 Fel i gefnig iawn, and welcome to the third meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2024. We have apologies this morning from Katie Clarke and our first agenda item is to continue our Stage 1 evidence-taking on the victims, witnesses and Justice Reform Scotland bill. Today, we'll be hearing the views of survivors of sexual crimes who have personal experience of the criminal justice system. Felly this an important evidence session for us. The bill aims to improve the experience of survivors of crime in the criminal justice system and so it is really important that we hear the perspective of the panel members who are giving their views today. So I would like to welcome our first panel to the meeting, so Hannah McLaughlin and Ellie Wilson. A warm welcome to you I thank you for taking the time to attend today's meeting. It's greatly appreciated. I intend to allow about an hour for this panel. If you would like to answer a question or say anything, just please raise your hand or indicate to me in some way and I'm happy to bring you in. I thought it might be helpful if I open up with a general question about trauma-informed practice. As you'll know, the bill introduces a requirement that victims and witnesses should be treated in a way that accords with trauma-informed practice. Do you think that that is needed and why? I'm happy for either of you to open up. It's essential that trauma affects people in lots of different ways. Throughout the criminal justice system, a survivor might encounter a range of different people, whether that is advocates for the crown, advocates for the defence, whether that's from support services, whether that's members of the jury. For all those individuals to be informed on the process, it means that there is less room for misunderstandings. It's part of making sure that the justice system is survivor-centric, because realistically at the moment it is not. It's as if victims are an afterthought in the whole process. I think that a trauma-informed approach is the only way to go. I absolutely agree with everything Ellie said. I agree 100 per cent that the justice system should be trauma-informed. Personally, I cannot understand how we're in 2024 and that isn't already the case. I just think that that's unacceptable and that it's not good enough. I'm really glad that we're having meetings like this and we are looking to change that because it absolutely must change. As Ellie said, it's essential. Survivors endure trauma through the abuse that they go through, but now coming through the justice system, I would say to people that I've endured trauma from my abuser but also from the system that's supposed to provide me with justice. That's not acceptable and it needs to change. I strongly believe that defence lawyers need to be trauma-informed. That has to be fundamental in their practice. When you're on the witness stand, you should not be made to feel embarrassed, humiliated, undermined by someone. I won't go into too much detail because I know we've not got the time, but I just wanted to briefly say that, during and given my evidence, I actually had to take the time to try and educate the defence lawyer and other people in that room about how trauma can work and trying to educate them on how it impacted my brain and how I uncovered things after the relationship had ended. I just think that it's absolutely ridiculous that a witness in such a vulnerable position on the witness stand was put in that position and made to feel like I had to try and help people understand something that they should have already had a good understanding of beforehand. Hannah, you spoke specifically about defence lawyers, but one of the things that the committee is aware of and understands is that, across the whole of the criminal justice system, there is a need for improved trauma practice. From the very point that somebody is contemplating making a disclosure to perhaps the conclusion of a court case, that's a whole system, just a system that potentially will be involved in that case. I'm interested in your views as to whether you think that a whole system shift in trauma-informed practice is essential rather than being perhaps piecemeal, if you like. I'm also interested in your thinking around a trauma-informed environment. We've obviously spoken about the way in which traditional court buildings, for example, can be intimidating. I'm interested in your views on those two things. I'll start with you, Hannah, and ask you to outline your thoughts on how we embed trauma-informed practice across such a large system. I understand that it's so massive that it isn't just a particular office that I named defence lawyers because I feel that's a key part, but you're absolutely right. Just recently, I was really grateful to have a meeting at the crime campus where we were speaking about actually it's everybody involved, as you're saying, from start to finish. The moment you report, when you walk in, whoever you meet that day in that station has to have some trauma-informed training. It has to be, and it can't just be a standalone training that you do, just to tick a box. I would say it has to be an on-going thing because there will be new research coming out over time about how trauma works, but I think just everybody that's involved in the process in some way from start to finish must have some understanding, or a good understanding, of how trauma works. I think it's also when you're mentioning about just like the court buildings and like changing the whole process, I would say it's a really tricky one because unfortunately every survivor is different. We are all unique, so what works for one won't work for all, so I think something personally I found throughout was kind of getting treated like I was really vulnerable, damaged and broken, and yeah, I suppose part of me was and is, and I suppose other survivors will be more vulnerable and broken in that state of mind. However, you can't be treating us all like that, like we're still human and listen to us, so for example what they've got in place at the moment is having the screens when you're giving your evidence and having someone, a supporter with you in the courtroom when you're giving your evidence, but I had to fight and I know some of the other girls involved in my case also had to fight to not have the screen because for us personally we wanted to face our abuser when given our evidence and that was a personal choice that was for us, no one else, and we were not listened to time and time again and it was a fight and I just think just listen to us, we know ourselves and we know what we want and understand it's probably in the best interest to protect us, I totally understand that, but just listen to us and just be mindful that every survivor is different, so it is really tricky, I don't know what the answer is, I just think there has to be an overall understanding of how a trauma-informed practice could look. Thank you, that's really interesting, so don't make assumptions about what we need and what we want, that's helpful. Ellie, I'll bring you in and then we'll open up questions to members. If I could just add to that, I think that Hannah made an excellent point on the defence and I think that that's something we need to focus on and correct me if my understanding of the legislation is wrong here, but I believe that when we're talking about trauma-informed practice in the criminal justice system this doesn't apply to the defence, which I think is symbolic of the system that we're operating within. We have all of these rules and regulations and codes of conduct, and quite often it's a wild west when it comes to the behaviour of the defence. Under section 274, section 275 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defence aren't allowed to introduce evidence that focuses on a complainer's sexual history or character evidence, yet it is routinely introduced, and it was in my case even though there was no section 275 application present, because the defence knows that the judge will tell the jury to disregard it, but they've already heard it at that point. It's a massive blind spot, not including the defence in this, and we need to have a serious think about what we can do to properly regulate and ensure that defence conduct is appropriate. I would also just like to touch on the specialist courts. It is correct that the environment in the court is intimidating and that it is a difficult environment to be in, but I worry about losing the solemnity of court proceedings, because at the same time, while it was a very intimidating and difficult experience for me, I almost solidified in my mind that what happened to me was a serious offence, and it shows to the perpetrators and wider society that sexual crimes are serious. Rape is one of the most serious crimes under Scots law, and it is only ever heard in the High Court. It is sacred that this solemnity is important that we manage to maintain that. I would also like to touch on what trauma-informed practice means. If it is a simple question of those who are involved in the criminal justice system, taking a training session, learning about trauma, yes, that is important, but how does that manifest itself in real life? If victims and witnesses are continually sidelined, left out of the process, ignored, subjected to inappropriate defence behaviour, just because all the individuals involved in the process understand trauma, and if they are not doing anything to behave in a trauma-informed way, it is meaningless. There is a lot there that members will pick up on. Just before I open up to members, I will welcome Jennifer McCann to the panel. Jennifer was a wee bit held up getting here, so it's nice to see you. We'll let you get settled in and I'll open up questions to members. I'm going to bring in John Swinney and then Russell Finlay. Thank you very much for being here today. I'd like to follow up one of the comments that you made early, where you described the court environment as an intimidating environment. Would you describe it as a respectful environment to you? I did feel respected by the majority of the members of the court. My support worker was excellent, the clerks were great, but I did not feel at all respected by the defence. In fact, I felt humiliated, abused and treated like a criminal. In my experience at the hands of the defence, I was absolutely not respected. That opens up two issues that I would like to explore. The first is the one that you've already aired, which both you and Hannah have aired, which is about what does trauma-informed practice look like in reality in that court setting. I'd like you to explain from your experience what your expectations would be in the future if trauma-informed practice was to be a requirement of the court proceedings, and where the greatest amount of movement needs to be in that respect to ensure that victims in the future are operating in a trauma-informed environment. The two main points that are coming to my head would be in the courtroom, which we have spoken about with the defence lawyers and the way that you are treated in that room. But also what is coming to my head is throughout, from reporting to getting to the court, the phone calls that you get, such as updates or lack of, in our case. It is very much not in a trauma-informed way. I think that maybe those people forget that they are doing this job every day, they have been doing it for years, they know how it works. We have no clue, this is our first time going through this, so when they phone us with an update, it is very much, it feels like they are trying to do it as quick as possible, then it is like they just quickly tell you, oh, the date has been changed for the preliminary hearing. We will contact you again when we have another update. Bye, and you are left with a million questions and a million emotions, no clue what to do with it, who to speak to, what to do, and you are just left alone to get to that next date that you are given. The goalpost just keeps moving and moving and moving for a variety of factors that are out with people's control. Covid had a massive backlog for our case, which meant that it was a long time till trial. Preliminary hearings, when the accused gives different excuses and that gets moved and moved the date. The goalpost keeps moving, and I just feel like the updates that you are given could be done in a more trauma-informed way and more of an understanding of how it feels for us. I think with trauma, because I work with children and I work with a lot of children who have been through trauma, and it is about trying to develop that empathy, that understanding of you might not have experienced it, so you won't fully ever get it, but you can try to your best of your ability to try to understand, to reason with that person and to try to help to regulate that person, because our emotions are already, and our body is already responding to the high emotions of a date coming up and then it gets changed, so then we are just left with no support available to us. I just think that there are the two main points that I would say. If I could just briefly come in on that, I would echo obviously the points on defence conduct. I think that that is a primary issue that we need to address, but I would also say that agency and involvement are really key for me, because survivors of sexual abuse have already had their agency stripped from them, and then they partake in a criminal justice system that further strips their agency from them. We are treated like outsiders throughout the whole process. I naively went into the criminal justice system thinking that I would be involved in my own case, that I would be able to speak to someone about it, that I would have information about it, that I would be told whether certain bits of evidence had been able to be uncovered or not, but I was not given any information whatsoever. The reality is that we talk about conviction rates and within this legislation we are looking to make changes to jury sizes and bring judge-led trials. However, if we want to improve conviction rates, the way to do that is by involving survivors in their case. If I had a chance—I secured some guilty verdicts in my case, I also did get some not-provins as well. I really believe that my case would have been much stronger if I had been able to sit down with someone from COPFIS to sit down with the advocate in my case and actually talk over things, because the reality is that the victims are the experts in their own case. As an outsider, you could be a very learned lawyer, but looking over information and having no clarity about it and having no understanding of the context does not make for a strong case involving victims is the right thing to do to give them their agency back and to be trauma-informed, but also to increase conviction rates. On to that, I feel like we have spoken a lot about that. You are treated as a bit of evidence, and as Ellie Cain, we are the experts. It is our life that happened to us, so include us. It cannot be that difficult to do that. We should be part of the process, but you are made to feel that you are a bit of evidence that gets put on a shelf and is brought out when you are needed and you are disregarded afterwards. You just feel like it is your life, it is your whole life like the lead-up to it. It is all that you are thinking about, but you are made to feel so small in such a small part of the process, which sounds very bizarre when I am saying that out loud, because how could it possibly be like that when it is about you and it is about what has happened to you and the trial would not be happening if you had not reported what happened to you, but you are made to feel like such a minuscule part of the greater picture. It does sound bizarre, but it is also a powerful explanation of how you did not feel central to the case, which I think is a point that we all made. I want to come in on that at all. You do not have to, but I will give you the option. I am not sure what Hanna and Elia have already said, but I want to add that trauma-informed practice is vital in cases of serious sexual offence, purely to give victims the confidence in their own cases. From the person that you first reported to has to be trauma-informed, mine unfortunately was not, and that hindered my experience moving through the case throughout. I think that by the time we get to the fiscal, what Hanna said, the updates, less legal jargon, I did not have a clue when we got phone calls and then spent hours googling and searching for information that should have actually been readily given to me, and also juries being trauma-informed. I cannot explain the anxiety that I felt and the pressure on how to act and how to behave in a courtroom. I was made to believe that everyone was expecting me to have a breakdown, that that is the normal, that that is how you should react. When that did not happen and I went in there with no screen and no emotion, I felt that that was going to be pitted against me at some point or other. That is pretty much all I have to add regarding that, but I will say that our specific case preparer throughout was very trauma-informed and really gets our job. One further question was developed, and this is the second part of what I was interested in. You have made the point about defence counsel, which I take and recognise. One of the arguments that is put to us is that the protection for victims is that the judge is there to make sure that there is good order and good process and a respectful environment in the court. I am interested in whether you think that is the case or whether you think that that role could be deployed more effectively, where it could be, for example, assisted by being trauma-informed. I am really struck by a point that I think that you made Hannah Amogol that wrong, which was that the defence counsel is able to say something in the full knowledge that the judge is going to strike that from the early my apologies to the jury. We all live in the real world and it is out there. That does not strike me as being part of a respectful environment that is possible for a defence counsel to say what they are like in the full and certain knowledge that in exercising the protection that a judge is exercising properly, it is out there. I have obviously talked about my experience in court. I also have a family friend who has got his own defence practice. He said to me that he was trying to prepare me for what to expect. He said, generally, what we do is create a smokescreen. We try to distract the jury. We just say whatever, knowing that the judge will tell the jury to disregard it, but they have already heard it. It is this distraction tactic that I am sure that if you are to bring members of the Law Society here, they would say that that is not something that we do, but it is something that is common practice. I have spoken before about, additionally, the difficulty in making complaints as well, which I think creates this environment of impunity. When I wanted to make a complaint about the defence lawyer in my case, I had to access my court transcript, which cost thousands of pounds, and I lodged my complaint in the summer of 2022. It is still sitting with the Faculty of Advocates now, and it could probably take at least a number of years to resolve. When you have an environment in which individuals can operate with impunity, why is it that we are surprised that this behaviour is taking place? Your point on the judges is that it is really potluck as to the sort of judge that you get. I also think that it is important to bear in mind the lack of diversity of judges as well and the age of judges. Quite a few are reticent to intervene. I would like to add on to the comments about the judge. For me personally, I felt very victimised standing in the witness box, given my evidence. It almost felt like it was a game to the defence lawyer. I did not feel respected at all, and it was really difficult standing in there thinking, this is my life, this has happened to me, but it was like a joke to this man, and he was trying to make a mockery of me to everybody. I was just undermined after everything I said and, as Ellie mentioned, like a smokescreen. We spoke afterwards, after our case, and once we'd all given evidence, and we all agreed that they had nothing. It was all just a waste of time and like a smokescreen, just talking about anything and everything to try and paint you in a bad light, things that weren't even true, and just undermining you calling you a liar. When you were talking about the judge, I was left feeling like I was fighting for my life in this box, and this man was not going to give in until he broke me. I did break on the stand, but then I came back from it, because I just thought, no, you're actually, and I said this to the defence lawyer, you're actually treating me how your client, my abuser, treated me, and I've come too far since then to allow you to break me again here today. So like I was standing on my ground, but I remember looking at the judge, looking at my advocate deput, back to the judge, back to my advocate deput, kind of like pleading with them with my eyes without saying any words, like, someone help me, throw me a lifeline, something, nothing came, nobody stepped in, nobody helped me, I was fighting on my own in that witness stand, with no preparation beforehand of what to expect, what kind of line of questioning that would come. Afterwards, we were really lucky to meet with the Lord Advocate, which our advocate deput was present at, so it gave me the opportunity to ask him, why didn't you intervene at any point? Why didn't the judge intervene at any point? And he was able to answer that, and he just said he made a judgment call, and he is only human, so maybe he'll get it wrong sometimes. He made a judgment call on the 20-minute Zoom call he had to meet me the week before our trial began, where he got the impression that I was quite a strong person and that I needed that moment in that room to kind of, I suppose, get some power back and get that moment for myself, which I do understand and appreciate, but from my point of view and perspective, standing in that witness box, very intimidating room, all these people looking at you, multiple people typing every single word you say, including your abuser who's writing down in our notebook every word you say, just feeling so alone and scared. Are these people on the jury believing this man, because he's putting on a good show? I'll give them that, because what do you do? And no one prepared us beforehand of what to expect, what kind of questioning, so I think that would be quite important, and I don't think that is involved in the bill as far as I'm aware, about maybe something along the lines of before you get to your trial, maybe, and we spoke about that at the meeting with the Lord Advocate, where they were talking about potentially it would be good before a trial began for advocate deputies to have more time to kind of build up more of our relationship and kind of run by scenarios of not talking about the evidence that would be included in your case, because obviously there would be implications with that, but making up scenarios just to give us an idea of what the line of question could be like, what it feels like to be challenged on your truth? I don't know how you can explain that to someone, but I hope I never feel that ever again, because it was so retrollatising and horrific to be to know to be challenged on your real life experience and fight constantly back just to be believed. If you members are wanting to come in, so just very briefly, I just wanted to note as well that Hannah said that they had no idea what to expect. Hannah got in contact with me prior to her trial because she'd seen me on social media, and I shared my transcript with her to give her an idea of what to expect, and I've done that with several others. And I've noticed that it is survivors who are giving other survivors legal advice and telling them what to expect, because they have no other recourse to that information. I know that Hannah and others have been doing that. I know that I have been given legal advice by other survivors. That is the state of affairs that we are currently in. Russell Finlay, Fulton MacGregor. First of all, thanks to all of you for all the work that you've been doing. Waving your anonymity cannot have been easy. It's really compelling evidence that we've heard so far. So many things you've said jump out being treated as an outsider in the court. Treated as a bit of evidence, being alone and scared and early in respect of how the defence often conducts themselves as an environment where individuals can act with impunity. I've got a lot of questions, but I think that one of the ones that we've not touched on so far is in relation to the proposed new sexual offences court and the proposal that rape trials should be a pilot for rape trials without juries, so judge only. Do you have any views in your circumstances whether you would have preferred a non-jury trial or were you satisfied? Was the presence of a jury almost a counter to the legal establishment that dictated the rest of the proceedings? I sit on the fence regarding specialist courts and judge only trials, not because I don't think it's a good idea, but because I'm aware of the time constraint and the fact that the time frames of dealing with these cases would be wide end if you think, say, you have 25 courts in that strip down to two that are specialised. The amount of rapes that we see every year is quickly going to build up a backlog, which is still going to result in the length of delay and things that we experience today. I would be concerned about the potential