review is looking at working a lot more closely and having a lot more input in terms of what is being developed that will be rolled out further in light of Lady Delrin's view and in light of all the different things that we uncovered and discovered during that. It is Caroline Bruce that we are working with in order to formalise that training. It is a training that has been developed not just for ourselves but for all the justice partners as well. Coming back to the observation earlier, there are circumstances and there have been circumstances. I have seen it myself as a clock of court where you have situations that are developing in court. It puts individuals under pressure. Everything that has come forward from the report is based on the feedback that we have had, it is on the lived experiences. There have been times in the court environment that potentially you can see that that is not conducive environment to get the best evidence, which is my evidence procedure review and the recommendations there and then what we are trying to do as we go forward. I think that there is a much, much greater understanding certainly within the organisations of looking at the victim's perspective, looking at it from there, the challenges that the court environment brings and we are doing what we possibly can to ensure that we are not re-traumatising people or making their experience worse in any way at all now. Perhaps a long answer. We have provided elementary training but we are looking to have a lot more in-depth and a lot more understanding in terms of the training that we will provide as we roll out wider. It is not just the SCTS staff, some of the observations that you have made in relation to other players that were within the court environment. It is really essential that it is not just our staff that are sensitive and aware, but every single key player that will interact with those people within the court environment. That includes QCs and council as well. I think that that is within Lady Dorian's recommendations. I will drill down a bit further. You talked about Caroline Bruce. Is that the person who delivered the training? Has there been risk assessments drawn up as well prior to the court surface ahead of the trials? Is it coming from the national framework of trauma informed that is currently in place at the moment? If you could provide me with that information? I will let Danielle speak about what we are currently doing. The training that we have provided and that we did provide was just to make sure that the few key people that were interacting with them had an understanding of what trauma was about. It was for them to have an appreciation of the impact that their actions could have on individuals and to be very much aware from that. It was very elementary, but the training that we are working with Caroline Bruce on is the national framework. Do you want to add anything in respect of that? No, I want to pick up on what David Smith said. When we referred to Dr Caroline Bruce, who is assisting the victim's task force on, I believe, its task force stream 2 in relation to the development of trauma informed training that would be adopted by justice partners across the system, the key aspect of it is to carry out and provide that training. We need to ensure that there is consistency. There is no point in rolling it out and picking up things as we go or making changes. It is best to ensure that there is consistency of approaching from that. We are looking to or for direction from Dr Caroline Bruce and the guidance that is being developed with the victim's task force so that it is not just a consistent approach across SCTS but across justice partners generally. I take it that you are talking about elementary training, so that additional training in terms of trauma informed has still to get rolled out within SCTS and the partners within the judiciary system, is that correct? Overall, yes. The initial training that has been undertaken at our evidence and commission suites at Atlantic Key and in the Vernace has contained elements of trauma informed training. That was the first steps that have been taken across SCTS. We are in our educational learning unit and are working extensively on the preparation of materials for staff across our organisation but with reference to the guidance and the principles that are being developed with justice partners by the victims task force and directed by Dr Caroline Bruce. The key aspect is that, in addition to perhaps what one may call an overriding programme of trauma informed training, it has to be finessed further to address the experiences or circumstances in which members of staff will encounter, for example, staff that are actually in court seeing our witnesses and, as they have alluded to, our SGB2s, which are court officers. They have the key contact with parties who are giving evidence at court. Thank you. To answer your question, yes. There is still work to be done in order to get a greater understanding across all the key people. That includes a lot of our staff, some key staff have, but there is much, much more that we can do within the organisation and we will need to do in order to get a much, much deeper understanding across all people within the organisation and outwith our organisation as well. Okay, thanks very much. I think I'll just move on to yourself, Jamie. I think you've got some questions around some more environmental issues. Yes, thank you. Good morning. Just before I move on to my pre-planned questions, just picking up on some of the discussion that we've had, I think part of the problem, and it's certainly struck me over the last few months, is because there are so many justice partners. I can see why it's very difficult for a victim of crime or someone going through a criminal procedure to really struggle to work out who's responsible for what, who to complain to if there's an issue and if those complaints are interlinked, which body has overall responsibility and it strikes me as if there really isn't one. This is part of the problem, as if you have a complaint against a sheriff, a JP or a judge, there's a specific government process you would go through if it's against a deputy, it would be the Crown Office, if it's against a defence minister or QC, they have their own regulatory environment through the Law Society or the SLCC, if it's against the work that you do, I presume they would come to you in the first instance, and then you'd be governed by the SPSO. So, I mean, that is tough enough for me to get my head around, never mind someone who's been the victim of a traumatic crime. Can you see why so many people do feedback to the committee and to Parliament that they do find the process extremely confusing, complex and re-traumatising? I would absolutely agree. I mean, the justice system itself is a composite number of lots of different independent organisations doing their fundamental duties. The victim, if you follow them through the process from their initial contact with Police Scotland, then moved on to Crown Office, then moved on to ourselves, they're then potentially dealing with Scottish Prison Service in terms of release. It was one of the things that we didn't recognise as we went through the review with Lady Dorian that the communication that people get and having to be moved from one organisation to another organisation does create stress. There's no question about it, it's not a single organisation where you enter one end and you come out the other. So, I absolutely agree, and that's one of the areas which fundamentally we need to make improvements upon. And, as again, it's one of the recommendations which you'll be well aware of, and it's also about the support for individuals. In the short term, one of the things would be a single point of contact. Someone who understood all the different organisations were able to get in and about, find the key information and actually be a liaison for that individual, and that's one that I feel would make a significant difference for complainers. Absolutely, I don't disagree, and I think that's a common theme. The