Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

y many outside the world of criminal legal practice. They are applieddifferently by courts, depending upon their own experience in that practice.7.2.57 If corroboration were to be abolished, it might reasonably be anticipated thatthere will be some judicial resistance in line with that experienced when itceased to be a requirement in personal injuries cases. This may take the formof the court taking the view that, in certain categories of case, or in all caseswhere there is no corroboration, a special warning requires to be given tojuries about the dangers of conviction. Such a warning would be similar tothat currently given in cases of eye witness identification. It will be important,following especially the experience in the other jurisdictions referred to, tomake it clear that, although a trial judge may, at his/her discretion in aparticular case, give a jury such assistance, by way of warning or otherwise, asis appropriate in relation to the assessment of the credibility and reliability ofwitnesses 81 , the law does not require that a warning be given in any casesimply on the basis that there is a lack of corroboration.RecommendationI therefore recommend that:⎯ the current requirement for corroboration in criminal cases beabolished; and⎯ in solemn prosecutions where there is no corroboration of testimony,there should be no requirement on the judge to warn the jury of anydangers perceived purely as a consequence of the absence of suchcorroboration.81 see Practice Note, 18 February 1977, issued by LJG (Emslie)286