bias of a single judge only trial. The benefit to having a jury is that there are different points of views, different opinions, ideas can be expressed and explored and discussed to their full extent. I spoke to Hannah Reid, who couldn't be here today but was involved in our case, and she thinks that specialist courts should come into play but has the same reservations and concerns regarding judge only trials. I think that it should be a specialised jury, and Hannah agreed with me on that. It's not so much that there is a jury, it's the fact that you're taking 12 to 15 random members of the public, sat them in a gallery and told them to decide what to do with someone's life. From a personal point of view, they're going to have to carry that. They've then got someone to or multiple more people's lives in their hands, and are they really equipped to decide if you've been raped or not based on how you act in a courtroom over a couple of hours? That's a point to argue, and in our particular case, a lot of our jury members were young boys. We can imagine the concern that that then had to us, that we knew his defence was going to paint a picture that he was young, that he was immature, that he's grown up now, and having young members on the jury is a bit concerning for that. Just to echo what I said earlier about the expectation that you were to break down on the stand, are the juries aware that you might not, you might, how you're going to react, you might get angry, you might stand there and cry, you might stand there and say nothing, no. I sit on the fence on the judge only trials just based on the fact that the ideas can't be fully explored. However, myself and Hannah are in agreement with a specialist course, our only reservations are regarding the time constraints and result on time frames that that would include. Anyone else like to come in? If I could just come in on the judge-led trials. I mean, there's no doubt about it is a controversial measure. I think that quite a lot of survivors are split and torn on the issue. I don't feel particularly strongly either way, but what I do feel strongly about is there's about 100 other issues that we should have already addressed, which would have improved conviction rates, improved the process that haven't been done, that have been on-going for years, and I don't understand why we're not addressing some of these issues, which would create much broader consensus, which would be much easier to resolve, yet instead we're going for these big issues. I would also note that one of the provisions in the bill is to reduce the number of jurors, and I think that that is going to be extremely detrimental for conviction rates. In my case, I had a taped confession of my rapist confessing to raping me, and I still didn't get a unanimous verdict. I got a verdict by majority. Again, I don't know the numbers because that's information that I don't have access to, because I'm just a witness, aren't I? However, I do think that that is a really concerning provision, and I do think that it's all very well to say that we're going to end not proven, bring in judge-led trials, and then reduce the number of jurors. I just don't think that that will be remotely beneficial. I'm just following on from that point. There are so many things that could be done without legislation. One of the central parts of the legislation is to embed trauma-informed practice, not only am I not entirely sure of exactly what that means, if it means treating people with dignity and respect. Do you really need legislation to achieve that? I think that we already have existing legislation that isn't being enforced. I've talked about the legislation that would be termed the rape shield laws about what information can and can't be introduced. That's legislation that is already existing, but due to the procedures that are in place and their complex reasons why that legislation isn't always in practice enforced, it could be due to obviously, like I've spoken about the difficulty around complaints, about judges not interfering. We have existing legislation that just isn't serving its purpose. That also applies with the section 275, because the legislation is seeking to ensure that a victim complainer will be able to get legal representation in the event of a section 275 application. In your case, the evidence was effectively introduced without the defence having sought this. I wonder why that would leave you and others exposed without representation. I think that victims should have access to independent legal representation throughout the entire process. Only being applied around section 275 applications is completely insufficient. Is that a share of you? I think that independent legal representation is important, but more so than that, a consistent point of contact throughout the process. I know that in our case I had a different police officer from the four other girls involved. We all had different levels of contact with the VA officer involved. We all have different levels of contact with the case preparer, and we actually depended on each other to let us know what was happening along with the case. I'm actually still waiting on a phone call to let me know that my rapist has been arrested. We've now gone through court, and he's been sent in, so I'm still waiting on that phone call. I think that a consistent point of contact to explain the ins and outs, to break down the legal jargon, and to go through the process with you is more beneficial than pretty much anything else, to be fair. Thank you. I'm mindful of others wanting in, but thank you. Thank you. Fulton MacGregor, followed by Rona Mackay. Thank you very much for the evidence so far. It's a very, very powerful one. I think that you don't underestimate how helpful this will be to the committee. My question has come back to something that you said, Hannah. The conversation has moved on a wee bit, and that was when you were talking about the screen situation and you didn't want a screen. I find that very interesting, because even when us and the Justice Committee have been pushing for stuff in Pauline and Rona will remember, we've been pushing for the introduction of screens and stuff like that in the previous session. Even when the justice system is getting it right, I put that on inverted commas, they're still not flexible, is what I heard. Then it's almost like when they're doing the right thing, they're going to almost enforce the right thing, because that's what Parliament and other people want on to you. I did say to the convener that we'd keep it brief. Is there an issue there about flexibility within the justice system, even when it's perceived to be doing the better approach? How do you think we can change that through this bill? Jen and I, because Jen wasn't here when I brought that up, so I had mentioned someone else in my case who had a similar experience. Jen could maybe come in on that as well. I think that we have to give credit where credit's due. I understand and we appreciate your trying to protect us. It's there to help us, but as I mentioned previously, every survivor is different. If we say that we don't want that, listen to us and respect that decision, don't keep pushing it down our throats if we're saying that we don't want it, listen, because then it's almost kind of triggering how we were made to feel in the abusive relationships that we've been in. Your voice isn't getting listened to, you're not respected. I just think that there needs to be more flexibility and understanding that that offer of a screen and that extra protection might be absolutely what one survivor needs, but it won't be for the other. Listen to us, don't make it an unnecessary fight. It was such a waste of energy that we had to do consistently throughout the lead-up to the trial and even on the day to still fight to not have the screen. I think that if a survivor is able to make that decision and voice their opinion on it and give a valid explanation as to why they don't want the screen, I don't understand why that isn't respected and understood. You would think that that would be something that could be brought out through the trauma-informed practice being embedded in the legislation? Being trauma-informed doesn't mean that you treat someone like they're broken and they're not resilient and can't come back from what's happened to them. What's fundamental in a trauma-informed practice is having that real knowledge and understanding of trauma impacts people in different ways. How it looks for someone will be so different, like all of us, our trauma will look and feel and impact us in very different ways. There will be similarities, of course, but it will be different. What we need might be absolutely different or Jen and I might need the same thing, but Ellie might need something different. It is very complex and complicated because unfortunately that's what trauma is and you cannot undermine the impact that that has on someone. I think that there has to be more flexibility. I don't really know what the answer is because it's a complex thing to try and get right but I can appreciate and give credit where credit's due of that they are trying to provide that comfort and that protection, but what if you don't need that? What's your alternative? Throughout our case some of us were not ready to engage with support that was provided or offered, so I brought up at the Lord Advocate meeting, so you must have a plan B or a plan C or even a plan D because everybody's different. If someone's not ready for the support but you are aware that they've been through something so horrific and traumatic, you know that person will need support. If they're not ready to engage with it, you're just going to leave them, so there has to be lots of things throughout the whole process that there needs to be more flexibility and choices given to just coming back to what Ellie was saying. Let us be involved, like include the survivor or give them that option if they want to be involved or if they don't. Let us have a voice, I would say. Just goes back to autonomy. I feel like at the basis of rate, your autonomy is taken from you, so I think given survivors back that autonomy to decide what they need, how they want to approach it is vital. As Hannah has said, the fight for no screen was a fight. I stood in the courtroom the day I was supposed to give evidence arguing with my Lord Advocate that I didn't want it, being asked to go and stand behind the screen, see how it felt, see if I changed her mind. Whereas I had said for the two and a half years leading up to this, there was no danger I was taking a screen. I think as long as someone's got capacity to decide what they want, then why should you strip that from them? Just again to echo, it's not a cookie cutter fix. Everyone is so different. Hannah briefly mentioned there about support and someone not being ready to engage in support. That was myself. I routinely felt penalised for not doing so. I would have a conversation with Evercase prepared art and she'd say, we've not reached out yet. I don't want to reach out. She didn't have the time to go through and answer my questions, but because I didn't want to engage in support, I just wasn't going to get those answers. I just wasn't going to have anyone to fall back on. Support as well once their trial is over is vital. Hannah mentioned your piece of evidence. You're taking off the shelf, you serve your purpose, you go back on the shelf, your job is done. I think that just autonomy, where autonomy is due, is potentially the answer. Thanks very much. That is very powerful. Rona Mackay and then Pauline McNeill. Before I ask my questions, I just wanted to briefly follow up on what you were talking about. It goes back to what you said earlier, Hannah, about being listened to. If a message comes over from this session today that that's so key to your experience, that will be brilliant. I think that trauma-informed practice—you can talk about one-size-fits-all—surely trauma-informed training should train people to realise that you can't do that. I think that people need to listen to that message, too. I wanted to talk a wee bit again about specialist courts. Earlier, you explained very well about the solemnity and how you felt it was reflected the seriousness of what happened to you and completely understand that. We've had that concern as well, but I'll put to you what we've been told when we've asked about it. We've been told that it won't be downgrading of the High Court that will be treated in the same, and the sentencing will be the same as if it was in the High Court. On the upside, it is that the judge would be especially trauma-informed to deal with your unique experience and seriousness of the crime. If you could be convinced or reassured that that would be the case, would you support specialist courts for that reason? I support specialist courts in principle, but I have expressed my concerns around solemnity. To be honest, what we call these courts is important, even if it was the specialist High Court. Having the High Court is really important, because it emphasises the severity of the crime. I would also note that the way that a building is configured is important, because when I went to give evidence, I was told that, in theory, I could have used the side door to avoid any risk of running into my rapist or his family, but apparently it was closed because of Covid. I don't really see the connection there, but things like that make sure that a building is configured in such a way that witnesses and their family are coming in from a different entrance. That is common sense. You were worried about possible delays in backlogs in a specialist court. What we have heard is that there would not be the case that I asked the Lord Advocate last week about floating trials, and she said that she does not want to see them remain and thinks that a specialist court might alleviate that. That all sounds quite encouraging, but the message that we are getting from you is that it has to be done right. You need to be reassured that it is not going to make matters worse. The other thing about judge-only trials is that we have had powerful evidence about rape myths that exist among jury members. On the plus side for a judge-only trial, they would know about that, and they would never be 100 per cent certainty in anything, but the probability that we are being told is that the rape myth element would not be there so much, because we have heard stories from survivors where there clearly were, and there was huge bias because of some of the evidence that the defence had led. It is not really a question to you, it is just to say that that is what we are hearing, but we are aware of your concerns about it, and that is why it is important that you are telling us that today. So we have got around about 10 minutes left or so, so I am going to bring in Pauline McNeill. Thank you again for giving us your time. Some of your evidence have heard before, and some of it has really stuck with me, and I wanted to come back on two particular issues. I think that you all spoke to, as other survivors have said, not being able to just tell your story about what happened to you because of the court process seems to really resonate with me. Eily, you talked about advocate deputes' prosecuting cases, and others have said the same. I know that we are going to hear from someone in the next panel who has a more positive experience, where they had a chance to sit down with the advocate depute. I think that you will also spoke to Hannah McNeill. I have heard so many times the frustration of listening to the case being put, and what you think is crucial to your case is not put for the court. Or, as you said, Hannah, you called it to throw me a lifeline here because you felt that. The apparent reason for that, I suppose, is that there might be office failings in the system, but the role of the prosecutor is to prosecute in the public interest, and that term itself keeps the victim out of the... It strikes me that maybe that is part of what really does need to change. I have been really interested in advocacy, the right of the victims to have an independent advocate, but what I am now more interested in is the right of the victim to be able to have conversations before and during the trial with advocate deputes. It is not that common practice, but it does happen. I wonder if each of you just wanted to say how important you think that would be, or would have been, in your particular case. Do you want to give an answer first? I think that it is essential... I have touched on this before throughout this evidence session, but I think that it is essential for the wellbeing of the victim survivor. You talked about prosecuting cases in the public interest. It is in the public interest to involve the victim because I think that the cases are stronger. I would say that having that opportunity beforehand would help to reduce anxiety a lot. They constantly say to you that it is not a memory test, but boy does it feel like it is. Even though it happened to you when you are in that intense environment under a lot of pressure and scrutiny from everyone in that room, you do forget certain dates and things that become a memory test. I think that just walking in there completely in the dark with no idea what to expect, having that opportunity beforehand to meet with your... It should be a fairer playing field. It constantly feels from start to finish that we are not getting the same opportunities and rights as they are accused. As far as we are led to believe that they have had the two and a half years that we were left in the dark leading up to the trial, they have had two and a half years. I wanted to focus on how we could change the role of the advocate deput or, I suppose, what you said earlier. Determine that the public interest also includes the proper conduct of a trial, including all the relevant evidence that the... I am thinking in my own mind, so I wanted to come back to your hand on this. If you had an independent advocate, even in those circumstances, they would not be able to intervene at that point. They are not really a way of going back on that, but maybe if you had had some opportunity during the course of the trial to speak to the advocate deput and say, well, you did not put this crucial point, why did you not do it, give them a chance to go back over that evidence. I am actually wondering, is maybe that is more important to be able to do that than having an independent advocate, because at least the AD has a full understanding of your case. As you were told by the Lord Advocate, they are only human, so there are going to be mistakes made. I just wondered if you thought that that actually might be more useful than independent advocacy. If you had more rights to say to the AD, I want a recess to be able to put some of the points that I feel have not been put in my trial. Yeah, I think absolutely, because you are left with unanswered questions and you are left going over it in your head, whereas having that opportunity to just directly ask them and question them on that and have that open discussion and going back to what Ellie said, you would just be more included and involved in the process. Yeah, I think that would be amazing. And the quality of the evidence, because you have more of a sea. There is that finite balance to be struck, because at the end of the day, I imagine an advocate to say, well, I am the best judge of what the best evidence is. I would accept that, but there are clearly cases that I have heard where the case would have been put better, had the victim been able to say that you missed something really important. Yeah, because we have actually no idea what evidence has actually made it to the trial, out of it all, what is actually going to be presented and we have no clue into what is presented to us. As you said, you are an outsider. I think that bears out what we have heard. Added a separate question for you, Jennifer, about the… So we have talked a lot about rape myths, so I was thinking about what I think that means, but you have added something else, which I think is really important, which is other myths that I never thought about. So you have said that you were expected to break down and Hannah said that you had to find not to have a screen. I am wondering, are those elements that we need to also look at when we are deciding what does trauma inform look like and what does proving a case look like? You will know that the law on proving rape has changed over the years, so you used to have to show distress because juries wanted to visibly see that there had been distress in order to believe of it. You do not need to prove that anymore, but those two points that you made are really important because if a jury is expecting you to break down and that is their myth and you do not break down, then maybe you are less believable and whether you have a screen or not have it, you wonder what is that another myth that juries are thinking of if you do not give evidence behind the screen and you can face your accuser, maybe you are not to be believed. It was really Jennifer who thought that those are important aspects of both trauma informed and proving a case that maybe we should draw out in this. Yeah, I think they are vital. Again, it just speaks to the one size that is not going to fit all. Every survivor is going to act differently at that present moment in time that they are given evidence. I went in over two days. The first day I forgot my own name. I stood and looked back at my advocate debut for a good five seconds because I just froze. However, I went back on the Monday, had sat all weekend and could answer all of those questions straight off the bat with no motion whatsoever. All I thought about was that jury are going to think that I am off my head because of the two polarising reactions that I had. It was a huge thing and I actually did speak about it at the meeting with the Lord Advocate that he expected to act a certain way, to dress a certain way, to speak a certain way. When you challenge that, you are then giving back things out of, well what now? If I don't look like a victim, how is that going to be perceived and how is that going to affect my case? I think that more informed juries, which echoes the point that I made earlier, do not necessarily need to be judged only, but it needs to be trauma informed juries, specialist juries that are brought in so that they are aware of those things. When you were just mentioning about this, if you had a screen or you didn't have a screen to give your evidence, it may not happen to you or you're not scared of your abuser anymore. We were actually told repeatedly throughout our case that our abuser ended up taking the stand when we'd finished giving our evidence and we were told that we weren't allowed to go sit in the public gallery because it wouldn't look good to the jury. Same with sentencing, that we were advised not to go to that because it wouldn't look good if we were there to attend the verdict as well, as I'm giving evidence. That's clearly a myth within juries as well. I'm not sure why that is the case, but that should again be a decision that the survivor gets to make. That shouldn't be told directed to us. We should be able to make that decision ourselves of whether or not we want to sit in the public gallery for the verdict or them giving evidence. That shouldn't be made for us. I think that the route crisis makes reference to this in the submission. Is there a view about where you should be in the court when you've given your evidence or you just want to be able to see the trial on-going? I wasn't that bothered about getting to see him on the stand or not, so it does go back to the autonomy of the victim. I wanted to be in and out there as quick as I could. There was no hanging about actually running away from the Mercer at the end of it. Whereas you would have quite liked the opportunity to sit in here where you had to say, I couldn't care what you had to say, I know what happened, I've said my piece on what happened, believe me if you won't take it or not. It comes down to a ton of things. If you want to go, why can't you? The whole thing about it doesn't look good at the verdict. Surely, at the point of the verdict, the jury has already made up their mind. What difference does me walking in, as it's been given or just before it's been given, make to the jury that I've already ticked their box and given it back or however it works? On the point of specialist courts, that's something that we could consider as part of the specialist courts. Perhaps a private room that gave you sight or audio of the court would be beneficial, because quite often I'm included in this. I wanted to know what was actually happening throughout the court case after I'd given my evidence, because again, we're not informed, but I wouldn't have liked to be in the same room as my rapist with no special measures in his family. Perhaps that's something that we could consider as part of specialist courts. That's helpful. As Jennifer said, the right to choose, but if you do want to hear the trial, then you should have been a way of doing it, which you'd feel comfortable with. Thank you very much indeed. We're just going to have to close the session shortly, but I just want to ask you all if there's anything else about the bill that you would like to raise with us this morning, just so that we haven't missed anything that you were keen to share with us. I'll just let any of you come in, Ellie. I think that something that's lacking from the bill is psychological support. I would note that I think that survivors should have a legal right to psychological support. I