ALMOST half of all MSPs at Holyrood – including some prominent SNP backbenchers – have declined to back controversial justice reforms brought forward by the Scottish Government.
A total of 62 MSPs abstained on a vote on the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill – more than the 60 MSPs who voted in support.
However, not one MSP voted against the legislation as it passed its first hurdle at Holyrood.
SNP MSPs Kate Forbes, Annabelle Ewing, Fergus Ewing, Christine Grahame, Ivan McKee, and Michelle Thomson joined Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats by abstaining.
It came after a debate in which opposition MSPs said the legislation, which would scrap Scotland’s unique not proven verdict but could also bring in judge-only, juryless trials for those accused of rape, was “experimental, perhaps even dangerously so”.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf 'utterly furious' as UK sidelines Scottish Horizon victims
While Justice Secretary Angela Constance said action was needed to tackle low conviction rates for rape and other sexual offences, Scottish Conservative justice spokesperson Russell Findlay criticised plans to pilot juryless trials for those accused of rape and attempted rape.
Constance said “transformational change” was needed in Scotland’s justice system.
She told MSPs: “I believe the case for change is clear, I believe the time for change is now.
“It is incumbent on us to work together to deliver the justice system that our society needs and deserves.”
On plans to end the requirement for juries for rape and attempted rape trials, she said the pilot would be focused on cases with just one alleged offence and one accused person.
In such cases she said the average five-year conviction rate was just 24%.
While she said she would reflect on the “differences of opinion”, Constance (above) went on: “It is clear our justice system needs to change the way in which it responds to serious sexual offending.
“As legislators it is our role to determine the legal frameworks that ought to be in place, and no part of our justice system should be exempt from review and if necessary reconsideration.”
The Justice Secretary also told MSPs a pilot of juryless trials would “provide much-needed evidence to let us have a properly informed debate on an enduring issue that undermines confidence in our criminal justice system”.
Tory MSP Findlay said: “The Government appears to be experimenting in much the same way as a mad scientist at work.”
He told MSPs a move to put those accused of rape and attempted rape on trial before a judge alone would be a “departure from the long-established right of a person accused of serious crime to trial by a jury of their peers”.
Describing juries as “the cornerstone of the justice system”, Findlay said: “There is insufficient evidence to justify what would amount to an experiment with people’s lives.”
He also said Scottish ministers “cannot wish away” threats from lawyers to boycott such a scheme.
Labour’s Pauline McNeill said her party too was opposed to the plans for juryless rape trials.
Meanwhile, with the legislation containing a number of proposed reforms, ranging from the introduction of a victims’ commissioner to a legal right to lifelong anonymity for victims of sexual offences, both Labour and the Tories said the bill was “frankly far too big”.
McNeill said: “Scottish Labour supports the Government’s aims that it is time for change, but we believe that they need a comprehensive plan to look separately at each reform contained within the bill.
“We believe there is too much substantial reform in one bill.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel