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


Mr. Chairman, Excellencies, Counselors, fellow elected officials, delegates, good morning. It's a great honor for me to address you and to open this year's Council for the first time as ITU Secretary General. I would like to start by welcoming returning Council members and a special warm welcome to our new Council members. Colleagues, these are no ordinary times. Technology is moving fast. The AI for Good Summit that we just convened last week offers a clear picture of that. There we were interacting with robots and you'll meet them, some of them today. Robots that look like us, that talk like us, robots that actually gave us their thoughts on becoming more efficient leaders. We saw how amazing uses of AI in areas like agriculture, climate, health, education could greatly benefit if AI reaches its full potential. As the UN Secretary General mentioned in his opening to the AI for Good Summit. While I was at the summit, I could not stop thinking about a mission that I had just concluded days prior. Where I was in Ethiopia with the Deputy High Commissioner of UNHCR, that mission took me to the Melkadita refugee camp that borders Somalia, home to some 200,000 refugees and some 600,000 persons in the hosting community.  It was a stark contrast with the cutting edge tech on display at AI for Good Summit. I think it's a tale of two worlds. Ensuring digital technologies reach their full potential and bringing their benefits to all eight billion people on Earth. I think that's why we're all here today. As technologies like AI make their way into classrooms, fields, hospitals, factories, and even outer space, millions and millions are struggling to keep up especially in the global South. So here we are. Extreme poverty and hunger are on the rise. The world has had the hottest June on record. 2.7 billion people are still offline worldwide, and only about 15 percent of the SDG targets are on track. Yesterday, the UN Secretary General launched this special edition report on progress towards the SDGs. In it, he said that the SDGs are disappearing. He said they're disappearing in the rear view mirror, and that our collective promise to leave no one behind is in peril. Ladies and gentlemen, as the world looks for solutions, digital is taking center stage. It's at the top of the agenda of every country that I have met since taking office. It's been central to landmark events such as the LDC-5 conference, the 67th session of the Commission on the Status of Women, and this year's Transform Africa Summit in Victoria Falls, where we gathered thousands of aspiring girls to celebrate Girls and ICT Day. Digital was at the heart of the G7 meetings, as well at the G20, where ITU is active on the digital track. For the first time, ITU is also active in the development and the space tracks, and the BR director is just returning from the G20 Space Economy Leaders meeting in Bangalore just last week. Good to have you back, Mario. Counselors, as digital technology races ahead, I think we're facing some of the greatest questions of our time. Will digital help rescue the SDGs, as we just heard from the UN DSG? Will we meet the deadline to have zero unconnected by 2030? Who is the digital revolution really for and will its benefits outweigh the downsides? ITU needs to take on these challenges because you are Member States. You set two clear goals in our new strategic plan adopted at Pp22, universal connectivity and sustainable digital transformation. Not only are these goals essential to the world's future, they're bringing us together. I speak on behalf of the entire ITU leadership team, Thomas, Mario, Cezo, and Cosmos, when I say that we are fully committed to these goals and we're taking steps to that effect. Our objective has been to move from strategy to action building on an in-depth visioning exercise. Now 200 days, it's been 200 days into our tenure. We've laid out the key elements in a transformation map that outlines a path to building an ITU that exceeds expectations today while becoming agile enough to also tackle tomorrow's new challenges. That's what it means to be fit for purpose and that's what it means to be fit for the future. Delegates at yesterday's retreat, which was at first and I thank you for your engagement, we talked openly about where we are today, where we want to be tomorrow, looking forward to 2030, and we looked at the most urgent challenges facing this union. Let me say I'm so grateful for your candor during those conversations and I ask you for your continued engagement going forward. One of these challenges is ITU's financial situation and strengthening our financial base. We took good note of the issues raised in the External Auditors Report. We've recognized that we need to take action to address a number of operational reforms. We've laid them out in a forward-looking roadmap that I think paves the way for enhanced financial management and decision-making, efficiency, transparency, a skilled, accountable, and client-oriented staff, and a strengthened internal system of controls and oversight. We are making our best efforts to move forward on all fronts including bringing you a more results-based budget. Another challenge of course is the ITU headquarters project and together with this council, we are determined to find a workable solution, including the possibility of re-evaluating the scope so that we can ensure that we get the best value for money. In this effort, let's be guided by our shared aspiration for delegates and for staff to thrive in an agile, future-ready working environment and working conditions. Internally, we have put the focus on collaboration, on communications, on service delivery starting with an empowered agile and capable staff, which of course is our main resource. The ITU staff are