Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

at least in connection with witnesses 3 , although the effect of the legislationmay require revisiting. What does merit examination is the treatment of thosestatements which do not amount to a full confession. What rules apply to theadmissibility of statements by a suspect which are partly incriminating andpartly exculpatory (so called “mixed statements”) and to those whollyexculpatory?Current law7.4.3 There is a perception that there is a problem in an accused being able to leadevidence at his/her trial of exculpatory statements, or even partly exculpatorystatements, as a substitute for giving evidence. This was a feature of thecelebrated case of Meehan 4 , in which the accused wished to undergo aninterrogation under the influence of a “truth drug” with a view to leadingevidence of what he might then say. The court held that it was not competentfor an accused to lead evidence from friends, relatives or others to the effectthat he had told them that he had not committed the crime 5 . There is practicalforce in this principle, since otherwise it would be an obvious expedient for anaccused to provide an innocent narrative, possibly well prepared and in writtenform, to a generally credible person shortly before his/her trial, lead evidencefrom that person and thus potentially avoid cross-examination and the risk,albeit remote, of a charge of perjury.3 Scottish Law Commission Report No 149 (1995)4 Meehan v HM Advocate 1970 JC 115 LJG (Clyde) at 13, approved in Morrison v HM Advocate 1990 JC 299, LJ-C (Ross) at 312 and inMcCutcheon v HM Advocate 2002 SLT 27, LJG (Cullen) at 34302