Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government
Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government
7.0.3 Throughout the course of the Review’s consultation and roadshows, somecontributors stated that issues around: sufficiency of evidence, includingcorroboration; the suspect’s right to not incriminate himself/herself; and theadmissibility of statements, were so interlaced within the system that theyshould not be contemplated without addressing a range of other issues,including other evidential rules or majority jury verdicts. The Review acceptsand agrees that the time taken to complete this report has meant that thenumber of areas which could be examined in detail was limited. However,this does not detract from the fact that the areas that have been explored showthat certain elements in the current criminal justice system do not match therequirements of modern society or allow for the flexibility that will be neededin the future.7.0.4 Before looking at how corroboration fits within the system, the Review felt itwas important to understand how corroboration as a requirement evolvedthrough our constantly changing society, up until the present day. Chapter 6.1– Corroboration – The Origins and Development, looks in detail at the historyof the requirement for corroboration in Europe and specifically in Scots law.7.0.5 Chapter 6.2 – Corroboration, examines how corroboration fits into thecriminal law framework and how what is considered by some to be acornerstone of our system is used as a safeguard of justice. This chapterexplores whether the requirement for corroboration may create barriers to, andpotentially miscarriages of, justice.It is acknowledged that therecommendation to remove the requirement for corroboration will attract236
particular comment and, no doubt, criticism. There may be furtherconsequences of abolition that will need to be worked through, as the criminaljustice system is progressively reformed. This is in the nature of law insociety. But the initial decision, which has to be taken, is whether, of itself,corroboration continues to contribute more than it detracts from a fair,efficient and effective system.7.0.6 In order to be able to analyse the issue of whether the requirement forcorroboration fits today’s society, independent research was commissioned toassess the impact of corroboration in the progress of criminal cases throughthe system. After thorough consideration of this research alongside all theother information, evidence and submissions on the subject, the Review is ableto recommend, with confidence, that the system would best be served byremoving the requirement.7.0.7 The consideration of guidance on what is sufficient evidence for the police toreport a case to the procurator fiscal is the responsibility of the Lord Advocateand this report does not make recommendations as to what direction theseshould take. Chapter 6.3 – Sufficiency of Evidence, does, however, look indetail at the current law on sufficiency of evidence at trial. The Reviewbelieves that the current system is both appropriate and robust enough tocontinue to work effectively and efficiently in today’s society, even with theremoval of the requirement for corroboration.237
- Page 188 and 189: “would have such an adverse effec
- Page 190 and 191: 6.2.38 As noted above, section 78 o
- Page 192 and 193: ensure that reasonable lines of enq
- Page 194 and 195: determining fairness in certain cas
- Page 196 and 197: permission to do so. The applicatio
- Page 198 and 199: hour maximum detention period, in a
- Page 200 and 201: incrimination. It should be specifi
- Page 202 and 203: accused’s first appearance on pet
- Page 204 and 205: 202
- Page 206 and 207: Current law6.3.4 For the purposes o
- Page 208 and 209: to a Hearing or prosecuted in court
- Page 210 and 211: ight of access to the child, subjec
- Page 212 and 213: Constabulary on the conditions in w
- Page 214 and 215: he/she has a specific right to “p
- Page 216 and 217: general thrust of what is said by t
- Page 218 and 219: 6.3.21 In many jurisdictions 43 a c
- Page 220 and 221: 6.3.25 This means that any child su
- Page 222 and 223: police interviewing a child at his
- Page 224 and 225: to listen to any advice given. If h
- Page 226 and 227: 224
- Page 228 and 229: Current LawDefinition6.4.3 There is
- Page 230 and 231: legislation 6 , both of which stres
- Page 232 and 233: he/she 9 : “may not understand th
- Page 234 and 235: specific statutory rules which make
- Page 236 and 237: of his/her replies because of an ap
- Page 240 and 241: 7.0.8 The Review looked at the admi
- Page 242 and 243: 240
- Page 244 and 245: which does not hold when there is a
- Page 246 and 247: We have already directed that witne
- Page 248 and 249: persuade the populace of the validi
- Page 250 and 251: punishments than those exigible on
- Page 252 and 253: tenets. Indeed, even the judiciary
- Page 254 and 255: He concluded 50 :“Although two wi
- Page 256 and 257: does then, in each individual case,
- Page 258 and 259: will look at the evidence at trial
- Page 260 and 261: accused as the perpetrator of the c
- Page 262 and 263: 7.2.11 After what might be describe
- Page 264 and 265: Practical Considerations7.2.15 How
- Page 266 and 267: 7.2.18 It may seem immediately appa
- Page 268 and 269: Distress7.2.21 Similar consideratio
- Page 270 and 271: The Convention7.2.23 Article 6 of t
- Page 272 and 273: 7.2.25 The rules concerning the nee
- Page 274 and 275: finding tribunals are, with rare ex
- Page 276 and 277: cases which had been instructed for
- Page 278 and 279: the criminal justice system. Removi
- Page 280 and 281: The more difficult issue, however,
- Page 282 and 283: more persuasive than a multiplicity
- Page 284 and 285: 7.2.49 Corroboration is more likely
- Page 286 and 287: two “guiding principles” which
particular comment <strong>and</strong>, no doubt, criticism. There may be furtherconsequences of abolition that will need to be worked through, as the criminaljustice system is progressively reformed. This is in the nature of law insociety. But the initial decision, which has to be taken, is whether, of itself,corroboration continues to contribute more than it detracts from a fair,efficient <strong>and</strong> effective system.7.0.6 In order to be able to analyse the issue of whether the requirement forcorroboration fits today’s society, independent research was commissioned toassess the impact of corroboration in the progress of criminal cases throughthe system. After thorough consideration of this research alongside all theother information, evidence <strong>and</strong> submissions on the subject, the Review is ableto recommend, with confidence, that the system would best be served byremoving the requirement.7.0.7 The consideration of guidance on what is sufficient evidence for the police toreport a case to the procurator fiscal is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate<strong>and</strong> this report does not make recommendations as to what direction theseshould take. Chapter 6.3 – Sufficiency of Evidence, does, however, look indetail at the current law on sufficiency of evidence at trial. The Reviewbelieves that the current system is both appropriate <strong>and</strong> robust enough tocontinue to work effectively <strong>and</strong> efficiently in today’s society, even with theremoval of the requirement for corroboration.237