>__Plan is a ‘serious miscalculation by the SNP’__
>George Willoughby
>Saturday April 29 2023, 12.01am BST, The Times
>A rebellion against plans to scrap juries for rape trials in Scotland was gathering pace last night as a growing number of law firms and legal organisations pledged to fight the idea.
>Lawyers said that they did not want to be involved in the proposed changes, with some describing the radical legal reforms as a “significant miscalculation” and an “attempt to skew conviction rates”.
>Experts also warned that single-judge trials would be of concern for other countries who could stop extraditing people to Scotland because of the change.
>Terry Gallanagh, director of the Paisley-based legal firm McCusker, McElroy & Gallanagh, which has one of the largest criminal defence teams in Scotland, said that it would boycott the scheme and predicted lawyers across the country would do the same.
>He said: “I am very confident this will be a nationwide action by all solicitors. Jury trials are the bedrock of a democratic society. To refuse or remove that particular facet of democracy in allowing people to judge their fellow citizens is a significant miscalculation of all involved. Each case relies on its own circumstances and facts.
>“To skew a system in an attempt to increase conviction rates undermines the democratic process. I refuse to accept that juries are any less well-equipped to make decisions correctly in sexual offences.”
>Jonny Campbell, president of the Edinburgh Bar Association, said: “We are really concerned that the proposed changes compromise someone’s right to a fair trial. We are completely opposed to the removal of juries in any circumstance.
>“While it is admirable to want to increase conviction rates for rape, this is entirely the wrong way about it. The changes are ill-conceived and poorly thought out. We will be balloting our members and anticipate very little support.”
>Ministers claim that the changes, recommended after a review by Lady Dorrian, Scotland’s second-most senior judge, are needed because the conviction rate is 46 per cent in rape and attempted rape trials, compared with an overall rate of 88 per cent.
>Legislation published by the SNP administration this week called for the creation of a national specialist court for sex offences, while adopting a “trauma informed” approach to the alleged victims of sexual assault and rape.
>The Law Society of Scotland, the governing body for Scottish solicitors, said that testing juryless trials was a fundamental change to the justice system based on “dubious premises”.
>Murray Etherington, the society’s president, said: “We are deeply concerned by the prospect of a judge-only pilot, which seems to be based on the dubious premise that jurors are returning the wrong verdicts in sexual offences cases. Important and substantial improvements can and should be made to ensure that complainers in sexual offences cases are treated with sensitivity and respect. This does not justify fundamental changes to our justice system driven by a desire to increase conviction rates.”
>The Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, which represents criminal defence lawyers, has also rejected the pilot. It said on Twitter: “Judge-only trials for very serious sexual cases is alarming and we can see absolutely no development for it.”
>Legal associations across Scotland have publicly rejected the reforms, with ballots expected to show solicitors in favour of not accepting cases that form part of the pilot.
>The Glasgow Bar Association said that it had significant concerns and would be putting a vote to members on whether they will take part. Michael Gallen, its president, said: “It has been widely discussed and I have not spoken to a solicitor who is in favour of the proposed changes or consider them to be in the interest of justice.”
>A statement from the association added: “The proposed reforms raise significant concerns regarding fairness and transparency within the criminal justice system. These proposals seek to dismantle a jury system which has worked for centuries.”
>Last night lawyers in Dumfries said that they had voted unanimously to boycott trials without a jury.
>However, Sandy Brindley, of Rape Crisis Scotland believes that removing juries could be a “positive step” to increase the number of convictions and improve the experiences of victims through the justice system.
>She said: “There is significant evidence that myths about sexual violence influence juries in their decision-making. We believe that a pilot of single-judge trials could be a positive step towards making engaging with the justice system an easier experience for survivors. Everyone has the right to a fair trial but that does not automatically mean a jury trial. A single-judge trial is still a fair trial.”
>Other changes under the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill would reduce numbers on juries from 15 to 12, while in jury trials a two-thirds majority would be required for a guilty verdict. The legislation would also establish a legal right to anonymity in sexual offence cases.
From my understanding, the reason why few rapists get convicted after being arrested (2%) is because they rarely get formally charged. This is partly due to untrained officers handling sex crimes, careless attitudes within the police and because rape is very difficult to collect evidence for.
Once a suspected rapist is formally charged and is sent to court, the likelihood of being found guilty is 70%.
So why focus on the courts when it’s the police which are the problem? Why not commit to having better police officers who can properly investigate such crimes.
There are some good ideas here though. Having specialist courts which can better cater to sexual abuse victims and have staff which understand sex crimes better is a good idea.
Edit: In Scotland, conviction of rape in court is 46% compared to 88% overall.
Edit 2: Reddit just sent me the “help and support” bot and I’m pretty sure it was because of this comment. Pathetic.
[removed]
Does anybody know what the source of that graphic in the header image is? The woman in it is identical for the graphic used by a company local to my area called Black Palm Cosmetics:
I’ve been on a jury for a sexual assault case. It’s basically one person’s word against another’s. As we didn’t witness it and there was no evidence, I don’t see what we as a jury added to the process.