understand that the NHS is under huge pressures, but surely we could ringfence some funding for victims of the most serious crimes who have actually taken that step to go and pursue justice to actually provide some sort of support for them. I think that that should be enshrined as a right under law. One of the points that I thought of when the question was put out there of does the bill go far enough? Something that was striking me as a survivor that has went public afterwards is, again, we're focusing, like within the bill, there's the right to lifelong and I struggle with the word for anonymity. However, I feel like we're still missing something there. What about not all survivors are going to keep their anonymity? We've said it twice, there we go. What about the survivors that go public? There's three of us sitting here, there's many others. What support are we getting afterwards? Again, it reinforces that. You're a bit of evidence, now go fend for yourself, it's up to you. I understand and appreciate that that is our decision that we've made to go public. Nobody told us to do that. However, you're left. We were fortunate that we had each other with an hour case to navigate going public together. However, survivors like Ellie Wilson had to do it on her own. I just feel that there's maybe room for some sort of support. Again, I don't have the answers there of what that would look like, how you would make that work, but I just think there should be that. We shouldn't be pushing for people to, I just think, reinforcing and pushing forward to keep yourself anonymous, just reinforces that idea of that this is something to be ashamed of because it's not your shame to carry anymore. So we should be trying to empower victims a little bit more, I would argue. I think that the bill is a great first step to improving the criminal justice system, but it's going to have to incorporate all the moving parts. If you think of how long a process it is and how many moving parts there is and how many people there is involved, it needs to incorporate all of that. When I was speaking to Hannah about the issue yesterday, we've come to the conclusion that, as it stands just now, the criminal justice system is built on a game of chance. From who you report to, right through to your case, prior to your fiscal, to your advocate, to your judge, to your jury, it's a postcode lottery with a severe lack of consistency regarding procedure, support and trauma informed practice, and that's what needs to change. And while the bill is a great first step, there's definitely more to be done. Thank you, Jennifer. On that note, I'm going to just bring this panel to a close. Thank you again all of you very much indeed. It's been extremely valuable to hear your views and we're very grateful that we were able to attend this morning. So we'll have a short suspension of the meeting just to allow our panels to change over. Thanks very much. I would like to warmly welcome our second panel for this morning. As I mentioned at the start of the meeting, we think that it's very important to hear the views of survivors of sexual crimes who have personal experience of the criminal justice system. So the committee is very interested to hear your perspective of what is being proposed in the bill. So I would like to welcome our second panel. So we have Sarah Ashby, Hannah Stakes and Anisha Yasin. Welcome to you all and we're very grateful that you've been able to join us this morning. I intend to allow around about an hour for this session. So if you'd like to answer a question or come in on anything just please raise your hand or indicate to me and I'll bring you in. So I thought it might be helpful if I opened with a question that I put to the first panel about trauma informed practice. So the bill as you'll know introduces a requirement that victims and witnesses should be treated in a way that accords with trauma informed practice. So do you think this is needed and why? So I'll maybe come to Sarah first. Absolutely. There's no question that it's needed. It is very difficult to express how you feel unless you've been in the situation and as the panel before us noted every single one of us is completely different. My experience is very different to that of the women that you've heard from and the women that are sat next to me. My experience was I'll use the word positive whether that's correct or not. The system treated me well. I was taken care of, I was supported, I was convened with regularly by the police, by the court and by the fiscal and I think that that went some way to comforting me throughout the whole process. Listening to the stories of the other women and their experiences it's incredibly evident that they weren't treated with the same consideration. There was no consistency throughout any of our processes and that's why I think it is so important that the people that are involved in this are trained sufficiently to deal with all of us and our experiences. Not one of us is ever going to have the same experience, it's never going to be exact, so you can never tick a box for every single person, that's fact, but what you can do is be consistent with the way you support each one of us as victims and indeed witnesses throughout the trial. I agree that trauma informed is obviously required, I had a very different experience from Sarah, I had a positive investigation experience but what I will say is that as soon as I entered the system as it will it was apparently evidence that my life didn't matter as much as they accused, it didn't feel like it offered the opposite of what it's supposed to offer. I think if you report a sexual crime it should be offering you protection, you're doing it to protect yourself, to protect society, to hold the person into account and instead what it feels like is that you're giving yourself away, you're giving your life away, your trauma away, your body away when it comes to examinations and you already know that it's for a very very slim chance at a conviction, you then it then defines years of your life. Like I would say for every court delay it changed a version of myself that I would have been and a version of the life that I would have lived. In terms of the specific trauma informed things that would have helped me one aspect was that the accused had ran away overseas but I was only told that there was a court delay with nothing to support that. So at first I was told he'd not showed up for the preliminary hearing, I had to continually chase information to find out the aid breaches bail conditions and then I kept having to find to chase up the fact like you know whereas he wants the update on this to find out that he was overseas being told that he was overseas would have relieved a great deal of pressure on my life because it was a stranger who assaulted me so I had good reason to believe that if they were going to run away, run overseas then I could be personally at risk. So that information just that he wasn't in the country would have reassured me. It actually later turned out that he was in the country but then when the trial sort of picked up restarted I was told the day before the trial date where I was meant to give evidence at 4pm by a hostile woman that worked in the court were not doing it tomorrow. When I questioned why it was none of my business and I was a witness only during the trial did I find out it's because the day before they decided to do additional DNA testing which did work but if they told me at that time I wouldn't have been in the you know the deeply distressed mental state that I ended up in following that like I didn't know if I could build up and cling on you know just for another trial date in terms of the advocate deputy the first time I met him and the only time I met him was before the trial and he came across as misogynistic and uninterested and had walked into the room with the assumption that I was stupid he took his wig on he took his wig off he told me not to be worried about the defense lawyer because they went to uni together and he was a nice man and they played golf together so that did the opposite of what he thought the stupid woman that I was you know offered the opposite of comfort what it told me that I was completely like done for essentially in that trial were decisions made about things evidence that was missed in the trial on a golf course that sort of thing I had no I'd waved my anonymity in court as I'm not used any special measures that was treated with contempt as even by the judge she went out of her way to say it doesn't matter how I came across even though I'd been interviewed before the trial about how I would come across a few other points were just I received the not proven verdict despite in a mass like a massive amount of evidence and just to deny it including DNA will the the defense had just denied it even ever happened but afterwards after three years at the end of that trial I was just left like I saw the not proven verdict go through and then I walked out of that courtroom and that was that there was no reason decision no follow-up no contact it was just sort of the system has failed during off you go make of that what you will so there's little things that could have been made there that Sarah had is just follow-up contact information shared that would have made the world of difference okay thank you Anisha yeah I mean I think everybody in any walk of life should have trauma informed practice as part of their understanding to engage with people generally but what I do find difficult is I mean it's no secret that the system's a mess and we wouldn't all be sitting here right now if we didn't know that however I think it doesn't matter what we do we are blanketing victims left and centre even in terms of special measures if you don't use this special measure you're going to be sat with them going are you sure are you sure are you sure even when you categorically say well actually I don't want to do that and it's because now I've been in a situation where I went to court and I went through the whole time going I'm not going to use one I'm not going to be scared I'm not going to hide myself and actually on the day I changed my mind so that it's beneficial to have that reminder and that understanding but the second time I went to court was a completely different ballgame and it was rammed down my throat that there's no way that I would be able to cope with anything if I didn't use a special measure and what I will say about trauma informed element is that via are not equipped to deliver that service they seem to offer a good service to few and far between and that is great but they are not equipped to deal with it these are people who usually are paralegals or maybe law students and they are dealing with a range of victims for a range of backgrounds and they do not understand how to support people how to put things in words that actually just show that they're human in the care and they don't even deliver you the information you need at the right time you could have a phone call and they'll say oh when he comes in for his preliminary hearing or his play hearing or whatever we'll phone you straight away but actually as a 17 year old girl it was me that was phoning up all the time for a good week and these these phone calls last a very long time because you're waiting sometimes another just to get through to this hotline essentially but on the flip side of that the second time I went to quote it was because of a person who was in a position of trust and because he was a police officer and because of that that completely changed exactly how I was dealt with so information was even more restricted than it had been before you're no longer treated like a victim like everyone else but you're treated like now everything has to be a secret and when you do get a good service from them when they do seem because maybe you need that little bit extra support so maybe they need to phone you a little bit more when you do get that you're expected to be thankful for that and that's not okay okay okay thank you I need to I wonder if I can come back to to you Sarah and obviously you you spoke about your more positive experience than than some of the other women that we've spoken to this morning and it sounds as though your positive experience was by virtue of relatively straightforward things like communication and being kept informed phone calls conversations which isn't exactly rocket science and perhaps should be quite intuitive in the justice system so i'm interested in what your thoughts are around that and just how when we're looking at how trauma informed practice should be should be developed in the in the justice system does it need to be complicated does it need to be costly or actually is it about just a culture change where relatively straightforward measures and tasks are better delivered if you like I mean I think it absolutely needs to be about consistency so that has to be that that has to be the fundamental baseline and as you say that that shouldn't be difficult being able to communicate shouldn't be difficult the police force engaging with the fiscal they communicate it should not be hard and for me that that changed my experience and and sitting here and listening to that the other experiences here it just infuriates me that I should feel lucky to have gone through what I've been through in the way that it happened and that just for me is absolutely outrageous I'm not entirely sure it needs to be costly I think that I really am behind the idea of this commissioner role who in my eyes should be the person that that puts these rules into place about consistency and is continuously checking on the way that advocates perform in all courts so my trial was in the Glasgow city high court and the sentencing was in the Edinburgh high court and I was genuinely treated consistently by all persons involved I was informed informed and supported throughout the whole process the trial itself I was given the opportunity to visit the court twice prior to the trial beginning which is something that I have not heard any of these other women being given the opportunity to do I was able to take my husband with me so I had constant support and comfort which was very important I met with the the victims support team in the courtroom I was given a tour of the court that was the first visitor experience that I had the second time the advocate deputy he called me in for a meeting in which he sat down with me and and asked me questions about my evidence asked me questions about my experience he used witnesses names you know I felt comforted in knowing that he knew consistently about my case I felt like he was in my corner and something that I've heard these other women speak of you know that that was so fundamental for me I just felt comfort from that in knowing that when I was going to go into that trial room I knew who I was sitting you know the room for me was blocked out I I could just stand and look at this man who I've met before and take comfort in the questions he was asking me and that's something that that just isn't consistent so so for me it maybe doesn't need to be a costly exercise but there does need to be trauma informed practice as far as I'm concerned there does need to be some sort of commissioner or someone in charge that that these people have have to you know interface with and and you know maybe at the end of every trial there needs to be communication and and a lessons learned about how those experiences have gone um that's something I do in my workplace after we finished a project whether it's positive or negative maybe that's something that also needs to be considered um and again maybe with the fiscal and the the advocates you know they train together and that they you know it's their separate departments they're completely separate situations yes but fundamentally they're working together for us and for the public and for the good of you know making sure that these rapists aren't on the street and and that's fundamentally what what we as victims and witnesses were were a part of okay thanks you know that's a really interesting point about almost debriefing at the end of a of a trial and I wonder if I can just before I open up to members just come back to you and speak about the trauma informed environment that we've we've variously been looking at and taking evidence on within the court process in particular and there are different views in terms of you know how intimidating that environment can be but for others and we heard this in panel one the solemnity of the court environment brings a kind of seriousness if you like to um to a survivor in terms of how serious and how important their their case is so I'm interested in what views you might have about the environment the court environment and how that could perhaps be improved or does it need to be changed or altered from a victim or survivor's perspective I mean ultimately I think the court experience was intimidating but it was what I'd expected and had more than enough time to prepare for so I'm not sure if I'm the best person to comment on that because I'd worked very hard to not be intimidated by it and it wasn't a particular fear of mine like I knew I wasn't going to have a nice time the cross examination was a farce but it wasn't as aggressive as I thought it would be um like the one thing that I would say is that I had used spec refused to use special measures and I was treated with contempt because of that even by the judge I decided to watch the trial and I was advised that that would look you know look I decided not to watch the person give evidence I decided that that's not a memory that I wanted to have but I wanted to understand how the rest of the the trial worked so I did sit in the gallery for quite a lot of it um and I know that that worked against me and it just that's quite a heartbreaking thing to know that you've built up your character and you know that you're telling the truth and you know there's a lot of evidence behind you but ultimately a judge is going to sit and say at the end of that while getting my name wrong it just remember it doesn't matter how well Hannah Stokes has presented today and I thought well it does because I was interviewed before then because I'm telling the truth because I'm here because I'm a strong incredible witness and you're telling a jury after they have been misled and led up the garden path in terms of you know how sure it certainly had to be which hopefully I can touch on later and also just a bit of confusion around being led towards not proven which I think was intentional given the level of evidence so that was just quite a difficult thing to have carry out like I'd actually really worked quite hard to be the person I was in that room today and it worked against me ultimately and that's to do with jury biases behaviour of the defence and obviously some bias that the judge had brought into the room. I just wanted to pick up on a couple of points that Sarah had made so I did meet with the first case I met the prosecutor just I mean it was probably like 10 minutes long before we went into the room and it was very high this is who I am goodbye I see you there but the second time I was older and I was much more aware of okay I'm going to sit and research and find out what what are my rights in this situation because there was no lawyer unlike the defence lawyers who sit there and counsel them there was none of that nobody was really seen to be on your side so through lots of looking at things eventually I was like no wait a minute I can't ask to speak to this person so I did speak to my prosecutor who was Liz Payton at the time a number of times and sometimes that was quite difficult because a lot of the time I would be sitting there going well I want to know what legislation you're using because nobody's talking to me about this so if I know the legislation I can go and google that and find out what it means but lots of times it was like no you can't do this and we can't tell you that and I'm kind of going well if it's going into court if that is what we are going to court for and I'm going to be used as evidence for this charge the least you could do is tell me what the charge was but you're kind of constantly reminded that you know oh they're so busy and then almost that you were taken up their time and you were in convenience which is really difficult but also just want to quickly say about Via I was at a completely different event to do a hate crime and Via were invited and no matter how much the PF had encouraged them to go along to this event they did not want to go so to me that speaks a lot about what it kind of looks like in their environment are they really going to sit here and listen to trauma informed practice are they really going to put that in place and I just it puts that doubt in okay okay thank you Anisha okay I'm going to open up questions to members and I'm going to bring in Russell Finn. Thank you convener again I can commend you all for waving your anonymity campaigning and coming here because the testimony is so powerful and so helpful to our knowledge of what really is happening in the courts it's quite a lot of ground to cover but I wanted to ask in respect of your experience Sarah you have perhaps been a bit of an exception the rule that trauma informed and being treated properly dignity and respect can happen I just wonder whether any of you have a view on whether that therefore requires legislation to achieve that or whether in fact if the you know all the various parties involved in the process if I may I think for consistency it absolutely is required if you you just have to to meet the you know the six of us that you have done this morning to listen to every single experience and understand how completely different every single one is even though that the first three women were involved in the same trial even and they were all treated differently I think consistency needs to be key communication needs to be key and and generally I feel like the only way to do that is to really to make people responsible to hold people responsible for how they how they treat us and unfortunately every other woman that's going to come forward and be able to be honest and let's not forget that this this crime this we're talking about rape here it happens daily and we all have a right to be able to treat to be treated the same and to a fair trial and we're told that at the beginning so I think I think it's incredibly important that legislation dictates that consistency I think if we're specifically talking about via and them kind of being brought into legislation to give us that extra support I'd actually err on the side of caution of that now not because I don't think it's a good idea but because the system is not a one-size-fits-all and via is never going to be a one-size-fits-all you have to also take into consideration the added complexities things like honour-based violence things like women from different cultures via is not specialised enough to deal with these people they do not understand enough to be able to deliver even just delivering the information in a specific way to help people feel a bit better or to help people understand without being you know really condescending about it or cold but what I would say in reply I don't think we should not have it but I think it's about bringing in rather than saying oh yeah we'll just train all these people and all these different things because we know that doesn't always work but maybe providing other services within that can I just for the record when you say via your referring to victim information and advice within the court system yeah thank you one question I'd asked the elder panel is whether they had a particular view if they were you know to have the option of a non-dury trial would that have made any difference to any of you I think touched upon I think maybe even though they worked within the limits of the law the judge in my case did express some sort of bias whether that was towards my behaviour or not I do and I always have advocated for I think they need to be professionals whether that would be a panel of judges or trained individuals you know even if they're legal students but they come into that room with a level of legal training because you would be given a reason decision that made sense afterwards I think that some of the theatrics that goes on within a courtroom that's not really about the truth or the evidence that's sort of weaving a story you know like in my case it was DNA might have been transferred because we touched the same wine bottle or he had time to wash the DNA and he didn't and that somehow proved evidence the jury had to be more sure of anything they'd ever been sure of in their life and could have Brexit these things wouldn't the public are not you know the way that some people are against these changes make it out as if we're saying well the public you're saying the public are stupid and it's a public duty we're not the victims myself we're the public too and I've watched how that carries out so something needs to be done to address that nothing's been done to address the sort of court behaviour of some of these legal professionals is the opposite way to address it so that they're dealing with professionals and not dealing with people you know public who don't have that internal knowledge that they can't so I think there's there's something to be done there but I'm concerned that if it was a single judge you know if they themselves were biased or there might be case you know more reason for a mistrial you know they would have to give a reason to this so I think it's worth exploring but it doesn't maybe