Scottish law shake up - project to scrap juried rape trials

[ArabeIIaScott]

'a pilot project will see rape and attempted rape cases held without a jury, with a single judge deciding whether or not the accused is guilty.
The move is aimed at increasing the country's low conviction rate for serious sexual offences.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235

Given everything going on I am profoundly cynical about the SNPs decision to change Scottish Courts. Waving the prospect of increased rape conviction rapes to hide what else? Just at a time some of their own leaders might be facing court.

I'm hugely ambivalent about all of it, Sheleft. Not sure the wisdom of scrapping the 'not proven' verdict, either.

Rape is such a serious crime, if they do it for rape will they do it for everything else much less than that?

Yet their guidelines for under 25 year olds meant a rapist who raped a 13 year old multiple times was handed a community sentence…

the proof will be in the pudding, if it leads to more convictions then great. for this particular crime I'd quite possibly buy an argument that the current number of false negatives is so catastrophically low that a few more false positives might be a price worth paying to redress the balance slightly

I must say though that this sounds like a really important, profound, change, the sort of thing that needs really incredibly careful thought, not, dare I say it, traditionally the SNP's forte?

Reminded me of this article that had a good explanation as to why jury trials are an outdated method, food for thought.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/22/justice-system-crisis-abolish-jury-trials-covid

My then partner was a Sheriff Clerk in courts in Scotland. He told me that "all" of the rape cases he saw in court were "the woman wanting revenge". Whether that was the general consensus amongst his colleagues or just his warning to me (of all the unwanted sexual attention/assaults I have received from men over the years he is the only one to have raped me), I don't know.

I would like to think everyone working in these courts would have a neutral point of view for every case but I can't help but be concerned.

I also worry about the sort of people who may apply to work in these courts. A certain RC CEO springs to mind.

Maybe it needs an expert panel rather than a single judge.

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1651548655562682368?cxt=HHwWgMCzgZCwvestAAAA

'Even Tories didn't try to get rid of Scotland's national trials system. The abolition of juries is specifically with the declared purpose of getting more convictions. What chance of a fair trial if there is no jury and the judge is under instruction to deliver more convictions?

I have no great fondness for Craig Murray, but he was imprisoned under very flimsy pretences, for his journalistic work. In Scotland. In 2021.

Here's the Bill.

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/victims-witnesses-and-justice-reform-scotland-bill/introduced

Stand by for requests for people to expend vast amounts of energy on 'consultations' that will be roundly ignored.

Someone innocent being convicted is never a good thing; it ruins a life and means that, in some cases, the real culprits escapes.

I would like to think that the changes are being brought in because the challenges to jury members mean that women are often dismissed, so juries could be all male. However I am cynical so let’s see what the results are.

What is the point of the not proven verdict? It is not a conviction. The legal implications of a not proven verdict are exactly the same as a not guilty verdict - the accused is acquitted and is innocent in the eyes of the law.

I’m not sure I agree about the ‘not proven’ verdict. I always thought it was a fine distinction and signified to my mind (perhaps wrongly) that the prosecution had failed to make their case - it didn’t mean the defendant was not guilty. Slightly less offensive to a victim than a not guilty in implying that the accused may well be guilty; it’s just that there wasn’t enough evidence - it’s not that the the jury disbelieved the victim.
As for the abolition of juries, I’d be a bit worried that the judge might not take the offence seriously enough being deadened by constant exposure to perhaps even more heinous crimes. I once heard a QC describe a sexual assault that had devastated the victim as ‘ not being bad at all’ which it wasn’t compared to what else he’d seen.

Well, I'm a pedant, and I think it leaves more room for an 'unproven' verdict, which may be more accurate. But IANAL.

This is in fact something that some women's groups have been campaigning for.

There are full details here (including getting rid of not proven)

https://www.gov.scot/publications/victims-witnesses-and-justice-reform-bill-factsheet/pages/single-judge-rape-trial-pilot/

Billy Connolly once said not proven meant "not guilty but don't do it again". He may have had a point but historically not proven meant not guilty as going back in time the only two verdicts were proven and not proven.

https://twitter.com/scotscrimbar/status/1651982401877299200?cxt=HHwWgMC-8b3Pgu0tAAAA

Scottish Solicitors Bar Association statement on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill

No defence agent worth their salt will accept instructions in respect of a jury-less rape trial.

There are no such challenges in Scottish courts. Juries are chosen by lottery, not lawyers.

That’s very interesting Hirples Thank you.