THE Scottish Government has been accused of “arrogantly” ignoring the views of the legal profession as it considers plans to reform rape trials.
The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill would create a pilot of juryless rape trials to see the impact on conviction rates.
Ministers contend that the lower rate of conviction for rape and attempted rape – 51% in the most recent figures compared with 91% for all offences – is due to the prevalence of so-called “rape myths” among jurors which cast doubt on the testimony of accusers.
But the plans have caused rancour within the legal profession, with a near unanimous boycott of the pilot by lawyers looming.
Among those threatening to boycott the trials is high-profile Glasgow-based lawyer Aamer Anwar.
Anwar, who is a close friend of First Minister Humza Yousaf and even attended his swearing in ceremony at the Court of Session earlier this year, hit out at the plans on Tuesday.
He told the Scottish Daily Express: “It is all very well having politicians, who have never spent a day in court, wanting a system that reflects the needs of modern-day Scotland.
“But they then arrogantly ignore the views of those who have given a lifetime to working in our courts and if that’s not palatable then why not ask real jurors why they acquit, why cherry pick the views of victims that suits a political agenda.”
READ MORE: Justice Secretary responds to boycott threat for judge-only rape trial pilot
According to documents published alongside the Bill, evidence for the changes relies heavily on a 2019 study commissioned by the Scottish Government and carried out by Glasgow University of mock trials.
An analysis of the 32 mock trials put on by the researchers suggested there was “considerable evidence of the expression of problematic attitudes towards rape complainers”.
Anwar added: “Meanwhile, the Bill is defended by Angela Constance – according to her, jurors are influenced by ‘rape myths’ such as questions about why the victim did not escape, fight back or report the offence earlier.
“But when you read the small print nobody has ever actually talked to real jurors in rape trials.
“The evidence it turns out is based largely on interviews and studies of mock trials conducted by Glasgow University.”
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: “Piloting judge-only rape trials was a recommendation of a review carried out by Lady Dorrian, Scotland’s second most senior judge, to improve how the justice system treats rape victims.
“We have worked closely with the legal sector and will continue to do so during the development and evaluation of the pilot.
READ MORE: Justice Secretary disputes that judge-only rape trials 'authoritarian'
“There is overwhelming evidence both from within Scotland and beyond that jurors are subject to preconceptions about rape that can impact the verdicts they reach – which is not the case in other serious crime trials.
“Over 80% of criminal trials in Scotland are already conducted without a jury.
“Judge-only trials for serious offences including rape already take place in many other jurisdictions such as the Netherlands and France.”
Despite having been proposed by Scotland’s second most senior judge Lady Dorrian, the changes led to one former member of the judiciary – Lord Uist – describing the reform as “constitutionally repugnant”.
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