SCOTLAND'S most senior policemen claim that the age-old system of corroboration, where key evidence presented for criminal trial should be backed by two sources, no longer serves justice well.
The Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland (ACPOS) said scientific advances in investigation techniques had increased reliability of evidence with the quality of information more important than the quantity.
The comments are in response to the Carloway Review, which recommends the "archaic" rule of corroboration should be removed, and put police on a collision course with the legal establishment – from High Court judges to solicitors – who condemned the move.
Liberal Democrats want a Royal Commission on the proposals after Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said he was not minded to deviate from Lord Carloway's recommendation – or hold a further inquiry into the legal changes.
ACPOS argues there is no evidence to suggest Scotland, thought to be the only country in Europe to retain the principle of corroboration, has a lower or higher rate of miscarriages of justice as a result of corroboration.
It added: "While investigators should always seek to secure corroboration of facts in criminal investigations, ACPOS does not agree that the current Scottish system of rules of corroboration serves the interests of justice well."
ACPOS highlighted the point in the report that a single witness may be more persuasive than a "cloud of witnesses".
The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents said the necessity for every element of an inquiry or every item of evidence to be corroborated was "considered unnecessary in the modern criminal justice system".
A Scottish Government spokesman said all consultation responses would be carefully considered.
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