have to be as extreme as this proposed I would agree with that as well just to note so favouring I don't I don't think that having a single judge is in my personal opinion the way to go I feel like I feel I feel like there should be a jury whether it needs to be on the scale and size that it is now I'm not sure could that be six people and just reduce that scale of things I personally if I were to go through this again I would feel more comforted by having a jury than it being a single person making that decision about my life that's a good idea and it definitely would have put me off and it would have had that been a thing before I reported it I don't think I would have reported it and I am a brown girl in a white person's world and if that puts it any clearer I already feel out of place a lot of times to then sit there and know that you're going to go into a courtroom with centralised power from what is going to be usually a white man you have very few female judges here and that's the reality but nobody is exempt from unconscious bias and it's unfair or unrealistic I think in an ideal world they wouldn't hold any bias they would put everything to the side they'd be all professional that's the point in unconscious bias so I think if we had to go down a judge route we need to have a panel I also am concerned about you know if they did go to prison then how does appeals work you know how are we looking at human rights you know I just think there's so many different things within that that actually following afterwards if they were then to have an appeal how would you feel as a victim when that just gets overturned it's already difficult and that's good back to Hannah's point and her experience where you had a prosecutor and the defence lawyer who were best of pals and very clubbable and then the judge in all likelihood and that scenario may well also have personal connections and similar background look at you know I don't know and obviously and I admit this my memory has changed over time you know so I might be making it more extreme than it was but it was certainly to that effect they'd definitely gone to university together I wasn't to be intimidated because they were mates things were left out in the trial which left me with a question you know was it tit for tat I'll give you this you give me that because there was evidence that I thought that was vital while they were allowed to sort of the things I've touched upon we've a sort of make believe story so yep there is that yeah there's definitely that element of it but I don't trust juries either one of them was asleep they took less time to come back with the verdict than I do did to get ready this morning like so there's I think there's something to be worked out in the middle and I'm assuming you are opposed you would rather get rid of not proven on the basis I would at the whole trial was led there's this concrete amount of DNA and I'll just go back to that old analogy if it was a break in you know when someone's footprints are all over your house they denied ever being there the windows smashed you know like it would have been a clear cut like it was a really clear cut case this man denied that he'd even touched me but there was significant DNA evidence found and without not proven you'd rather have had that binary choice yeah I would rather have the binary choice and I really don't think I genuinely don't believe that and acquittal would a false acquittal like that would have been possible the whole trial the the opening argument started with this wasn't a civil case and the jury had to be more sure about anything they'd ever been sure of in their life sorry I just want to put a note on this as well so they really over they really over exaggerated beyond reasonable doubt they made it look as if there can't be any doubt and then the whole defence was these things I've touched upon as he could have washed off the DNA in a shower it could have been transferred because they touched the same wine bottle the advocate didn't take the time because I didn't have that time with him I was like you know cross if I had had the time with him I'd have pointed this out he didn't point out that that would make DNA redundant evidence redundant in any courtroom because if someone picked something up in Tesco that someone else has touched they could be accused of murder so like really simple things but if you had some form of legal representation you'd have been able to respond to that for the moment respond to that and I think one other thing is the accused usually don't give evidence from because of the way they were as far as I understand they weren't planning to but because of the way that I had presented myself they were then advised to do it and by all accounts fake cried so they sort of took the opposite stance to what I had the jury were told at length you need to be more sure than you've ever been sure in your life despite this concrete evidence and then told and led towards but you also don't have to make a decision essentially yeah okay thank you thank you I'm going to bring in Sharon Dawey in a wee moment I wonder if I can just pick on up on a point that you spoke about Sarah and it was in terms of your sort of I think your concern about a judge only trial and I just noticed I was just having a quick look through the submission from rape crisis Scotland and I think they articulated quite helpfully in terms of in that scenario where you've just got a judge only and no jury and I'm just going to read what what they've said a written verdict could be a very positive development for complainers so in other words you know if you have a judge only they would have a responsibility to set out the reasons why they came to the decision or the verdict that they did a judge would be required to give reasons for a decision some survivors described the lack of any explanation for a jury's decision as distressing because it means they're never able to understand what happened and the written judgments from other cases seem to have added some kind of weight to this would you feel that that might reassure survivors as to the merits of a judge only trial and I'm not putting words in your mouth I'm just interested in whether you feel there may be something by way of area students around that of course I'm not I'm not saying there's not all I can do is give you my opinion on on how are we you know how I was treated and how it went for me and kind of looking from the outside in now and trying to support progress in all areas for this I don't think it's a negative idea I wouldn't say you're crazy if you did it I'm just saying that from my perspective I don't feel like having you know putting that responsibility on one soul person would make me feel comfortable if I were to enter this situation again all of the reasons that rape crisis have given you there are they're completely you know solid reasons I can understand certainly why it would give survivors comfort in at least understanding why the verdict has has come I know it would probably help you know help Hannah to have an explanation on on why that verdict was reached and if the option was there for me and I was able to to have the same kind of transcript at the end from a judge I would probably appreciate it too so no I do understand what you're coming from with that okay that part thanks very much and on that I'll bring in Sharon Dewy thank you we've heard that the specialised courts won't have any specialised buildings so and they're all we used in the current estates I'm just wondering how well you think the proposal will reduce the traumatic experience for victims and also if you've got any concerns about the proposals for the specialist courts I don't have any concerns I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding your point about them being in the same building do you mean they'll still be in the high court but the trials we've heard about the trauma informs so basically separate entrance says whether I know you'll have screens if there's separate areas for families for the victims or survivors to go to so it's going to be in the current estates it'll not be a purpose built court and we're using the current estates just if you've got any concerns about that I think that a different building would be beneficial you know it still has to be apparent to everyone that it is very much a part of the high court I don't know how that would work but I was offered those things already you know I refused to do it but I was offered to go in the back door so that I might you know avoid the accused on the way in I had a room that I could sit in and I think I had you know had someone with me so I had those things already so that doesn't seem like as far reaching as a proposal as I was expecting it to be they seem just like you know special would that just mean I was then forced to go through the back door it's kind of what I'm hidden from that you know I don't think it's enough I agree with Hannah I don't think that it matters what where the building is I think that making sure that it's shown with the level of respect and importance that these trials are so the high court I think is very important as I think some of the previous women mentioned in the first panel I was also given all of these options and took every single option that I possibly could in terms of bringing a supporter I had a member of the court meet me at the entrance I was ushered between several different rooms throughout the process of the morning to ensure that I was as far away from him as I possibly could be which was my choice I was I used the option of a screen my husband as I've said previously was with me the whole time I think that I think it's all about consistency and and as Hannah just mentioned they're not being not being made to feel like we're the ones who are being accused of something here I think the only thing that I would have changed genuinely about the trial experience that one day that I was there as a witness would be that it was the accused that was kept out of my way it was the accused that was kept in a room at the side while I was able to go for lunch with my husband without feeling like I had to hide behind things all the way you know that that would be my opinion on it I think that it's it's important that it maintains its level of importance by being held in the high court buildings I think right so I'll both have said that we can use the court estate you'd still want it to have the promise of being in the high court personally yes right it's in deals like giving evidence in general is or going to court is horrendous but I was actually in early lay bar when I first went through my trial and refused to not do it because I wanted it over before I had my baby but I was heavily pregnant on crutches and I was having to go to places that had a lift instead of stairs because I couldn't quickly get up the stairs to get to another room but it wasn't just him it there was his family standing outside the court and there was different people supporting him that were inside the court so then you were standing there with this person going by the way that's his friend by the way that's his sister what am I meant to do I'm stuck but actually they were fully aware that I was heavily pregnant they were fully aware that I was on crutches they were fully aware I was not completely able to run if something did happen but I agree that that shouldn't have been on me it shouldn't have been about and they've I think they try and frame it in a way to make it sound like they're being nice to you like oh we'll protect you it's okay but actually no I just want to be able to live my life I want to be able to come here do what I need to do and not be in fear now it's him that's on trial not me and I think it's my worry about having a specific courtroom is because so much like what I have in my head is Edinburgh Sheriff Court has court for and that is a domestic abuse courtroom and it only hears domestic abuse cases but it is treated like a revolving door and I mean even watching the sheriff sometimes it's like right okay come on next next so how do we know that that's not going to be the case again and that's my concern and then things like how do you manage vicarious trauma so that that judge is going to then have this vicarious trauma from consistently sitting in all of these trials however we're going to make sure that actually things are a little bit more split that people are getting more time that therefore people i judges are more able to give that emotional energy into being present in order to make a decision rather than somebody who's just heard that much trauma that they're like completely stone faced and just like whatever I think is more about the process than the building right thank you and the other thing that we've heard from the last panel and from today's well it's a lack of communication so we've obviously heard about independent legal representation as well I'm just wondering if you think that more access to the advocate would be something that we should be looking more at completely completely I'll be incredibly clear it implicitly changed the way that I felt about the entire trial the fact that I had access to to Mr Kearney during the time I was able to ask him all of the questions that I had in my head as was my husband you know you're sitting in this incredibly traumatic situation as Hannah said you forget your mind sometimes goes blank you panic it's a really scary situation for somebody to be in and to be able to feel confident that the advocate knows your case you know that just just the fact that he was able to use other witnesses names calmed me and you know this guy knows he understands he's read he I felt like he was on my side and I think that's imperative absolutely imperative so communication and access and consistency through it from from the fiscal stage all the way through to the end of the trial is for me it's a fundamental yes I mean this is a big key point for me I was willing this man with my mind to say please point out to the jury that DNA evidence and they did have an expert in which he can I will get into that another time but he um I was just willing him to explain to the jury if you believe this date he denies the assault took place at all there is DNA and sense to the areas of I was both quite considerable amount if he denies this happened and you buy that it's a touch in a wine bottle please consider how redundant that makes DNA evidence in society you know you could be accused at any given time that would have been a huge you know it would have put a huge doubt in the jury's mind was a huge point I shouldn't have had to be willing with my mind for him to say that we could have had a two-minute conversation I obviously thought it was something so obvious he would do but the trial ended he didn't do it I didn't get opportunity to say were you having a day off like that was that was it and it's going to stay with me forever and I think it would have really made a difference potentially to the verdict I think in terms of communication and kind of having that representation again I did go out and get I did access my prosecutor but that was with a lot of barriers to jump through and I remember via at the time who were obviously assigned to communicate with me and we said actually no I want to speak to the person who's dealing with this case not in no no sense but not you and that even that she was very odd never done that before I don't know if you're allowed to do that and it was me going yet I can do that actually and this is why I want to do it so can you please ensure that I get in contact with her directly now my other issue is the amount of times that it moved so the first case was kind of a little bit easier whereas the second one again with added complexities however we are going to see a change in legislation which is going to make this more apparent so it does need sorted we had gone from the I think it was advocate deputy in Glasgow down to lesbian in the sheriff and jury lady who was overseeing it now I cannot count how many times this woman said oh it's horrific it's horrific and I'm going well that's great but you're not telling me what's going on here and that in and of itself it's like well I'm glad you acknowledge how dreadful this is but this isn't giving me what I need I'm not actually informed about anything there was no prior warning that the case was going to just all of a sudden move we were informed there was eight other victims all of us from domestic abuse relationships who were pursued by the same person and yet it kind of just almost fell and nobody really understood why and that included by the way police scotland's anti-corruption unit who also didn't have a clue and came to the house going I actually don't know what's gone on here but in terms of sentencing is another real issue we are not told what the agreed evidence is or could be or prior warned for that spiel that the court will give during sentencing particularly when a person pleads guilty because you have lost all that control you've already lost control but you then no longer get an opportunity to say what you want to say you no longer get the opportunity to go actually do you know what I'm not happy with this I'm not okay with this and this is what he did to me and instead you're then produced what sometimes is referred to as a narrative which very very commonly is a narrative and it's usually it's much directed with the defence in mind it's their story they get to tell their story the prosecutor will stand up and say what they want to say I particularly urged my prosecutor to stand up and say their narrative but what I didn't know was that there was a bunch of agreed evidence part of that being oh she had an affair that I absolutely did not consent to I didn't know about I didn't have a clue and it's that kind of misinformation that mismanagement that you're then stuck in a court which by the way were surrounded in press as well that then reported oh she had an affair and that's absolutely not the truth okay okay okay bring in John Swinney and then Pauline McNeill thank you very much and good morning thank you very much for coming in to share your testimony with the committee which is incredibly valuable for us and I don't know how traumatic it is for you to to share this with us in the previous panel the system was described as a game of chance when I listened to the testimony that Sarah has given and this testimony that Hannah has given I'm struck by the validity of that remark I couldn't you couldn't have two pieces of evidence that make that point more emphatically than that which then brings me on to and forgive me convener because I'm going to stray away from the bill here we're here looking at legislation but in your evidence Sarah when the key points that struck me was that you were enlisted by the advocate deput as a key contributor to the formulation of the case and you Hannah were not now that if there's ever a point of for us to identify a system failure that would strike me as being a pretty big one it's distressing isn't it it's distressing tell me just tell me a little bit from your respective perspectives about what about what you feel in your case Sarah was good about that engagement and Hannah in from your perspective what was deficient about that well I mean it's quite obvious isn't it like it's distressing for me to hear that Sarah had that opportunity and there's no reason why in the current legislation I didn't have that I think it could have secured a guilty verdict that was three years in my life essentially they went down the train in my most formative years it's not an exaggeration to say that those court delays in that trial impacted every aspect of my life career where I lived because you're putting things on hold you can't get over something when you're trying to remember it but also ahead of you the assault that I had was it was brief it you know I've not surprised one of the jurors fell asleep but it was significant it was real it happened to me I'm left in a position where I don't know if it would have been possible but I regret it phone in 999 you know because in hindsight I'm eight years on now I obviously don't have closure or I wouldn't be here today if I hadn't called the police I would have got up and it would have I would have forgotten about it over time you know like it would have always been something that stayed with me but I would have felt safer in the world based on that what leaves me feeling unsafe and you know the whole issue unresolved is the fact that the justice system failed me more than the perpetrator you know that was the biggest thing that made me feel unsafe and it's far reaching far beyond what even happened in the first place you know women in your brought up in the world told the chances are that might happen to you you're not told that the system you're aware of the complexities and that you might not get a conviction but you're not prepared for how badly you're going to be treated by the system and how potentially damaging the way that it fails is and were there any elements of your experience with the system Hannah that you felt were working well or effectively in any stage of that process it's quite hard to articulate because like I said I'm quite a sort of blunt straightforward person so there's certain aspects that I would just be willing to take on the chin you know whether that was the trial or even some of you know the the farcical things that the defence had said in the trial so I'm not probably the best person to comment on that because I was sort of willing to stand my ground I think for me it was really about the time taken it was the fact that it was apparent from the get go that I didn't matter that I was sort of collateral damage in this person being protected in case they didn't do it so it's just the case of you just not being thought of you know considered at all where literally years of your life go down the drain and then in my case it was ultimately for nothing and then to touch upon not proven I know there was the jury research but you can see how they would reach that verdict in the sort of trial that they did with the mock jury I've now been doing this for like five six years and I've heard so many stories that myself miss ms the stories where not proven is reached and are ones where there's concrete evidence essentially it's where the jury have been manipulated the defence lawyers have got two chances at acquittal it's very unbalanced if they think that they're not going to get a not guilty they focus on not proven and I think that's been one of the the hardest things for me to come to terms with overall you know it's not a it wasn't a case of he says he says and it isn't in a lot of cases in some cases which are far you know it's not a competition but our quick people have went through far worse things including injuries and it's you know there can just be a denial that it happened or somehow their injuries were consensual and at the end of the day there's an acquittal the victims are feeling unsafe in society they don't believe in the law or anything that's meant to protect them and also the perpetrators are free to walk the streets without consequence and there's no I can't remember the word it's off my tongue but there's no sort of why would anyone not commit an assault when they think that they're quite apparent they're going to get more likely than not they're going to get away with it and that's exactly the reason why I'm here because because I've I'm hearing about what happened to Hannah and and the other women that have been here today and the inconsistencies and that's the exact reason why I'm here to to talk about my experience it's to bring bring that to light you know one in six women that you've spoken to today has had has had a positive but horrendously horrific traumatic distressing awful experience you know just because I'm using the word positive it doesn't mean the whole thing was you know roses and smiles it was it was horrendous but to be given the respect and to feel like the credible person that I am throughout that process it's the bare minimum that we should we should be enduring I think that's perhaps the key point Sarah that I think we all accept that none of this is pleasant but one of the questions I asked the previous panel was did they feel respected during the process so I'll put the same point to yourselves absolutely not you're just a pawn in their game that's all you are and it's very very very clear if you want to find out something you've got to essentially beg for it and you'll be lucky if you can get it if you do want something specific you have to dance around it because they can't say yes or no so you say okay well is it this then and then they'll go no and I'll go okay well then that's obviously the answer and they'll go oh you're a very clever girl or one of them said you're a very clever cookie because I'd figured it out and I'm like well you could have just said but numerous times you are picked up and dropped off you've done your bit now off you go once you've done your evidence I mean the second time round he pled guilty which I know of itself is horrendous but you you're expected to go okay pled guilty so that's it now I can go move on in the life and that's essentially what they say they essentially say to you it's done after we did go to court and it was it was just horrible anti-corruption specifically who had really been on the journey with me for three years anti-corruption specifically used the words it's finished now and essentially expecting me to just go all right okay I'll just get on with my life and it's never happened but it's that whole