problem is that much of that work is currently taken up by the third sector. In some cases, by volunteers, and it's not formalised in any sense of form. People have access to Victim Support Scotland clearly in the work that they do, or VIA, which is the Crown Offices process. But, indeed, many times they're directed towards charities. It requires the Scotland Women's Aid, in some cases their MSPs or MPs if they're really stuck, because we can write letters to people and generally get answers back. But it's that lack of centralised support to told someone's hand through the process, which I think has led to accusations that the system is geared and weighted towards the accused, because they have a single point of contact which is their lawyer, who will hold their hand and educate them through the process to get through it, whereas the victims often feel their past pillar to post. In terms of your bit of it, you manage obviously the estate, but you have what you have. You have little control over the physicality of your estate, but many people have also said to us that that in itself creates difficulties. It's not a pleasant place to be. They often come face to face with the people that have attacked them or abused them, and just the physical layout of these buildings, as antiquated as many of them are, is not conducive to a trauma-informed experience. What are you going to do to improve that? We do our very best with the limitations that we have within our current estate to ensure that we do have separation. We are mindful of that. We are aware of the fact that it is not a fantastic experience or environment for people. The vast majority of people do not want to be within our court environments, but we do try our very best. I did notice that there had been occasions where people had come in face to face contact and were disappointed. For the vast majority of occasions, we would do our very best to ensure that there is separation of people and they are not in the environment where they come together. You are quite right. Victim support services support these individuals in court. Often things are put in place where they will be asked to arrive at a slightly different time. In some of our occasions, we have separate entrances, and all of our new estate, so that we are trying to minimise the opportunity where that happens within the court environment. We can control to our best of our ability what we have in our estate, but there is always the possibility that outwith the court environment, outwith the court estate, because that is where the focus is, there is the potential for that contact to happen. I appreciate the distress that that would cause when it happens. I think that that is one of the reasons why evidence on commission and getting their evidence outwith the court environment was one of the key things that came from me, was actually how can we remove these people from having to attend court at all? By getting that evidence in chief, if you like, and the evidence commission, it is all pre-recorded as close to the event as possible. It removes the need for them to physically be within the court environment at all in the future. I think that again, that would make strides forward in improving the experience for these people. That is very helpful. Do you have time for one more? Of course, thank you. I will maybe come in later with some other issues. Obviously, the big elephant in the room is the backlog of cases that we are dealing with. We know from evidence taken from victims of crime the inevitable stress and trauma that that creates, not just a timescale, but the fact that many of those cases have gone through the system and been cancelled or delayed or rescheduled—sometimes numerous, perhaps even dozens of times—and the obvious effect that that has. There have been very specific calls from a number of survivors specifically of crimes of sexual assault, abuse or gender-based violence to have statutory maximum timescales on the bringing forward of trials of this nature. We are where we are with the backlog, and I appreciate your only one cog in that wheel, but what can you do? What would your ask of Government be given that we are coming up to negotiations of a budget to try and facilitate more trials more quickly, but by doing so not weaken clearly the sanctity and effectiveness of those trials so that both parties have absolute right to a fair trial? In an ideal world, what would that look like to help you process those cases more quickly? We have put in place, you may be aware, our recovery programme in September. We increased from 16 to 20 the amount of high courts that run each day. We introduced a further two courts for the solemn courts in 10 in summary courts. In our current projections, it will take us a couple of years, potentially in 2016, before we get the backlog that has been created back under control. I think that it is essential that we continue with that recovery programme, with that additional level. We could go beyond that and further increase our capacity. That in itself, though, you have got finite resources, as you will well know, not just ourselves but Crown Office and the defence community as well, particularly in terms of being able to gear up to even more of our recovery programme. We are looking at different things. We have got pre-intermediate diets that we are introducing. The key for me within the court service is making the best use of the slots that we have available for trials to proceed. The biggest difference that could be made is for the prosecution and the defence to actually utilise the processes that we have got there. We really get to a position where they are absolutely certain that this case has to go to trial, and then it goes to trial. We remove a lot of the things that you talk about where, for cases that are adjourned, and we get pleas at the trial diet, and slots are lost. It is not a new problem, I have to be honest. I have been in the organisation since 1982. As a senior manager, I have grappled with this and made small inroads in different areas, but that is the fundamental thing that we would make a phenomenal difference as we go forward. It is actually getting better utilisation of the court time that we have available. The communication and the processes that we have set up in advance of that work really well. It is only those cases where the issues have been identified between defence and prosecution, and then they go to trial. Five years is a long time to wait for your case to come round, whether you are the accused or the victim, and that is to surrender. I agree. As you say, we are one cog in a wheel. Pre-Covid, if we look at the High Court, it would normally take us for our part of the system about 22 weeks from its first appearance to actually trial diet. We are currently sitting at just under a year. That is still a considerably long time. Of course, I appreciate that there is the time taken before that when it is with Crown and Police. From a victim's perspective, it is a long time. Thank you, convener. Following on from Jamie Greene's questions, I would like to ask you about cases of domestic violence. By their very nature, they are different from anything else, because it continues. It is not a one-off offence or whatever. Is it within your remit to prioritise those cases? We know that there is a huge backlog, and if it is within your remit, are you doing that? It is within our remit, and it is something that we are doing. We have done this even before Covid. We had a different target in terms of the time that it would take us to get those cases before the courts. It was down to between about eight and ten weeks pre-Covid. It has climbed—it was about 15, I think. We are now at 14 weeks for that particular type of cases. If I compare that to non-domestic abuse cases, I mean that they are currently sitting, I think, it is about 23 weeks. We do prioritise domestic abuse cases within our system and try to get them through as quickly as possible. We also, in the height of Covid, used technology and actually piloted virtual summary trials specifically for domestic