Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 25 September 2013
25 Sep 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Corroboration
Sorry, but I am running short of time.
At the very least, the abolition of the requirement for corroboration will allow crimes committed in private, where the complainant has suffered in silence or behind closed doors, to be brought to court. That can only be a step forward.
I stress that the bill seeks to remove the general requirement for corroboration but not the concept of corroboration. Police and prosecutors will continue to seek the best evidence available and corroborative evidence will remain important. I welcome the recent publication by the Crown of its new prosecutorial test to be used following abolition of the requirement for corroboration. The test is two-pronged: first, an evidential test looking at the quantity and quality of the evidence, including an assessment of admissibility, credibility and reliability; and, secondly, a public interest test that is rigorous and which will no doubt be considered by the Justice Committee.
Removing the requirement for corroboration will mean that cases will be assessed on the overall quality of evidence. The burden of proof will remain because each case will be required to meet the high standard of being proven beyond reasonable doubt. The jury majority will be raised to a two-thirds majority for conviction, a position that is supported by the senators of the College of Justice. As I said earlier, I am open to hearing further suggestions on additional safeguards.
Having identified this barrier for vulnerable victims in accessing justice, we must now act and abolish the requirement for corroboration. In a modern society, it is simply not acceptable for victims to be left to suffer in silence and for justice not to be delivered. I remain open to constructive debate on how best to achieve this reform and on any additional safeguards. I will clearly look with interest at the work of the Justice Committee on the bill.
I move amendment S4M-07791.3, to leave out from “the overwhelming opposition” to end and insert:
“that the proposal is based on the thorough and independent review of Scots criminal law and practice undertaken by Lord Carloway, the Lord Justice Clerk; accepts Lord Carloway’s conclusion that the general requirement for corroborated evidence in criminal cases is an archaic rule that has no place in a modern legal system; notes the support of Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Rape Crisis Scotland, Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid; welcomes the consideration of additional safeguards suggested by the Senators of the College of Justice in their response to the Scottish Government’s consultation; notes that the Scottish Government is open to considering additional safeguards necessary to ensure fairness of proceedings as the Parliament deems fit; respects the process of parliamentary scrutiny of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, on which the Justice Committee has begun evidence-taking, and looks forward to completion of that scrutiny process in the normal way.”
14:58
At the very least, the abolition of the requirement for corroboration will allow crimes committed in private, where the complainant has suffered in silence or behind closed doors, to be brought to court. That can only be a step forward.
I stress that the bill seeks to remove the general requirement for corroboration but not the concept of corroboration. Police and prosecutors will continue to seek the best evidence available and corroborative evidence will remain important. I welcome the recent publication by the Crown of its new prosecutorial test to be used following abolition of the requirement for corroboration. The test is two-pronged: first, an evidential test looking at the quantity and quality of the evidence, including an assessment of admissibility, credibility and reliability; and, secondly, a public interest test that is rigorous and which will no doubt be considered by the Justice Committee.
Removing the requirement for corroboration will mean that cases will be assessed on the overall quality of evidence. The burden of proof will remain because each case will be required to meet the high standard of being proven beyond reasonable doubt. The jury majority will be raised to a two-thirds majority for conviction, a position that is supported by the senators of the College of Justice. As I said earlier, I am open to hearing further suggestions on additional safeguards.
Having identified this barrier for vulnerable victims in accessing justice, we must now act and abolish the requirement for corroboration. In a modern society, it is simply not acceptable for victims to be left to suffer in silence and for justice not to be delivered. I remain open to constructive debate on how best to achieve this reform and on any additional safeguards. I will clearly look with interest at the work of the Justice Committee on the bill.
