A landmark ruling on corroboration that could see more rape cases go to trial will have “far-reaching consequences,” a law body has warned.
On October 30, an historic nine-judge panel supported an appeal by Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, who had called for a change to corroboration laws in the wake of two sexual offences trials that resulted in majority not proven verdicts.
The ruling means that statements made by victims during, or shortly after, a crime can provide a second source of evidence that the crime took place, and that the accused was responsible.
Previously, it was long-established law that two statements from the same person could not be used to corroborate each other.
The Law Society of Scotland, which represents more than 13,000 Scottish solicitors, warned the ruling amounted to a “fundamental change” that would have “far-reaching consequences”.
Stuart Munro, convener of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, said: “This judgement from the Lord Justice General and his colleagues in the High Court is highly significant and is bound to have far-reaching consequences.
“While the basic rule that crimes have to be proved by corroborated evidence hasn’t changed, this decision, and others like it, show that the court’s view on what can amount to corroboration has shifted considerably.
“Many cases that were previously thought to have insufficient evidence will now be capable of being prosecuted.
“Corroboration is painted by some as being a unique feature of Scotland’s criminal justice system, but we’re also the only jurisdiction that allows conviction by simple majority verdict.
“We now have a fundamental change to our criminal justice system in an area where Parliament considered change but thought better of it.”
The ruling, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, was earlier welcomed by the charity Rape Crisis Scotland, which supports victims of sexual violence.
Sandy Brindley, the charity’s chief executive, said: “This is a landmark judgment. Most reported rape cases never make it to court, and the most common reason given is lack of corroboration.
“This ruling removes a barrier to justice in sexual offence cases, meaning potentially more cases are able to make it to court.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article