Claire Waxman, Professor Katrin Hohl and Dame Vera Baird gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from Claire Waxman, Professor Katrin Hohl and Dame Vera Baird. It is good to see you and to have you back here, Vera, albeit in a different guise.

I will follow the same procedure as I did in the previous panel, but I want to get more Committee members in, as I know that Members on both sides of the Committee missed out. I ask Dr Mullan and the Minister to try to keep the Front-Bench questions tighter, so that we can get more participation from all parts of the Committee.

Q I think the witnesses were in the Public Gallery for the introductions, so I will skip straight to my questions. Claire, you have expressed your support of the structural reforms, including the reduction in access to jury trials. Could you take me through your policy formulation process when making such a decision to support a particular policy point?

Claire Waxman:

Of course. My role is very much focused on listening directly to victim survivors and families bereaved by homicide, so any changes in legislation and proposals are sense-checked with them. I have been listening to victims since 2020, when the pandemic hit, and have seen the direct impact of the long delays, with cases now going well into 2030. There is a human cost to that. We often say, “Justice delayed is justice denied,” but justice is not abstract for victims. When we delay justice, what it really means for victims is a lack of security and safety, and an inability to process what has happened, to get closure and to move on with their lives; all those are denied. We trap victims in prolonged years of uncertainty, which compounds and prolongs their trauma. I have spoken at length publicly about what that looks like for victims.

You will hear from victims shortly, and a letter signed by 18 victims who have actually been in the criminal justice system and sustained long waits for justice was sent last week. I have spoken to victims, and they want this to end: they want a way out, and they are desperate. They are saying that if having a judge-only trial in a case will mean that they will come out of the system more quickly, they want to see timely justice. Without that, we are seeing a reduction in access to justice, an increase in victim attrition—and not just post-charge, as we have seen an increase of more than 5% in the last five years—and a third of trials breaking down because victims have withdrawn as they cannot sustain staying in the system.

We are also seeing it impact the pre-charge phase. Last year, as London’s Victims’ Commissioner, I published the London victim attrition review, finding that on average 40% of victims withdraw from the system, and that delays are playing a part in that—not just delays in investigation, but the thought of having to wait years to get into court.

Q So you feel you are reflecting what victims want.

Claire Waxman:

Yes.

Are you familiar with the letter to the Deputy prime minister from a coalition of more than a dozen violence against women and girls groups, including the End Violence Against Women Coalition, London Black Women’s Project, the Centre For Women’s Justice and Welsh Women’s Aid, who oppose the changes to jury trials?Q

Claire Waxman:

Yes, I am absolutely aware of it.

Q My next, very simple question is: do you accept that there is a diversity of opinion among those representing victims about whether it is the right step to take?

Claire Waxman:

That letter was actually around victims who have been criminalised, so it is a different issue; they are dealing with victims who are defendants in the system, not victims who are complainants.

Welsh Women’s Aid?

Claire Waxman:

Yes, they are talking about criminalisation, which is an appalling failing of our criminal justice system.

Q Sorry—we have to be really tight—you think Welsh Women’s Aid does not necessarily speak for victims?

Claire Waxman:

In that letter, the focus is on the criminalisation of victims, which is awful. The overlap of criminalisation and victimisation needs to be dealt with way earlier on in the system.

Q Sorry, we have to be really tight with the questions. Do you think, if I were to ask Welsh Women’s Aid, they would say, “We support the changes to jury trials”?

Claire Waxman:

In that letter, they are saying they are not—[Interruption.]

Kieran, can we just ask a question and get the answer?

Claire Waxman:

You would need to ask Welsh Women’s Aid. They have signed up to a slightly different tone of a letter, which is around the criminalisation of victims coming into the system as defendants. It is very different to the victims I listen to—

Q You have made that point.

Claire Waxman:

Victims are complex—

Sorry, but you have made that point. I am asking you a very specific question. Do you think Welsh Women’s Aid supports the change to jury trials?

Claire Waxman:

We know they do not, because they have signed that letter—

They do not—thank you. That is fine. I have finished.

Claire Waxman:

But that is at odds with a number of the victims I speak to, just to be clear.

Q My first question is for Professor Katrin Hohl. There are measures in the Bill that address the admissibility of evidence in RASSO cases. How will those measures ameliorate the position for victims of those sorts of crimes?

