Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

are likely to be so serious, that it is better to make it a rule that we shallnever rely on only one witness, because, on the whole, that will lead toless injustice than will reliance on our ability to detect unreliability”.7.2.4 It must be recognised that criminal law, including the rules of evidence andprocedure, has advanced some distance since the days of Hume and Burnett.Capital punishment no longer exists in time of peace. Prosecutors and judgesare, for the most part, well educated in the law and procedure and, so far as isknown, not readily susceptible to corrupt practices. There is a legal aid systemproviding effective representation for the defence. Scientific proof is a regularfeature in trials. Persons convicted in the High Court have a right of appeal.Almost all persons, including the accused, are acceptable as competentwitnesses. It is an altogether different legal and social world from that of theearly or late eighteenth century.7.2.5 The question, which the Review has asked itself, is whether the requirement isa useful tool for achieving Professor Gordon’s stated purpose in the modernworld or whether it is an artificial construct that actually contributes tomiscarriages of justice in the broad, rather than appellate, sense. Iscorroboration merely a comfort blanket for decision makers; that is, somethingwhich does not really assist in making a decision the correct one, but whichcan be used to justify that decision in objective terms?Current Law7.2.6 According to the requirement, there must first be at least one source ofevidence (i.e. the testimony of one witness) that points to the guilt of the257