Minister backs reducing number of court cases with no fixed start date

The Justice Secretary has said she wants the number of serious cases that go to court without a definite trial date to be reduced.

But Angela Constance said banning “floating trial diets” could actually increase courtroom delays, and cause more uncertainty and anxiety for victims.

She was pressed on the issue of floating trials – where a court case is scheduled to start at any point over a fixed period of a number of days – when she appeared before Holyrood’s Criminal Justice Committee on Wednesday.

SNP MSP Rona Mackay said the committee had heard from women’s groups that having no definite date set for trials to begin could “prolong the trauma and prolong the anxiety” for victims.

While the Scottish Government is introducing a series of reforms to the legal system, including plans to scrap the controversial not proven verdict, she said there is “nothing” in the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to address the use of floating trials.

Ms Constance said there is a debate ongoing in the legal establishment about the use of floating trials, as she accepted the “uncertainty for victims is undesirable”.

She added: “The Government’s position is we are supportive in reducing the use of floating trials.

“We have not brought forward any measures to ban the use of floating trials, that is because we are still tackling a court backlog.”

She the backlog in court cases built up during the pandemic has been reduced by a third, and “the concern is that to remove floating trials at this time could increase delays further and that would induce further distress”.

For this reason, she said the Scottish Government is adopting a “a more flexible approach”.

Asked by Ms Mackay if the “ultimate aim” would be to not have any floating trial diets, Ms Constance said: “I certainly want to see them reduced.

“I know uncertainty for victims is a real factor that causes real distress, I am just somewhat cautious at this point in time if we took a more inflexible approach that would cause further harm and distress.

“I do think a more flexible approach is the appropriate response.”