abuse cases, because those types of cases are the ones that would lend themselves more to the virtual environment, because normally it is just a complainer and perhaps two police witnesses. I have to say that we have run a limited number. It has not been as successful as we had hoped. Despite that, we had lots of discussions with the victim support agencies in trying to get these pilots up and running, but again it is one of those areas where we are just one player and it takes a lot of players in order to make these things successful. I think that my colleagues have further questions in that, so I would not ask any more. I will be bringing in Pauline McNeill now. I think that you had some questions around trial dates and facilities for victims. I had two sets of questions, one around the trial dates and the specialist court issue. What is your view on ensuring that rape cases could be fixed trial dates as opposed to floating? I have had cases myself and a couple of which I have discussed with you directly at the time, but we had a survivor who had 13 different first diet dates. In any of you, that is just really not acceptable. What would the barriers be to implementing fixed trial dates for rape cases and to prevent the kind of continual rescheduling of those cases? That is a question that I am aware of because we have been asked directly about it. While I am very sympathetic and we did quite a bit of work on ensuring that rape cases were not moved because one of the things that could happen in the system is that the location could be moved, we have managed to eradicate that and remove the uncertainty there. The difficulty we have, to be quite honest, is that we use a floating date system. The vast majority of those cases will start within that period of time. It is very few that are then moved to another sitting, but I do accept that you do not know if it is the Monday, the Tuesday, the Wednesday, the Thursday, but the vast majority are dealt within that period. If we were to go back to pre-bond and made reforms and introduced fixed diets, then it would, in essence, reduce our capacity in terms of the amount of business that we can get through the system. Although it is particularly in the High Court, there is a very good rate in terms of cases proceeding. We do still lose the occasional, we do get pleased at the trial diet, which means that, in essence, that case or that day would be lost. It really gives us an element of flexibility to have the system as healthy as we possibly can, but I do accept that, from a complainer's perspective, there is that element of uncertainty of which day it will proceed. We have looked carefully at what we can do, but, to be perfectly honest, it would tie our hands to a great degree in terms of the volumes that we can get through if we were to move back to a fixed diet. You mentioned there that the location could be moved and we just triggered my memory. One of the survivors told us that two days before the trial, I think that it was scheduled for Glasgow, and two days before it was scheduled for Livingston. In my mind, that is an absolute no-no. The logistics of getting to Livingston and having no support, I mean, I was really quite horrified by that. That is one of the areas where we have managed to do something and been very sympathetic. I do not have the exact figures, but since we looked into that issue and we made the decision that we should not transfer those types of cases, I do not think that they have actually been... I can come back and confirm that, but I do not think that we have been in that situation where we have put people where you think that you are going in one location, oh no, you are now going to another location, because we did recognise that the impact that that has on that was one area that we were able to actually make a positive impact on. I would really welcome that, because for us to say that if that had continued, we would have cases like that, someone should be able to intervene, I do not know who, and say no, that is really so fundamentally oppressive to the victim for that to happen. I was quite shocked by that. I wanted to ask about the specialist courts. Maybe Daniela, this is maybe for you. Is there any reason why the specialist courts cannot be part of the High Court, or is that the intention? It is confusing, because the suggestion is that the sentencing powers should be 10 years. In my mind, that means that you cannot put rape cases to the specialist court, because the rape cases must go to the High Court, unless you are going to tell me wrong about that. I am kind of supportive of the idea, but I have some issues with the specialist court, I have to be honest, because we have been here before, where there has been a suggestion of grading crimes of rape, and obviously the concern would be that any suggestion you would downgrade cases that will look as if they are going to a different court. I appreciate that I may not have understood exactly what it is intended, but that is my line of questioning. I will come back to the first point about downgrading. If anything, it is the contrast. The review group, in particular, and the Inevitable Research and Studies, has identified that sexual offence cases on rapes, victims and complainers have to be treated differently. We need something different, and that is why the review looked at what unique solutions could be to address that. Yes, the High Court is our most senior court, but the view was taken that we need to develop upon that and look at what is needed to address these specific instances of crime. The specialist court is seen as an extension of the High Court, but with its own unique systems and practices and procedures in place to identify and address the concerns that are associated with or can be experienced by complainers and all those involved in those types of cases. I want to be clear about that. Are you saying that the specialist court is the High Court or not? If we need to be clear about this, it is either that it is or it is not, and if it is not, then it is not the most senior court. You cannot put rape cases to a specialist court or maybe that is not the intention, because there is obvious difference between sexual offences that are norm rape cases and rape cases. That is a brand new court. It is neither the High Court nor is it Solomon Sheriff and Judy. It is a brand new court, specifically designed to look at all sexual offence cases. We are including rape cases. How is that lawful? I studied law and I was clearly taught that rape cases are a plea to the crime that must be heard in the High Court. Is that just a convention? Do you see where I am coming from? You are quite right. The High Court currently has a privative jurisdiction for rape, murder, piracy and treason. I have got that right. All of those cases have to go to the High Court. There would be legislation that is required for the creation of this court because of that dimension, because of the sensing powers. At the moment, the sensing powers between Sheriff and Judy and between the High Court are very different. The intention behind that is to create a brand new court that would have a national jurisdiction. Those dimensions that you talk about, both sensing and private jurisdiction, would have to be dealt with. There is only exception, and we consider that if you had a sexual offending case and a murder, which was in the same, then that would have to go to the High Court clearly on those circumstances. However, the idea behind the creation of this court is that you create a specialist environment with specialist trained people who understand and are able to really get the best out from this particular crime through this particular specialist court. I hope that I made that clear. It is neither the High Court nor the Sheriff and Judy. No, you have. I think that that is really helpful and I understand the motivation for it. Earlier, we were talking about the implementation, and it sounded like, well, you are just going to implement this review, but that is clear. You would require legislation for it. That makes complete