Abuse campaigners fear rapists and criminals are evading justice as official figures show controversial hearings with no punishment have nearly tripled in four years. Crown Office data shows the use of ‘examination of facts’ hearings have risen exponentially since 2021. In 2021/22 there were 37 hearings, rising to 90 by 2024/25. There are 30 scheduled for this year so far. The specialist hearings take place when an accused person is considered medically unfit to stand trial and instead a sheriff rules on the probability of a crime having taken place. But if wrongdoing is found, the perpetrator faces no jail time or conviction . A top lawyer working with abuse survivors said victims feel traumatised from these types of cases while abusers often don’t even attend hearings. Kim Leslie, partner at law firm Irwin Mitchell said: “Examination of facts hearings can be a double-edged sword as on the one hand they give victims the chance to be heard but on the other it effectively means abusers are dodging punishments due to there being no conviction – in some cases they are not even added to the sex offenders register.” Last week, former teacher John Young was found to have sexually and physically abused pupils for 27 years while a PE teacher at Edinburgh Academy through an examination of facts hearing. Young, now 91, taught between 1966 and 1993, with a sheriff finding beyond reasonable doubt he had carried out 26 of the 54 charges brought against him. They included making pupils take off their underwear when wearing gym shorts and ordering them to show him they were naked. He also hit pupils with a cricket bat and other objects and forced a boy to participate in sports when injured. Doctors said Young was not fit to stand trial and a sheriff decided that putting him on the sex offenders ’ register list would serve no practical purpose. Leslie said: “This rise is deeply concerning due to implications it has for survivors and the public’s trust. “It could suggest more survivors are reporting their experiences to police, however it could also suggest ‘unfit to stand trial’ defences are too easily placed before the courts, which are already affected by backlogs. “One aspect that frustrates many survivors is also the lack of transparency – they are told their attacker is unfit to be tried yet there is often little explanation. "Examination of facts have their place in a fair legal system but with an alarming rise over such a short space of time it might be useful to review the process to ensure the chances to secure rightful justice with full convictions and punishments are not lost.” Scottish Tory shadow justice secretary Liam Kerr MSP said: “While this procedure serves a legitimate purpose, it’s vital that it should only be used in the necessary circumstances. Victims will rightly expect that offenders should face justice in court and are suitably punished for their crimes, not let off with no consequences. “It’s crucial that SNP ministers finally prioritise restoring our court system and ensuring that victims receive the justice they deserve.” A Crown Office spokeswoman said: “It is for the court to consider medical assessment in deciding that an accused is not fit to stand trial, and to then order an Examination of Facts. “As in a trial, the prosecution leads evidence of offences alleged. At the conclusion, the judiciary makes factual findings based on the evidence presented. Findings of criminal acts become a matter of public record. “A priority shared by criminal justice sector partners, when adapting to such challenges as an accused being unfit to stand trial, is to deliver available access to justice processes which recognise criminality, and hears directly from those impacted by crime.”