Category Archives: Criminal Law

12.11.15
by

Statutory Judicial Directions in Sexual Offences Cases

In all democratic countries there is a very clear separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.  This is important so as to ensure that there are proper checks and balances on power and is really quite fundamental so as to ensure an effective democracy.  It is so fundamental that when the Scottish Parliament embarked upon a programme of restructuring the judiciary, it set out in section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 that the judiciary are to continue to be independent of the First Minister, the Lord Advocate, the Scottish Ministers, Members of the Scottish Parliament and others.

Judicial independence and impartiality flows from the doctrine of the separation of powers which is so fundamental to democracy.  It is important that the judiciary is totally independent from the Executive and the legislature.  Although judges in Scotland are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, they are done so after having been selected by a body independent of the State, the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland.  Neither the legislature nor the Executive play any role in the appointment process, other than by setting out the qualifications required to be a judge (see Chapter 3 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008).

This independence means that neither the Scottish Ministers nor the Scottish Parliament should seek to interfere with the independence of the Judiciary.  Parliament serves two primary functions: to make laws and to hold the Executive to account.  The Judiciary interprets and applies the laws made by Parliament and also holds Ministers to account.  Finally, Parliament holds the judiciary to account by having the power to change laws when the Judiciary interpret either the common law or statutory provisions in a way that Parliament considers is wrong.  It is rightly difficult to remove judges from post, their independence would be threatened if it was far too easy to remove them; it might make judges less able to perform their important function of holding the Executive to account, for example.  These three parts of the State work together (not always harmoniously, but that is to be expected) to ensure that the State does not over exert its powers and that no part of the State becomes too powerful.

The impartiality is also of huge importance and two-fold.  Firstly, the judiciary must be politically impartial.  It is for this reason that when lawyers become judges they must sever ties with any political parties that they may well have had connections to.  They should not be seen to make political comments, whether in the press, in speeches or in their judgments; especially if such comments align themselves with a particular political position or party.  Their impartiality also extends to the parties before them.  They must be careful not to be seen to be supporting one side or the other in any way.  That is not an easy task.

There is currently a proposal before the Scottish Parliament that may impact, in a negative way, both the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.  Section 6 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Bill seeks to insert a section into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 that would require judges to give specific directions in certain sexual offences cases.  Those directions are undoubtedly well-meaning and seek to address common misconceptions about complainers in sexual offences cases, especially around any perceived delay in making the allegation to the police and how they react during the alleged offence.  However, simply because they are well-meaning and seek to serve a wholly commendable purpose does not mean that they should not be enacted or questioned.  In my view the potential constitutional difficulties that they present far outweigh the benefits, especially when there are other ways to achieve the same aim that do not impugn upon fundamental constitutional principles.

Independence

These statutory provisions would require Judges to include specific information in their charges to juries in sexual offences cases.  This is something that clearly crosses the line in the separation between Parliament and the Judiciary.  This is wholly different to Parliament telling judges that they have come to the wrong conclusion as to what the law is by passing substantive statutory provisions.  It is Parliament expressly dictating to judges how they should do their job.  We should always prevent Parliament from taking such steps.

Impartiality

The Directions which Parliament proposes judges should make in their charges are well founded in evidence.  However, what they seek to do is bolster the credibility of the principal crown witness in a sexual offences claim (i.e. the complainer).  It is entirely appropriate that we seek to remove any myths about complainers in sexual offences cases; only when we do so can we move towards a position where those who have suffered at the hands of a sex offender can get a proper shot at receiving justice.  When a judge is giving their charge to the jury they set out plainly what the law is in respect of the offence(s) contained in the Complaint/Indictment, explain to the jury the three possible verdicts open to them, the concept of reasonable doubt and finally that a majority of the jurors must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt before they can convict the accused.  In a jury trial the judge is there to deal only with matters of law and procedure; they are there to ensure that both the prosecution and the defence act and are treated in a fair manner, as well as making rulings on issues of law and procedure and setting out the law to the jury that they need to apply to the evidence they have heard in court.

One of the factors that jurors need to weigh up in reaching their verdict is the credibility of not just the complainer, but every other person who has given evidence before them.  Only once they have assessed the credibility of a witness can they decide whether to believe them and how much weight to accord their evidence.  It is clear therefore that the credibility of the complainer in any case, including a sexual offences case, is of central importance to the jury.  In my view it therefore follows that any comment by a judge that seeks to bolster the credibility of a witness (regardless as to whether they are the complainer or the accused) impugns upon their impartiality from the parties to the case (in this situation, from the Crown).

