I believe we could have learned a great deal from having a pilot study of single-judge trials in prosecutions for rape and attempted rape.

At present, juries do not give reasons for their verdicts - they simply state that they find the accused ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ of the charge or charges (or that the case against the accused has not been proven). Indeed, it is a criminal offence (‘contempt of court’) for a juror to disclose anything said by any members of the jury during their deliberations on the verdict.

Had the pilot gone ahead, the judges in these courts would have been required by the legislation to give written reasons for their verdicts.

READ MORE

This would help to increase public understanding of the law on rape to members of the public.

For example, a written judgment might note that it is not a defence for an accused person to claim that the complainer (the alleged victim) was extremely drunk, or under the influence of drugs, so did not resist the accused’s sexual advances.

Likewise, a written judgment might draw attention to the fact that it is rape to have sex with a person while they are asleep.

Some defence lawyers had suggested that the proposed pilot should not go ahead since the intention behind the pilot was to increase conviction rates.

Conviction rates in Scotland are generally around 80% for most types of crimes - but a much smaller proportion - less than half - of prosecutions for rape or attempted rape result in a conviction.

There are many reasons for this, but one reason which is worth considering is that jurors may have misunderstandings about the law relating to rape, the circumstances in which rapes occur, and the common reactions of those who have been the victims of rape.

They may believe that anyone who has been raped would immediately report this to the police. They may believe that anyone testifying in court about a rape would be distraught. They may believe that all rape victims will have physical injuries.

They may believe that rapes are most commonly committed by people who do not know their victims. None of this is true.

If the conviction rate were to increase for cases heard by judge-only courts, it is difficult to see how this could be anything other than a positive step.

Most criminal trials in Scotland are conducted without a jury, in sheriff summary courts. There is no reason to doubt that sheriffs who preside over summary trials are capable of giving accurate verdicts.

There is equally no reason to doubt that our High Court judges would be unable to do likewise, had this pilot gone ahead.

Prof Pamela Ferguson is Professor of Scots Law at the School of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law, University of Dundee