This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22999290

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Move to end court case corroboration Bill to end court case corroboration
(about 2 hours later)
Proposals to end the centuries-old requirement for corroboration in court cases are expected to be brought forward by the Scottish government. Proposals to end the centuries-old requirement for corroboration in court cases have been brought forward by the Scottish government.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has previously said that he supports doing away with the need for evidence to come from two sources. Corroboration - the need for evidence in criminal trials to come from two sources - could be abolished by the new Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
Ministers said further measures to safeguard against miscarriages of justice would be put in place. It would also introduce safeguards such as increasing the number of jurors required for a majority guilty verdict.
This would go up from eight of the 15 jurors to 10.
The move is likely to be opposed by the legal profession, including judges.The move is likely to be opposed by the legal profession, including judges.
In a wide-ranging review of Scots law and practice, leading judge Lord Carloway recommended dropping the general requirement for corroboration in court cases.In a wide-ranging review of Scots law and practice, leading judge Lord Carloway recommended dropping the general requirement for corroboration in court cases.
BBC Scotland's home affairs correspondent Reevel Alderson said the proposed changes were inspired by the historically low level of rape convictions in Scotland. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "I have made clear a number of times that I believe that the requirement for corroboration should be abolished as it can represent a barrier to justice.
He said: "Corroboration is where you have two pieces of evidence, backing each other up, to put before a jury or a sheriff. "It is an outdated rule which can deny victims the opportunity to see those responsible for serious crimes being brought to justice.
"In some cases that may be two eye-witnesses speaking to the same event. That is actually one of the reasons police officers in Scotland patrol in pairs rather than singularly, as in England. "Removing the need for corroboration represents a move towards focusing on the quality of evidence rather than quantity."
"You can also bring forward forensic evidence which can prove that an event took place. However, the Law Society of Scotland described corroboration as a "fundamental principle" of the justice system.
"But there have been difficulties in rape cases because in most serious sexual assaults there are probably only two people present - the accuser and the accused. Removing it would lead to a greater risk of miscarriages of justice, it said.
"That has led, it is argued, to a low level of conviction for rape, and that's why they want to change it." Raymond McMenamin, from the society's criminal law committee, said: "We believe that removing the requirement for corroborated evidence, without including sufficiently strong safeguards in the bill, could simply result in a contest between two competing statements on oath and, as a result, bring increased risk of miscarriages of justice.
One of the safeguards being considered is increasing the number of jurors required to secure a conviction. "The requirement for corroborated evidence is not an antiquated, outmoded legal notion but is a fundamental principle of our justice system.
At present, eight of the 15 jurors need to agree on the verdict. By increasing this, possibly to as many as 12, ministers feel the jury system will be strengthened. "It's clear that the concerns expressed by the society and others about juries have been recognised as the bill proposes a move to a weighted majority from a simple majority, but we don't believe this is sufficient to remove the risks created by abolishing corroboration."
The police are in favour of changes to corroboration, but lawyers and some judges have written to the government to oppose the proposals. Liberal Democrat MP Sir Menzies Campbell, who practised as an advocate depute for several years in Scotland's High Court, also warned against the changes.
They say the move would remove an essential cornerstone of the Scottish legal system, which has been in place for more than 300 years. "If the SNP proceed with these proposals, it will confirm that they are not fit to have the stewardship of Scottish criminal law," he said.
Peter Lockhart, who sits on the Law Society's criminal law committee, said: "Safeguards incorporated in other jurisdictions where there is no requirement for corroboration, such as weighted majority verdicts and rules about admissibility of eye witness identification and the possibility of withdrawal of unreliable evidence by a judge from a jury, have not existed in Scottish criminal procedure precisely because of the requirement for corroboration. "This is populism at its worst. Corroboration is an essential component of the presumption of innocence and a necessary bulwark against false accusation and injustice.
"We appreciate that the prosecution will still need to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction, but we would want to have assurances that removing the need for corroboration will not lead to a deficiency in either the quality or sufficiency of evidence presented in court." "As the power of the state increases, the protection of the rights of the citizen has become even more important."