How else can this issue be addressed?

As I have already stated, there are many myths around the conduct of sexual offences complainers – including around how quickly they make the allegation official and issues about their actions and reactions while the alleged offender is committing the alleged offence.  A complainer who makes their allegation quickly should not automatically be presumed to be more honest that one who waits weeks, months or even years to make their allegation.  It should not be relevant whether or not a complainer made attempts to fight the alleged offender off.  These are the issues that these proposed jury directions seek to address.

In my view, these can be addressed in ways other than by requiring judges to set out a case bolstering the credibility of the complainer in their charge to the jury.  The issue of the credibility of the complainer, or rather the task of presenting the complainer as a credible witness, lies with the Procurator Fiscal Depute or Advocate Depute who is prosecuting the case.  Therefore, we ought to be looking at ways to put this evidence before a jury; whether that is by obtaining it through a witness such as a specially trained police officer or an expert such as a psychologist.   It wouldn’t necessarily be essential to require a complainer to explain why they didn’t make an attempt to fight of the alleged offender or why they delayed in making the report; although, these matters may well be explored during the complainer’s evidence in either examination-in-chief or cross-examination.

Addressing this issue in the way I have described would ensure that what is essentially a question of fact for the jury (that being, the assessment of the credibility of the witness) is treated as such and is not dressed up as being a matter of law being dealt with by the presiding judge.  It would also ensure that points of view that might well be held by the jury, which are not supported by evidence are properly addressed.  Finally, it would ensure that the independence and impartiality of the judiciary is properly and rightly preserved.

It is therefore my view that the Scottish Parliament should remove section 6 from the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Bill.

12.09.14
by

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: An unfair advantage to the accused?

In the wake of the dismissal of the case against Shrien Dewani in South Africa, Dan Hodges has written a piece on the Telegraph website questioning the criminal standard of proof.  I will write this blog post from a Scottish perspective, but the general points will apply equally to most ‘western’ legal systems.

There are two burdens of proof recognised before the courts: the criminal standard, which is “beyond reasonable doubt” and the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”.  What we are concerned here with is the criminal standard of proof, and particularly whether it weighs the system too heavily in favour of the accused.

Before going further, it might be helpful to set out what beyond reasonable doubt means.  In his comment piece, Mr Hodges, asserts that in order for the prosecution to secure a conviction against an accused they “must prove beyond question the guilt of the accused.”  This is not the case, and overstates the standard of proof.  The criminal standard of proof does not require there to be no doubt at all, only that there is an absence of reasonable doubt.  What this means is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any doubt which is based upon reason and commonsense following a careful and impartial consideration of the evidence (and the lack thereof) presented to the court.  The doubt, as Lord Justice-Clerk Cooper put it in Irving v Minister of Pensions, should be something more than “a strained or fanciful acceptance of remote possibilities”; Lord Justice-Clerk Thomson said in McKenzie v HM Advocate  that it is something “more than a merely speculative or academic doubt”.  The finder of fact (the jury or the sheriff/Justice of the Peace) doesn’t have to be convinced beyond doubt that the accused perpetrated the crime alleged, only to the point where he has no reasonable doubt.

There are a variety of reasons as to why there is such a high standard of proof in criminal cases.  One of those reasons is the consequence of a guilty verdict in a criminal trial.  As Jones and Christie put it in Criminal Law (4th Edition), “conviction certainly entails more than a mere finding that, e.g. “A killed B”.  This in itself is a legally neutral statement…The Prime function of the criminal law is that of articulating the circumstances under which it is justifiable to hold a person punishable for his conduct.” (para 1-13).  In other words, with the criminal law we are going beyond a situation where we are simply ascribing liability to concluding that a person’s conduct renders them liable for punishment.  That punishment can be severe, it could result in a person being deprived of their liberty for a lengthy period of time.  A finding of liability in a civil case does not generally result in the liable party being punished; there may be a requirement to compensate the party that they have wronged to try and place them back into the position they were in before the wrong occurred (or to place them in the position they would have been in had the wrong not occurred), but that is manifestly different from punishment.  The stakes are much higher and as such it has been the position that the standard of proof must also be higher as a consequence.