a core part of this transformation journey, and that's why we launched the Change Makers Program. We had more than a hundred applicants, we could only take 60 from across the ITU, and they are already working on 10 concrete change cases linked to our roadmap. I'm really happy that if I can say they volunteered, I've encouraged them to volunteer, that you're actually going to hear from those Change Makers this week. We've also made inroads in improving our working culture. Some examples just to highlight, we have an updated teleworking policy, a new parental leave framework. We've improved internal communications through regular town hall gatherings, through newsletter updates and exchanges with the ITU staff council. We've also launched a series of learning labs trainings for ITU staff on emerging tech issues. We're also looking to advance diversity across the ITU. We have an unprecedented focus on youth, which I think is crucial for the ITU. To become an employer of choice, we launched our first young professionals program, and I do want to thank in particular Japan for stepping up and committing to supporting that program and for really showing the way. We're also looking to strengthen our junior professional officers program. I invite you to join us in that endeavor, and we're promoting gender parity at all levels across the ITU. We've put intersectoral coordination as a top priority, and we have started to include the regional directors in our management coordination groups. We implemented a voluntary separation program that will support ITU's long-term financial viability, and it will help us to better reinvest resources. Overall, the comprehensive roadmap that we have put forward to this council sets the foundation. It sets the foundation for an ITU that is renowned for its excellence, its expertise, and its efficiency. But most of all, for you, our members, so that we can deliver the quality services that you've asked for. Externally, ladies and gentlemen, we are laser focused on engaging more closely with member states, with sector members, with academia, with associates, and we're doing this by listening, by nurturing partnerships, by mobilizing resources so that we can serve you better, including through a new ITU resource mobilization strategy that you will hear more about during this council. To date, we have engaged with numerous member states through bilateral meetings, through country visits, ambassador briefings here in Geneva, also in New York, and we've held a series of talks here in Geneva that we call demystifying digital organized together with the missions. I think these efforts help to better place the ITU so that others can understand what we do and that we can better understand the needs of our constituents. In March, we were in New Delhi to inaugurate the ITU Area Office and Innovation Center in the presence of Prime Minister Modi. This is our first new office since 2009, and it's also our first physical innovation center expanding ITU's regional footprint in one of the world's most important hubs for digital innovation. Supporting member states in their innovation and entrepreneurship efforts is paramount. Similarly, ladies and gentlemen, the Standardization Bureau has initiated a pilot project that aims to recruit more study group staff in regional and area offices. We believe that this effort will improve synergies across the bureau and also help to bridge the standardization gap. Another key external engagement result has been ITU's presence at major events from the World Economic Forum to the Mobile World Congress. For the first time, all five elected officials attended MWC. We held bilaterals, we held roundtables with government and industry members. And I think these kinds of efforts have really helped to position ITU as a key player in the global digital agenda. It's also brought more visibility to our important conferences, such as the Global Symposium for Regulators organized by the Telecommunications Development Bureau, and I wanna commend the BDT director for this year's symposium, which advanced the kind of forward-looking regulatory approaches that are needed in our ever-changing digital world. Solidifying ITU's position as a thought leader on all things digital boosts the visibility of our diverse work on spectrum, on standards, on statistics, on regulation, digital applications, and inclusion, as well as our impact-driven development projects on the ground. Doing so also puts the contributions of each sector, radio, standards, and development at the heart of everything we do to fulfill our world conference mandates. Let's not forget that these strategic engagement efforts are merely a means to a significant end, which is universal connectivity and sustainable digital transformation for all. That's why an initiative like Partner to Connect is important, uniting stakeholders around commitments to reach some of the hardest to connect communities in the world, including SIDS, LDCs, LLDCs, and others. That's also the case of other key targeted initiatives, such as the GIGA initiative with UNICEF to connect every school on the planet to the internet, our GovStack efforts, our digital transformation centers, which is a flagship effort on capacity development, are united for smart sustainable cities, our smart village work, our smart island work, and the list goes on. This truly shows the power of partnerships to ensure that the opportunities and the benefits of digital technology reach everyone everywhere. I think that's what meaningful connectivity is all about. These initiatives help to position the ITU as a trusted, purpose-driven, inclusive, and committed partner. Counselors, you've asked us to deepen our engagement in UN processes, and we have strengthened our relationship with executive heads in various UN organizations, including