A cynic would say humza is ambivalent towards rape
6 comments
>#Rebellion grows over jury-free rape trials
>__Plan is a ‘serious miscalculation by the SNP’__
>George Willoughby
>Saturday April 29 2023, 12.01am BST, The Times
>A rebellion against plans to scrap juries for rape trials in Scotland was gathering pace last night as a growing number of law firms and legal organisations pledged to fight the idea.
>Lawyers said that they did not want to be involved in the proposed changes, with some describing the radical legal reforms as a “significant miscalculation” and an “attempt to skew conviction rates”.
>Experts also warned that single-judge trials would be of concern for other countries who could stop extraditing people to Scotland because of the change.
>Terry Gallanagh, director of the Paisley-based legal firm McCusker, McElroy & Gallanagh, which has one of the largest criminal defence teams in Scotland, said that it would boycott the scheme and predicted lawyers across the country would do the same.
>He said: “I am very confident this will be a nationwide action by all solicitors. Jury trials are the bedrock of a democratic society. To refuse or remove that particular facet of democracy in allowing people to judge their fellow citizens is a significant miscalculation of all involved. Each case relies on its own circumstances and facts.
>“To skew a system in an attempt to increase conviction rates undermines the democratic process. I refuse to accept that juries are any less well-equipped to make decisions correctly in sexual offences.”
>Jonny Campbell, president of the Edinburgh Bar Association, said: “We are really concerned that the proposed changes compromise someone’s right to a fair trial. We are completely opposed to the removal of juries in any circumstance.
>“While it is admirable to want to increase conviction rates for rape, this is entirely the wrong way about it. The changes are ill-conceived and poorly thought out. We will be balloting our members and anticipate very little support.”
>Ministers claim that the changes, recommended after a review by Lady Dorrian, Scotland’s second-most senior judge, are needed because the conviction rate is 46 per cent in rape and attempted rape trials, compared with an overall rate of 88 per cent.
>Legislation published by the SNP administration this week called for the creation of a national specialist court for sex offences, while adopting a “trauma informed” approach to the alleged victims of sexual assault and rape.
>The Law Society of Scotland, the governing body for Scottish solicitors, said that testing juryless trials was a fundamental change to the justice system based on “dubious premises”.
>Murray Etherington, the society’s president, said: “We are deeply concerned by the prospect of a judge-only pilot, which seems to be based on the dubious premise that jurors are returning the wrong verdicts in sexual offences cases. Important and substantial improvements can and should be made to ensure that complainers in sexual offences cases are treated with sensitivity and respect. This does not justify fundamental changes to our justice system driven by a desire to increase conviction rates.”
>The Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, which represents criminal defence lawyers, has also rejected the pilot. It said on Twitter: “Judge-only trials for very serious sexual cases is alarming and we can see absolutely no development for it.”
>Legal associations across Scotland have publicly rejected the reforms, with ballots expected to show solicitors in favour of not accepting cases that form part of the pilot.
>The Glasgow Bar Association said that it had significant concerns and would be putting a vote to members on whether they will take part. Michael Gallen, its president, said: “It has been widely discussed and I have not spoken to a solicitor who is in favour of the proposed changes or consider them to be in the interest of justice.”
>A statement from the association added: “The proposed reforms raise significant concerns regarding fairness and transparency within the criminal justice system. These proposals seek to dismantle a jury system which has worked for centuries.”
>Last night lawyers in Dumfries said that they had voted unanimously to boycott trials without a jury.
>However, Sandy Brindley, of Rape Crisis Scotland believes that removing juries could be a “positive step” to increase the number of convictions and improve the experiences of victims through the justice system.
>She said: “There is significant evidence that myths about sexual violence influence juries in their decision-making. We believe that a pilot of single-judge trials could be a positive step towards making engaging with the justice system an easier experience for survivors. Everyone has the right to a fair trial but that does not automatically mean a jury trial. A single-judge trial is still a fair trial.”
>Other changes under the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill would reduce numbers on juries from 15 to 12, while in jury trials a two-thirds majority would be required for a guilty verdict. The legislation would also establish a legal right to anonymity in sexual offence cases.
From my understanding, the reason why few rapists get convicted after being arrested (2%) is because they rarely get formally charged. This is partly due to untrained officers handling sex crimes, careless attitudes within the police and because rape is very difficult to collect evidence for.
Once a suspected rapist is formally charged and is sent to court, the likelihood of being found guilty is 70%.
So why focus on the courts when it’s the police which are the problem? Why not commit to having better police officers who can properly investigate such crimes.
There are some good ideas here though. Having specialist courts which can better cater to sexual abuse victims and have staff which understand sex crimes better is a good idea.
Edit: In Scotland, conviction of rape in court is 46% compared to 88% overall.
Edit 2: Reddit just sent me the “help and support” bot and I’m pretty sure it was because of this comment. Pathetic.
[removed]
Does anybody know what the source of that graphic in the header image is? The woman in it is identical for the graphic used by a company local to my area called Black Palm Cosmetics:
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5edab94f8fbb18761547b035/1591691890615-NUKIRTAON5VA509JFKHX/IMG_20200528_211337.png
I’ve been on a jury for a sexual assault case. It’s basically one person’s word against another’s. As we didn’t witness it and there was no evidence, I don’t see what we as a jury added to the process.
A cynic would say humza is ambivalent towards rape