It seems unjust to punish someone, in the severe ways open to the criminal justice system, on the basis that it is merely more likely than not that they committed the crime alleged.  A system whereby an accused person could be convicted merely on the balance of probabilities would inevitably result in the entire criminal justice system being brought into serious disrepute as individuals would routinely be convicted where there are sensible and logical alternatives to their guilt based on the evidence which was heard in court.

It has long been the case that the justice system has preferred to see guilty men walk free than an innocent man be unjustly punished.  This is not some ‘liberal, leftard, hand-wringly nonsense’; it is a centuries old principle and can be found in times where liberal principles were about as far away from the justice system as was possible.  We’re going back to the times of gruesome public executions for the most minor of crimes, to where transportation was still a sanction open to judges and to where prison conditions were probably more horrible than even the most right-wing member of society would care to suggest today.  Moreover, is it’s a principal which is a recognised international standard and features in what most people would consider to be “decent” legal systems.  This principle is another reason for the high standard of proof in criminal trials and is linked closely to the idea that a finding of guilt in a criminal trial opens up legitimate punishment upon the offender.

We’re probably all familiar with the concept of an accused person being innocent until proved otherwise (even if, as a society, we don’t always hold to that with our quick condemnations upon those suspected or accused of crimes).  The burden is placed squarely upon the State for a number of reasons, not least an equality issue.  The State is vastly better resourced than an individual and it can call upon those resources when trying to prove that someone “did it”.  The State has professional investigators in the form of the police, and teams of specialist lawyers to prosecute the case in court in the form of the public prosecution service.  While those services, in the UK at least, are suffering from a considerable cut to their funding, those resources continue to vastly outstrip the resources of the accused who has only his (small) defence team to counter the might of the State.  Lowering the Standard of proof would inevitably lead to the accused having to prove things that he does not currently have to prove.  Of course, it is presently the case that an innocent accused facing an overwhelming case against them would be sensible to offer evidence as to why the State is wrong; however, in a system where the standard of proof was merely whether it was more likely than not that the accused had committed the crime it would almost always be the case that the accused would have to be disproving the States case (or, to put it another way, prove his own innocence).  It would eat away at the presumption of innocence and would result in a great inequality between the State and the accused.

Does the criminal standard of proof weight the system in favour of the accused?  I suggest no.  What it does, I suggest, is merely rebalance a system that without it would unfairly favour the State with its huge and specialist resources over the extremely limited resources of the accused.

07.05.14
by

The law and historic cases: sensible or bizarre?

It has been reported by the BBC today that president of the ‘Association of Child Abuse Lawyers’ has said the way in which Rolf Harris was sentenced was ‘bizarre’. He is referring to the fact that in historic cases the judge passing sentence is limited to the maximum sentence that was available at the time of the offence. In the Harris case this was 2 years (or 5 years in the cases where the victim was under the age of 13).

There are a lot of historic sexual assault and abuse cases trundling their way through the justice system. It is right that, no matter how many years later, the perpetrators of these crimes face justice. However, there is a significant issue in such cases; whether it is a sexual offence or not. As time progresses and as Government’s change, the law too goes through change. If you’re prosecuting an individual 20 or 30 years after the offence was committed it is highly likely that the law has undergone several significant changes: that is true with the law surrounding sexual offences. In all cases historic offences will be prosecuted according to the law at the time the offence was committed. The other alternative is to prosecute them under the law at the time they are prosecuted.

Why do we prosecute historic cases at the time they were committed? Well, it’s about what is fair and just. Justice is not just about the victim, but it must equally be about the offender. It would be oppressive if the law were to treat offences committed decades ago as if they were committed today. It is a general principle of law in democratic countries around the world, especially in the realm of criminal law, that the law is not retrospective. That means that current changes in the law should not affect future consequences of past conduct. In other words, if you did something that was a particular criminal offence which attracted a particular maximum penalty, but by the time you are prosecuted the law has changed, you should be treated (as far as is reasonably practicable) as you would have been when you committed the crime. The same would be true if you committed a crime today, but the law changed substantially tomorrow: you would be dealt with as the law was today and not as the law changed tomorrow – even if there was no substantial delay in arresting, charging and prosecuting you.

In the Rolf Harris case he was prosecuted for the offences that he committed at the time. As such, the maximum penalty that was available to the court was that which would have been available at the time the offence was committed (2 years, or 5 in the case of offences relating to children under the age of 13). Specifically, in the case of Rolf Harris his sentence of 5 years and 9 months was made up of a mixture of concurrent and consecutive sentences for the various charges that he was convicted of. The sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Sweeny are available online and detail what the charges were and what the sentence was for each charge (and whether it was to be served concurrently or consecutively). You can read the sentencing remarks here.