sense. Thank you very much. Can I maybe just pick up on this discussion in relation to the proposal around a domestic abuse court being neither a High Court nor a Sheriff court? Pick up on the point that you made about sentencing. Obviously, at the moment, in the High Court, you have unlimited sentencing powers. Do you have any comments on what might fit within a specialist domestic abuse court in regard to sentencing? If I can be clear, the creation of the court is a court to deal with sexual offending, which is our most serious crimes at our solemn level. We did look at what the sentencing within the High Court is for those types of crimes, and I think that it was about 98 per cent of cases would fall within the 10 years, which is why that set out as a time, if you like. It is very much a court that would stand on its own. It would be an entity on its own with its own sentencing powers. It is the more serious sexual offending that would go through that through our solemn procedure, as opposed to the domestic abuse that would normally go through our summary courts. We are talking about this in terms of our serious sexual offending. However, if we go forward with this, and we are successful with this, there is the potential—and that was discussed in the group—of what to do for the lower level, if I can call it that, sexual offending that would go through our summary courts. We would have to take small steps, but there is the potential at some time in the future to have a more specialist approach, if you like, with trauma-informed training in relation to those domestic abuse cases going through our summary courts. That is almost looking to the future, if you like. Thank you very much. Katie Clark, you were wanting to pick up on specialist courts. Yes, that would be helpful. If perhaps I deal with sexual offences first before moving on to domestic abuse, which is slightly different. Are you saying that cases where it was felt that a sentence of 10 years or more would be suitable—and there are many cases like that, there are many appalling sexual crimes where potentially the sentence would be greater than that—historic child abuse cases, rapes, et cetera. Are you suggesting that they would still be dealt with by the High Court? Where the cases are prosecuted sits with Crown Office, because they are the master of the instance in terms of where they will raise cases. Clearly, collaboration and discussion with our other justice partners in terms of the finer details of exactly what would go through the new specialist sexual offending court, what would go to the High Court would really have to be still bottomed out, to be perfectly honest. Like all courts, if cases were before it where the sentencing judge felt actually my powers are limited here, like anything else, they would have the power to actually remit it to a court that would have powers to sentencing. However, as I say, the finer details have still got to be worked out in terms of actually what the interaction is and how it will work. I apologise and I appreciate that those proposals are not necessarily coming for yourself. I am doing my best to hit me up. I perhaps phrased that wrong, so I apologise. I was just trying to gather your understanding of what is being proposed. Are you saying that if the sentencing judge in a specialist court felt that the disposals that they had available to them weren't sufficient, they could refer that case for sentencing to another court? Is that what is being suggested? The broad recommendation made, or discussed in Lady Dorian's review, is a common practice within our courts. The sheriffs, understandably, have limited sentencing powers and have the power to remit to our High Court. A similar model was recommended in the review that if the presiding judge in the proposed sexual offences court felt that the limits of their sentencing powers were not sufficient, it could be referred to the High Court, which would have a higher statutory power to sentence. I do not particularly expect you to comment on that, but the concern is that there is a hierarchy in terms of, if there is a limit on sentencing, the message that is sent from a conviction from a specialist court, as opposed to the High Court. At the other end, there are many sexual offences, for example underage sex, which are involved perhaps a boy who is over 16 and a girl who is younger than 16, who is dealt with by the courts at the moment. The suggestion is that some of those cases, which are quite difficult and sensitive cases for those involved, are very, very difficult cases with often very young people. The suggestion is that they might not go to the specialist court, they would continue to be dealt with the way they are at the moment. Is that what the suggestion is, as you understand it? That's one, unfortunately, I kind of help you with in terms of what would happen. It would be speculation, in my part, if I were to give you my view. What I can say, though, is that we were very, very much aware that, potentially, some may see this as a downgrading of justice. We worked very hard with all of the people within the group, which include a lot of the third sector, who came back. What we are hoping to create through this is actually a much better experience for those that are coming through the system. 98 per cent of cases that we looked at would fall within the sensing powers of this court. There is an element of discussion that needs to take place between Crown colleagues and ourselves in terms of where they would put the different cases to make sure that we weren't in a position where cases were getting remitted from one court to another, where that is possible. The very fine detail of exactly all the implications of what that creates have still to be worked through with our justice partners. The focus is very much of creating a much better experience for those that have to use our services. I fully understand that your role is one of implementation, so I'm not asking you to justify anything in particular. I think that we genuinely are trying to understand what you think is happening. If I could go further in terms of the domestic abuse situation, which is obviously different from the sexual offences, I understand that it has been possible to pilot certain practices without the need for legislative change and that there have been specialist domestic abuse courts, could you outline how they have been different from the way that cases were dealt with before and indeed are dealt with now in many situations? Are you talking about the virtual summary trials? I was actually thinking not so much about the virtual trials but about what we were told were domestic abuse specialist courts that were pilots before Covid. If you could perhaps just share any information that you have in terms of how that worked, what your understanding of that was and any evaluation that you're able to provide. If you will forgive me, I will perhaps dig out all that information and send it to you for your deliberation. They were created specifically looking at trying to get a specialism in terms of domestic abuse and there were a number of different locations where they took place. The actual evaluation and what we've done with these, if you will forgive me, I will communicate that to you in terms of that and in terms of any evaluations that we have in terms of that as well. That's very, very helpful. I don't know if Danielle would like to know. I'm sorry, just to add on that way, part of the review group we did look at the domestic abuse court example across Scotland and as David indicated, there have been a number of courts throughout Scotland, predominantly the first instance that I can remember is in Glasgow. Like I said, unfortunately, as David indicated, we can give more additional information, but there are some summary within the cross justice review from the LGC in relation to those courts. One of the key aspects of them from my recollection is that there's a dedicated prosecutor and that was seen, there was an independent evaluation of the domestic abuse pilot. I believe it was in 2014 or 2017, apologies, I