Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 25 September 2013

25 Sep 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Corroboration

Murray, Elaine Lab Dumfriesshire Watch on SPTV

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 quality of the evidence rather than its quantity. That is the view of Police Scotland, for example, which states in its written evidence:

“the ... requirement for corroboration of every material fact is ... an anachronism.”

However, there are some potent arguments on the side of the retention of the requirement for corroboration. The Law Society, the Faculty of Advocates and Justice Scotland argue that it is a fundamental principle of the Scottish criminal justice system and that the proposed two-thirds majority verdict is an insufficient safeguard against possible wrongful conviction on the evidence of a plausible and convincing liar.

The Scottish Government consulted on other safeguards, such as giving judges the power to acquit the accused without reference to the jury if it is considered that no reasonable jury could convict, and also removing the third verdict. It is important that that is considered, and I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has said that he is prepared to consider it. As colleagues will know, Michael McMahon MSP has proposed introducing a member’s bill to that effect, and it could be considered at the same time.

The abolition of the requirement for corroboration could have other consequences. The Scottish Police Federation and the Law Society of Scotland fear that, if it is removed, there could be more malicious prosecutions of police officers and people who work in one-to-one situations, such as social workers and prison officers.

The Police Federation and Justice Scotland argue that conviction rates in England, where there is no requirement for corroboration, are little different from those in Scotland, so there is no evidence that removing the requirement for corroboration will result in more successful prosecutions. Organisations that represent the victims of crimes such as sexual violence, while welcoming abolition and opposing—as it happens—the increase in the majority verdict, argue that the education of juries and a fundamental change in attitude are central to the successful prosecution of domestic and sexual crimes and to encouraging victims to come forward. Therefore, it is not as simple as just taking away the requirement for corroboration; that will not be sufficient to solve the entire problem.

We believe that the Justice Committee must give due consideration to the arguments on both sides and the necessity or otherwise of additional safeguards should abolition be agreed to, and indeed to whether the definition of corroboration could be widened to take account of some of the issues, as Margaret Mitchell implied.

The Parliament should not make the decision today, and I therefore move amendment S4M-07791.2, in the name of my colleague Graeme Pearson, to leave out from “overwhelming opposition” to end and insert:

“opposition to this proposal from parts of the legal profession; believes, however, that the proposal to abolish corroboration is supported by many organisations representing the victims of crime, in particular sexual crimes, domestic violence and human trafficking, and by Police Scotland; further notes that the stage one consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill by the Justice Committee began this week, and believes that scrutiny of the bill should be allowed to proceed to allow full consideration of the arguments for and against the abolition of corroboration prior to any decision being taken regarding whether the Scottish Government’s proposals to abolish corroboration should proceed.”

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 25 September 2013

In the same item of business