Professor Hohl:

The measures in the Bill that address sexual offences broadly fall into two groups. The first group clarifies and tightens admissibility rules around sexual history evidence and previous reports of sexual violence that may be portrayed as so-called “victim bad character”, tightening that threshold to better protect victims from unnecessary, intrusive and unfounded lines of questioning. We very much welcome those.

There is also a set around special measures, which effectively clarify how they should apply. Those are also very welcome, and my understanding is that they are largely uncontroversial; they seem to be welcomed across the board.

Q Claire Waxman, you have been asked repeatedly about this letter. We have a witness from Women’s Aid coming later who will no doubt talk to the same issue, but you were not given a chance to elaborate on the distinction between the sorts of groups that signed that letter and the sorts of victims you speak to regularly, so I wanted to give you the opportunity to do so.

Claire Waxman:

Thank you. First of all, victims are not a homogeneous group, and they do not always agree on everything, but the Majority of victims, who are so desperate to get out of these long waits, are looking to you—to Government and to parliamentarians—to provide that reassurance that hope is on the horizon. As Sir Brian laid out this morning, and in all his analysis work, we need some structural reform in order to take the pressure off the overburdened court system. That is what we need to be looking at to alleviate what victims have to experience.

That sector letter is talking about a really serious failing of our criminal justice system, but it is about the criminalisation of victims. They should not even be coming into court. We need to be dealing with that way earlier in the process. We need to be looking at diversion, better identification of victims and pushing them into trauma-informed responses and support.

I do not want to see victims coming into the system as defendants, but we cannot ignore the many victims I speak to—and there are victims who will speak to you directly today—who are in as complainants rather than as defendants. They are waiting years to give evidence. We know that when they wait years, there is a chance that they will withdraw; if they do not, the wait impacts the quality of their evidence. The impact of delays on memory will understandably affect their evidence. Inconsistencies naturally arise and that becomes very challenging for victims giving evidence years after the offence.

Thank you.

Q Thank you to the panel for coming. Sorry to use your words, Claire, but I am going to quote from the letter that you sent to the Prime Minister. You said that victims

“also stress important safeguards: tackling the lack of diversity on the bench, and ensuring judges are robustly trained in the dynamics of abuse and trauma.”

You know that over many years many different parliamentarians have tried to legislate to ensure that everyone in the judiciary has mandatory training on those important safeguards. You also know that we are always told that, because the judiciary is independent, we cannot legislate to mandate that training. What would you like to see in the Bill to ensure the important safeguards that victims have reflected to you?

Claire Waxman:

I have made that point for years, regardless of these reforms. We have to improve and get reassurance around judicial training, including training on cultural competency, on understanding bias and prejudice and on the dynamics of abuse. We still see issues around coercive control, post-separation abuse and stalking. I need to be reassured that judges are being trained to the level that will give assurances to victims and to myself that they understand what is coming in front of them. We need reassurance from Government on that. I would suggest more investment in judicial training. We saw, over years—Vera will remember more than me when it happened—that the training on rape went down from three days to two days for judges. That was meant to be a temporary measure; I do not think it has gone back up. We need to make sure that we have good, robust training for judiciary and magistrates.

Q Thank you. How do the victims that you speak to and represent feel about the fact that these legislative reforms will not necessarily move the dial until potentially 2035, when we could see the backlog down to pre-covid levels?

Claire Waxman:

People in the criminal justice system need to move ahead with the efficiency measures. We need to move ahead with that so that we can start to see some of the adjournments not happening, better listing and so on. Of course, it is a desperate state. Just yesterday I spoke to a male victim of child sex abuse. He has been in the system since 2021 and in the court system for two years. He thought that he was giving evidence in the coming weeks. That has been adjourned and he has been asked his availability for 2027, 2028 and 2029. He is going to withdraw. I think Sir Brian said it—looking at structural reform came first because we know that the efficiency measures are not going to bring the backlog down quickly enough. We need to do everything together as a package of measures and we need to move ahead.

Good morning, all. I welcome your work and the support that you offer victims—all of you, in what you have been doing. I am sure there is cross-party support for that in the room this morning. Do you think the changes in the Bill will improve the confidence of victims that, when they report crimes, they will receive justice more swiftly than they currently do and, more importantly, that the changes will also encourage more brave victims to come forward and report crimes?