can't remember the exact date. That was seen as one of the positive aspects of the domestic abuse court. There were specified parties and that allows the engagement and discussion to minimise the actual time at trial if a trial needs to take place. That was one of the key aspects of the domestic abuse courts. Do you know whether those courts took place in the court buildings that normally deal with cases? Presumably you didn't have anywhere else, so it would be in a very traditional court setting that those cases took place. It was, yes. At that time, we didn't have the technology to do any alternatives, so it was a specialist court created within our own court state dealing with specifically those types of cases. Thank you very much, that's very helpful. I'm aware that Fulton MacGregor hasn't come in. I'll bring you in shortly, Fulton, but I know that Rona and then Pauline are keen to pick up some points. Thanks, convener. Just before we leave the specialist court subject, can you tell me if they would include specially trained jurors? If I may answer that, the proposal is set out in the review, and at that juncture, there was no identification or discussion in relation to the specialism of juries. We are going on to discuss juries, so I'll leave it there, but it was just in relation to that. I just wanted to flag something up. I'm not really sure who this question should be directed at, but I'm not really expecting an answer. The Bonny route reforms, where we extend in sentencing powers to five years of the share of court, at the time Lord Bonny was quite clear that it shouldn't debar serious cases from having senior counsel, and it's virtually impossible to get senior counsel now for even a serious case in—it's not automatic, as it used to be. My understanding is that cases that go to the high courts automatically would be counsel. I wonder if I could just flag this up. That would be a question that I'll have for everybody, which is if that is one of the issues, rights of audience for the new specialist court, it will look like those crimes are being downgraded. So somebody has to address that question somewhere, if you see where I'm coming from. Sots of complex cases in the share of court that previously went to the high court before we changed the extensising powers. For many of those cases—you can check this out at the Faculty of Advocates—I would be concerned if the rules of rights of audience were to change for the—I don't expect an answer, but I just wondered if that could—something that could be flagged up. If I may, I do have a recollection of the rights of audience was discussed, I don't have it at my fingertips, because all of these people would have to go through the trauma-informed practices, irrespective of who they were and how they were appearing. Your point is noted, and I think it was discussed, but forgive me, I cannot recollect at the moment what the outcome was, but I don't think it was—well, I'll say no more than that. Again, your point is very well taken in terms of if it is a different type of person that's representing you, it will be viewed in a different way, and that was not the intention of this court. Okay, thank you. I'll bring in Fulton MacGregor and then I'll pick up just a final question before we move on. Thanks to the panel as well and to committee colleagues for, as I'm remote today. I think that a lot of the main issues that we heard in private and in other evidence sessions have been covered today by colleagues, but I think that the answers have been pretty robust as well, and also quite reflective. I accept that there are difficulties within the system for witnesses and victims, so I want to put on record my appreciation of that, but I guess that some of the evidence that we heard, particularly in private, and you'll know about it from the work of Lady Dorian, is really heartbreaking for one of another word. When people are telling us that the system is re-traumatising them and some people, not all but some people on a consistent enough basis, are saying that the system itself was worse than the initial instance or offence that happened, that is pretty hard to hear for everybody. I guess what I would ask is, I know what you said today and I know that you're only part of the system, but what else can be done to make sure that victims are taken through the process in the same way as my colleague Jamie Greene said that an accused would be that when it comes to your part of the system that they are given contact to, it is trauma informed and it is seen almost to be on their side, if you like. I wonder as well in terms of a more specific question that I don't think has been asked yet, is what role do you think that the Barnhouse can play in helping witnesses who are vulnerable, but maybe not always just vulnerable so not always just children, child witnesses, but am they who's experienced these type of offenses? Thanks. One is one that we're looking at in the park. I think that the Scottish Government are leading and looking at that independently and we're very much part of what is being looked into in terms of that. To answer your other question in relation to what else can we do, I think that from my own perspective each organisation has to really wake up and see the impact that they have on individuals and what they do within their services and the service they provide. I think that I said as well that what I have learned personally by going through and supporting Lady Dorian in the view has been quite fundamental and quite astonishing. For me as a senior leader within the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service to actually take a step back and look at what we do as an organisation and the effect that we have through the best intentions is quite phenomenal. I think that every other organisation and certainly the people that were in that review group will feel exactly the same from their organisations. So for us to make an absolute and fundamental difference if we take forward Lady Dorian's review recommendations and we implement them successfully, I think that that will have a profound effect on the experience of people who are coming into our justice system. No thanks, convener. I'm happy with that just now. I think that the colleagues who are there and present today covered a lot of ground. Can I just ask a little bit about timescales for working through the proposed changes, if you like, within particular your work with justice partners in establishing a specialist court? Forgive me earlier, I was conflating domestic abuse courts and specialist courts. I should have been referring to specialist courts, so it's just to ask a little bit in and around how long you anticipate that process might take. If I may start in general, I'm sure that you will correct me. We've fundamentally gone through all the different recommendations, we've fundamentally worked out what different work streams will require to be taken forward. It is not an SCTS alone project, it is a justice system. There will be areas in different work streams that will need to be led by different organisations, so we've done all the groundwork in terms of what needs to happen where we need to go forward. We haven't sat down and discussed timelines. Some of it will require legislative change, which means that there will need to be legislative vehicles in order to take those forward. Some things can be taken forward and will be worked on once we've got our governance group established and once we're actually pushing forward with this. At this stage, I cannot come to you and say, yes, by six months we'll have done that, in a year we'll have done that, but I would hope very early in the new year once we've had that, then we would have an opportunity to be able to map out the road ahead, if you like. I have one final question from me, while we're on the subject of court processes, before we go on to looking at some further questioning around support for victims and juries, with just around special measures and video evidence. It was really just to ask if special measures are available in all High Courts