By Scottish Government, Safer Communities Directorate

This paper presents a review of quantitative evidence on women in the justice system. It is drawn from a range of data sources, of which the most prominent are Official Statistics produced by the Scottish Government's Justice Analytical Services.

Whilst the analysis in this paper seeks to highlight (and quantify) the differences and similarities between women and men in the justice system, it does not by itself explain why these may exist. Social research and other qualitative evidence would be more appropriate in providing further context for this. For example, qualitative research with victims-survivors of rape and sexual assault as they journey through the justice system in Scotland is available from the Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research[1]. Qualitative evidence which provides an insight into the impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions on people experiencing domestic abuse and other forms of violence against women and girls is available on the Scottish Government website[2].

Key findings from these statistics are that:

• Women account for a much smaller proportion of those involved across Scotland's justice system than men (for example prosecutions, convictions, people in prison). This pattern has been constant over time, and is similar to what is seen in other parts of the UK[3].

• Women and men tend to experience crime in different ways, with a significant factor being the type of crime experienced, including violence. Women are much more likely to experience sexual victimisation and to be victims of partner abuse, while men are more likely to experience serious non-sexual violence (such as homicide and serious assault).

• Feelings of safety have improved over the longer term for women, but have remained consistently behind those of men. This may, at least in part, explain why a greater proportion of women are worried about experiencing crime than men – despite actual experiences of overall crime victimisation being similar for both women and men in Scotland.

• Women represent a minority of those convicted of a crime and of the prison population in Scotland, a feature that is consistent over time. Women also tend to be convicted of different types of crime when compared to men.

• Women generally receive shorter sentences than men, are less likely to receive a custodial sentence and are reconvicted less often on average.

• Looking at views on the criminal justice system, women are less confident in the system than men on a number of measures asked about in the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (for example, confidence that the criminal justice system allows all those accused of crimes to get a fair trial regardless of who they are).

• Justice organisations in Scotland show a mixed picture in terms of their workforce composition. Generally, females continue to make up a minority of more senior roles across the board. While there is targeted effort within organisations in terms of improving diversity, some continue to have a widely male dominated workforce, while others have female employees as the clear majority of their staff.

Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2022. 34p.

By Scottish Government, Safer Communities Directorate

Summary

• Research shows further evidence on the negative impact of rape myths and misconceptions on the complainer, but also raises concerns about perceived fairness by legal professionals when using single judge trials.

• Overall, there is a lack of empirical research comparing modes of trial for rape cases, which makes it difficult to draw any robust conclusions in relation to their impact on the complainer, rights of the accused, public confidence in the justice system and conviction rates.

• That said, there are some tentative indications that the complainer experience may be improved by a single judge trial model, but it might be more dependent on wider court procedures and approaches to (cross) examination than the mode of trial itself.

• Providing a written reason of verdict is seen as a clear advantage of single judge trials, both for the complainer and accused.

• Studies suggest that considering the rights of the accused should include agreeing on the justifications/criteria for single judge trials, establishing clear procedures to ensure consistency and transparency and addressing (implicit) bias and diversity in the judiciary.

• Significantly, where single judge trials for serious offences have been adopted, e.g. in countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States, it is by choice of the accused. There were no instances found of jurisdictions introducing alternatives to jury trials specifically for rape cases.

• There is no clear data on the effect of changing mode of trial on public confidence in justice system, although studies have shown a clear support of the public for the jury system. These studies however, did not ask directly about changing mode of trial in specific cases, such as for rape offences.

• The evidence is mixed on conviction rates, from lower, to no difference, to higher rates of conviction for cases tried by single judge, although, again, the evidence is limited and not specific to rape cases.

• Literature discussing mixed panels of professional and lay judges point to the possibility to mitigate concerns about the lack of community engagement and potential bias with one decision-maker, while preserving some of the advantages of a single judge trial such as clearer judicial direction and a reasoned written verdict.

• Overall, the literature suggest that to understand the impact of a change in mode of trial, it is important to take into account how a new mode of trial interacts with already established procedures in the criminal justice system. To improve the complainer experience additional reflection would be required on pre-trial and cross-examination procedures and training given to legal professionals.

• Taking into account that the evidence presented is limited and not always specific to sexual offences, it is difficult to make a clear translation to the context of a Scottish pilot for rape offences. A pilot can offer valuable and much needed empirical data and insight on the effects of a change in mode of trial.

Edinburgh: Scottish Government Safer Communities Directorate, 2023. 40p.

By Scottish Government, Social Research

In late 2019, the Scottish Government commissioned an independent research study into decision making in relation to refusal of bail in Scotland. The overall aim of the research was to explore how decision making works in practice, as well as to gather perceptions on bail options. The research was carried out over two phases. Phase 1 involved online surveys of members of the Judiciary and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal (COPFS) staff, the findings from which were published in an Interim Findings report in July 2022.

This report presents findings from Phase 2 of the research which involved a series of qualitative interviews with key justice stakeholders (Sheriffs, COPFS staff, defence solicitors and social work staff) to add breadth and context to the survey data presented in the Phase 1 report. A case study approach was taken with fieldwork carried out in six different case study areas, selected on the basis of broad geographical coverage, as well as a mix of courts (from different Sheriffdoms) where historical data (provided at the outset of the project by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service) showed high, medium and low levels of remand. All participation was on a voluntary, self-selection basis and all interviews were carried out on a one-to-one or two-to-one basis, using either face-to-face, online or telephone interviews. A total of 60 people took part over a six month period.