When it comes to sentencing cases like this one where there has been such a delay in bringing the offender to justice, it is not the job of the court to try and fix the sentence that would have been given at the time. The judge must have regard to the sentencing guidelines that are currently in place; however, they cannot pass a sentence which would exceed the maximum available at the time the offence was committed. I blogged in this issue last year looking specifically at the law of England and Wales, you can read that blog here.

Sentencing is always a complex matter, but it is even more complex in these cases. While there will, quite understandably, be no sympathy for people like Rolf Harris; the law must be fair and it must be just. That applies to victim and offender and so the law must not be oppressive by prosecuting people for more serious offences than what they committed (while under the current law they may well have committed the more serious offence, they did not actually commit that offence because they offended at a time when the law was quite different) or by giving them a sentence that is in excess of the maximum that was available at the time they committed the offence.

I won’t make any comment on whether I think the sentence Rolf Harris received was too harsh, too lenient or about right. I understand that the sentence has been referred by someone to the Attorney General and it is now for him to decide whether he thinks that it is unduly lenient and whether it ought to be referred to the Court of Appeal. When he is doing so he will have regard to the sentences passed, the law as it was at the time the offences were committed the present sentencing guidelines and no doubt the totality of the sentence passed. My understanding of the law is that the Attorney General has 28 days to decide whether he is going to refer it to the Court of Appeal. Even if the Attorney General decides to refer it to the Court of Appeal they may refuse to hear the case or decide that the sentence should remain the same: a referral does not mean that the sentence will increase or that it was unduly lenient.

02.28.14
by

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage One Debate

CJSB14Yesterday the Scottish Parliament had its Stage One debate on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, and the quality of the contributions from certain members was depressingly poor; some contributions are worthy of note because they were of a standard which should be seen from all members: John Finnie (IND) and Patrick Harvie (Greens) to name two.

Like many, I am of the view that corroboration does represent an important safeguard against wrongful conviction; however, I am not so wedded to the idea that I cannot see life without it. I do have a number of concerns though.

Firstly, there has been a lot of talk about cases not getting to court because of corroboration and how that limits access to justice for Complainers. There are two important factors to consider here: (1) it also limits access to justice for suspects. Even an arrest/detention (especially for something like rape) can be enough to permit a ‘bad smell’ to hang around the accused. (2) There will always be cases that do not proceed to trial because of a lack of sufficiency in the evidence. Removing the requirement for corroboration will not suddenly mean that every single case will proceed. Trials, especially High Court trials, are expensive and while justice ought not to be about money, it would be naïve to think that money doesn’t play a part – on a financial basis alone it would be impossible to have every case prosecuted.

What about this brave new world post-corroboration in Scotland? A lot has been mentioned in the debate about complainers in sexual offences and domestic violence cases; corroboration does provide assistance to these Complainers (although this point is almost never mentioned). It ensures it is never the case of the Complainer’s word against that of the accused. Where things get tricky in terms of rape complaints is around consent. There has to, as the law stands today, be corroboration of a lack of consent. Where does that come from? Lots of places: changes in behaviour by the complainer or third party evidence of the Complainer’s distress for example.  In such cases where evidence of distress is not available it would place even more stress upon the Complainer as it will be down to no more than who the jury believes more: the complainer or the accused.

Now, so far I’ve yet to deal with why I am actually against section 57. My main opposition to it passing in this Bill is the outstanding Bonomy Review.  The purpose of this is to work out the additional changes that will need to be made to the law of Scotland following the removal of the requirement for Corroboration. Let’s be clear this isn’t a minor technical change to the law of Scotland; it is absolutely fundamental. As such it is only right and proper that the Scottish Parliament knows what it is changing the law of Scotland to before they vote on such a fundamental proposal. Also, the very existence of the Bonomy review shows that the Parliament are voting on a partially thought-out proposal.  The setting up of a review to fix problems with legislative provisions, before they’ve even been voted on for the first time by the Scottish Parliament, should cause alarm bells to ring in the minds of every single Member of the Scottish Parliament.

