12.07.2015 Views

Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

7.2.11 After what might be described as a period during which the requirementappeared to be strengthened, or perhaps changed, following Mackie v HMAdvocate 16 , it was re-affirmed in the criminal case of Fox v HM Advocate inthe following, rather different, terms 17 :“Corroborative evidence is… evidence which supports or confirms thedirect evidence of a witness… The starting-point is that the jury haveaccepted the evidence of the direct witness as credible <strong>and</strong> reliable.The law requires that, even when they have reached that stage, theymust still find confirmation of the direct evidence from otherindependent direct or circumstantial evidence… The evidence isproperly described as being corroborative because of its relation to thedirect evidence: it is corroborative because it confirms or supports thedirect evidence. The starting point is the direct evidence. So long asthe circumstantial evidence is independent <strong>and</strong> confirms or supportsthe direct evidence on the crucial facts, it provides corroboration <strong>and</strong>the requirements of legal proof are met”.7.2.12 Evidence can thus be corroborative even if, taken on its own, it does not pointconclusively, or even at all, towards an accused’s guilt. In a case whereidentification is in issue, a positive identification by one witness may becorroborated by a resemblance identification by another 18 which, on its own,would not have been sufficient for what might be called the first source. It iscapable of corroborating a first source but, itself, would not amount tosufficient evidence if supported only by another resemblance identification.7.2.13 Put another way, the law does not require two witnesses in the originalRomano-canonical law sense of two testimonies, each confirming guilt. Itrequires one such testimony <strong>and</strong> another witness speaking to facts which makethe truth or accuracy of the first witness’s evidence more likely. Whether16 1995 SLT 110, LJG (Hope) at 11917 1998 JC 94, LJG (Rodger) at 100-10118 Ralston v HM Advocate 1987 SCCR 467260

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!