and Sheriff Courts, and if not, would that be a consideration taken into account when deciding whether to move a case from a High Court to a Sheriff Court? Also, for example, is video link evidence available in all High Courts and Sheriff Courts? Would there be cost implications for taking evidence by a video link? Would that be an issue? I will ask Danielle to come in this time. We have for a number of years allowed evidence by video link for vulnerable accused. There's an application process that they were made. It was then transformed into a by default. You would have a supporter or you could have screens. The remote video sites that we have, we've had for a number of years and in lots of different locations, is currently available for the High Court and in the Sheriff Court. It has to be, I'll be past it on the actual specifications, but it certainly wouldn't create additional difficulties for us in terms of taking more evidence by video means. Those facilities are not used to their full capacity, but if I take you back to where Lady Dorian was trying to get to, it's the evidence that we would capture at the initial stages. They're having to give evidence by a video link or in the court. If you move forward to post-req implementation, their experience within the court environment should be very diminished and very rare in terms of that. The key aspect of SCTS's role is obviously to facilitate and persuade the facilities to allow evidence by video link or commission. Obviously, we can do that. The key aspect of it, and perhaps returning to the other part of your question, is that those applications are out with our control. That is one that is defined by legislation or indeed by crown office or defence colleagues' decisions in that regard. Obviously, steps have been taken. There are general measures in place by legislation that allow special measures to take place. Obviously, Parliament was introduced by the 2019 act, the presumption for the pre-recording of evidence for children. We can facilitate it, subject to applications being made. With additional resources, we have almost finite resources. Further support in that regard is obviously encouraged, but we are dependent on working with justice partners for those applications to be made, but we will do our best in that regard. The actual provisions are set out by statute and the circumstances in which the request can be made, but we will facilitate them. I should stress that we facilitate the physical aspects of it, where matters or applications are discretionary. Obviously, that is a matter for the judiciary to make a decision on. I think that we may have some outstanding questioning around support for victims. I do not know if Jamie Greene would like to come in. Not around support, but I do have some extra questions if I can squeeze them in. I do not know if you have some questions around, or if you are happy we will move on to other areas of questioning. I think that mine will fall on from yours nicely, if it is helpful. We are on the subject of video links and technology. There is quite a spectrum of views on this, I think that it is fair to say. Those at one end who would prefer an environment where the accuser victim gives a pre-recorded statement, which is played in a court where not even everyone is present. The reuse of remote juries in different buildings, for example, has been trialled, and those who want everyone back in the court. The accused, the accuser, the jury, the judge, the witnesses and everything in between. That is quite a wide spectrum. Obviously, we are trying to modernise how we do things that we have been forced to as a result of Covid, but also because it is the right thing to do as well. Can I ask specifically about the issue of pre-recorded cross-examination, which we have not discussed? You will be aware of trials that are taking place in England, specifically in London. I think that Durham Crown Court apologies is trialling the use of pre-recorded cross-examination. Does that happen in Scotland? If not, why not? Are there any plans to trial that here? The answer to cross-examination is possible to do that via evidence by commission, and that is the key aspect of Lady Dorian's recommendation. One of the reviews is that, by default, all evidence should be pre-recorded and at the earliest opportunity possible. It is envisaged that that would be done by specifically trained police officers as soon as possible or as close to the point at which the complaint is raised. That would be the principle of what we would know as cross-examination would be undertaken by evidence by commission, and that is where the court process comes in. That would be under the specification or procedure of evidence by commission, and that is how the cross-examination would be captured. It currently does happen, of sorts, already within our current procedure and practice in Scotland. I should say when I say we, I refer to the justice system as a whole, rather than I appreciate as the SCTS is my role in supporting the functions of our court. It is currently done, and we have ground rules hearings that take place in advance in the High Court where the key people will actually go through the lines of questioning that will be put to the witness and the complainer. Of course, that is a very different environment than sitting in front of a jury and sitting in front of a court and doing that, so there is the capacity or it does happen at the moment. The very specific scenario is where, though, the accuser has been fully cross-examined by the defence lawyer, that is recorded and then played back during the live trial of which the jury can watch that evidence, whether they are in the building or not. Is it just to be correct that that does happen or does not? The evidence that is on commission is played in the court or to the jury during the trial. Does SCTS communicate shared findings or learnings with HM, SCTS or the MOJ in any way around pilots or trials that they are doing off the back of, for example, the UK rape review, which is the underlying principle of some of the reforms of how such cases are tried in England and Wales, for example, and what cross-learnings do, what conversations take place between the two organisations? That is a very difficult question. We do look at what is happening in other jurisdictions. There is no formal communication, if you like, in terms of agreed-of-sharing information between it or certainly not that I am aware of at my level within this organisation. There may be elsewhere. I think that we do well within Scotland of all our just partners in sharing learning and doing well. My apologies that that is not a satisfactory answer in terms of what is happening. We have looked, obviously, during Covid in terms of looking at what other jurisdictions are doing. Others have looked at what we have done in terms of our response to that. There is an element there, but there is no formal communication of a regular actually what is happening in this jurisdiction. What is happening in that? What can we learn at the moment, as far as I am aware? The distinction of the review takes into account, because it was independently led to review with across just the sector membership, which expands to look at and review legislation, experiences in other jurisdictions. In particular, in relation to the example of cross-examination, or what is termed the pre-recording of evidence, that is referred to as section 28 under the English legislation. The review group itself looked at the various examples and experiences elsewhere and reflected on them. As with anything that you can learn from others, you also have to take into account your own unique system. Obviously, the Scottish judicial system is unique in its own way, and we do publish on our website when we see the SCTS the findings of our own reviews. For example, when we introduced back in 2000, when there was a greater emphasis on the use of evidence by commission, two practice notes were introduced by our court and we publicly made available the evaluations of those and the uptake on them. It is an on-going