CAMPAIGNERS for sexual abuse victims have re-iterated support for moves to abolish corroboration as a cornerstone of Scottish criminal justice as they produced figures showing just 7% of reported rapes and attempted rapes get to court.
Rape Crisis Scotland say removing the requirement for corroboration in evidence gathering would make a "significant difference" to removing "long-standing concerns" about the ability of the justice system to respond effectively to rape.
Advocates and lawyers want a review of the criminal justice system, before the abolition of corroboration, which requires at least two independent pieces of evidence for a conviction.
They fear that if the need for corroboration is removed without safeguards ensuring police do not shortcut inquiries, it may lead to miscarriages of justice.
Rape Crisis Scotland said: "Discussion on human rights within the criminal justice system has tended to focus exclusively on the human rights of those accused of crimes. We believe it is also crucial to consider the human rights of women and men to be protected from rape, and to have access to justice should they experience this devastating crime."
The group sent data showing in 2010/11 there were 1131 reported rapes and attempted rapes but only 81 resulted in charges being proferred and 36 convictions – a record low.
Rape Crisis Scotland said there is a "very low" rate of such cases being taken up and say things are worse since the Cadder judgment by the Supreme Court in 2010 ruled it was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights to let an accused be interviewed by police without the right to a solicitor for up to six hours.
They say due to difficulties getting corroboration in sexual offences cases, because they often happen with no witnesses, the police prior to Cadder were often reliant on admissions.
Since Cadder, Rape Crisis Scotland said defence lawyers seem to be "routinely advising" their clients to make no comment in police interviews.
Sandy Brindley, of Rape Crisis Scotland, said the burden of proof is now "extremely high".
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