Image credit: Scottish Parliament website licensed under the Open Scottish Parliament Licence v1.0

Image credit: Scottish Parliament website licensed under the Open Scottish Parliament Licence v1.0

During the debate yesterday Sandra White MSP made the preposterous suggestion that not abolishing the requirement for corroboration in this Bill was kicking the matter into the long grass. She was concerned that there would be insufficient time to deal with the matter before the next election, due in May 2016. The Bonomy review is due to report early next year, giving the Government and Parliament up to 15 months to draft a Bill and pass it; hardly a shortage of time!  Furthermore, the Cabinet Secretary has said he won’t be enacting section 57 until such times as additional safeguards are introduced. The reality is; it’s probably going to be at last a further 18 months before this section is actually enacted. Whether it is passed now, or in 2015 will make little difference, it’s unlikely to be fully enacted before late 2015 or early 2016 anyway. Therefore, there is no good reason as to why Parliament cannot consider the full package (i.e. abolition and the full package of safeguards together). Indeed, passing legislative provisions which Parliament knows are incomplete and not fully thought through is not what MSPs are paid for. This is not how a serious Parliament in a mature democracy ought to function.

What has struck me most about this debate is the way in which highly emotive cases have been used as the justification, and this has polarised the debate. This has lead to deplorable suggestions by some, such as Christina McKelvie MSP, that those opposing the move to abolish the requirement for corroboration were against victims of rape and domestic violence. Her exact wording was:

There is a significant number of victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse whose cases do not go to court. In the past two years, that has affected 2,800 cases of domestic abuse and 170 rape cases. The Tories, the Liberals and—astonishingly—the Labour Party might be happy with that, but I will not have that on my conscience.

Such suggestions are utterly unacceptable in Parliament by MSPs; in making that statement Ms McKelvie demeaned herself and demeaned Parliament. Quite simply it was shameful and completely indefensible behaviour.  She is not alone, some vocal people connected with various womens’ charities have been similar suggestions.

MacAskillKenny

Image credit: Scottish Parliament website licensed under the Open Scottish Parliament Licence v1.0

Finally, I turn to Mr MacAskill’s equally shameful closing statement in which he painted the opposition to section 57 as a ‘Better Together’ pact against the SNP. This ignores that Christine Grahame abstained on both votes, and that Patrick Harvey and John Finnie (both ardent supporters of ‘Yes Scotland’ and the later a former SNP member) both voted for the amendment proposed by Margaret Mitchell after also speaking against the Cabinet Secretary’s position  in the debate. The Cabinet Secretary’s suggestion that everyone not with him is against Victims of crime was another outrageous slur; indeed I heard not one speech in the debate that could have been characterised as being against victims. Everyone speaking in favour of Margaret Mitchells amendment was essentially saying this: we need to ensure that we retain an acceptable balance in the justice system that ensures safe convictions. That brings us to the nub of the issue: we must ensure that when people are convicted of crimes, especially ones that will inevitably result in lengthy custodial sentences, that those convictions are safe. It is not good for a victim to see someone convicted of an offence against them just for the Appeal Court to come along and quash that conviction.

We have to ensure that balance remains in the system, and the Cabinet Secretary’s position does not allow for that. It is not acceptable for Parliament to vote on such fundamental matters when they are incomplete with only a promise that sufficient safeguards will be introduced (by way of Secondary legislation which bypasses the full and rigorous scrutiny of Parliament) in due course. The Cabinet Secretary’s position is untenable on this issue, and he must remove section 57 from the Bill re-introducing it in Primary legislation alongside whatever other reforms Lord Bonomy proposes.

01.11.14
by

Another blog on Corroboration

Corroboration has been part of the law of Scotland for many, many centuries.  The corroborative requirement used to apply in civil cases, and not just criminal cases.  The requirement for corroboration in civil cases was abolished on 3 April 1989 when section 1 of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 entered into force.  The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill currently before the Scottish Parliament will see the end to corroboration in criminal cases as well.

The abolition of Corroboration in Scottish Civil cases came following a lengthy process; it began with Memorandum 46 on the Law of Evidence published by the Scottish Law Commission in 1980, which resulted in two reports.  The first was report number 78 (published in 1983), entitled “Report on Evidence in cases of Rape and Other Sexual Offences”.  That report resulted in Sections 141A, 141B, 346A and 346B being inserted into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (later replaced by the present statute governing criminal procedure in Scotland: the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995) by virtue of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985.  The second report was number 100, which was published in 1986, entitled “Evidence: Report on Corroboration, Hearsay and Related Matters in Civil Proceedings”.   There was also a research paper by Sheriff I D MacPhail (chapters 1-5; 6-15; 16-19 and 20-25) which considered in detail the Law of Evidence in Scotland at that time.