experience internally, and we do look at and are privy to other jurisdictions and awareness of the developments there. It is fascinating, convener, that where they have trialled the conviction rate for rape was doubled in national average in certain places, where that practice was introduced. My other question was about advice to jury, so maybe park that and let others come in or have the camera. We will pick up on that. Rona, do you want to come in and then we will go back to you? Sure. I think that this is a really important question about juries. We heard during evidence that some of the complainers were saying that they felt that maybe the jury did not fully understand not just the legal process but the evidence that was being given to them. There is a specific question around the Moorough Doctrine as well, so I will part of that for a minute, but just in general, given that there is no training given to juries and that they may not have an understanding of the subject at hand and that there may well indeed be bias prejudicial against certain aspects. For instance, if the complainer had too much to drink or whatever, that unconsciously plays into it. My question is, is it within your role to promote the training of juries? Do you think that would be a good thing? Specifically for the specialist court, I would have thought that it was essential that juries have some training. Do you give any instructions to juries at all within your remit as a court service? That is not within the remit of the SCTS. We support the judiciary and the directions or information that are given to jurors from part of the remit of the judicial office. What I can do, or perhaps defer you to, is obviously the recommendations that are made or the discussions made in Lady Dorian's review in relation to the steps that could be taken to improve the experience and engagement of jurors, which in turn were perceived to have the potential benefit effect of the justice system as a whole. Recommendations, I believe four of the review, identify processes in which the experience of jurors and their knowledge and experience can be improved. One particular recommendation is consideration of addressing rape myths and providing information and a video to jurors, but that is obviously outwith the judicial office's remit currently, and it is something that justice partners have to discuss collaboratively, probably with guidance. It is one of probably the concepts that will no doubt be discussed in the governance group that has been commissioned by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans in that regard. There are discussions that require to be had in terms of even what is a rape myth. Legislation is in place to support the judiciary and advise jurors of specific situations that should be disregarded and evidence, and I would not want to get into the ministry eye with that given my remit here. There are provisions in place, but there are recommendations made in the review that the justice system is a whole need to consider. I will leave the mood off for colleagues to get into. I am sorry to divert a wee bit, just on the support for victims and witnesses. I presume that you do not do this, but for victims and witnesses, first time in the judicial system, going to court, etc. Would you produce any kind of guidance before they come? This is what to expect, etc. Is that something that has ever been done, or would that not be something that was kind of sensible to do? Given that the victim is the crown that they do not have independent legal advice, is what I am trying to say. I am not expecting you to be given legal advice, but just what to expect when they come to court? Who would say what and what the process would be? Would you do a step-by-step guide for that? Justice Party has collaboratively produced the standards for service, in particular, and that identifies the various stages and aspects of the process where each Justice Party identifies its primary responsibility. In the context of the SCTS, we support Victim Support Scotland in applications or considerations for victim familiarisation, i.e. the ability to visit our courts. I look around the evidence suite that they would give evidence to. In addition to that, if I take a step back, I obviously refer to the standards of service, but there are agreements in place with justice partners. That ties in with the Victim's Code, which is published by the Scottish Government, and is in collaboration and cross-references with various documents. There are various documents in place, and various organisations have responsibility to assist with that process. Is that happening at the moment? Is it being given to witnesses and victims? I would defer to the latest updates in the annual report of standards for service, but my understanding is that partners are, with reference to Covid, working to the best of the ability in that regard. In the evidence way, I think, as the committee has received evidence that all justice partners are aware that there is always that opportunity for reflection and development of things. We do have documentation in terms of what to expect to come to court and go back to your jurors' one. That is sent out in our jurors' pack when they get the information on what will happen when you come to court. I accept that the information that we have, when we work closely with Victim's Support and Victim's Support, will take people through what to expect within the process. They work closely with us. They have recently gone round a number of courts to capture images so that they can share that with people without physically being there. We do work closely with them. We publish our own publications in terms of what to expect when you come to court or different streams of different work. However, I do accept—that is what came out of Lady Doran's review—that the information that we have is not joined up. It does not fill every gap. I accept that. I accept that there is further work to be done. It needs to be done holistically across. I looked at, from the individual perspective of, as a user, what is it that you need and we provide that. We have got information there, but I do accept that there is much room for improvement. It follows on from the last line in question. You will be relieved to learn, I am not going to ask you to comment on Mour of as a principal, because those are matters for, in your own terms, other judicial partners. However, it is clear that there are two sticky areas in the Scottish system. One is around the three-verdic system and the other is around the issue of corroboration and the complex navigating of principles such as Mour of. Our initial line of questioning is where the jurors really understand the intricacies of that and the consequences of the decisions. The reason that we ask is based on evidence that we took of one case where it was clear that that issue was not clear to the jury. Can I just pick you up on your comment on whose responsibility it is? I presume on the day of a trial when the jury is picked, it is the duty of the judge or the sheriff to counsel and advise the jury. You mentioned the judicial office by that. I presume you mean the judicial office at Andrews House, i.e. the Scottish Government, i.e. that is the ultimate responsibility for the cabinet secretary for justice, not the Lord Advocate or the Crown. I just want to clarify whose overarching responsibility it is if there were reforms to be made. If I may, in terms of your question of Mour of, it took me working in the organisation quite a time to understand exactly what it meant. It is not down to SCTS to interact with the jury other than looking after their domestic needs. Once they are within our environment and they have been impanelled, it is the judge or the sheriff that will have the communication that will advise jurors of the process of what is happening and what their role is. That sits with the members of the judiciary. We recognised in terms of the view that there was a need for mist and preconceptions. People will come with different lived experiences and they will view and weigh