I write to express my concern about the Justice Secretary's determination to proceed with the abolition of corroboration despite the reservations expressed by the majority of the judiciary, the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society ("MacAskill stands by criminal evidence shake-up", The Herald, October 22).

As a former Advocate Depute I have many years' experience of prosecuting rape and other sexual offences and of defending convictions in the appeal court. I also write as a feminist, with a long-term interest in the problem of successfully prosecuting sexual crime, a Nationalist and someone who is usually a supporter of this Government.

In my opinion there is a case for the abolition of the requirement of corroboration and that those who are implacably opposed to it need to explain why they argue that its abolition in Scotland would lead to miscarriages of justice when other countries with an adversarial system, such as England and Wales, the Republic of Ireland and Australia, seem to manage without it.

However, as my fellow advocates have argued, I believe the matter requires to be looked into in more detail before the decision is taken to abolish corroboration. In particular, the question of the other checks and balances which will be required in the event of abolition requires very careful consideration.

I fear the current rush to legislate is based on politicians' misapprehension that doing away with the requirement for corroboration will result in an automatic increase in the conviction rate for rape.

It is not my impression that acquittals occur because of the requirement of corroboration, but because in the majority of cases the fact that sexual intercourse has taken place is not the issue but rather whether it was consensual. The problem then is that the evidence about consent comes down to the word of the complainer against that of the accused with such corroborative or supportive evidence as is available often being equivocal. Thus, it is not the requirement of corroboration that leads to acquittals, but the jury's difficulty in being convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a situation where such independent evidence as is available is rarely conclusive.

Another important factor which appears to have been overlooked is that in other countries with an adversarial system, which do not require corroboration, the conviction rate for rape is not significantly higher than in Scotland.

I fear the Scottish Government is being influenced by advice that is not evidence based. As a result, it is giving false hope to the victims of rape that the abolition of corroboration is some sort of panacea.

This matter requires considerably more careful consideration, and I would urge the Government to listen to those with experience of the criminal justice system who are advising this should happen.

This is not a question of vested interests, it is a question of justice for both the victims of crime and those accused of it.

Joanna Cherry QC,

18 Rintoul Place,

Edinburgh.