MOVES to scrap the historic need for corroboration in Scottish criminal trials have been put on hold as Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill fights to save a key part of flagship legislation.
Faced with continuing scepticism and hostility at Holyrood's Justice Committee, Mr MacAskill made an eleventh-hour offer to suspend this section of a wider Bill to allow an expert group to give further consultation to safeguards before the change comes into force.
Ian Cruickshank, of the Law Society of Scotland, said: "While this is a welcome concession our view remains that corroboration, given its centrality in criminal proceedings, should be looked at comprehensively before legislation is passed that abolishes it."
For centuries no Scot has faced conviction unless there are two independent witnesses or sources of evidence, but the Government wants to change this.
The arguments for the change are that no other comparable jurisdiction in the world retains such a strict rule, that the requirement hampers prosecution of sexual assaults, that quality of evidence should be more important that quantity, and that forensic science has progressed.
Mr MacAskill said: "We have to get rid of corroboration but have to ensure that the new change does not come in until such a time as we get right the new landscape for the prosecution and the judiciary. Matters can come back before the committee and before Parliament."
Labour's Graeme Pearson, the former head of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, insisted it was "cavalier" to reform corroboration law. He said: "I have looked and there are 62 people in England and Wales whose cases were found to have been miscarriages of justice, some after many years of imprisonment. Scotland has nothing like that."
For the Conservatives, Margaret Mitchell said: "All it means is the Government would use its majority to force through a decision that is causing great concern."
LibDem spokeswoman Alison McInnes said a full independent review was needed.
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