A BACKLASH from the legal profession over plans to abolish the need for corroboration in criminal trials has forced ministers to open a fresh consultation.
A new round of opinion will be sought over the historic reforms after calls for safeguards to be put in place if the legal principle, which sees all evidence put to trial backed by two sources, is to be scrapped.
Several further potential changes to the legal system will now be considered, including:
l A change to the size of the majority verdict required from the current majority of eight to seven in favour of a minimum of nine or ten in favour.
Rape crisis and victim support groups were in favour of abolishing corroboration, but around 90% of responses from the legal profession were hostile.
The Law Society of Scotland welcomed the fresh consultation exercise as did Sandy Brindley, of Rape Crisis Scotland, who backed the possible abolition of the not proven verdict.
Ms Brindley said 17% of rape prosecutions resulted in this verdict last year, the highest level for any crime.
She said: "Jury members can be notoriously reluctant to convict in rape cases, even in cases where there is significant evidence. We are concerned the not proven verdict could contribute to wrongful acquittals."
On the not proven verdict, some respondents had strong views. One academic supported the abolition of the third verdict, "the continued existence of which serves no useful purpose".
The not proven verdict is one of acquittal and has the same effect in law as a not guilty verdict. However, its critics argue it can be confusing for jurors and that it fails to properly clear a person's name.
Lord Carloway's review into criminal law and practice was launched after the controversy over the UK Supreme Court ruling on the Cadder case, which concerned detention of suspects without access to a lawyer.
As part of his findings, the senior High Court judge indicated that if the size of majority needed was changed, the issue of retaining Scotland's traditional third verdict of not proven would have to be reconsidered.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "When we consulted on Lord Carloway's findings, we made clear we were open to considering whether any additional changes to the justice system would be required in the light of his recommendation that the requirement for corroboration should be abolished.
"It is clear from the responses we have received the majority of respondents think it is necessary to consider additional safeguards, and they have highlighted ... the question of jury majorities and the not proven verdict.
"That is why I have decided a further consultation on these additional safeguards is needed, to ensure Scotland can continue to have a legal system rightly regarded as one of the best in the world. I agree with Lord Carloway's recommendation that the requirement for corroboration should be abolished.
"The rule stems from another age, its usage has become confused and that it can bar prosecutions that would in any other legal system seem entirely appropriate. I trust Scottish judges and juries would continue to apply good judgement and would only convict on the basis of clear evidence."
In tandem with the fresh consultation, the Government is also opening a consultation on the recommendations of Sheriff Principal Bowen on streamlining the process of cases involving a sheriff and jury. He proposed earlier and improved communication between defence and prosecution and improved programming of cases.
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