things up on their own perspective in terms of what they do. The pre-instruction as well, there are the areas there where I think there is a recommendation and plain language clearly to members for the jury, but I think that particular questions are ones perhaps for members of the judiciary or those that are interacting in terms of that. It is clear from speaking to people that for many victims of the types of crimes of which there is the premise of our discussion that the current system is not necessarily fit for purpose for everyone. I do not think that those are isolated cases either. Having spoken to jury members who have been told different things by judges, it is clear that there is an issue. The whole point of the issue of not proven, for example, there is huge confusion over what it means and what happens as a result of that. That sparks the question that we had around Murov and different decision makers and different bits of a case, for example. It is clearly work to be done there, but that is something that we can take up with the cabinet secretary and the Lord Advocate when we come to it. I will not press it any further. It is more for support for victims and witnesses and just an observation in terms of within your own website for SCTS. Sometimes I go on and look at the various different appeals and criminal cases coming up and what not, as well as the judiciary of Scotland. One of the things that I came across was a video. It was when somebody was actually reporting a sexual abuse case from start to finish, so it took you through dealing with a solo officer right through from that to how the PF deals with stuff, even from the medical when they are getting swabbed and whatnot. It was really good. I always think that visual stuff like that sends a really strong clear message as to what to expect. Is that something that you would consider putting on to your website to inform and maybe help people with in terms of that expectation gap that is there? That was clear from the evidence that we took from the various people that we spoke to, the survivors. Forgive me, I am trying to find in my head the video that you are talking about. Was it on? I am sorry, I was trying to find it there, so I could actually give you that. I think that it is either on rape crisis or it is in the Police Scotland one. If I cut my cross, I cannot find it. It is really, really good actually in terms of what to expect and what not to expect. That is one of the fundamental points in terms of the poor communication that victims get at the moment. I think that I know the one that you are talking about. It does give you the overview in terms of the whole process and not, well, crime will do this and courts will do this. Yes, it is very joined up. That ultimately is what we are aiming to get to in terms of having taken the feedback and looked it from their perspective. That is what people need. No, absolutely. That is one of the areas when I think that we need to go beyond that and have the single point of contact and have the person looking at them. It is certainly something that we would welcome if it was of help and it was placed in our website. That would not be a difficulty for us. I think that the key is that Justice Barters is working together with the recommendation that came through from the evidence that was given to the Lord Justice Clerks review group. Obviously, evidence that this committee has heard is the focus on the communication that is there, how to be improved and what is the best means of doing that via videos or text or fact sheets. It is that collaborative process of us all working together to get the best message and that was the key recommendation that came through from the report that people are working together. They are doing their best, but how do we do it consistently in a concise way, but in the best means possible? Absolutely. I suppose that it ties in as well in terms of equality and diversity, in terms of meeting the needs of everybody. A video is much more accessible. If it is on to those websites as well, and even subtitled and what not as well. I cannot remember the name. I think that it was Rape Crisis that I was asking it on. I will have a word with Sandy Brindley and try to identify exactly with it, but that is helpful. Thank you. Just picking up on that, Diane has helped to check and it appears to be on the Rape Crisis Scotland website. I am just watching the clock, so I think that we will pull things to a close. I have a couple of final questions, though. The first one relates to the follow-up process for survivors in the aftermath of a case, a trial, if you like. During our evidence sessions, one survivor spoke about the difficulties that she had had accessing court reports and documents, which she felt might have been quite a helpful part of her peeling process. There was also a cost involved in sourcing the documents, so it was just to ask a little bit around, would that in fact be the case and why is that? Is there not an opportunity for that to be more accessible, given the positive role that that might play? The general position is that the circumstances in which that type of information can be disclosed are set down by statute. I believe that it is section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995, but if I am wrong in that regard, that sets out the confines and the circumstances in which that information can be set down. I believe that it also sets down the circumstances and the costs associated with that, so it is not necessarily within the SCTS. I think that we got this request and looked into it. We are, as an organisation, bound to comply with the statutes and legislation in charge of ease accordingly for what we do. That is unfortunate, but helpful to know that. Just really finally, to bring things back around to where we started, I suppose, many of the issues that have been raised in Lady Dorian's review are frankly not new. I will open it up again for a final comment on what needs to be done to resolve some of the issues as quickly as possible. We have it in our gift to move a number of those things forward now. We have general support from our justice partners. There are some things that will require a legislative fix in order to take them forward. The first opportunity that we will get together formally will be before the end of this year, and that will be the starting point in pushing forward. I would anticipate that from that we will have identified workstreams, identified leads, and we will have a time scale set down in terms of what things can be done in what area. It more or less gives us our plan or our route map. From our perspective, we have done our homework, but once we are all together as a collective justice community, in terms of everyone moving forward, I think that that will be the key. I would just reiterate David's comments. The law justice clerks review gives the justice sector, the Scottish Government and third sector parties a real opportunity to continue to transform our justice system, both for complainers, witnesses they accused, and the justice system generally built confidence in it. While each individual partner may have steps in which it can take now, the key thing is us working together and identifying the collaborative approach, because sometimes taking steps on your own can do more damage than good. That is why we welcome the cabinet secretary's implementation of the governance group whereby we can all get together and identify the key workstreams and areas that need to be developed, and what legislative support, if any, what public consultation will be required for some aspects of it, given the inevitable interest that those reforms and changes could well bring and will be interested in parties. On that note, thank you very much. I will bring this part of our meeting this morning to a close. Thank you both very much for your participation today. Next week we will be joined by a senior representative of Police Scotland and the cabinet secretary. We will now move into private session and will take a 10 minute comfort break. Thank you very much.