Claire Waxman:

There are a lot of good measures in the Bill that, if delivered and implemented well and with important safeguards, should have positive impacts for victims. We are removing appropriate cases from the Crown court, easing the burden there, and limiting the right to elect for a Crown court trial. By the way, victims view that right as an injustice. They feel that power and control is being given to the defendant, knowing full well that there is a chance they will come out of the process or that their evidence will be impacted over the years. That is something that victims regularly talk to me about. The measures around the automatic right to appeal and to make the magistrates a court of record will open up transparency in the courts and hopefully stop victims having to be called back in for a rehearing. That has devastating impacts; you cannot overestimate what it does to a victim when they think that they have gone through the process of giving evidence, and then they have to come in again.

If all those things ease the pressure and burden on the Crown court, that will give reassurance and confidence to victims who are thinking about whether to stay in the process currently. The measures Katrin talked about—putting in important safeguards around the cross-examination of rape victims—are so important. Vera and I have worked on this since 2019, because of section 41, past sexual history, and issues around cross-examination and compensation claims. That is a financial motive used to undermine the credibility of victims. Victims come out of the system and often say, “I will never report again,” but they tell their friends and families about their experiences, and that deters people and erodes public trust and confidence.

Thank you for your time, Claire. If I am interpreting your answer correctly, your basis for supporting the removal of jury trials is that it will save time and allow victims to get justice quicker. Would your position change if that is not the case and those time savings do not come throughQ ?

Claire Waxman:

That is impossible to answer. We need to see it happen. You need to come back to me and say if it is not going to reduce—

Q Your letter says that this will result in quicker justice for victims, and that is why you support it. My question is: if that is not the case, would you not support it?

Claire Waxman:

It is the case. The Crown court is overburdened. You have heard Sir Brian Leveson’s analysis; it cannot continue in the state it is in. If we do not take appropriate cases out of the Crown court, then what is the answer?

Q That suggests to me that if it did not save time, you would not support the proposal.

Claire Waxman:

But I cannot imagine it. If you are taking cases out of the Crown court that cannot deal with the pressure, that will save time.

That is what we will be analysing over the next few weeks—whether it will or not.

We will limit ourselves to one question each at this stage so that everyone can get in. If there is more time, I will call people again.

Good morning, all. I want to ask a quick question to the former Victims’ Commissioner. Vera, based on your many years of experience as Victims’ Commissioner and working alongside the justice system, do you think structural reform is needed at this stage?Q

Dame Vera Baird:

It is absolutely imperative. There is no way of stopping the problems that my colleague Claire has so well expressed without stopping smaller cases going into the jury list. The state has not said that they need to be tried by jury. As you know, the state says all summary offences go to the magistrates court, as do all indictable offences where it is imperative to have a jury trial—they are very important; the public needs transparency. That is what has been fixed.

It is the cases in the middle, which are at a relatively lower level of crime, where there is a right that the guy charged with rape or murder does not have to pick where he is tried. There is a right to do that for relatively small cases, which is exercised sometimes —you have heard from Sir Brian—in a very self-interested way, which doesn’t surprise you, does it, really? If you can put the case off for three years, the witnesses might never come.

All of that is a problem, and it should be dealt with by bringing in a perfectly fair method of trial: a skilled judge, with or without two magistrates. Make no mistake about judges, there is a need to keep them well trained, of course there is. However, judges now do a lot of fact-finding, not only in criminal cases. Look at the case of Charlotte Nichols, who waited 1,088 days to get to court. She told the most convincing story—what a woman; she is brilliant—to the House of Commons about what happened to her. After 1,088 days, the man was acquitted of raping her. She then had the resource to sue, and she sued in the civil court. A judge believed her and awarded compensation, which she felt was redeeming. There are many cases now where jury trials fail complainants and, if they have the resource, they go to the civil courts, and the judges there are more amenable.

We must not muddle jury trial and fair trial. In many cases—in Australia, all over New Zealand and in most of Canada—there is a right for a jury trial-allocated defendant to opt out. More opt out of jury trials than remain in. Do you know why that is? It is because the acquittal rate is higher in judge-alone trials universally. A judge reasoning a case cannot just say, “Well, I don’t really believe that Baird woman—I didn’t like the look of her. I’m not going to follow what she says,” as juries can. You have to sit down and reason out why it is so. Are you being rational or not? That will be a great asset to fair trial in the middle tier where Sir Brian is going to allocate the most serious of cases, which, frankly, the state has never said need to go to jury. It is about having a punt on a jury trial.