In essence, the major reform to the Law of Evidence in Civil cases through the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 followed an intense and lengthy period of scrutiny by the body established by law to look at reforms to the Law of Scotland.  The abolition of corroboration in Scottish criminal cases is a major reform.  It was inserted into a Government Bill following a brief review by a judge and a number of short consultations on Criminal Evidence and Practice (the Carloway Review).  A process frequently described as an “emergency” by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Cadder v HM Advocate.

As I have already mentioned, the abolition of corroboration in Scotland is a significant piece of reform.  Many areas of Criminal Evidence depend, entirely or significantly, upon there being a requirement for Corroboration.  For example, in Holland v HM Advocate, the existence of the requirement for corroboration was an important factor in the Court’s determination that dock identification did not breach Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  With Corroboration playing such a significant role in the Law of Evidence in Scotland, it is important that the effects of its abolition are properly considered.  It is also essential that all the necessary changes to the Law of Evidence that require to be made, are made at the same time and not in various bits of emergency legislation like the disaster that was the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010, or thorough piecemeal reforms which are required following the identification of yet another problem with criminal procedure arising out of the abolition of corroboration.

While I believe Corroboration is an important aspect of our system that ought to be retained, I could foresee it being removed without any real problem to the procurement of a fair trial.  However, I can only see that if it is done in the context of a properly considered report that doesn’t just look at changes that could be made to the system, but one which has also adequately considered what other changes might have to accompany those changes to ensure that the system remains fair and balanced.  Removing corroboration from Scottish criminal procedure has the capability of reducing the conviction or acquittal of a person down to nothing other than the credibility of the complainer against the credibility of the accused.  That is an unsatisfactory position when a conviction can result in the loss of a person’s liberty for a very long time.

We cannot allow another ‘Cadder’ situation to, which undoubtedly had a significant impact on the ability of complainers to obtain justice because of the procedural errors in the Scottish justice system.  If we are to make such a fundamental change to our justice system, we must ensure that it is done in a way that ensures any consequential changes are also made to protect the rights of both complainers and accused persons.

11.14.13
by

Abolition of Corroboration: where is the case?

Last night Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenney MacAskill MSP was on Scotland Tonight defending his plan to abolish Corroboration.  His arguments, as ever, simply do not stack up to scruity.

Right at the outset of his interview he said:

 “We’re not going to have people convicted on one single evidence from one single witness.  That’s been made quite clear by the Lord Advocate; there will always require to be additional evidence.  That’s been made clear it’s not just a quantitative, but a qualitative test so the evidence of one person on its own will not be sufficient; there will require to be additional evidence to be led”.

This all sounds very good, the lawyers are screaming about innocent people being convicted on the evidence of one individual but the Cabinet Secretary has said they’re wrong.  Well, it’s the Cabinet Secretary that is wrong.  Under the Law of Scotland as it stands today, the essential facts of the case (those are that a crime was committed and that it was committed by the accused) need to be proved by corroborated evidence.  That is each piece of evidence that goes towards establishing those two key things must be supported by another source of evidence independent to it.  For example, that could be the evidence of an eye witness together with DNA evidence.  What the Cabinet Secretary said last night is that the Lord Advocate, the person responsible for the prosecution of all crime in Scotland, will continue to require evidence from an additional source.  However, that will be nothing more than guidance to prosecutors with no legal standing at all; it could not be founded upon in the Appeal Court as part of an appeal against conviction to show that there was insufficient evidence to allow a conviction; there would be no legal requirement for corroboration following its abolition.  If the Crown were to decide to progress a case without corroborating evidence, they would be entitled to do so.  Furthermore, the guidance of the Lord Advocate would be subject to change at the whim of the Lord Advocate without any consideration or scrutiny by anyone.  The Cabinet Secretary’s assurances are meaningless and the Lord Advocate’s requirements are meaningless in law as well.

The Cabinet Secretary went on to discuss the safeguards that his Bill contains to address the loss of Corroboration as a safeguard.  The only safeguard mentioned was the increase of the jury majority required for a conviction from 8 to 10.  Is this really an adequate safeguard?  The requirement for corroboration applies in all cases: summary and solemn cases.  Juries are only present in Solemn cases and those cases represent a significant minority of cases which are progressed by the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland.  How does increasing the jury majority safeguard those who are prosecuted before a Justice of the Peace, a stipendiary magistrate or a Sheriff on his own?  It doesn’t.  Therefore, it’s not an adequate alternative to the requirement for Corroboration.

