PROSECUTIONS of rapes and sex offences may be less likely to result in convictions if the requirement of corroboration in criminal trials is abolished, lawyers have warned.
They say if the rule is scrapped, there is a risk police investigating crimes may stop looking for corroborative evidence, weakening the case against the accused.
Their arguments emerged in new documents submitted to the Scottish Government's consultation on the Criminal Justice Bill, which includes the proposal to remove the centuries-old feature.
It requires evidence in a trial to be corroborated before an accused can be convicted and prevents conviction based on one person's testimony. Ministers want to remove the requirement to increase the chances of conviction for rape and domestic violence offences.
But, responding to the consultation on the Bill, the Faculty of Advocates said its removal could actually lead to fewer convictions for rape and sexual offences as without the need for corroborative evidence, police investigating crimes might not seek it out.
"There is no evidence to support the contention that the abolition of the requirement of corroboration will result in an increase in the proportion of sexual offence cases which result in a conviction," it said.
As the law stands, the only cases which go to trial are those in which there is corroboration. The Faculty said that, even with a requirement for corroboration, the number which resulted in acquittal reflected the difficulties in sexual offence cases.
"It is a fallacy to believe that by prosecuting cases even where there is no corroboration, the proportion of successful cases will increase. The reverse is more likely to be true," it said, adding: "The abolition of corroboration may disadvantage victims of crime. Cases may be prosecuted where there is ... no strong likelihood of success.
"If there is no legal requirement for corroboration, there is at least a risk that the police will not investigate with a view to finding corroborative evidence if it exists. This could mean that cases which currently result in conviction will, following the change, result in acquittal."
The Glasgow Bar Association, which represents about 400 criminal defence lawyers, said it was "not convinced that removing the requirement for corroboration would significantly increase the conviction rate". Lawyers' arguments against removing the requirement are due to be expanded on tomorrow when representatives appear before MSPs.
Murdo Macleod, QC, of the Faculty of Advocates, and Ann Ritchie, president of the Glasgow Bar Association, are among those due to give evidence to the Justice Committee examining the Bill.
The proposal has been met with widespread opposition in legal circles, with opponents arguing the requirement is a central element of Scots law and an important safeguard against miscarriages of justice.
Earlier this year, only 3% of 528 lawyers polled for Scottish Legal News felt the move would "strengthen and improve" Scottish justice.
But last week Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the system was being "failed" by the need for corroboration, which blocked rape and domestic abuse cases reaching court.
"Corroboration in our legal system is a barrier to obtaining justice for the victims of crime committed in private or where no-one else was there," Mr MacAskill told Parliament.
"In a modern society, it is not acceptable for victims to be left to suffer in silence, for justice not to be delivered."
He said safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice would be included in the Bill, with greater emphasis placed on overall quality of evidence, and said jury majorities would be raised from a majority to two-thirds, meaning 10 out of 15 jurors must find the accused guilty to secure conviction.
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