Thank you. You have explained that perfectly.

Q Victims say that they want to see greater diversity in the criminal justice system, and I agree with them. Which group of people is more diverse: juries, the British public or judges?

Dame Vera Baird:

Is it your only point? The answer would be that judges are not as diverse as juries.

Q So do the changes in the Bill reduce diversity in the criminal justice system?

Dame Vera Baird:

Not in the slightest. I assume you know that 73% of people who are entitled to a jury trial do not elect it and choose to stay in the magistrates court. That is men, women and black people. Black people and women disproportionately elect trial because they clearly feel that they will get a fairer trial with a diverse jury, but who says that is right? On the day, if you were a sex offender with some nasty allegations, for instance, you would have a better chance of acquittal in front of a judge than you ever would in front of a jury. It is just an opportunity to try to pick the best trial for yourself, but it is a punt in the dark. It is a go on the wheel of fortune. Sometimes it will work and sometimes it will not.

Q But we do agree that people with more diverse backgrounds elect jury trials and that option is being removed for them.

Dame Vera Baird:

Seventy-three per cent of people offered jury trials do not take the offer up. Are you sure that the term “elect” is correct? Is it not “demand”?

I am asking the questions.

Joe, I think three punts is enough. We have to move on.

To put the focus back on victims, Dame Vera explained clearly that it is the defendant who chooses. What would be the victim’s choiceQ ?

Dame Vera Baird:

Is that not part of why this is very odd? We do not give a person alleged to have committed a very serious crime and whose life will be utterly transformed by what happens in the jury a right not to have a jury trial or to pick where he goes at all—and why would we?—but we do give that right to a small cohort of people on relatively small trials. Some of the trials are big, but the bigger ones will go into the judge court, not stay in the magistrates court. Why, when we have legislated for where these cases should be tried, do we allow that relatively small cohort to pick, in addition to the legislation the state has set out? The difference is between a magistrates court case coming in six months and a Crown court case coming in three or four years. That is the impact on the victim. For what?

As I have already said, the Majority—73%—of people offered a jury trial do not take it up. There is no understanding anywhere—not at the Bar, I can tell you—that it is fairer than a judge-alone or magistrates trial would be. Everybody at the Bar has had cases where they were absolutely shocked when a conviction happened because they never thought it possible and cases where they have got people off when they never thought it possible—of course, they are very chipper about that. Ask them when they come later. There is absolutely no hallmark anywhere that says jury trial is the only fair way.

Judges find facts in all kinds of cases outside the criminal courts. Of course, they also do so in trials; they have to decide, “Is there enough factual evidence here even for a case that a jury can answer?” They are a pretty good substitute for a jury—if that is how you want to look at it—to deliver fair trial.

Kieran has asked me to come back in, but please keep it tight.

Q I want to pick up on this discussion of the letter, which I think you characterised as coming from the perspective of women and girls as defendants in the system, not victims. I want to read you part of the letter:

“The Government’s proposed reforms will likely create significant operational disruption and practical challenges that pull resources from more effective measures to reduce the backlog. This would prolong the uncertainty that leads many survivors to withdraw support for the prosecution of their abuser.”

Do you accept that the letter does, in fact, also talk about the impact on victims of the jury trial changes?

Claire Waxman:

If you read the letter, it focuses on the victim coming in as a defendant, but it is also—

Q Sorry, I have just read you a direct quote about them as victims. Do you accept that it is in there?

Claire Waxman:

You have to read the whole context of the letter—you have pulled out one bit. The whole context of that letter really focuses on listening to women who are wrongly being criminalised, as opposed to victims.

Q People will have heard the quote and they can make up their own minds.

Claire Waxman:

I would urge you to read the letter that has been written and signed by 18 victims, instead of disregarding it—it is really important to read it.

Q I have read it, and I have just read you a quote. If you do not want to take a common quote at its face value, that is fine.

Claire Waxman:

Can I just remind you that we have victims in the room, and I think that is really important?

Order. We cannot have a row going on.

Q Dame Vera, you talked about Charlotte’s powerful testimony. Would you accept that Charlotte has said it is wrong to use the voice of victims to advocate purely for reforms, as though all victims agree with them, and that she is opposed to the reforms?

Dame Vera Baird:

Yes, but she is on her own—

Oh dear!

