THE woman at the centre of Scotland's most high-profile rape case has waived her right to anonymity and spoken out for the first time because she believes corroboration should be abolished.
Mary Ann Davison accused fellow student Edward Watt of rape at a trial in 2001, but when he was acquitted the case set off a chain of events that led to the transformation of the law across the country.
The judge in the case ruled the accused had no case to answer because there was no evidence that force had been used in the alleged rape, which was an essential requirement for the charge of rape in 2001.
The decision provoked fury among women's groups and led to the establishment of a seven-judge panel to consider the definition of rape and a review of Scotland's rape law.
Mrs Davison, who now lives in England, says she has made the difficult decision to speak out because she wants victims of sexual offences who do not necessarily have corroborative evidence to have a "chance of justice which is currently being denied them".
She said: "What had happened to me was deeply personal but I was determined to keep my head down and try to get on with my life.
"I have now watched the debate on corroboration and feel it is important to state the other side.
"There has been a lot of public opposition to the removal of corroboration. The people who want to keep corroboration talk about history, but the fact it has been in Scots law since time immemorial does not seem to be a good reason for keeping something.
"People talk about the fear that the removal of corroboration will lead to miscarriages of justice, but what about the people now who are living with the traumatic memories of an attack? Is that injustice not just as important?"
At his trial at the High Court in Aberdeen, Mr Watt alleged that Mrs Davison had been a willing partner and denied the charges.
After his acquittal, he threatened to sue Mrs Davison because of the impact that the court case and surrounding publicity had had on his life.
In 2011 the Carloway Review called for broad changes to the criminal justice system, including the abolition of the historic need for corroboration.
Figures from the Crown Office show that in 2012-13 there were 2803 charges of domestic abuse that could not be taken to court because there was insufficient admissible evidence.
And, over the last two years, about 13% of rape cases - approximately 170 - reported to the Crown could not proceed because of the requirement for corroboration.
"Lord Carloway talked about moving to a fairer criminal justice system for everyone," said Mrs Davison. "That does not diminish the rights of the accused.
"At the minute there just does not seem to be any appreciation of just how big a problem this is in sexual cases because the demand for corroboration prevents so many cases from even getting to court.
"Opponents of corroboration have criticised the 'bleeding hearts' argument in relation to victims, but the
impact of this is not something victims are making up."
She added: "It is crucial that Scotland gets this right."
Legislation currently going through the Scottish Parliament is set to abolish corroboration but it has met with opposition from lawyers, judges and academics.
Mrs Davison said: "I look at where I am now in my life - I think people at the time thought my life had been ruined. It has not been, but the impact is still there. I don't think it will ever be possible to fully come to terms with what happened. It was such a massive deal to stand in that court room and give evidence. Later, I remember going to my supervisor at university and asking for an extension of my essay because the guy I accused of rape had threatened to sue me.
"I'm now living in England. I have a husband and children and a full-time job."
Plans to remove the requirement for corroboration are still being debated by the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament.
The Herald was unable to contact Mr Watt.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article