the UN Secretary General, and we heard this morning from the UN Deputy Secretary General. ITU has actively participated in major UN processes from the DOHA Program of Action for LDCs to the global digital compact discussions which remain ongoing. And of course, the ITU-led WISIS Forum in March is one of the many examples of our commitment to UN core values and multi-stakeholder solutions, and we're going to be speaking about the WISIS plus 20 process and our deliberations at this council. Our multi-stakeholder approach that we will continue to support later this year with our participation at the IGF, which takes place in Japan. ITU has also been providing its contribution to the UN in areas where we have much expertise, including the areas like space. As the new resolutions on space that were adopted at PlentyPod 22, we call for closer collaboration with other UN bodies. We have strengthened our engagement with UN OSSA. We have contributed to the UN policy brief on the future of outer space governance to further demonstrate the key role that ITU plays in space. This strong engagement with the UN has already resulted in a number of exciting new initiatives with our sister agencies, including the early warning for all initiatives where we're partnering with WMO, the new digital window that we're really excited about, which is part of the joint SDG fund. And as you heard from the UN DSG, ITU and UNDP will be leading that. And of course, the recently announced last week at the AI for Good Summit, the Global AI for Health Initiative that the ITU will be leading with WIPO and WHO. During this period, we also intensified our collaboration with other standards bodies, something that you have asked us to do. And that includes IEC, ISO, IETF, IEEE, UNEC, but also with OHCHR. I wanna commend the TSB director for the organization of the World Standards Cooperation Meeting in March and his important efforts to approach standardization work through different lenses from human rights to sustainability to gender. And it's helping the ITU to become a more inclusive and accessible standardization platform. These endeavors reinforce our position as a core member of the UN family. I think we're showing the world that ITU's expertise and capacity can help advance our common agenda and deliver as the UN secretary general has urged us a rescue plan for people and for planet. Colleagues, our transformation journey is just beginning. The challenges that we face can only be addressed if we leverage our collective knowledge, our capacity, and our commitment to build the ITU we want. But there are also unique opportunities along the way and we're about to enter a very exciting period that will culminate with the World Radio Communications Conference at the end of the year in Dubai. It's a moment of major technological significance, four years in the making. All preparations are on track. Radio frequency spectrum and associated satellite orbit resources are the building blocks of an advanced global communication system for humanity. Achieving universal connectivity depends on the very work that will be done at WRC 22. And I also understand today, right, Mario? With today, I think the BR is publishing the 3,000th edition of its most famous riffic. I must confess it's a new acronym for me, but it's very important. It's a crucial source of radio frequency assignment information and we've been doing this since 1952. This year we're also fortunate that our World Radio Communications Conference actually coincides with COP 28 because digital and climate actually go hand in hand. The ITU DSG is going to be leading our efforts in the green digital action track that is set to take place during this COP. Because capturing and addressing the true environmental cost of digital transformation is absolutely vital. And because our industry can actually help, our industry can help the transition to net zero emissions across the entire economy. Our industry can also help rescue the SDGs, which is why ITU and partners are organizing the SDG Digital Day on the 17th of September, just prior to the high level week, and the SDG Summit. And we heard about it in the UN DSG's address. This important day is going to contribute to the Summit and it's gonna put the spotlight on data and digital technologies that will help to accelerate and achieve each and every one of those SDGs. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the state of our union. That's the important and the necessary work that we have started together. It's a work in progress. And yes, these are no ordinary times. No ordinary times. But the ITU is actually not an ordinary organization. We've evolved many times before and I think we need to do it again.  Even 158 year old organization can have growing pains. But we need an ITU that's fit for purpose and fit for the future. So let's use the next 10 days to determine how we can create an ITU that's more agile, more open and transparent, innovative and aspirational, financially stable, trusted and results driven. That's what you've asked us to do. That's what's reflected in our roadmap and that's what the world needs from ITU. Because in the end, it's not a choice between robots and refugees, between cutting edge technologies and meaningful connectivity. The true measure of success will be if we can deliver and achieve both. Whether we can achieve universal connectivity and sustainable digital transformation and whether we can do this together, together. Because that's what the ITU is all about. It's about working together as one. Ladies and gentlemen, I really look forward to engaging with all of you throughout this conference. I look forward to the results, the important results that we will achieve at this council and beyond. Thank you very much for your attention and thank you for being here.