feeling of we'll phone you when you need to give evidence when we need you we'll get in touch with you but other than that we don't really have time for you please don't phone us and if you do it's going to be a hassle to phone us but if you don't come here by the way you might get threatened with some kind of arrest where are we in this system and I've said that so many times where am I in this system because it's all dictated by somebody else and actually in reality they wouldn't have a case if you did not come forward and that really irritates me so you bring this forward you have decided to report this to the police knowing knowing the current state of affairs you report it you go through the hours of grueling evidence that is very meticulous very detailed you do all of that then you have to go through the evidence gathering part knowing that actually somebody could just turn around and say we don't have that that's it we don't have enough it's over then you get past that stage and it's in the court's hands then the court are reassessing it then there might be another thing that they need to come out and do and you are just stuck not getting told anything absolutely anything but you'll bet that the second they need you you better be there and that's a threatening environment that loses that control that you've already lost that's lost again and again and again and when it's done you shouldn't even sit in that courtroom and watch the rest of it how dare you think that and we're just coming up to time so i'm going to bring in our final member Pauline McNeill and then i'm going to open up just to give our panel a chance just to add anything that they wish to so Pauline McNeill good morning and thank you very much for your evidence so far and it's very very persuasive i have to see as far as i'm concerned about whether or not and perhaps John Swinney was getting to this point whether the changes we need to make are structural changes as we have been asked to look at as legislators change the nature of the court abolish the not proven verdict which might be in favour of but we would ask to make structural changes that's what legislators will be doing what i'm hearing time and again from you all is it's the treatment you experience in court it's the exclusion that you feel to the system it's a system that has grown up that you are not part of the public interest um you don't have rights as you said to Asia to even call it's very common you can't call but when you need it you've got to be there so now i'm thinking quite deeply now about the extent to the changes that need to happen seem to centre around what we can do to fundamentally change the system which is culturally broken for a lot of victims there's quite a thin line i would say between so this question again that i raised previously and John raised there about the role of the advocate deput it's becoming really important i think in my mind and Sarah you spoke very eloquently about your positive experience seems to be fundamental to not only how you feel but maybe the court trial itself and by the way i have heard of cases where people who've been accused of crimes have felt the same where a question was not put that they felt was fundamental so i don't think it would be exclusive so i suppose the balance we need to strike is to what extent do you get access to the ad to have a voice and i think there's two elements to this there is while the child's been conducted you say oh as you said Hannah why didn't you put this and then there's been on the witness box itself i've heard other witnesses say i never got to tell my story you didn't ask me that question i think Hannah said it earlier throw me a lifeline so these seem to be common experiences and i'm just wondering um i suppose my question to you all would you agree that perhaps the priorities then for legislators or people who are in charge of the system centre around those kind of changes rather than structural changes not that they're not important what do you think in reality it doesn't matter how much legislation you throw at this what's needed is culture change that's what the nothing is going to change anything no matter how many things you put into place without the culture change i mean for me obviously a key focus isn't just the basis of on what a witness and other people's stories is not proven and then in terms of i think court delays they're not addressed in this bill i realise there's complications and resources but i think it's a fundamental human right given the heaviness of the situation for both parties involved they should be addressed within i think a legal time limit i think i don't know how that's worked out again i appreciate those complications but for everyone involved that needs to be really tightened up people can't be expected to wait for years you're clinging on to your trauma and what happened to you for all that time because it is a memory test for example one thing and i know we've touched upon this before and it's not in the bill and i'm so grateful for hearing me you know on the transcript something i'd ask for for closure but if you had a copy here today i would be 100 percent certain that my memory hasn't shifted in time if it has then it is only slightly i can assure you but i would also be able to evidence what i'm saying here today i think they're like a copy of the truth that doesn't have an agenda and that's something that could be reviewed post trial or it could be it's probably too late now but you know as part of this bill it would give you concrete evidence as well as our own evidence about what has gone wrong in certain situations and sort of prove our points so in terms of structural like i do obviously i'm for structural changes but i think the things i experienced are so extreme that i find it hard to talk about i'm really really just focused on things like not proven i do think again but in terms of advocate deputies yes access to him was a really made the world with difference i think also just based on how biased the system is we should have our own legal representation if one but it isn't it isn't it is ultimately he says she says it's not you know that you shouldn't be a witness you should be as as involved and you should have as many rights and you should be treated as equals throughout and legal representation would allow that thank you very much and the committee i think are very on that point about the transcript about the importance and so thank you very much for bringing that attention of the committee something else i think you'll need to take on i know there's a pilot running at the moment which you should take credit for i agree with hannah i think that i think all change in this situation and the fact that you're even reviewing the whole process from beginning to end is incredibly important my my focus from my experience and listening to the experience of others and how quite dramatically different it is should be around the non-proven i agree with hannah i think it's incredibly important that that's abolished i think that giving legal representation the whole process in general when it gets to trial is incredibly legal it's you know you're a witness you're all of a sudden it didn't actually really happen to you you're you're the one giving evidence and that that can be quite a struggle even just to get around you know the legal jargon that's used the whole process of you being actually a witness i think that there's a lot of difficulties that can surround that that i would understand a lot of people would struggle with i was really fortunate with my support network as i've told you i had access to to the fiscal and to you know the advocate so when i was confused perhaps about something it was very clearly explained to me at least she's mentioned having to google things and find these things out herself like that that to me is just adds to the trauma of the whole situation and if you're given one person to discuss this with who and it's their job to support you and even just explain terminology i think would be incredibly helpful and so i'm very much for that as well and in terms of the commissioner i've mentioned earlier i think to have somebody that that we can take comfort in that we can meet that that we can that we can just be aware of that is really is fundamentally taking this forward i think is quite important from a support level as well and communication one thing i didn't mention earlier that i would like to just very quickly is about the defence i was given the opportunity to meet with the defence and it was the the advocate that put the opportunity forward to me he brought the defence in to meet me he stood with me the whole time he made you know he provided comfort in that situation as well and i also think that's something that's incredibly important thanks for that and so my last question is then given what you've said i'm just wondering so the specific proposal has been mentioned for a specialist court lady dorian had recommended to be part of the high court but that's not what's in the bill i'm not too clear in my mind what actually this court is it's a national national jurisdiction we know it'll be trauma informed so lots of important aspects in it but it won't be the high court and that means that it won't be necessarily the same lawyers um and it won't help sheriffs to consider the judges isn't it maybe that doesn't matter that's the things that we've got to consider as a committee i know you were quite strong said i earlier on we talked about the importance of keeping because rape can only be conducted in the high court um some sexual offenses would go to the high court or the sheriff court just to bring on severity just if you've got a view on that that would be really great for me it's it's just about ensuring that the level of importance is there i i wouldn't like for it to be dismissed or for us to be made to feel that it's any less significant than it is so i think that um when when you know when you get the the information through and you know that it's going to a high court i think that there's just an element of realising how important that is and i think for me as a victim and and for the accuser and anybody else involved in the trial i just think it's important to know how important it is that that's just my opinion thank you i mean the high court's feeling is isn't it so as much as that level of importance has to be conveyed how important is it when it's not working is kind of my opinion on the matter yet the severity of the crimes needs to continue to be conveyed but what we are sitting here telling you now is it's a bit of a farce you know to put it mildly bluntly so i don't really have any like i think i'm quite behind that thank you it's just the whole thing's just a failure i don't i don't and my concern is that i could sit here for another 10 years and say the same thing in another 10 years how much of this is actually going to make any difference and it's actually at a point now where it's like what else are people supposed to how many more people is this going to take and actually now we all acknowledge the problem but we're not necessarily until now we haven't been doing anything about it and yeah this has come in and i think um is it i've on Irvine um no Leslie Irvine wrote a lengthy domestic abuse report and things were in there that were really good and i think all of that when you put it all together yeah it's really it provides a little bit more reassurance that maybe things will get a bit better but then in reality practically that's really not what we're seeing and you could apply that to anything there are organisations out there that say they're trauma informed and they're absolutely not like under absolutely no circumstances at the end of the day we're all human and judges are human and lawyers are human and you're not guaranteed that these people are going to be trauma informed all the time. Okay thank you very much just one very very final question just picking up on a point that you made Hannah about court transcripts um was just around a proposal around an audio transcript as well do you think that would be something that that survivors would welcome would it be a helpful positive option just i like an audiobook and as i've mentioned i did sit in on the trial so i don't have a huge i mean i'm not i think it should be available but what for me i would like a written version at one part that i didn't see and i probably will take the time to digest this is my my last time here definitely this time i hope that the changes are significant and that i've done my bit but i'll be moving on and i think again and that's why i raised it with you back in 2019 i did what i had to stop and said i'd never be back so thank you for inviting me back but yeah so part that was for closure and like i said the one bit i didn't sit in on was the accused's testimony whether i'll read that or skip over i don't know but i definitely don't want to listen to it so if that was an option put to me for that reason i would still ask for written but audio if someone wanted it you should get that as an option if it's cheaper or easier in some cases why not make it available okay thank you um i'm just going to bring this to close are there any final points that you would like to make before we before we conclude any show can i just pick up on a couple of things i know we haven't talked about um one of them is the victim blaming that actually takes place in general just within the court um so there's something that is quite often in women's organizations as darvo so it's the deny reverse victim offender so we see quite a lot that males will come into court and they will intentionally buy clothes that are three sizes too big so that they can look more hard done by and they'll come in with a hair all and that influences the jury um without even knowing it but we don't talk we haven't talked enough um and we haven't spoke about it in this bill about the after support these women more so now um are being left years upon years upon years and they live their life in essentially at the hands at the mercy of the justice system and then one day it's over and there is nothing there now if you've got children as well you have to also take that into consideration this is a horrendous experience i mean this didn't just steal my life but this stole my children's lives i was not the same mother that i was to them before that i am now and that isn't taken into consideration the family is not taken into consideration there's also a huge gdpr issue with um the whole thing about being able to request your documents that's your data why is it so difficult to get your hands on your own data and that needs to be brought up because that's not okay in any other situation in any other setting you would be able to get your hands on your data but because this is a legal setup that's not allowed okay thank you hannah or seara any very brief points from you um just briefly i think just one thing to touch upon it's not part of the bill but i think we can all acknowledge that the current system and how it operates in court isn't really a quest for the truth it's often theatrics that are very imbalanced um and while it's not there i just want it like kind of on record that there does need to be a provision in place to hold the legal profession to account whether it's the way that they're speaking to people who are the witnesses or whether they're just not doing a good job i don't think there's any sort of tight follow-up or regulation around their behaviour um and it's just something to note and consider for the future thank you hannah and finally seara i don't have anything to add other than um to just urge you to listen to the inconsistencies in particularly mine and hannah's stories we sat right next to each other and our lives have been changed completely and then we've been treated for different reasons and i just think it's imperative that you take that into consideration when you're looking at the consistency and the holding people accountable in their roles moving forward okay thank you seara okay i'm going to draw the session to a close again thank you all very much indeed for your time um your um your evidence has been very very important to us in thinking about the the bill so thank you again for joining us today so we'll just have a short suspension just to allow for a change over of panels thank you very much thank you our final panel today is here as part of phase three of our scrutiny of the victims witnesses and justice reform bill focusing specifically on parts five and six of the bill and this covers the establishment of a new sexual offences court anonymity for victims of sex offences independent legal representation for complainers and the proposal for a pilot for judge-led trials in certain rape cases so can i welcome to the meeting this morning sandy brindley chief executive at rape crisis scotland dr marcia scott chief executive at scotish women's aid cape wallace chief executive at victim support scotland and emma bryson from speak out survivors so welcome to you all and i intend to allow around about 90 minutes for this session so if i can begin with an opening general question which is do you support the idea of creating a specialist sexual offences court and what do you see would be the main benefits of doing so so i may be just work from my left to to right and i'll bring in sandy brindley first so at rape crisis scotland we support the creation of a specialist sexual offences court but we've heard this morning and previously from survivors about how traumatising the current system is and i do not think that seeking justice after rape or sexual crime should be as difficult and as traumatising as it is just now so i think the specialist sexual offences court by introducing a requirement for ticketing so anyone working in the specialist court from the clerk to the lawyer to the judge has had to go through trauma training i think that is positive and has the potential to at least improve some of the issues that we've heard about from survivors about the communication they have from people involved in the court process i think there's some areas which we might touch on but i think it could go further i'm really disappointed that it doesn't remove floating child diets i think the very least we need to do for survivors who are giving live evidence at court is to give them some certainty about when they're giving evidence because we know that uncertainty creates significant additional trauma there's one other issue i would highlight in terms of the specialist court so we have welcomed the presumption in the specialist court for survivors for complainers to pre-record their evidence but i would just give a note of caution you've heard from two women this morning speaking about being under pressure to use special measures and i found this in some research i'm doing with complainers i spoke to 20 complainers about their experience of the justice process and five of them raised this issue have been under pressure and not been listened to and not respected when they said they did not want to use a certain measure a certain special measure and i see in the bill there is provision for some just to give live evidence but only if the judge deems it in their best interest and there's no for their detail of what best interest means in this context now i would just caution against a paternalism in the name of protection that removes control in the agency because what we know is that for rape and sexual offence survivors rape is a crime that very much takes away their control and the current system removes this control and we need to make sure of course survivors can make choices that they're given these choices and they're listened to about what those choices are that that's very much indeed okay i'm just going to come straight on to Kate Wallace yeah i mean first of all just as you've heard from me before victim support scotland is supportive of this bill in general we think the legislation does mark a significant step forward and ensuring that the needs of victims and witnesses are at the heart of justice and i'd like to commend all of those this morning that came forward and thank the committee for inviting them to to share their experiences we agree in terms of your particular question around the sexual offence the specialist sexual offence court we think it is really important or supportive of that we think having i enable in everybody to be trained both in terms of trauma informed approaches but also in terms of sexual crime is really really important and we think that that the specialist sexual offence court gives a real opportunity to be able to do that and you heard this morning around inconsistency of approach and we think a specialist sexual offence court particularly when you see it in in conjunction with some other provisions within the bill around a trauma informed approach for example that would give the potential to reduce that inconsistency and we do agree that with sandy that there's a couple of other things that we would like to see in there around we've victim support scotland has been arguing for a long time around the real and you know floating child diets are inhumane they really are and you've heard that this morning that lack of certainty is you know is really really traumatising for people as you know and we do think that having a secure place within the specialist court to be able to view the rest of the trial is something that we should have we saw it in the virtual trial pilot there was the ability for victims to be able to view the rest of the trial online and that the feedback that we got from that was that that was really really useful now of course that was in summary cases but it would be really helpful if we could explore that with the specialist court too so so yeah we we think that that was supportive of them we do understand some of the concerns around perception around downgrade and we think those can be dealt with and we think they can be addressed but we think it's a big step forward that thanks very much and dr scott i think those of us who work in domestic abuse have a particular perspective on specialist courts and i i'm really happy to bring that evidence to this discussion and i'm a little dismayed that it's not been used much and i guess have a couple of points to make about that the the specialist domestic abuse courts which were piloted in glasgo if you recall a while ago quite a while ago and evaluated robustly demonstrated that that the use of a specialist court in the context of domestic abuse anyway delivered some excellent outcomes they they delivered um uh reduced witness attrition they delivered um speedy trials um and uh they delivered better evidence for the whole system and um uh those are elements that i think um greatly improved the the um you know the interest and serve the public interest in terms of improving justice but it also they reduced trauma significantly um and uh i'm i'm very struck by having just this morning reviewed again some of the the comments from the law society and some other areas in opposition to this and it strikes me that those are very similar arguments that were raised in opposition to the specialist domestic abuse courts in glasgo at the time and that those were very much based on a sort of i being you know and and a notion that the status quo is safer well it's safer for some and so i guess in the grand scheme of things obviously i think you know that we that we support the special the proposals for a specialist court here and i think that we we need to be confident that we can deliver better outcomes for the system it would be hard to deliver worse ones yeah and if the status quo is not acceptable which is why we're here then we need to be willing um to go forward to change it significantly rather than um uh changes at the margins thank you very much and emma emma bryson well before i say anything about specialist courts i actually just want to thank the six women who've come in here today um i think they're the experts and i sincerely hope that each and every one of you will take something away from that that informs the actions and decisions that you take forward um whatever political persuasion you are um with regards to the specialist courts i think from speak out survivors perspective what we would say is that we support that in theory we think the theory um you know of trauma informed practice uh are better more supportive environment victims are less traumatising environment for victims to give their evidence all of these are very worthy aims we do however have concerns about the reality so there's always i think a concern that you start out with a theory of something which can be perfect and beautiful but when you implement it what it what that translates to in practice isn't always the outcomes or aims that you expected it to deliver so and i think we should all be very careful about that um our main concerns really are around sentencing now we have heard that the specialist courts would have the same sentencing powers as the high court i think um we would agree with some of some of what the um the previous contributors have said this morning about about how important the high court is the fact that it is the high court it exists to prosecute the most serious offences and i think the use of the term specialist suggests that it somehow falls into a completely separate category so um that i think is something that that does need to be considered not just from a victim's point of view but from the public perception point of view if the public perceives that actually serious sexual offences and rape are not deemed to be