I move amendment S4M-07791.3, to leave out from “the overwhelming opposition” to end and insert:
“that the proposal is based on the thorough and independent review of Scots criminal law and practice undertaken by Lord Carloway, the Lord Justice Clerk; accepts Lord Carloway’s conclusion that the general requirement for corroborated evidence in criminal cases is an archaic rule that has no place in a modern legal system; notes the support of Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Rape Crisis Scotland, Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid; welcomes the consideration of additional safeguards suggested by the Senators of the College of Justice in their response to the Scottish Government’s consultation; notes that the Scottish Government is open to considering additional safeguards necessary to ensure fairness of proceedings as the Parliament deems fit; respects the process of parliamentary scrutiny of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, on which the Justice Committee has begun evidence-taking, and looks forward to completion of that scrutiny process in the normal way.”
14:58
References in this contribution
Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.
- S4M-07791.3 Corroboration Motion
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-07791, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, on corroboration. We are extremely tight for time so the member ...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con)
Con
In support of his recommendation to abolish corroboration, Lord Carloway described it as“an archaic rule that has no place in a modern legal system”.That ass...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
SNP
The member will be aware that Lord Carloway said that, in his extensive research, he could find no other jurisdiction in western Europe or indeed the Commonw...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
The fact that no other jurisdiction has corroboration is not sufficient reason to abolish it here. I find that a bizarre argument. The use of the word archai...
Margo MacDonald (Lothian) (Ind)
Ind
Would it be possible to find out whether everyone who speaks agrees with going to a new set of verdicts—proven and not proven?
Margaret Mitchell
Con
No doubt they will make their position clear. My view is that, if corroboration was abolished, it would strengthen the argument for keeping a not proven verd...
Kevin Stewart (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
SNP
One of the things that concerns me about all of this is that, in considering 141 sexual offence cases that were dropped between July and December 2010, the C...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
I understand and sympathise with the member’s view. Perhaps I will be able to offer some comfort as I develop my argument.The comments that I have highlighte...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
Will the member give way?
Margaret Mitchell
Con
I have been very generous with interventions. If the cabinet secretary does not mind, I will develop my argument.The Parliament’s cross-party group on adult ...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion on the proposal to abolish the general requirement for corroboration in criminal cases. That proposal is a...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the Scottish Human Rights Commission is against abolition? Does he have any concern that the testimony of one witness...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
Yes, I would have concerns if it was simply the testimony of one witness, but the Lord Advocate has given clear guidance that that will not be the test. That...
Margo MacDonald
Ind
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
Not at the moment.I remain in complete agreement with the damning conclusion that Lord Carloway reached. He said:“the requirement of corroboration should be ...
Graeme Pearson (South Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the views and recommendations of the senators of the College of Justice are somewhat different and that to accept...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
We are not simply accepting the views solely of Lord Carloway. Views have been contributed by Police Scotland, the Crown, Victim Support Scotland, Scottish W...
Margo MacDonald
Ind
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
Not at the moment.The law on corroboration has been debated for the past three years, and at no point has anyone identified another system operating a genera...
Margo MacDonald
Ind
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
Sorry, but I am running short of time.At the very least, the abolition of the requirement for corroboration will allow crimes committed in private, where the...
Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Lab
One of the most important functions of the committees of this Parliament is to scrutinise legislation that is proposed by the Scottish Government; it is a ro...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
Is that not an argument for taking the issue of corroboration out of the committee process and having a wide and independent debate on it now?
Elaine Murray
Lab
No, I do not think that it is. There have been many controversial provisions in Government bills over the years, but they have gone through the committee pro...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Elaine Murray
Lab
I am sorry; I only have five minutes.Removal of the requirement for corroboration would theoretically permit cases to go to court on the evidence of one witn...
Kevin Stewart
SNP
Will the member give way?
Elaine Murray
Lab
No. I am sorry, but I only have five minutes and I am halfway through.Supporters of abolition argue that the proving of guilt would be dependent on the quali...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
We move to the open debate. We are extraordinarily tight for time. Members have up to four minutes.15:03
Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
SNP
I will try to be as quick as possible, Presiding Officer. Margaret Mitchell said that we should not be looking at corroboration within the Criminal Justice (...