Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was really helpful.

I want to follow up my previous question with a question for either DCS Faulds or Deputy Chief Constable Graham about the potential use of recorded police interviews, which the committee has heard about. How might that be taken forward? I recall such a thing as a precognition statement being taken from all witnesses, but that does not seem to happen any more, and I was just wondering what a recorded police interview would actually be in that respect.

Cabinet secretary, we had a really interesting and good exchange with David Fraser last week on what a specialist court is. Are you satisfied that, in legislating to create a specialist court—as I understand you have to do—it would not look like we were downgrading sexual offences. According to one view, we are being told that the court would be part of the High Court, but we would need to legislate to create a specialist court. It is a bit unclear. I think that I am right in saying that the bench consists of about 32 to 35 judges, who deal with rape cases every day, I would have thought. We need some clarity on why we need a specialist court and on what that specialist court would do.

I can see the case for a court that treats victims differently. We have heard evidence on the trauma that victims experience in going to courts that are not equipped, spacewise, to ensure that they can enter the building without coming across the person they have accused of a crime. Could you provide any clarity on that view? Do you have any concerns about what legislating for a specialist court might look like, as having at most 10-year sentences might look like a downgrading of sexual offences?

You said in answer to Collette Stevenson that there were sexual offences liaison officers to take statements when it was more suitable for the victim. Does that happen in every rape case?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I am not going to draw you into a policy discussion about this issue, but I would like some clarity. As I understand it from the reports in The Times, what we are talking about here with regard to what Police Scotland has said is not a trans person per se but an accused person presenting as a woman for the purposes of the alleged crime. The issue is about Police Scotland seeming to protect that rather than someone who had previously identified as a woman. There needs to be clarity on that—although I will not draw you into that today.

The deputy chief constable said that the Scottish Government was going to provide clarity on that point, but I was not sure what he meant by that. Did he mean that you are having on-going discussions? I am just wanting an answer to that: are there on-going discussions, or was the deputy chief constable referring to the gender reform legislation or to something else? Could you tell the committee what he meant by that?

I finish by asking the cabinet secretary to read the press release from Police Scotland after today’s meeting. It is in the Times article, and it makes an implication about anyone who presents as a woman. Perhaps the police did not mean to say that, but that might be something that you would want to discuss with them.

You have made it clear, and your comments were really helpful. I now understand the motivation behind it. Earlier, it sounded as though you were just going to implement the review, but you have made it clear that legislation would be required. That makes complete sense.

I want to flag something up, but I am not sure to whom the question should be directed, so I do not really expect an answer.

The Bonomy reforms have extended sentencing powers to five years in the sheriff court. At the time, Lord Bonomy was clear that that should not debar serious cases from having senior counsel. However, it is now virtually impossible to get senior counsel even for a serious case, because it is not automatic, as it used to be. In contrast, my understanding is that, for cases that go to the High Court, there would automatically be counsel.

I flag to everybody that, if rights of audience are an issue for the new specialist court, it will look as though those crimes are being downgraded. Somebody has to address that question somewhere, if you see where I am coming from. There are lots of complex cases in the sheriff courts that previously, before we changed the sentencing powers, would have gone to the High Court—you can check that with the Faculty of Advocates—and I would be concerned if the rules around rights of audience were to change.

I do not expect an answer, but I wonder whether that could be flagged up to the partners in relation to the strategic review.

How is that lawful? I studied law, and I was taught clearly that rape cases are a plea to the Crown and must be heard in the High Court. Is that just a convention?

Are you saying that the specialist court is the High Court or not? We need to be clear about that. Either it is or it is not. If it is not, that means that it is not the senior court. You can disagree with me. I am saying that you cannot put rape cases in a specialist court—well, perhaps that is not the intention. There is obviously a difference between sexual offence cases, which are non-rape cases, and rape cases.

I have two sets of questions. One is around the trial diets, and I have another question for Danielle McLaughlin about the specialist court issue.

Mr Fraser, what is your view on ensuring that rape cases have fixed trial diets as opposed to floating ones? I have dealt with such cases, and I have discussed a couple of them directly with you. One survivor had 13 different first diet dates—from any point of view, that is not acceptable. What would the barriers be to implementing fixed trial diets for rape cases, which would prevent the continual rescheduling of those cases?