The law of corroboration is ‘failing to protect victims of abuse’ and will ‘inevitably’ need to be revisited by the Scottish Government, according to one of Scotland’s most experienced prosecutors.

Catherine Dyer, who recently retired as a crown agent after six years as adviser to the Lord Advocate, said that the current law, which requires two separate sources of evidence for a case to proceed to trial, had resulted in cases of rape, abuse and domestic violence were not being pursued because there is often only one witness to testify.

Ms Dyer said that corroboration, which is designed to protect the innocent from false accusations, is failing to protect the public, particularly children.

She told The Times: “There is not another jurisdiction in the world where [corroboration] is a requirement. When I speak at international conferences, I have to preface it with an explanation [of the Scottish system] and people are incredulous… it’s out of kilter with what the rest of the world thinks is justice.”

Ms Dyer said she understood why people wanted to keep the system but added that advances in forensic evidence and technology meant strong enough cases could be built to secure a conviction without corroboration.

In 2013, a report by Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Carloway, recommended the abolition of corroboration but the move was opposed by Scottish judges and most legal organisations.

Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill announcement in 2014 that the new Criminal Justice Bill would abolish corroboration was met with opposition. An independent inquiry led by former High Court judge Lord Bonomy in 2015, recommended that it should be kept for evidence relating to a confession or hearsay.

Justice minister Michael Matheson announced plans to scrap corroboration in criminal cases in 2015. However, the proposals were dropped after a campaign argued that it is a defining feature of Scots law.

Mr Matheson has previously said that he wants to build consensus on plans for criminal justice reform.

He said: “Given this approach, I do not consider there is sufficient time to complete this work before [the Bill] resumes its parliamentary passage. On that basis, it is clear to me that proceeding with the removal of the corroboration requirement in that Bill is neither appropriate nor feasible.”