serious enough to be heard in the high court um i think that raises questions about public confidence and the criminal justice system as a whole excuse me my mouth just went really dry there um and a lot of a lot of the practical stuff i think that certainly the the issues around floater trials that you know that that's dehumanising it's dehumanising for everybody involved not just the victims but also you know the um the offenders in these cases or the accused um the idea again that this is that the specialist courts are somehow going to fix a whole lot of issues um we would need to see evidence we would need to see you know that this pilot the the jury for sorry i'm waffling i'm just going to take a breath it's really intimidating you know i'm not an expert um yeah so i think we need to be assured that the concerns that have been raised by people on the panel today and by the six women that we've heard heard previously um are taken on board and addressed um and i think i'll leave it there at that point the short answer is we agree in theory but have concerns about practice yeah that thanks very much and i think just um in follow up i think one of the things that we've heard a lot about today was the the benefit the significant benefit of um survivors being part of the um case um and um how important it is for them to have choice and control and how actually you know potentially does that have um the the does that impact on convictions um so so that that's been very interesting just on the issue around floating trials i think Rona Mackay you picked up on it earlier on just by way of some clarification certainly when we had the lord advocate in um last week i think it was she certainly expressed a desire that um the issue around floating trials in the context of sexual offences cases should be should be looked at with a view to that not being part of the a case of a case being being held so that that was quite interesting i don't know if you've got any further views to share around floating trials just from um your engagement with survivors on that and how difficult that can be for them maybe come back to sandy on that maybe is to put in record just how distressing um complainers tell us they find floating trial diet so firstly there's the delay like the length of time it takes for cases to get to court it was bad before Covid it's even worse now people talk about putting their life in hold for years but also rehearsing so some people say every morning they wake up and they go through in their mind what's going to happen in court that evidence they're going to give and that this distressing anxiety is worsened by the lack of certainty so so people have a a trial allocated to a flow so like to a a certain name period and then every night they're waiting on a call to tell them is it going to go ahead the next day that this is far from trauma informed practice but it's also not how you get the best evidence from vulnerable witnesses a minute it's now well over a decade since Lord Bonomy recognised that floating trial diets were inappropriate in rape cases yet here we are where it's the default for every rape case and i think if we're sitting up especially the sexual offenses court it seems to me it's the very least we should be doing in this court is giving certainty notwithstanding there's a a default of complainers having their evidence pre-recorded because some complainers as we've heard really powerfully this morning some complainers for every right of reasons want to give live evidence and they should not have to endure the additional trauma of floating trial diets i think it is a case of the systems needs being prioritised over complainers needs i appreciate from the Scottish courts and tribunals service there's concerns about delays but i think that should be an issue that the system and the justice agencies work out to make sure it doesn't increase delays rather than the burden of that being put one in the complainer yeah so thanks for that and i'll maybe just come back to Dr Scott on you spoke very helpfully about the specialist domestic abuse courts that we've been developing in Scotland and how they have demonstrated excellent outcomes so in context of and i'm going to shift a little bit on to the proposal around a judge only led trial there's obviously been and the pilot around that there are different views on that and but we've heard very clearly that a that was a recommendation that lady dorian made and also it'd be a time limited pilot given your experience in a different in a different context i'm interested just in your views on the proposal around judge only trials given that it's a pilot first of all i meant to also add when i was saying before so thanks for the for the opening here one of the the unfortunate aspects of implementation of specialist courts in the context of domestic abuse has been that they have been really a lot of the if the power of them has been eroded by an attempt to rebadge what are really regular normal courts as specialist courts because of clustering of cases or whatever but really missing the critical elements of specially trained sheriffs and judges specially trained prosecutors independent support like assist provides or women's aid provides and speed to trial and so i would i guess one of the the sort of sequelae then of that for me is that we would in implementing specialist courts and in a pilot of judge only that we would have to pay very close attention to adequate resourcing to protect the model and not to allow decisions as sandy says that that are made to create efficiencies in the system which have extraordinarily harmful impacts on on victims and survivors and the last point on that which is related to the others i think also is that the vast majority of domestic abuse survivors victims tell us that they have experienced rape and sexual assault in the context of their domestic abuse and they are deeply reluctant to disclose that in our system and i think that the confidence that they have showed about the improvements when they're in truly specialist domestic abuse courts will could has the potential for us to see building confidence in a system so that domestic abuse survivors who are also rape and sexual assault survivors would have a confidence that the system would not provide them with as we heard earlier horrific or horrendous experiences domestic abuse is difficult to know anyway so that that's that point in terms of judge only trials i'm always i'm really quite struck by the the horror of oh my god we're we're proposing eliminating juries when the vast majority of domestic abuse cases are heard in sheriff you know sheriff courts and i know that the distinction supposedly is that serious crimes are heard in the in the high court but i think that that distinction is one of convenience and history rather than any assessment on the part of our justice system that the domestic abuse cases that are heard in summary court are not serious and in fact under section one of the domestic abuse act there's an ability to hear cases where there's sexual assault as part of the course of conduct so i think i understand why people are nervous about a judge only court i think it's appropriate then to ask to to start it as a pilot everything we know about improving systems tells us that you start small when the risk is high but i have to keep coming back to the to the place of what we have is not working and we have to be willing to take the risk and yeah you can you know monday was martin luther king day in the united states martin luther king said it's always the right time to do the right thing and this is the right time i think and there is no panacea because as the previous women made so clear it's it's considered you know people talk about a culture change in scottish courts but people often talk about a culture change in domestic abuse and that's their excuse for putting it in the two hardbox and i think culture is actually a very real very um sort of uh measurable issue and it has and you and you improve it with training you improve it with accountability but you also improve it with the reality of what's around the women who are going through the court and if they are treated unequally if they are treated you know to juries that maintain rape myths that we know that that some many of them do then the culture doesn't change and i think that is the that's how we change cultures that we change the reality around the participants in the justice system okay thank you and i'm going to open up to members now i'm going to bring in runamakai and then Pauline McNeill okay thanks convener good morning this morning just um yeah i just wanted to pick up on a couple of points that were talked there um about the judge only trials and um i think we heard some of the women this morning say that you know that they found that quite scary because they wouldn't have confidence that that one person wasn't biased um but in a jury i would submit that there's more chance of a few people being biased than than that one specially trained judge and i think that's that the key um that we have to remember that in a specialist court you know judges would would have to have had all that training and understand the very sensitive nature of the issues um so that kind of brings me on to my question and it's actually something um one of that the women had mentioned about the role of the victim commissioner and how they felt and i actually feel that the legal profession have to be held to account in some way for their conduct because we can pass all the legislation in the world if they don't carry it out it is pointless um do you think that could be a role for the victim commissioner to keep an eye on how cases are conducted to keep an eye on how the legal profession are you know carrying out trauma informed practice and would that be a key role for the commissioner i can start and then maybe pass one to key i think that one of the points that was really been made this morning the survivor sessions were the issues with accountability and to me that's primarily about the complaints process so you heard Ellie Wilson talk about how long her complaint has taken we saw with the case with Gordon Jackson after the comments he made on the train um following Alex Salmond or during Alex Salmond trial that took years to get to court to come to resolution sorry so i think there's a real issue about accountability in terms of complaints processes that really needs dealt with in terms of how accessible they are but also that there's a related issue there i think to the specialist sexual offences court which is there is no point having ticketing if there is no process for removing that ticket and i think in my experience we cannot rely on professional bodies such as faculty of advocates to carry out that role we have seen that in previous investigations they've carried out that as far as i think there's been no consideration of appropriateness to be conducted in rape trials after really quite serious and concerning behaviour so i think we need to look at complaints processes particularly for the faculty of advocates and the law society how accessible they are particularly to people that are representing themselves and what set with the faculty is a very legalistic process and not accessible at all i would say so we need to look at that i think court transcripts as Hannah Steak spoke about that as another part of accountability and i think the victims commissioner could be another layer there so i think there's a number of layers of accountability that we need to look at do you think the victims commissioner could incorporate that in his or her duties um could that be you know because given that they can't intervene in individual cases it would seem to me that an oversight of of what's actually happening would be a good a good role they certainly could look at a thematic review i i think if in terms of the issues that that are being raised but i would hope that we shouldn't have to wait for but this bill is going to take some time to pass and some time to be implemented then some time for a victims commissioner to be set up we shouldn't have to wait for that i think these are issues that can be dealt with now in terms of accountability and improving complaints processes okay thanks Kate just on the point about the commissioner's role specifically and i agree with what sandy said about you know that doesn't stop us from looking at things just now but we had argued in previous evidence session about the commissioner about really looking at that role and matching the role to the children's commissioner role where as long as there isn't any other process on going at the time then the commissioner can look at it but i do think that oversight role and particularly around complaints processes processes and also you know we i made the point in a previous session as well even understanding who it is that you have to complain to about the point that that is really difficult to understand in the justice system because there's so many different organisations involved with different roles and responsibilities and i'll also said my previous session if you remember that i do think the commissioner role is absolutely critical around accountability so yeah i agree that that is one of the things that could be added to their remit hopefully in their powers looked at good thanks marcia so this is where i differ from my sisters on the panel in the sense that we've been concerned that introducing a victims commissioner into the system would dilute the influence that survivors struggle to have now and that in scotland we are lucky to have a system that is relatively accessible and that places and other places in the uk that have victims commissioners would would not look as accessible but also that we have been told by our counterparts in those countries that victims commissioner from their perspective would not be a good idea because it's a an additional bureaucratic role and i think that i'm hesitant to say that only because anything that would give more voice to the experience of those who are in courts but the difficulty actually isn't defining the problem you all have heard over and over and over what the problems are so the question would be would a victims commissioner have the power and authority to change the things that we're hearing and i have strong questions about whether that would in fact be true the the other issue for me is we've just we're talking about the importance of specialisms in this area and yet a victims commissioner would not be a specialist so if you're going to introduce that role then you would need a specialist violence against women and girls commissioner i think so i think there's it's what is what's the problem we're trying to solve here and i think that the issues that sandy and kate have said about using the the mechanisms that we have now are important but also the big really elephant in the room is accountability in the system and i don't think a victims commissioner is going to make that significantly better okay thank you Emma yeah so um our view really is that i mean i guess we're sitting on the fence is it really necessary there are already a number of qualified intermediaries organizations and agencies involved to do you know very efficiently and professionally represent victims interests across the board and we also believe that victims of sexual domestic offenses have particular needs and vulnerabilities which other victims don't so the idea of a victims commissioner who's somehow going to represent the views of all types of victims i think we have concerns about that i think we would certainly echo the point that doc scott made there about about a commissioner for violence against women and girls as well i think it sits alongside the idea of trauma trauma informed practice being a kind of one size fits all whereas everybody's had the adequate training in how to practice trauma informed practice that that's somehow going to fix all the problems and what we know is that victims of domestic domestic sexual violence you know have very specific you know needs and vulnerabilities and they're not the same thing at all so having a victims commissioner i think would be useful to potentially the you know a broad array of victims but how beneficial would it be to victims of domestic and sexual offenses without that specialized knowledge without and without the specialized focus as well so i think i think that's something that we would like to see taken into consideration thank you just one very quick final just on the specialist court um you know i think we've obviously heard some concerns about the perception of the downgrading of the seriousness of the offence and you know we all have that concern that's not what we want it is about perception one of the survivors came up with a very simple suggestion which i think would be really effective it's just the naming of it you know have we called it a specialist sexual offenses no specialist high court you know something um that i mean that's that's an easy fix so i just wondered if you sort of agreed with that idea rather than just making it a specialist court which could be specialist for anything from our perspective the risk of downgrading was primarily related to having limited sentence and powers it is clear to me that is equivalent to the high court when it's got unlimited sentence and powers what will be taken as seriously as i would anticipate is the the high court in terms of the naming suggestion i think the issue with that is that it is intended to include sheriff kate what would currently be sheriff court cases so just what's your practical if you could call it a high court something to think about anyone else got a view on that if i could just come back just in one one point about rights of audience which i know that polymate new has raised before we raised in our submission we'd have some concern about the rights of audience not being equivalent to the high court so at the moment if for example a tempted rape it would need to be somebody with rights of audience for the high court that was able to prosecute or defend in those cases and from my reading of the bill that is no longer the case so i mean i would like to see equivalent rights of audience to the situation in the high court and the specialist court these are these are very complex cases i think you heard really perfectly from the lord advocate about some of the challenges here and prosecuting but also i thought our point was really well made about the need for additional resources for the crown one of the strongest things i took from the previous sessions with survivors was the lack of consistency and also the difference that can make meeting the ad and having a positive constructiveness with ad in advance of trial that should be happening routinely and it is partly floating trial diets are linked to this in terms of how the advocates are getting the case therefore they don't they maybe get it a week before the trial in some cases it's then difficult for them to meet repeatedly with complainers in the way that the lord advocate would want but i do think there's significant resource issues here for the crown to enable them to ensure that they are able to meet complainers in advance of trial in the way that is absolutely required and was really powerfully put i think by the complainers this morning thank you thanks thank you very much and paulie mcneill followed by sharon doey thank you um yeah that was going to be one of my questions that i would just carry on for her on that left off i mean i suppose where i'm going with all this is emma brys and you said this is the theory but what's the practice but also what is the law what are we going to legislate for this is what i'm thinking about so i was quite persuaded by lady dorian's evidence last week and her report on the specialist court she envisaged would be a branch of the high court i am mystified about some of the changes the government have made when they went from the report into into the bill so this is what i want to ask you about um so it's an you rightly said well it's a national jurisdiction court it has sentencing powers but the thing that's missing is the rights of audience will not be the same and you say that in your submission so for that reason my view is this will not be the same as the high court unless this is resolved um if i could draw your attention to a question ask lady dorian uh or a point to make to lady dorian when we extended the sentencing powers of the sheriff court which we did don't quote me in the air because i have no idea bonomy again made the same point about floating trials he said about the right of an accused person who would have been tried in the high court before we extended the powers to have rights of audience of more senior counsel it's impossible now to get senior counsel approved by the legal aid board and it strikes me convenient that maybe we do need to ask a legal aid board what their view of this is if this is not enshrined in law i absolutely certain this will all become so murky um but at least in cases the distinction in for my feelings the distinction in law is that the high court rape can only go to the high court murder can only go to the high court so everything flows from that what we don't do you share my concerns i think you do from your submission we need to persuade the government this could not really be what lady dorian had envisaged we don't sort this absolutely agree in terms of rights of audience i don't actually have a view on whether or not it should be as part of the high court or equivalent to the high court as long as rights of audience are are are amended but i think my concern is what what we don't want is there's a courtroom in Glasgow high court and it's got a label on the door saying special especially sexual offenses court and there is literally no difference that maybe that maybe the people involved have been in like a day's training it's like how do we make sure that the specialist court actually represents system change and i think if we're thinking of it something distinct i think it then becomes easier to think of it in terms of systems change so this court for not that it's been proposed by the government but this court does not have floating child diets this court has a dedicated viewing room has been discussed for complainers this court has dedicated advocacy workers that we know survivrishly value so it's how do we make it system change rather than just somebody somebody's been like a bit of training my last question which might not be able to answer again i don't fully understand don't fully understand why the government when they legislated for it said that murder could be indicted in the specialist court out of the sexual element i just wondered had you asked for that where did it had you made representations to the government on that we made representations on the limited sentence and powers when it was initially 10 years was the proposal from lady dorian but i didn't entirely understand the rationale for that at the time the 10-year limit but my concern wasn't what i said to the government was it if you have this limitation do you potentially go women in very very serious cases for example the lead to an order for lifelong restriction not getting any of the benefits of the specialist sexual offenses court and that did not make any sense to me at all so we made representations on that but not specifically on the murder question because again i think it's mudded the waters for me anyway i mean murder should be in the high court i just don't now understand i can obviously can be prosecuted in either court but again you know there's once you lose that provision from law we won't go back to it that's for sure can i ask you about so the certainty of trials and the floating trials which i think committee are persuaded about that must be so traumatic we've heard that from survivors what concerns me about how we would fix that is that the figures that the lord advocate last week gave the committee about the volume of cases that would come out the high court would strip out the high court of the majority of cases we know that because that's essentially the root of the problem is the number of sexual offenses cases i think she gave a figure of it 73% would you not have concerns that went in the creation of the specialist court if all those cases then go there and not in the high court we're going to have a problem trying to get that certainty because the same problem will arise if you see what i'm saying because the volume of cases going into that court will be high do you see what i mean i'm not sure if i do because i suppose and well maybe but the reason for the lack of certainty in the floating trial system i think is because they want to be able to try and precious many cases so if there's a spare court they want to be able to have a window to let a trial proceed whereas if a fixed trial diet is it has to start on that date so the courts might be lying vacant so the volume of cases i mean so i thought well there's high volume of cases we've got the specialist court i'm not sure we can deliver on this so because of that i suppose the first thing is that that i would say is that the design of the specialist court aim would have to take into account the volume of cases and the predictions about that because obviously the crown officer aware of what's coming through potentially you know in the next two three years as well so i think that should be built into the planning resources point is really crucial how it's going to be managed how it's going to be resourced effectively i think you know the the the trade-off