Dame Vera Baird:

Kieran, you are not listening to what Claire says—she is right. The women’s movement is very disappointed with the Bill because it does not tackle the issue of criminalisation of women. They think that dealing with delays in the list is a very poor substitute, and they will not have it. They want to stand up at last for a proper defence of coercively controlled women who are put into crime—goodness knows it has been long enough coming—but that does not appear in the Bill. The women’s movement is very upset about that, and in my view that has driven this. I do not doubt—

Q I think it is very unfortunate for you to refer to Charlotte as being “on her own” in that way. It is very disrespectful.

Order.

Dame Vera Baird:

No, it is not at all disrespectful. Natalie Fleet, who has also been abused, takes the opposite view. She does not want to be weaponised, Kieran, and that is a very sound point. None the less, her example is appalling, and nobody could doubt her. The man was acquitted, but a judge believed her, so what is your argument now? Judges are not fair.

Thank you for the amazing work you do for victims—it is a shame that respect is not being afforded across this room today. Victims are at the centre of this, and we should try to remember that in the debate.Q

To bring it back to victims—you referred to this, Claire—the Bill makes changes to the bad character evidence. Can you go into a bit more detail on what that is like from a victim’s perspective to have to go through a line of questioning about bad character evidence? Why is it so important that we are changing it?

Claire Waxman:

These are important safeguards that need come in to better protect victims during the cross-examination process. I have to say that most victims I speak to who have gone through the cross-examination process—and this is not just rape victims—describe it as “brutal”. That is their word, not mine. They feel that it is often an experience to try to undermine their credibility at every point.

We have seen the use of past sexual behaviour or past sexual allegations to somehow undermine credibility. We have also seen it with compensation: as I said, it is a right under the victims code to be told about compensation, yet victims trying to access compensation is being weaponised and used as a way to undermine credibility. Many victims feel like they are the ones on trial, and they are being scrutinised. Putting in these important safeguards will help to improve that experience, so that they do not feel like they are under attack.

As I say, you are going to hear from victims shortly, one of whom has gone through that very experience, and I urge you all to listen to them. That is really important, because they are the ones with lived experience—they are living and breathing this delayed criminal justice system. Delays are not the only issue for victims; it is also about the treatment that they experience throughout the criminal justice system. Both need to be dealt with to really reduce victim attrition and improve victim satisfaction.

We are going to move on, because there are a lot of questions to get in.

I have a question of clarification for any member of the panel who wants to answer. In the letter received from the wider VAWG sector, the offences they are concerned that victims of coercive control or abuse might be charged with after striking back are triable either-way offences and therefore affected by this Bill, but rape and sexual assault, as far as I understand it, are indictable-only and will remain so. The impact on those more serious cases that have been discussed will therefore be due to the impact on the time to trial and on the efficiency of the courts, which we know will be uncertain and somewhat delayed. Is that your understanding? In some of the evidence we have heard, it sounded like the assumption is that rape trials will become judge-only, but that is not what this Bill is about.Q

Dame Vera Baird:

No, it is not. It has been, I am afraid, ramped up outside these rooms, with all these Churchillian speeches suggesting that jury trial is being taken away, full stop. That is completely untrue, as you rightly say.

But the victims’ groups who have written in because they are concerned about the criminalisation of women are talking about triable either-way offences, which are directly affected by this Bill. Are their concerns there valid?Q

Professor Hohl:

One thing to remember here is that over 90% of domestic abuse cases are already heard in the magistrates court. VAWG comprises not just sexual violence; it includes domestic abuse, sexual violence and sexual offences. There are some that will be in the either-way category.

We have had a really emotive conversation this morning. One of the issues is judge-alone versus jury trials, and there is a lot of emotion on either side. When we look back at the actual research, there is mention that judges may have biases, and a judge-alone trial may disadvantage people. If that is the genuine concern, why are we happy to accept that for sentencing and admissibility? Why is it that in all the law we are making to guide admissibility of evidence, we trust a judge to separate between myth and stereotypes and facts, but not a jury? If we are genuine about it, we have to go a lot further around oversight and accountability in the judiciary. It would be odd to just worry about it on that specific issue.

I would also like the Committee to consider the evidence around juries. This is not to cast shade on juries but to pause and look at the research, which shows that juries, too, have biases, and there are worries about myths and misconceptions. The research on juries shows that these problems exist there, too. These issues exist with judges and juries. The remedy is not going to be either holding on to the status quo or not. The remedy will be something utterly outside of the discussion we are having that is about accountability and oversight.