Main Findings

The research highlights that the bail and remand decision making process is complex, multi-faceted and time pressured. The ‘jigsaw’ of legislation, combined with circumstance and human factors, means that no two cases are ever treated the same way and no response can ever be seen as ‘typical’. All participants across all stakeholder groups agreed that the decision making process was informed by multiple considerations in each case, and that there was never any one factor which was determinative in its own right. All cases were described as being unique and as being treated on the basis of the information available at the time and the merits of each individual case. Similarly, while some factors may carry more weight in some circumstances, all factors are still considered in their totality.

Findings from the research broadly fell under four key topics, these being: Legislative Grounds, Process and System Influences, Human Factors and Other Considerations. The main findings presented below are structured around these four topics, with a fifth separate dedicated section focusing on Alternatives to Remand.

(1) Legislative Grounds

The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 is the cornerstone of all decision making and was described by all stakeholders as the main framework within which all decisions on bail and remand are made, being of equal relevance and influence in both summary and solemn cases.

Most respondents concurred that a combination of all of the factors set out in Section 23C of the 1995 Act, alongside the particular facts and circumstances of a case, determined all decisions about whether an accused presents a risk of re-offending and whether bail should be opposed. In general, however, the nature of the offence (especially where the accused has a history of similar, recent offending) and previous convictions were the two factors which perhaps carried the most weight in decisions to oppose bail (by COPFS) and to refuse bail (by Sheriffs).

The nature (including level of seriousness) of offences before the court was described as “highly influential” in Crown decisions to oppose bail primarily because it was seen as the key indicator of the danger that the accused may present to the public and witnesses. Sheriffs also stressed that the seriousness of the current offence was paramount in their determinations (with decisions in solemn procedure even more likely to have seriousness at their heart than summary procedures).

The nature of any previous convictions of the person (including analogous offending) was described by the Crown as “highly influential” in their case marking, and could be sufficient for opposing bail on its sole merit (especially if previous offending was very similar to the new offending). It was noted that the nature of previous convictions could demonstrate that the accused has a preferred method of offending, as well as demonstrating risk of commission of further offending and/or being of danger to the public. Offence histories were also the second most frequently cited factor influencing Sheriffs’ decisions.

Previous behaviour whilst on bail (including compliance, previous breaches and previous breaches of other court orders) was described by Sheriffs as being “very commonly relied upon by the Crown and the court”, with COPFS respondents noting that it often indicated concerns as to commission of further offences, future failure to comply with bail conditions, failure to surrender and likelihood of custody (with breach of orders suggesting contempt of same). Similarly, solicitors noted that the record of the accused alongside their compliance with previous orders played heavily in their assessment of likelihood of bail being granted. Sheriffs confirmed that previous behaviour while on bail was considered as a key indicator of likely future behaviour in the current case.

How recently other offences were committed was described as playing a key role in decisions as it could help to demonstrate any pattern of offending or risk of re-offending and whether the accused was targeting a single or multiple victims/complainers. This information was also described as useful insofar as it may yield arguments that certain specific sections of society are not safe if the accused was to be at liberty. A period of desistance following a prolific record was not always seen as good reason to support bail, and it was noted that the weight of the record and other factors were also likely to be considered by COPFS and Sheriffs in turn.

Evidence of escalation of offending was perhaps seen as slightly less influential than other features of an accused’s history and was often considered only alongside other features (in particular the types of offending being escalated) to present a case for opposing bail by the Crown. For Sheriffs, escalation was also not a primary determinative factor in decisions.

Of lower importance in the order of considerations for Sheriffs was the risk of failure to appear at future court diets. While previous behaviour was seen to be indicative, Sheriffs tended to note that failure to appear would need to be severe, prolonged and prolific for this to be the reason why they would remand someone to custody.

Sheriffs also cited risk to public and community safety as being key to their decision making, and possibly one of the most significant factors weighing in bail/remand decisions, after offence nature and seriousness (the two often being intertwined). Assessing whether the accused was likely to interfere with victims/witnesses was also seen as important, although it was noted that interference was ‘rare’ in most types of case (the exception being domestic abuse/harassment cases). Similarly, most Sheriffs cited the nature and number of previous offences and previous non-compliance with bail and other court orders as a key consideration involved in assessing ‘substantial risk’.

Also in relation to legislative grounds, Section 23D of the Act (which sets out a presumption against bail for those accused of violent/sexual/domestic abuse offences or drug trafficking offences in solemn proceedings, where they have a previous conviction of a similar nature) was viewed as being interpreted very differently by different Sheriffs. Stakeholders viewed that ‘exceptional circumstances’ (which may allow the granting of bail in some such cases) was a (largely) undefined, fluid and subjective concept. Sheriffs and solicitors also concurred that there was a certain inevitability of bail being opposed by COPFS in Section 23D cases. It should be noted, however, that the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 (which was still being passed through parliament at the time that the research was reaching its conclusion) repeals Section 23D of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. (continued)

Edinburgh: Safer Communities Directorate, 2023. 93p.