Proposed reforms to the legal system could undermine confidence in the courts, risk increases in miscarriages of justice and prove disastrous for those wrongly convicted, the body representing solicitors has warned.

The Law Society of Scotland has outlined its concerns about reforms contained in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, including plans to remove the need for corroboration of evidence and changes to appeals procedures.

The Bill is currently being considered by Holyrood's Justice Committee.

The legislation includes a change to the law so that two separate sources of evidence are no longer required for someone to be convicted of a crime. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill says corroboration has ''failed'' Scotland and prevented cases from being brought to court.

The Bill also seeks to improve the current situation whereby the High Court can refuse to consider a reference from the review body the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC), if it deems that it is not in the "interests of justice".

Appearing before the committee today, the Law Society said this change was "unlikely to make any real improvements", as although the High Court would be forced to consider the case, it could still decide not to quash the conviction or sentence on the basis that it is not in the interests of justice to do so.

Murray Macara QC, from the Law Society's criminal law committee, said: "Our position is that the commission's approach is an appropriate one."

Speaking after the committee, he stated: "We do not believe that it can ever be in the 'interests of justice' for the High Court to allow a conviction based on a miscarriage of justice to stand.

"Such an approach could undermine the credibility of the court and confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system, in which the SCCRC plays a respected and important role.

"We think this is especially worrying considering other proposals in the bill to remove the requirement for corroboration.

"We are concerned that by removing the requirement for corroborated evidence, without including sufficiently strong safeguards in the Bill, could simply result in a contest between two competing statements on oath and, as a result, bring increased risk of miscarriages of justice.

"The Bill could not only lead to greater instances of miscarriages of justice but also make those convictions harder to quash. It could be disastrous for those wrongly convicted under the Scottish criminal justice system."

Michael Walker, senior policy officer at the SCCRC, defended the role of the commission, stating: "It should not be for the High Court to decide whether it is in the interests of justice. That role was given to the commission."

Fraser Gibson, head of appeals unit at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, spoke out in support of the change, stating that allowing the High Court to decide not to quash the conviction or sentence on the basis that it is not in the interests of justice to do so would guard against error, and "futureproof" the legal system.

"Everyone accepts the commission does a very valuable job...and has an extremely difficult job to do, and I would acknowledge that, but anyone is capable of making an error," he told the committee.

Mr Macara went on to warn that plans to abolish corroboration could impact on the SCCRC.

He said: "It must be a matter of concern to the commission that corroboration may be abolished because that could lead to the floodgates opening in terms of the number of applications to the commission.

"Because you can begin to imagine that an individual who is convicted on the basis of a single source of evidence may well be quite aggrieved about that, and may want to pursue whatever remedies are open to them. So I suspect that if corroboration goes, the work of the commission will increase significantly."

Mr Walker agreed this could be the case but added this was "into the realms of a certain amount of guesswork".