MINISTERS have dropped plans for juryless rape trials to be piloted in Scotland after failing to secure cross-party support.
Under the proposed pilot, a single judge, or possibly a panel, would have provided a verdict in certain rape cases rather than a jury.
Part of the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, it met with strong opposition from the legal profession, including the Law Society.
They argued trial by jury for serious crimes is a “basic right” and should not be undermined.
READ MORE: Juryless rape trials considered south of Border after Scottish outcry
However one of Scotland’s most senior judges, Lady Dorrian, said such a pilot would provide valuable evidence.
The underlying reason behind the idea was the prevalence of “rape myths” among jurors.
Previous first minister Humza Yousaf said his government was “absolutely committed to a pilot”.
The bill passed its stage one vote in the Scottish Parliament in April, but almost half of MSPs abstained on the legislation – including some SNP members.
In a written answer by Justice Secretary Angela Constance (above) published on Thursday, she said: “I have already made clear my willingness to amend the provisions that enable a time-limited pilot of single judge rape trials.
“I recognise, however, that there is not enough cross-party support at this time for such a pilot, irrespective of the model.
“In the interests of building as much consensus as possible, I will no longer pursue this policy and bring forward relevant amendments to remove it from the Bill.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf rejects 'meddling' claims over juryless rape trials
“I remain committed to exploring the impact of rape myths and improving access to justice for rape victims.
“As part of this work, I will bring forward amendments to allow for research to be carried out into jury deliberations, which is currently heavily restricted by the Contempt of Court Act 1981.”
Other measures in the Bill, including the removal of the not proven verdict, will go ahead.
In line with the Justice Committee’s recommendations, proposals to cut the size of juries from 15 to 12 will be dropped.
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