Furthermore, on the question of jury majorities, the Scotland Tonight presenter compared the size of the Scottish majority to that required in England where ordinarily a unanimous verdict is required, but can be reduced upon the discretion of the judge to a 10-2 majority (i.e 83.33% of the jury require to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of a person’s guilt before conviction).  Under the Scottish Government’s proposals, only 66.66% of the jury would require to be convinced of the accused’s guilt before a conviction.

The Cabinet Secretary made much of the requirement of corroboration being archaic and pointed to advanced in evidence such as DNA as forms of evidence that make corroboration redundant.  I will look specifically at DNA evidence; I feel that too much emphasis is placed on DNA evidence in our modern justice system.  A lot of DNA evidence is not conclusive.  A cigarette but at the scene of a murder with the DNA of the accused on it is not conclusive that the accused was even at the scene of the murder, let alone was there when the murder took place.  The cigarette but could have arrived there by other, innocuous means (that is not necessarily placed there deliberately as part of a “fit up”).  If the scene of the crime was at the bottom of a hill the cigarette but could have been discarded at the top of the hill some hours before the murder and  arrived at the scene of murder through the effect of gravity.  An item of clothing left at the scene of a Housebreaking accidently by the offender containing the DNA of the accused might not be conclusive either.  Consider the situation where two people have similar, or identical, pieces of clothing.  The innocent accused picks up the offenders by accident when they were earlier in the same public place while the offender picks up the innocent accused’s and subsequently leaves the item of clothing at the scene of the crime.  Again, not part of a “fit-up” and an entirely plausible situation that could occur.  In almost all cases; DNA evidence will require corroboration to give it the effect that it needs to have to secure conviction.

If we do away with the requirement for corroboration, it will be up to the jury to make an almost impossible determination as to how the DNA evidence arrived at the scene of the crime.  Programmes such as CSI have skewed society’s view of DNA evidence and resulted in it being considered the “golden bullet” it so often is not (“he must have done it; his DNA was there”).  It is entirely possible that innocent people will be convicted as a consequence of uncorroborated DNA evidence.

The Rational of the requirement for Corroboration that stands today was set out by Barron David Hume, one of Scotland’s “institutional writes” in the following way:

No matter how trivial the offence, and how high so ever the credit and character of the witness, still our law is averse to rely on his single word, in any inquiry which may affect the person, liberty, or fame of his neighbour; and rather than run the risk of such an error, a risk which does not hold when there is a concurrence of testimonies, it is willing that the guilty should escape.

The words of Barron Hume are as true today as they were when he wrote them in the early 19th Century.  It cannot be the genuine desire of the Scottish public to see innocent people convicted for crimes that they did not commit simply because one convincing witness said in court that the accused was guilty of the crime.

The fact is that Corroboration does not hinder prosecutions; it helps prosecutions (and this is a view shared by many within the prosecution service).  If the statement of a witness is supported independently by other evidence it strengthens the testimony of the witness; a witness who might otherwise come across as unbelievable is instantly strengthened by the existence of corroborative evidence.

The Scottish Government has not, in my view, made out the case for such a substantial change to the Criminal law of Scotland.  If we are going to make such a fundamental change it would be useful to do so following a thorough consideration of the issues, perhaps by the Scottish Law Commission.  Lord Carloway’s review was brief and followed what the Scottish Government describe as an “Emergency situation”.  There is something quite ironic about the Government proposing to change the law of Evidence with little or no relevant evidence.

09.11.13
by

Is it the case that the complainer clearly lied?

In Scotland, there can be three conclusions to a criminal trial: (1) the accused is found guilty, (2) the accused is found not proven and (3) the accused is found not guilty.  This seems fairly straight forward, (1) means they did it (2) means nobody is sure whether they did it and (3) means they didn’t do it.  Only that’s not really how it works; it is a great deal more complicated than this.

Let’s start with numbers (2) and (3), although they look different they are identical in law: the Crown has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and as such the accused is acquitted.  Historically, this meant that the accused could never be tried again for the same crime.  However, following fairly recent changes to the ancient double jeopardy rule (the rule that said no person may be tried twice for the same crime), it is now possible for the Crown to have a second go at prosecuting an individual for a crime for which they have already been acquitted in a set of strict and limited circumstances.  On the whole though, an acquittal means that the person leaves court innocent in the eyes of the law (exactly how they arrived at court) and free from the threat of a further prosecution in connection with the same matter.

