1.

Which of the four options do you prefer and why?

2.

(a)

Do you agree that the rule against personal cross-examination should cover all cases referred to in section 274 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995?

(b)

Do you think it should be wider than that?

(c)

How would cases to be covered then be identified?

3.

(a)

Do you agree that the accused should be told at the first appearance in court, or when the complaint/indictment is served, that he will not be permitted personally to cross-examine the complainer and that it would therefore be in his own interests for him to appoint a lawyer to represent him?

(b)

Do you agree with the procedure suggested?

(c)

Do you have any views about the timescales which should be set?

4.

Do you agree that in sexual offence cases the court should have an automatic power to appoint a lawyer for an accused who dismisses his lawyer during the trial or within a 14-day period before it?

5.

To what, if any, extent should a lawyer appointed by the court have responsibility to the accused?

6.

(a)

Do you agree that a Code of Practice should be developed for court-appointed lawyers?

(b)

Should it have a statutory basis?

7.

(a)

How should lawyers to be appointed by the court be identified?

(b)

What measures can be taken to ensure a sufficient pool of suitably qualified and experienced lawyers?

8.

Do you agree with the proposals:

(a)

to prohibit an accused in a sexual offence case from taking a precognition personally; and

(b)

to amend the standard bail conditions to include such a prohibition?

9.

(a)

Do you agree with the type of approach adopted by the Canadian Criminal Code to questions of relevance and probative value?

(b)

If a similar approach were to be adopted here, what factors should the court take into account in deciding admissibility?

10.

Do you agree that evidence of complainer’s "bad character" should only be admitted where:

(a)

it is relevant to the issue of whether the complainer is worthy of belief; and

(b)

it is of specific instances of behaviour casting doubt on the complainer’s honesty or showing a motive to fabricate allegations?

11.

(a)

Should applications for the admission of sexual history and character evidence be made in writing?

(b)

Should the court be required to state its reasons for admitting such evidence?

12.

(a)

Do you consider that there should be a "trial within a trial" for the purpose of determining whether evidence of the complainer’s sexual history and character is admissible?

(b)

If so, should the complainer be a compellable witness at such a hearing?

(c)

Should the procedure, if it is adopted, be available in both solemn and summary cases?

13.

Should the Crown exemption be retained or abolished?

14.

Should consent be a specified defence in sexual offence cases?

15.

(a)

Do you agree that the granting of an application to admit evidence about the complainer’s sexual history or character should result automatically in the disclosure of any previous sexual offence convictions of the accused?

(b)

Should disclosure extend to sexual offences with which the accused has been charged but not convicted?

(c)

Should it extend to convictions for crimes of violence?