around fixed trials versus floating trial diets there is a concern i think that that means that there's going to be a less efficient use of court the court of state for example and you may have a courtroom line vacant if a trial goes more quickly than anticipated but the the reason that we think this is so important is that some of the decisions that are being made at the moment about efficiency of the court of state are completely ignoring the traumatic impact on victims so it was a case that sandy and i are aware of where a trial went ahead more quickly than anticipated and someone was on a friday somebody was actually called the evidence was part heard on the friday which then left them the whole weekend to come back now yet my argument would be they should have just left that for the friday now i know it wouldn't probably look good for efficiency statistics nor the rest of it in terms of you know i'm very sympathetic to that i mean i think you've made a very good as a survivor i'm just concerned about the volume of cases transfer and space score how we'd achieve it that was an adjunct for my point of view i think you build that into the plan and you build that into the number of people who are trained you you've got that that knowledge and that's how you do it you do we've asked and we were asked by the previous crown agent actually around this question and that was actually prior to covid so anyway around asking people about certainty versus delay delay is a huge problem it's always been a huge problem but when we asked people that we work with about you know if you knew it was going to take a you know a couple of extra months but you knew you had certainty of the date would you take that or would you not and they all said they would much prefer the certainty and would you know accept a bit longer of a delay it's this pulling the rug from under you day after day after day that's that's that's and i'm not saying delay itself isn't a problem we need to address because absolutely it is but that's the whole other layer on it thank you no that's really helpful it's just last question to everyone and the incredible evidence we've had thanks to all of you from victims and survivors has persuaded me to actually a lot of the changes are not legislative but are about the system itself and i'm i suppose it's your question Emma i'm going to have to give some thought in my own mind is that how do you get such a change one for example is about as other members of questions is about this notion of well how do victims get more of a say in their own case how do they get access to advocate deputies now my scan knowledge very scan tells me that it's maybe cultural that for many years 80s were trained you are the prosecutor it's your job to act in the public interest so you don't represent the victim so that's very much how they've been trained but what we're hearing is that that's not really it doesn't help the conduct of the trial and it doesn't really help so there's a lot of thinking to be done around that so sandy you've made the case about the conduct of to me this is a separate issue about maybe changing the culture of and that may mean something is a resource issue as well because that means more time i just wondered if all of you thought making some of those changes were more important or as important as the legislation changes in front of us sandy do you want to go first yes i mean at the moment that there is a legal right to effective participation for complainers in sexual offence cases in all cases but you absolutely would not know that from complainers experiences overwhelmingly complainers say they feel completely marginalised they're unprepared for giving evidence they're under informed but what i thought was really striking about the evidence sessions this morning was Sarah's evidence where she spoke although she said that it was a horrendous experience but she was positive about it because she was informed she was prepared and they meet with ad in the defence and that was crucial and i think one case it's not enough to demonstrate system change but what it does is it shows that it's possible within the existing system i think some of the barriers to that are cultural i think there's resource barriers for the crown i think as i said floating trial diets are a barrier because cases have been allocated so late to a sitting that you think a late allocation of ad so i think there's a number of things that need to change there but i think that there are really simple things that could actually make a huge difference to somebody's experience and the key point here for me is about agency how do we give complainers agency in this process and i think that's one of the most important questions for you to think about as you're considering the bill is about are these provisions going to give complainers a bit more agency or are they going to negate their agency but having said that i think we could do a lot within the current system but that doesn't negate the need for these legislative changes before you because most of the changes we're talking about that i've outlined there are for the crown but there are clearly wider system issues that require to be addressed we heard the complainers talking about i thought the evidence that Hanna gave about feeling she was fighting for her life when she was giving evidence and nobody intervened in that courtroom that there is a cultural in a system change there so i think we need to think about legislation practising culture all going hand in hand we can't do one without the other in my view yeah i mean i would just agree i think there are some improvements that can be made to the system at the moment you know but a lot of those improvements are not being made i don't think personally i don't think you will achieve the level of culture change that we need without legislative change i think the classic example and i hear the and i heard it in the last session about you know the struggle over trauma informed practice and what that actually means there are some key principles about that that are underpinned the evidence that you heard this morning around choice around control around collaboration trust and safety and i think those need to be enshrined but without my view is having been in this post now for six and a half years without enshrining trauma informed practice and legislation and stating that that is an ambition for the justice system in Scotland we're never going to achieve it we need that as a cornerstone so i agree with sandy that and i don't disagree around the need for culture change i absolutely see it but it's about how you achieve it and what levers you use in this piece of legislation i think is a really useful start thank you what they said with a few sort of additional observations we've been very involved in very i have to say disheartening and discouraging at the moment conversations with officials in justice about failure to implement the children's scotland act and a variety of other legislation that as far as i know the will of the parliament should be the law of Scotland and yet however because of the failure to allocate resources appropriately the law is on paper only and i think that for me really underscores and i was thinking about when sandy was talking about agency well there's also the agency of parliament so that it does strike me that part of this if we're committed to transformative system change has to be a multiple multiple effort initiative and that includes what changes culture and law changes culture often so if i think the domestic abuse act is a brilliant example of that you know it's not fixed anything it's not even you know everything it's not fixed most of what's in the system but it sets a different standard and i think that legislation is part of the solution but not the entire solution i agree but it also has a huge impact on culture i also think post legislative scrutiny is absolutely critical in the context of especially when you're when you're creating new change you know new practices and i think that one of the tools that's available to this committee and and to the parliament as a whole is the opportunity to follow up on whether the will of parliament was actually implemented and clearly i have concerns about it with other pieces of legislation but i also don't think that we should let we should be complacent in the face of decisions that are made with all of this evidence taking that are then trumped by resource decisions so i guess i would just add the other thing for me is that we should avoid binaries well yes we need legislation no we don't or you know this will change culture change that won't change culture change i'm really mindful for instance the series of case management pilots that have been happening in most mostly domestic abuse cases and and some of the changes in the processes have solved problems that are that are have only been perceived of as resource problems so you know if we if we get change the way early diets happen then we you know if that's done appropriately we see increased guilty pleas which is an efficiency in the system in some ways and it delivers an outcome that that would have prior prior to those those pilots been considered just a resource issue so i mean i came here today having obviously like everybody here i think spent quite a lot of time thinking about legislative changes and i've been really persuaded by the evidence that i've heard from the the six women who have talked about their personal experience and i've been persuaded because what what they describe is a system that fails them in a million small ways and how much of an impact that has on them personally but also how much of an impact it has on on i think you know there's a public confidence issue if we recognise that we have a system which fails at least five out of six survivors you know that's that's not good enough that's that's that's deeply concerning um legislative changes obviously have the power to be hugely significant but just listening to what i've heard today it really strikes me that within the system that we already have comparatively small fixes also have the power to make an enormous difference and i think that so with regards to the the proposed legislation and the pilot trial you know we're we're talking about years down the line realistically before anything changes and in the meantime how many more how many more survivors are being failed by a system that that actually isn't working for them and that's not to say that legislative changes aren't important we should i think we should still be working towards them but i think in the meantime aren't there smaller fixes that can be implemented more readily and that that may sound idealistic but i think legislative changes are arguably more difficult to pass and so focusing on system change i think in the short term you know first of all you've got the advantage of immediacy you know you could potentially make changes in a short space of time rather than years down the line the impact of that on victims here and now would be significant and i think it would also encourage other victims to feel that actually the experiences that we hear about from victims every day whether it's directly from the the women who've spoken to us today or the stories that we read in the media you know that these are these do have the power to make a difference and that when victims are failed parliament recognizes that and doesn't just keep kicking the ball down the line in terms of an ideal that you know that there's an element of reality i think to be brought to this and the cost and resources as well i think certainly things like the victim commissioner you know we sit on the fence on that but you know there's there's a financial element to that and arguably this is money that could potentially be spent better elsewhere and for wider advantage i think for you know for many victims and just to speak briefly about sort of the cultural element as well you know we live in a culture where survivors of sexual violence and domestic violence are discouraged from speaking about their experiences and there is still an element of shame attached to it that somehow you know that women are accountable for the things that happened to us and this is played out in courtrooms you know defence lawyers trade on stereotypes and rape myths and we treat victims of rape in a way that we don't treat victims of any other types of crime you know if your car is stolen you know you're not expected to stand up in a court and you know defend why your car was stolen i think it's it's something you know from from speak out survivors point of view you know we hear from survivors all the time about the experiences they've had whether or not they've had a prosecution because obviously you know speak out survivors was really born of a campaign to change the requirement for corroboration to enable more cases to get to court so you know we have a pretty broad perspective on survivor experiences and i'm not saying that legislative change isn't the way forward but i have i found what i've heard this morning really really powerful and i really hope that everybody else in this room has as well because what it costs women to to tell their personal experiences i'm sure you're aware is you know it's it's not an easy or a comfortable thing to do and it really should be listened to and lessons should be learned from that can i maybe just move things on yeah of course i don't i'm very reluctant to intervene but i've got quite a few members wanted to come in and a wee bit to cover so um Paulina McNeill is that you okay thank you so i'm going to bring in Sharon Dowey and then John Swinney thank you good morning and i agree with a lot what you've just said i'm quite concerned that we spend too much time time yourself up in legislation when there's maybe small changes we could make just now that would make a huge impact on survivors one of them probably being improving communication at court so there's a lot of things that i think can we go in and do that just now rather than having to wait until we get to the end of this process but going back to specialist courts can i ask just what your vision of specialist courts is i'm just thinking we've already been heard that we're going to be using the existing court estate so how many existing buildings would you expect to be classed as having a specialist court within it and how many would that be in comparison to what we're getting used just now i mean my understanding is that they're looking at the the whole estate i mean i think there's real pros and cons here about using the existing estate or having one national bespoke building which i understand from Lady Dorian's evidence but was was not in contemplation and i think there are difficult tensions that we've done some consulting with survivors around this and for some people a bespoke building would make a huge difference that was actually the building itself was trauma informed because we hear time and time again about the difficulties i've used in the existing estate about common entrances complainers having to hide in a room like a knockout for their lunch until the accused is out the building but still there's the possibility they'll meet in the the lunch room or the the cafeteria so there's real issues with existing estate and i would also say there's even more issues with having rape trials and share of courts and we had some really negative feedback from when that that does happen like people haven't to have discussions with the lady in the corridor before giving the evidence so that there's major issues with the existing estate but i do understand the rationale for it being local justice so particularly say for example for somebody from Orkney it doesn't make sense them having to travel huge distances to one national court in terms of my vision of what the court is it should be that no matter where you go to this court in Scotland there is a consistent approach that you can expect in terms of trauma informed that people treat you with sensitivity that you're kept informed i think there are issues a bit scared than as Kate spoke about one of the women who took part in my research spoke about this if i haven't been called to give evidence right at the end on a friday i think those are the things where it's the systems needs rather than the the complainers needs that are the priority so i suppose that would be my vision for a specialist court it's no matter where it is in the country there's a certain level of service and experience that people should be able to take for granted whether it's in Orkney or whether it's in Edinburgh but as i say i'm really keen to make sure it is something substantially different and not just branded a certain way but the same story as always that maybe doesn't make me any clearer and we would agree i think your question around the kind of number of buildings is really you know difficult for us and you know that that's all part of the planning process what i would hope is that that when the court is being designed that they are looking at consistency and they are actively looking at the the challenges that are posed within certain buildings where you know some things can't be overcome in those buildings then become discounted is not being you know usable for the purposes of this the specialist sexual court because you know that we know that there are just by nature of the court estate there's some buildings where you know it's really not conducive to a trauma informed even with you know trying to do what you can inside it there are some courts that don't have separate entrances for example at all now you can have a debate and argue whether it's the survivor who should be coming in that back entrance or not and obviously i've got in my role very strong views about that and completely agree with some of the evidence that was given before but for where there's no opportunity to do that and where you really you know where you can't avoid the accused or those who are related to the accused from coming into contact with victims and survivors those buildings should be discounted but i think that that has to be seen as part of the the planning process and and what we you know my benchmark would be and it's the i was hurting by what was said earlier on because i get asked often about what does trauma informed mean what trauma informed means to me is that someone comes you know what's happened to them is is horrific but when they come out of a process if it involves a court process and says that you know the way i was treated i felt safe all the way through the way i was treated i was kept informed i was kept up to date my needs were met and that includes the buildings are real in the environment is a really important part of that too so when someone says that that to me is the outcomes that you want in terms of you the the verdict might not be what they wanted the or expected the sentence might not be what they wanted or expected you know and that that is part and partial of the system but when someone feels safe all the way through informed you know they're asked about their choices and and that acted upon and treated with respect and dignity as we talked about in the earlier on session then yeah that's that's for me so any building where that's not going to work should not be a specialist court does that then run the risk that we're going to actually have more delays in the court system then if we're actually going to reduce the number of buildings that we can actually class as a specialist court would that then have the unintended consequence of it depends how you design it and i wouldn't say that's an automatic it depends on how you design it and how you schedule it and how you prioritise cases i guess okay md also have any other comments in that or just to observation of course domestic abuse cases happen in these courts all the time and and the problem here is the state of the estate if you will rather than who's using the building and because survivors of domestic abuse will tell you all the time that they were told that they essentially couldn't have access to justice because the building didn't allow it and and i think that is the problem not not whether having a specialist court in those buildings is is going to suddenly raise problems that we didn't already know existed and and i do i do absolutely think it's that we can ameliorate some of these issues in terms of the planning but if the problem of having you know moving them around i mean that solves a lot of other problems and and if we just take a binary approach to yes we'll do it no we won't then we have all those other problems to deal with as in terms of the difficulties of women living in shetland and orkney and and all of the implications of having a central court just moving on a wee bit the bill will oblige all courts to roll out trauma informed practice so what extra trauma informed practice are training would you expect to see in a specialist court that you wouldn't already get in the other courts i'm happy to just weigh in a little bit on that so we've had extensive conversations with nes and talking about what does appropriate trauma informed practice look like in the context of domestic abuse and sexual assault and it requires a not a it's not rocket science but it requires a specialism in terms of understanding the the intersection of violence trauma stigma and gender in the experience of understanding both what what you're seeing in front of you but also the things that kate was talking about in terms of agency and and safety and respect and i think that creating a specialist environment in which those are the the least women can expect rather than the most women can expect that is specialist around violence against women and girls first of all it'll raise the practice in the rest of the system and secondly it it just it's really it's really the minimum of delivering equal justice i think marsha is absolutely right it's about specialism and i heared loaded lady dorian talking about this last week about trying to create a culture amongst the judiciary and she spoke a lot about the efforts that herself and the lord president have undertaken in terms of the judiciary's approach to 275 to sexual history applications but also to judges becoming more interventionist where required in court and i think those are two examples of particular issues in sexual offence cases about sexual history evidence and also the need for judges to intervene and really actively manage what happens in the courtroom that i think the benefit of specialism should give us the possibility to change the culture which is what we've heard so clearly about this morning that we need to do yeah i was just going to add you know the question around what is additionally needed on top of the kind of generic trauma on practice training is about gender competence that is around a deep understanding about violence against women and girls and that i think is you know a real focus on that coupled with what that then means in terms of your own practice is what that's to me some of the key hallmarks of the specialist court will have and why we're supportive of it thank you conveyor i think if we this has been really helpful hearing of some of the interactions that i'm going to come on to in a second bit if we if we doubted the necessity of legislation i think we will need to look at lady dorian's remarks at column 22 last week and where russell finlay valiantly put a quote to her from the faculty of advocates that there was no single feature of the proposed court could not be delivered rapidly and lady dorian went on to say now we have of course managed to bring in the changes in the way in which juries are directed and so on but even if they were brought in rapidly they are still being brought they've been done in a piecemeal way they are not being done in a principled way with the underpinning of a whole court that is dedicated to trauma informed practices and one of the things that we said in the report was that if we don't seize the opportunity to create the culture change from the ground up that mr swinney spoke about there is every risk that in 40 years my successor and your successors will be in this room having the same conversation now he has a lot of moments in this evidence taken that are not going to leave me a lot of them happened this morning from our six witnesses earlier on and from this session but that moment with lady dorian registered with me which brings me on to think that you know this has got to be a combination of I think three things legislation because for you know lady dorian's recommendation is you've got to really have a go at this piecemeal change incremental change has been played around with and it's not a lot and a lot advocate to the same view last week and you need cultural change which is about trauma informed practice that absolutely nothing should happen in the process is not trauma informed so you need legislation to underpin that but then you come to the thorn issue of regulation regulation of the profession so I'd be interested I'm interested in the comments that were made by sandy bring me about ticketing because if there is to be an underpinning of the approach to participate in the specialist court by ticketing so that everyone's everyone who takes part has got to be trauma informed there has to obviously be a requirement that the tick or a possibility that the ticketing can be removed and removed timiously when people don't follow the principles that are expected of them and I'd be interested in the panels views about whether that is something that we are confident is going to be the case at all that