A LIE detector test could be used as evidence in a Scottish court for the first time in the case of a woman attempting to sue footballer David Goodwillie over her claim he raped her.
The woman will find out this month whether the civil case can go ahead.
Her lawyer says a polygraph examination that she took in an effort to back her allegations could be used in the civil action at the Court of Session.
The woman's solicitor, Cameron Fyfe, said: "It would be a first. I don't think it's ever been done in a civil case before – it would be a new one. My client arranged the test privately."
He said a special hearing may be required to decide whether the test results could be considered, as polygraphs are currently inadmissible in Scottish civil and criminal courts.
"We would have to ask the court at the time of the final hearing if we could lead this evidence," he said. "Or, if the other side – Goodwillie's lawyers – think it's more appropriate, we could have a special hearing on that point alone. If the court says that, under Scots Law, it's not allowed, then that would be it."
He added: "I hope to have a decision on funding from the Scottish Legal Aid Board in the next two or three weeks."
Mr Fyfe said a successful action would leave Goodwillie facing damages of tens of thousands of pounds.
He said: "There is the pain and suffering of a victim and loss of earnings to take into account. The most severe examples of pain and suffering can result in damages of up to £40,000."
The woman accused Mr Goodwillie of raping her at a party. She claimed that her drink had been spiked.
Mr Goodwillie was charged with rape but never faced prosecution because the Crown Office ruled that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. Weeks later, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority decided the woman, a 25-year-old mother, had been raped and awarded her £11,000 compensation.
Liam O'Donnell, the lawyer representing Mr Goodwillie, said: "Based on the fact the woman had no memory of that evening beyond 10.30pm, we do not think there is any place in this case for a polygraph test."
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