Our system is extremely simple in respect of a person’s standing in law when accused of a crime:  all persons are presumed innocent until found guilty in a Court of law.  That finding of guilt may be as a result of the accused’s own guilty plea, or it may be following a trial.  An acquittal following a trial does not necessarily mean that the complainer has told lies or has not been the victim of a crime.  What it means is that the Crown failed to put before the Court (a Justice of the Peace, Sheriff or Jury depending on the forum in which the trial is held) to convince the Court that the accused is guilty of the charges alleged by the Crown.  It is for the Crown to prove the charge, and to prove the charge that it alleges.  Certain aspects of charges can be deleted if the Crown has failed to prove them, but has overall proved the offence.  For example, an ‘aggravation’ can be deleted from the charge where the evidence does not support the aggravation, but where it supports the basic offence.  Other things can be deleted from a charge as well.  For example, if the Crown alleges assault to severe injury and permanent disfigurement, but the evidence only proved assault to severe injury, the permanent disfigurement aspect to the charge could be deleted.  Another example could be where the charge alleges that the accused assaulted the complainer by punching and kicking the complainer, but the evidence only proved that the accused punched, rather than punched and kicked, the word ‘kicked’ could be deleted from the charge.

These deletions can be made by the Crown itself, or they can be made by the finders of fact (e.g. a jury could remove an aggravation from the charge where it finds the basic offence proved, but not the aggravation alleged).  The onus is on the Crown to prove the essential elements of the case though.  Where it fails to satisfy the finder of fact (in the case of a jury trial that would be the jury to a majority of 8 to 7) that the accused committed the crime alleged, the accused is entitled to be acquitted; he or she is free to go with the law viewing them to be innocent.

Of course, not every single case that results in an acquittal has arisen out of the lies of the complainer.  We have a system that requires the Crown to bring sufficient evidence before the Court to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime alleged.  The standard of proof is extremely high and the burden largely falls on the Crown, and for very good reason.  A finding of guilt could allow the State to deprive an individual of their liberty for a very long time.  Furthermore the state has far more resources at its disposal when bringing a prosecution against an individual.

In recognising that some guilty people do walk away from court, it is not an invitation to treat those who are acquitted with suspicion.  The law is clear: they were innocent before the trial and they remain so after the trial.  There is no presumption of guilt and nor should there be.  It is an effect of our system of justice that some guilty people will walk free after a trial, just as some innocent people will be convicted. Both are unfortunate, but doing as much as possible to avoid the latter results in the former.

There certainly should not be a jump to the conclusion that the complainer(s) in a case where the accused is acquitted have perjured themselves.  Where there is evidence that this is the case it should, of course, be investigated and a prosecution brought where it is in the public interest to do so.  However,due process has to be followed just as much in that case as in the case that went before it.

In essence, while an acquittal does equal innocence in the eyes of the law; it is realistic to accept that it does not always equal what might be termed as ‘true innocence’.  However, whether the person is innocent or not is quite frankly irrelevant beyond the trial.  In legal terms they are innocent and as a consequence society has an obligation to judge them as innocent, and to treat them as such.  The court that heard the case and acquitted the accused heard all of the available evidence and decided that it was insufficient to allow for a conviction.  The accused is entitled to put the episode behind them and to move on with their life.  Equally, complainers are entitled to support to move on from the crime of which they have been a victim.  In a lot of cases the fact that they have been the victim of a crime is not in doubt, the police and the Crown have just been unable to show that it was the accused that perpetrated the crime (and it may very well be the case that it was someone other than the accused that committed the crime, hence the right of the accused to have society treat them as innocent).

I hope that this makes sense.  If not, here is what I have been trying to say distilled down into five small points:

  1. When a person is acquitted it does not automatically follow that the complainer wasn’t telling the truth
  2. Equally, it does not follow that simply because the complainer may not have been lying that the accused got away with their crimes.
  3. The acquitted accused is entitled to move on from the episode and obtain support as required.
  4. The complainer is also entitled to move on from the episode and obtain support as required
  5. Where there is evidence to support that the complainer wasn’t telling the truth, it should be investigated and prosecuted where such a prosecution would be in the public interest.