Scottish Conservatives decry SNP Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill as a missed opportunity

TheVictims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill was approved by the Scottish government in Holyrood late Thursday night, triggering pointed criticism from opposition parties who say the measure delivers few tangible protections for crime victims despite its title. The Scottish Conservatives framed the legislation as “in name only,” arguing it does not deliver the promised improvements and instead serves as a vehicle for headline-friendly reform without real impact on those affected by crime.

Russell Findlay, a Scottish Conservative MSP, argued that Scotland’s not proven verdict is an “accident of history and an affront to justice” that has devastated the families of murder victims and other crime survivors. He noted the party’s 2021 manifesto pledge to scrap the verdict, suggesting that the SNP’s inclusion of the issue in their bill reflects political calculations rather than a genuine commitment to reform. Findlay said the Conservatives voted against the bill last night with a heavy heart, aware that it would pass regardless. He added that the government’s decisions and rhetoric have repeatedly failed to align with victims’ lived experiences.

In outlining the bill’s substantive provisions, Findlay highlighted a key reversal on a controversial proposal to remove juries from rape trials. During the bill’s progress, the Conservatives explicitly opposed what they described as a reckless experiment with people’s lives and the implication that jurors cannot be trusted. Findlay asserted that the SNP’s insistence on pursuing the plan to scrap juries had to be abandoned under pressure from opposition and victims who stressed the value of jury scrutiny. He suggested the reversal was less a principled stance and more a practical response to public scrutiny and media attention.

The measures attached to the bill also drew fire for their approach to victims’ information rights. The Conservatives argued that amendments intended to ensure victims are always informed when a decision not to prosecute is taken were rejected, leaving victims facing decisions without clear, timely notification. Findlay described the rejections as emblematic of a broader pattern: the bill would require victims to plead or push for information rather than receiving what they are entitled to as a matter of course. He cited Liz Shanks, a domestic abuse survivor and campaigner, who said, “They’re pretending to listen. They just want to be seen to be doing the right thing – but not doing what’s actually needed. Crime victims are not being listened to. They’re being let down every single day in Scotland.”

Beyond information rights, the bill introduces a new Victims Commissioner. Findlay characterized the proposal as “yet another SNP virtue-signalling quango” that would be costly and potentially toothless in practice. He argued that the role risks delivering symbolism without delivering meaningful powers or oversight for victims. While the government framed the posturing as a necessary step toward trauma-informed practice, critics like Findlay argued that the term has been weaponized to justify decisions without clear, evidence-based definitions or accountability.

Amendments put forward by Conservative colleagues to expand victims’ access to public inquiry for serious cases—such as grooming gangs—were rejected. Findlay said the party’s attempts to secure a public-facing inquiry into grooming gang activity in Scotland were dismissed by SNP MSPs and their Green allies, who he claimed preferred avoiding scrutiny in favor of a controlled narrative. He asserted that the bill’s scope misses opportunities to confront a difficult and well-documented problem in a transparent, victim-centered way.

The government’s handling of the bill’s trauma-informed language drew particular scrutiny. Findlay charged that the phrase has become a catch-all excuse to crowbar in changes that suit political messaging rather than those supported by hard evidence or victims’ testimony. He recounted asking for a clear definition of what “trauma-informed” means in practice, only to receive vague responses that, in his view, failed to translate into real protections or information guarantees for victims. The broader implication, he argued, is that trauma-informed rhetoric can obscure gaps in the system rather than close them.

While Findlay and his colleagues pressed for stronger protections—such as a clearer obligation to inform victims about plea deals and more robust oversight of prosecutorial decisions—Angela Constance, the SNP justice secretary, defended the measure as a balanced set of reforms designed to modernize Scotland’s justice system without compromising public safety. In a closing flourish during the debate, Constance rejected what she called “manufactured grievances” from critics, insisting the bill reflects a pragmatic approach to updating victims’ rights while maintaining the integrity of the courts. The exchange underscored the political fault lines that have characterized Holyrood’s treatment of reform over the past year.

The Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill is part of a broader effort to reform how victims interact with the justice system, including how information is disclosed, how decisions are communicated, and how victims participate in the process. Proponents argue that it places victims at the center of decision-making and updates a justice framework that has long needed modernization. Opponents, led by the Scottish Conservatives, contend that the package settles for incremental changes that do not address the most urgent concerns victims raise, and that certain provisions are either unnecessary or insufficiently powered to make a real difference.

The bill’s passage marks a notable moment in Scotland’s ongoing debate over how to balance victims’ rights, the rights of the accused, and the demands of a modern legal system. For supporters, the law represents a step forward in formalizing victims’ access to information and ensuring their voices are heard in the process. For critics, it signals a missed opportunity to address deep-seated issues—such as the legacy of the not proven verdict, the scope of jury participation in sexual violence trials, and the transparency around prosecutorial choices—without resorting to political posturing. As the dust settles on this round of reforms, stakeholders say continued scrutiny, clear definitions of terms like “trauma-informed,” and concrete, measurable outcomes will determine whether the bill delivers on its promises or remains largely symbolic long after the headlines fade.