Some of the measures in the Bill go that way—for example, recording creates transparency, and judges having to spell out the reasons for their verdict also goes towards that. The debate has moved a really long way away from what the research actually tells us, to quite an emotive batting to and fro. If there is space for the Committee to consider that wider evidence, I would recommend it is looked at.

Professor Hohl, do you think the Bill will lead to a fairer system, particularly for women?Q

Professor Hohl:

This is an unanswerable question. What is fairness? [Interruption.] Well, it is an answerable question, but not a black and white one. We have heard this morning about a separation between the speediness of justice and the fairness of justice, as if they were two different things, when all the research shows that, for both defendants and victims, the time taken is part of justice. To artificially separate them does not work.

The way we measure the fairness of the system is about due process, not about outcomes. We cannot measure fairness through conviction and acquittal rates. The way our system is set up is about due process. Due process is not taking place when the system is on its knees, so getting the system to function better, so that due process can take place, should lead to a fairer system—provided that the Bill functions as intended.

Q May I ask for a clarification? Is Charlotte on her own in her views? Is she the only person who holds the views she has expressed?

Dame Vera Baird:

Of course not, and I did not intend to say that. I have been trying to think, since we discussed it, about how I would feel if my experience were being used for a political cause, and it had been a very nasty experience. I might feel the same sort of—I do not know whether it is resentment or disappointment, or whether it is that it was inappropriate. I can well understand that, but many other victims do not agree that this will not help.

Women are waking up every morning, for three or four years, dreading the day when they will have to relive what happened to them in rape cases, or a man who has been very badly beaten up might wake every morning, worrying that he will have to relive it. It goes on and on like that, because there is a right to demand—as, I am afraid, I would phrase it—a trial for relatively small offences. I do not make little of them, but those will be in the queue. If Charlotte’s case is coming up next Monday, all the cases that have elected for trial before hers will be in the queue in front of it.

indicated dissent.

Dame Vera Baird:

I see Kieran shaking his head, but there is no other way. There is a limited opportunity to give priority to cases. Obviously a very important point is whether the defendant is in custody. Most rape defendants are not in custody, because it is a “one word against the other” case, so they cannot be given any real priority for that reason. We end up very regularly with cases that took as long as Charlotte’s. That is really awful for a large number of victims. It also gives very little to the people who want this right: 64% of people who elect for trial plead guilty before they get to trial. You have to ask why they are electing for trial if they are going to plead guilty, but they have blocked up the jury list all of that time. This is about freeing up the jury list.

Q In the previous panel, Sir Brian asked how we could model something that had never been trialled. As a panel, would you support a pilot of what the Government are suggesting, so we can take the qualitative data and see whether it makes a fundamental difference, or we should go now and not, for example, put a Sunset clause in?

Can you respond briefly, please? I want to get Paulette in.

Claire Waxman:

I can answer very quickly. It is a very good question, but unfortunately I think we have moved past the point at which we can pilot, because of where we are heading with the trajectory of the Crown court—the increase in the wait lists and how long victims are waiting. Modelling is very difficult, but we should not get stuck on percentages. The Government are saying around 20%, and the Institute for Government has now corrected its figures from 2% up to, I think, 9% or higher—to 15%. It is around the direction of travel and recognising that we have an overburdened Crown court. We need to move things out of the process.

Very good.

Q Thank you for allowing me back in, Chair. My question is for Professor Katrin Hohl. Let me start by saying that justice delayed is absolutely justice denied. As has been talked about, there is a lot of distrust in the system. With your vast experience in criminology and criminal justice, could you give us two clear reasons why these reforms are so needed?

We need two clear reasons in less than a minute, so fire away.

Professor Hohl:

One is that the world is changed and the justice system has not updated when the size, nature and volume of cases has changed. Getting the system to cope with today’s demands would be one reason. The other reason is not addressed by the Bill and keeps being surfaced by the discussion: oversight, accountability, transparency and assurance to the public. We are in a space where the public do not trust authority that much any more, so we need more transparency. Things such as recording and reasoned verdicts would help with that. Those would be the reasons for reform—if you allow me to speak only on reasons for, not those against.

Wonderful. That was remarkably brief and most welcome. Thank you so much for your participation. We have greatly benefited from your presence, so thank you for answering all our questions. We are very pleased to let you go and move on.

Dame Vera Baird:

Thank you for the opportunity.