Victims’ groups raise ‘significant concerns’ about change to jury majority

Plans to increase the number of jurors needed for a guilty verdict to be returned in Scotland’s courts could lead to a reduction in convictions, ministers have been warned.

Groups representing victims told MSPs they have “significant concerns” about proposals from the Scottish Government that would mean 10 jurors out of 15 would need to find an accused person guilty.

The change is proposed as part of a series of justice reforms which will also see Scotland’s controversial not proven verdict scrapped.

Sandy Brindley, chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, said it would be a “tragedy” if the move makes it harder to obtain a conviction after trial.

She was speaking as Holyrood’s Criminal Justice Committee continues to consider a package of reforms put forward in the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Justice Secretary Angela Constance has already said the Government will not proceed with plans to pilot judge-only trials for rape and attempted rape cases, which had been strongly opposed by the legal profession.

But she confirmed ministers are still planning to end Scotland’s unique not proven verdict – with this linked to a change in the number of jurors required for a verdict to be returned.

A defendant can currently be convicted if eight out of 15 jurors back a guilty verdict, and the Government wants to change that simple majority system to one which would require two-thirds of jurors to support a conviction.

In a letter to the committee, Ms Constance insisted that is “the most prudent approach” which is “best able to maintain balance and confidence in our system”.

She said she is “deeply concerned” that if ministers remove the not proven verdict without changing the majority required for conviction, it “could increase the risk of miscarriages of justice”.

Rape Crisis Scotland continues to support removing the not proven verdict, Ms Brindley said, saying when this verdict is returned it can leave rape victims “without an ending or proper closure in their case”.

She said the Government should provide more evidence to MSPs on why removing the not proven verdict should also lead to changes in the number of jurors needed for conviction.

With MSPs preparing to vote on these “fundamental changes to our legal system”, Ms Brindley said it would be “reasonable” for the committee to “be anticipating from the Government further data” on the issue.

She argued that mock jury research carried out for the Scottish Government did not provide a “substantial enough basis” to support increasing the number of jurors needed for a conviction.

Ms Brindley said: “If it is being linked to a change in the jury majority, I do think that is going to make it harder to get a conviction, particularly in rape cases.

“We do have significant concerns about the change in jury majority.

“Our fear is the overall impact of this Bill, particularly if the judge-led pilot proposed is to be removed, is that the overall impact of this Bill could be fewer convictions.

“We know that jury members can be particularly reluctant to convict in rape cases, and I think any change in the jury majority potentially is going to make it harder to get a conviction in these cases.

“Given how low conviction rates already are, I really think it would be a tragedy if that was the impact of this Bill, particularly given how hard survivors have worked for this Bill and on the campaign to remove the not proven verdict.”

Her concerns were echoed by Kate Wallace, chief executive of Victim Support Scotland.

She said the group has “significant concerns” about moving to the two-thirds majority.

Ms Wallace added the “potential impact” of requiring 10 jurors for a guilty verdict could be a “reduction in conviction rates”.

She told the committee: “We do think it will be more difficult and potentially erode away the good work that would be done by getting rid of the not proven verdict.”

She also said Victim Support Scotland is “disappointed” the Government is not pressing ahead with plans to pilot judge-only trials for those accused of rape or attempted rape.

In October, Ms Constance confirmed the Government would scrap the proposal, saying there was “not enough parliamentary support at this time” for the change.

Ms Wallace said evidence around rape myths mean the change could have been “important in terms of sexual crimes”.

But she added: “We do recognise and are pragmatic about the situation and the lack of consensus around that.”