Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 27 February 2014

27 Feb 2014 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Fraser, Murdo Con Mid Scotland and Fife Watch on SPTV

I thank Mr Allard for confirming that what I said about his earlier intervention was entirely correct. If abolishing the requirement for corroboration does not increase the rate of conviction, I cannot see what it does for victims of crime. They want to see those who they claim have assaulted them being convicted. Surely that is the point.

Lord Carloway and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice both described the rule of corroboration as “archaic”. It is certainly an ancient rule of law. So, of course, is the presumption of innocence. I dare say that there are prosecutors and people in the police who would be quite happy to scrap what they would describe as the archaic law of the presumption of innocence and I dare say that that would increase convictions. There is no doubt about that.

However, our role in Parliament is not to do everything that the police and prosecutors ask for. As Alison McInnes said in an excellent speech, our role is to strike a balance—sometimes, it is a difficult balance—to ensure that the innocent are protected. Scrapping the requirement for corroboration tips the balance too far, in my opinion.

I will say something about the Justice Committee. Those of us who are involved in committees in the Parliament know how unusual it is, since 2011, for SNP-dominated committees to say anything critical of a measure that the SNP Government proposes. We have all sat there and seen lines that are in any way critical of anything that the Government is doing being excised by SNP members.

What makes the Justice Committee’s report remarkable is that it is the first instance that I can think of in the past three years in which an SNP-dominated committee has disagreed with a proposal from the Scottish Government. The cabinet secretary should take note of that. In particular, he should take note of the views of the committee convener, Christine Grahame. She is a well-regarded convener and a lawyer like me. When she decides that what the Government is doing is not correct, the cabinet secretary, the Government and Parliament should listen to that.

Even the cabinet secretary himself has concerns. We know that because he has conceded a review under Lord Bonomy. It is an extraordinary approach to say that we should pass the measure into law and thereafter have the review. That is the wrong way round. We should not be asked to pass a law until we have full scrutiny of the proposal and have the review first.

Let us make an offer to the cabinet secretary. We will not be unreasonable on the issue. We are happy to consider the case for scrapping the general corroboration rule as part of a wider review of the laws of evidence. That is precisely what Lord Gill proposed to the Justice Committee. The cabinet secretary can take that away, take the measure out of the bill and bring back fresh primary legislation following the review. It will get proper parliamentary scrutiny and he will get support from us if he does that job properly.

The cabinet secretary has a simple choice. He is a fair-minded man and I have a lot of respect for him as Cabinet Secretary for Justice. He can either do the right thing, listen to the Justice Committee, its esteemed convener, all the Opposition parties in the Parliament and all the various outside bodies that have raised concerns about abolition and take the provision out of the bill, rethink it, review it and bring it back to Parliament for proper consideration; or he can railroad it through on a tightly whipped vote with, inevitably, a narrow majority at best and show contempt for the view of the Justice Committee. This is his chance to show his mettle. I hope that he will not disappoint me or the people of Scotland.

16:38

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 27 February 2014

In the same item of business