Bar associations plan ballots on juryless rape trials

Two of Scotland's bar associations are planning to ballot their members on whether they should take part in the proposed pilot of juryless trials for serious sexual offences.

Proposed in the Scottish Government's new Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, following a recommendation in the Dorrian review, the pilot idea has drawn almost universal opposition from within the legal profession, though it is supported by groups such as Victim Support Scotland and Rape Crisis Scotland.

The Glasgow Bar Association and the Scottish Solicitors' Bar Association are both proposing a ballot of members. In a statement the GBA said 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".

GBA President Michael Gallen commented: "An accused is prevented by law from representing themselves in cases of this nature. Given the strength of feeling on this issue we intend to ballot our members on whether they are prepared to accept instructions in any case forming part of the pilot scheme."

Similarly, the SSBA described judge only trials for such offences as "an alarming development that we can see absolutely no justification for". It added: No other civilised country dispenses with juries in such cases. The suggestion that juries are routinely misguided in their verdicts and in some way conviction rates need to be corrected for such offences is frankly an affront to justice and should be opposed. It is likely the SSBA will require to ballot its members on whether or not we should take part in any such pilot."

Individual lawyers have also posted on social media that they and/or their firms will not take part. Ian Moir tweeted that he and his partner would not be party to this "reckless" pilot: "Removal of safeguards against #miscarriageofjustice seeking to increase convictions screams out the risks here." Matthew McGovern of McGovern Reid declared that no client of the firm "will be ever exploited as part of a social experiment to satisfy the demands of the Special Interest Groups. This pilot is not in the interests of justice".

Roddy Dunlop KC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, questioned, "more prosaically, which accused would *ever* be happy to be part of a pilot scheme, much of the point of which is to increase conviction rates?".

Rape Crisis Scotland however thought the plans "could have a positive impact for survivors". It added: "Already, we have heard some misleading rhetoric on this plan that does not reflect what is being proposed. It’s very important to remember that the removal of a jury is not a breach of the right to a fair trial... A pilot would give time for the effectiveness of these trials, and the experience of survivors, to be considered before they are fully rolled out."

Victim Support Scotland commented: "We do not believe the current system of trial by jury is suitable for the prosecution of serious sexual offences. The Mock Jury research highlighted it is difficult for a jury to understand complex legal arguments and matters of law. We would support the recommendation of a pilot for single judge-led trials, and have the confidence that the knowledge and experience of the judiciary will lead to a more just outcome for survivors".