that's going to be the case it's an issue I raised that I was on the working group developing the proposal for the specialist sexual offenses court and it's an issue that I raised then is that there is absolutely no point in having ticketing if there is no process for if a serious issue arises that leaves considerable questions about somebody's suitability to act in this court and I'm thinking defence lawyers but it might not just be defence lawyers that there must be a process for assessing is it still appropriate for this professional to act in this court and to my mind so there's nothing in the the bill just now that deals with it and to my mind there is an over reliance and over conference and the existing regulatory bodies and I would say experience has told us that that conference is misplaced I think we need to have clear processes in place so but there's a big challenge for this committee here because in another committee which my colleague Mr McGregor sits on we're examining the issues around about legal services regulation and from what I can hear from the proceedings in there everyone's hands are in horror at the fact that this issue of poor quality regulation which I put to the law society and the faculty when they came here you know can't actually be confronted because it's all too it's too unacceptable so do we need to confront those issues well I have to say John that I was one of the people in that in one of those hearings and I said that the proposals were unacceptable because we need an independent body and I think everything that Sandy says we agree with and as I said before they often in the room is accountability and I I wish I knew how to inject significant accountability into the courtrooms in Scotland but this we I don't think we can not do this because we're not clear that it's going to deliver the you know the prize of accountability but certainly the issue of ticketing and the and the fact that beyond training there has to be some behavioral change and if there is evidence and clearly the way our systems work it's not like people are going to be have their ticket ripped away for a minor infraction so where is the power in our system we know that that's not going to happen so we really need the the recourse on the part of victims and their advocates so there needs to be that accountability mechanism injected into the proceedings now if I can move this is really a question for Kate Wallace and Emma Bryson if I look at the terms of reference of the victims commissioner none of what we've just talked about would be able to be affected it might be able to be commented upon by the victims commissioner but not affected by the victims commissioner and I wonder what your reflections are about what questions that poses for the committee about what is required to make sure the triumvirate of cultural change legislative change and regulatory change can be delivered to make sure that we deliver the comprehensive strategic change that all of us want to see as I said earlier on I do think the victims commissioner is a key component like a lot of the provisions within the bill on their own they're not enough and the bill itself on its own is not enough there's a whole range of things but yeah I do and we may know the secret of the fact that you know I do think that the powers of the commissioner could be strengthened and and we've we've asked for some of that in our evidence in previous sessions but yeah I agree I think though that you know we do have been held to account for particular standards we do already have some standards of service that are in place the the commissioner we would see as having a key role in terms of oversight of those standards of service and making sure and holding organisations to account who are not delivering them that's not happening at the moment and I do agree and take your point around around the role of the commissioner in terms of strengthening regulation forgive me for interrupting but if I look at the the terms of the the bill the commissioner is to monitor compliance with standards promote best practice in relation to trauma from practice undertake commission research the commissioner is not under the existing proposals got the power to put his or her foot down and say this is not acceptable that's somewhere else and over there everyone's kicking off that oh my goodness we've got far too much interference in this wholly ineffective system of legal services regulation that we've got in scotland if I could give one example just sticking to the greed and public facts of this case we had one high profile kc who sent an intimate image of himself from the high court toilets a few minutes after defending in a rape case and at no point was there any process or consideration of should this kc still defend in rape cases and it seems to me inhuman to expect a rape complainer who will ready be very very anxious about giving evidence to be in that position of having to contemplate what that might mean in her case and I think that is an example in terms of why we need some proper processes for removing ticketing. The only comment I've made was that if a victims commissioner was put in places that we would really want that person to to have the power to take action against anyone you know within that system who expresses inappropriate views who you know takes inappropriate actions who behaves in any way that suggests that they do not understand the meaning of trauma informed or what best meets victims needs there has to be accountability. That's just coming up to just after 10 to 1 and we'll be looking to run the session till just after 1. A couple of members wanting to still come in however if I may can I just interject before I bring in Russell Finlay and cover an issue which I don't think we've really picked up this morning which is anonymity for victims so I suppose assuming that you are supportive of the provision around anonymity for victims are there ways in which you would like to see the proposals that are contained in the bill changed or strengthened so for example in relation to the offences covered or perhaps the duration of anonymity and I know that this was covered to a greater or lesser degree in some of your submissions but I'd be interested to pick this up in committee this morning so maybe Sandy you could pick up. Yes I mean one issue in terms of anonymity that really we found very difficult was when it should end so that the government have gone down on ending in death or upon death and that we have come on balance to recognise the reasons for that but I do think I've subsequently had some conversations with rape survivors who have expressed really quite strong views on why should my protection end when I die what about my family so it is something that I think we would certainly be willing to shift our position on if the committee were looking at the feasibility of extending it that protection beyond death. Kate do you want to come in on that? I think it's important to recognise as well that the right to anonymity that's been put forward would bring Scotland into the rest of the UK is really important in terms of encouraging people to come forward it plays a really important role there's a couple of things that we would say about it though we do think that it should be extended beyond death because what you would have is a situation where you had a victim of rape who was granted anonymity but if that victim was then murdered then they lose their anonymity and the work that we've been doing around that speaking to many many different families because obviously we have a specialist service for families bereaved by murder and culpable homicide the impact on for example surviving children who by default are also identified when a parent or carer is killed so that's why we understand the issues but we think they can be overcome in Scotland and we think that really that it's the right thing to do to extend beyond death we do also recognise that there should be a right for a waiver so this is part of the hallmark of a trauma informed approach so if victims or their families want to raise their right to anonymity that they have a mechanism to be able to do that because I think some of the concerns around extending beyond death were to do with some other jurisdictions where potentially victims themselves who've come forward have been threatened with legal action because they've named themselves so a waiver I think is really important extending the times really important and we would say also looking at the types of crimes so for example domestic abuse and stalking should be considered as well so that that was really the main points that we had on that one okay that's helpful thanks for that okay I'll bring in Russell Finlayer thanks very much I don't think I've taken so many notes in respect of any of these sessions I have today and I'm slightly overwhelmed with the finite time we have to know which questions to go on but I'll focus I think specifically on parts five and part six and in respect of part five the first question is going back to something that Sharon Dowie touched upon which is the practicalities of what these specialist sexual offence courts might look like there was new evidence I think we've heard about the right for complainers to be able to watch proceedings from perhaps a safe space of some sort and sounds like a great idea but I just think given that it's the same buildings and there's not going to be anything bespoke brought into play partly due to financial reasons how you might see that being achieved I think you could set up online a secure space that's not within the court building that's comfortable where there's support where somebody can view the proceedings online if they wish that that I think is a default if we're not having a bespoke building I don't think it's going to be realistic to be able to set aside a secure viewing room within the existing estate it's not suitable and there's so much chance of bumping into the accused or his family so I think to set up secure a secure viewing space where if they wish complainers can go and view the trial that would be the solution such as the victims of Port of Scotland facilities that already exist and the technology has already been tested on that and it does work so it is possible okay the other issues to do with pre-recorded evidence which does happen but the legislation will make it the default there's new research just been conducted a number of days ago by university college London professor Cheryl Thomas Casey which has found that across all crimes the rate of conviction when pre-recorded evidence is used is 10% lower and in respect of rate crimes it's 20% lower now it's not absolute it may not wholly apply but I just wonder if that research which I'm sure you're aware of surprises you in any way and has given you any cause to rethink the whole heart and support for it in this legislation and if not what might be done to mitigate or fix this anticipated decrease and that might be one for Sandead or not? I read the coverage of this so I've not had a chance to read the full research yet and I was concerned by it I know this has been anecdotally I've heard this from prosecutors for years about concerns about evidence that isn't live having less impact on juries in rape cases when the accused is directly there beside the jury and it maybe means that the complainers impact has testimony has less impact there was an evidence review commissioned by the Scottish government that seemed to find that it didn't make a difference I would really like to see some Scottish specific research on this I think it would be really hard to establish if there was a causal link because there are so many variables in what might lead to a conviction but I think we do need to establish is there a correlation because even if it's a slight correlation I think the key here is informed choices for complainers so for some complainers pre-recorded evidence might be the only way they can give evidence in which case that's absolutely what they should do but I think for other complainers if there is even a slight correlation between pre-recorded evidence and a lower conviction rate I think this is information complainers should have so they can make an informed choice I wonder if this goes back to some of the evidence you previously gave us about the data yeah presumably the crown and the courts and may have information about conviction rates once what commission has been used both in crimes of sexual nature and non-sexual nature but that's something that we should be looking at about this yeah what I was really struck by in one part of the Lord Advocates evidence last week where she gave a conviction rate for single complainer rape cases so we know that the overall conviction rate in rape cases is the lowest of any crime type at just over 50 percent but in her evidence she indicated that the conviction rate in single complainer cases is 20 to 25 percent and that's of cases that get to court and that is such important data I think particularly when we're looking at the rationale for the judge-led pilot being in single complainer cases I mean I think that conviction rate to to be honest is extremely concerning and it really points to your point Russell about the need for much much better data to underpin these discussions thank you a question about part six of time yeah I think so yes so section 275 and the invocation of that and then the requirement for independent legal representation which is in the bill now there's been serious concerns raised by the crown by the court service by judges themselves by the law society about this actually leading to additional churn and delay and further trauma for complainers but there's been a new element today from some of the witnesses who we are from earlier and that was where cases where character or sexual history information is being introduced effectively by stealth by defence lawyers without seeking a section 275 I just wonder first of all how widespread that might be and secondly whether the legislation needs to address that particular blind spot or loophole or whatever you want to call it I can quickly come in on that there's new research that's being carried out into the operation of 274 and 275 that I'm anticipating will be published in the the next couple of months that I think will be really helpful on that matter because the difficulties would have any up-to-date evaluation of what's happening with these provisions the last research looked at cases two decades ago and that that painted a really a really depressing and concerning picture but we know that there's been a lot of change since my understanding is that's not widespread but I think that the research that I've referred to being carried out by Edinburgh, Glasgow and Warwick universities should give us a much clearer evidence base I would like to say that notwithstanding the concerns that have been expressed in relation to the procedures around this in the bill this is an absolutely vital provision the review that the inspector of prosecution carried out into 274, 275 found that even judges said these are some of the most complex provisions they have come across and yet we're expecting complainers to express a view on these without any legal representation so absolutely this must happen but it's a case of making sure the process is correct two things often the Crown aren't objecting to these so the victims left with no voice but also you think support an extension of the timescale that's in the legislation from 21 to 28 days timescales are impossible so it's since a case called RR the Crown now have a duty to seek the views of complainers and to put their views to the court irrespective of the Crown's own position but the timescales are so difficult that it's almost impossible to do this in a trauma informed way that this is very sensitive and very difficult discussions the Crown need to have with complainers there needs to be enough time to do it properly so it's a time to go on our way so it's part of the research that I mentioned I spoke to two complainers the three complainers sorry who had had this conversation with the Crown about being consulted on their views of 275 applications and that this absolutely demonstrated the need for legal representation because the approach that the Crown were taking in those cases they were not enabling the complainers to give informed views by any stretch of the imagination but also that for one complainer I spoke to she was saying I just I didn't understand she was very distressed and I did not understand what this evidence meant until it came to the trial and then it formed a key part of my cross-examination so we just cannot put complainers in the position of being asked to give a view and very distressed incentive information that is part of a really complex legal process in terms of provisions around 274 275 without legal representation I think that's an example of where we're given a right it's like the right to express a view but if you give a right without a means to make it accessible it can actually be damaging and I think it is close to that if we're not given legal representation to help people navigate these really difficult conversations about their such personal information being brought up as part of a rape prosecution there's a very quick question about judges single judge non-dury rape trials your evidence talks about unsympathetic and unreceptive judges conduct towards rape victims and even with training there's they may hold biased views and we've seen a recent case in fact for a judge misdirected a jury resulting in a child rapist walking free heading to the trauma of the victim and this is in much more enlightened times I just wonder if the bill goes far enough in respect of the requirements on the judiciary to ensure that especially with a judge only trial they're going to have sufficient training yes well I can start on that I think that the criticism that this is a controversial proposal the judge led pilot and I think it's absolutely right that we have significant debate and discussion on it but because of its its nature it is on the against the background of a significant amount of I would say overwhelming research showing the impact of rape myths and jury decision making but I think there are legitimate questions about well what about rape myths with that judges may have or pre-derish latitudes that judges may have and also with the diversity of the judiciary but I do think if you look at research around what makes a difference in terms of rape myths it's participatory education and it is much much easier to do participatory education work with a small group of judges than it is to do it with entire Scottish population which is what we are talking about in terms of juries so I think there are valid questions there about diversity of the judiciary and about attitudes but I think they can they can be addressed through training in a way that's much much more difficult with juries but also crucially the judges understand key legal concepts in a way that I do not think jurors currently are enabled to understand what we want reasonable doubt for example actually means what more of means what corroboration means so to me those benefits outweigh the worries but also I think it's a key reason for running it as a pilot to gather that information and actually get an understanding but I do think that you know we've always been supportive of it and part of the reason for that is because we understand and we were you know we managed to get a really deep understanding in that jury research so we've we've had the benefit of that but it does have a you know a finite group of people that you can really really immerse in a lot of training just to say along with Kate and Sandy I sat on Lady Dorian's group and there was there was a lot of division around the the issue of judge only trials but it was I think deeply convincing was hearing from some of the senior judges in the room when they were talking about the their concerns and dismay when juries came to conclusions that from their perspective were not aligned with the evidence that had been given and and I don't think that there could be a more convincing argument than people who actually do understand the law and and have seen multiple of these kinds of cases who are saying that the that the current structures are cannot deliver justice thank you thank you and very very finally to mcgregor if you're still wanting to come in yeah thank you convener and um thank you for the the evidence so far yeah I know we're tight in timing the question that I'm going to go back to it will be hard to to perhaps do that time I have asked the convener first permission of asking this because it's actually on part four of the bill because I think Sandy only yourself has had the opportunity to come in and speak to us in in person about that I know that every reason the opportunity to contribute so I did want to ask you about that and if if panel members can in Sunday you can come back in again if you wish to but I want if panel members could keep it as brief as possible and I know that that might be difficult but as a committee I think that we are we've been asked this question about not proven and I think I'm pretty sure I'm speaking for most people saying that but I think we accept the reasons why not proven you know shouldn't be there it seems a bit of a normal in the system however it does feel as if we've been asked in this particular bill to remove not proven and then change the jury size in the way that verdicts are delivered and that is what I think myself and others are perhaps struggling with that balance because what none of us want to do is take away not proven make the situation potentially worse and I don't know if that will happen or not I don't know what the research is saying about that so I just wanted to ask your views on that given that you have a point of beauty sandy start that way if that's okay and it'll still give you the opportunity to come in I should have said if any of you are wanting to speak to this question yeah no I think this is quite an important one because I think it highlights the potential for unintended consequences and obviously the intention behind removing the not proven verdict is to increase the number of convictions and my understanding of changing the jury numbers and jury majorities is that a potential consequence of that could potentially be fewer convictions so less likely to convict which would then balance out or cancel out rather the advantage of removing the not proven verdict so I think I think what the jury research showed was that if you take the not proven verdict out of the equation jurors are more likely to convict an offender or the accused however when the research was then looking at what happens if you change the jury numbers that I think it was they were looking specifically at the jury of 12 for the majority of 10 research on that area showed that it was more likely to result in a reluctance to convict so potentially those two things could ban could one could cancel out the other and I think I think overall with this this proposed legislation I think the law of unintended consequences is something you know we'll need to be a little bit wary about just really quickly I guess I think the data on jury size is difficult for us to to be convinced by but we are very convinced about the need to remove not proven and I think that there is again an opportunity in post legislative scrutiny to take a look at what's happening if we're if we're concerned that we've had an unintended negative consequence but it does seem eminently clear to me that removing not proven it needs to be done but also that it contributes to to the culture change that we are talking about is so needed in the sense of providing clarity about what you know what what the job is of the court in terms of deciding the the facts of the case so I think in general we should be willing to to act on what the most evidence is which is about removing not proven and I will leave it up to to sandy's expertise on the size of the jury yeah we don't have it you're tight for time oh hands over yeah I would just quickly say not proven is an anomaly it's not a safeguard I don't see any rationale for having to change the jury majority in relation to it going I mean wouldn't we spoke earlier about the conviction rating signal complainer cases being between 20 and 25 percent it is very alarming to me if the Scottish Government and Parliament do anything that's going to make it even harder to get a conviction this is not about arbitrary increases in convictions this is about wrongful acquittals and if our system has biases within it or things within it that make it easier for rapists to walk free when they shouldn't then I think we should be addressing that but not compensating for addressing it by then making it harder to get a conviction I think this link is not borne out by by evidence thank you very perfectly made thanks can be never okay thanks thanks very much okay we have definitely run out of time now so can I just thank thank you all for attending this morning that's been a very worthwhile session so that does complete this agenda item thank you for attending next week we'll return to the victims witnesses in justice reform bill with evidence from academics including Cheryl Thomas who he's referred to earlier who've conducted research relevant to the bill as well as representatives of the legal profession can I finally just propose to members that we defer item three to a future meeting are you all agreed okay thank you very much and with that I thank you again and close this meeting thank you