Yesterday the Senators of the College of Justice, excluding Lord Carloway, published their response to the Government’s consultation paper arising out of Lord Carloway’s report into reforming Scottish criminal law and practice.
Lord Carloway was asked by Justice Secretary Kenny McAskill MSP to investigate and report the ways in which Scottish criminal procedure could be reformed. This followed the UK Supreme Court’s controversial decision in the case of Cadder V HM Advocate. That case, as I’m sure readers will know, held that the Scottish practice of detaining suspects without access to a lawyer breached their article 6(1) right to a fair trial. As a result emergency legislation was introduced to the Scottish Parliament which provided for the right of suspects to receive advice and representation from a solicitor while in police custody. Lord Carloway’s report considered some of the issues that had arisen as a result of that legislation; issues which had not been properly considered because of the speed at which the Government pushed the amendment through Parliament.
The most controversial aspect of Lord Carloway’s report was his recommendation that the ancient requirement for corroboration be abolished. Since the publication of the Carloway Review; the Justice Secretary has made his position clear on the matter (that he supports Lord Carloway’s recommendation) and both the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General have gone into a political drive in support of its abolition.
Much concern about the proposal of Lord Carloway has been noted since the publication of his report. Many in the legal profession have come out in support of keeping corroboration and referring to it as an essential safeguard. Some have suggested the desire of the Government and the Crown to abolish corroboration is about trying to making it easier for the Crown to obtain a conviction. Others have suggested that the abolition of corroboration wouldn’t be a bad thing, but that other changes would be necessary to ensure that the right of the accused to a fair trial was not placed in jeapordy.
For what it is worth I am of the opinion that corroboration is absolutely essential to the criminal law in Scotland and that any attempt to abolish it would likely have severe consequences for the accused. I am also of the opinion that the move to abolish corroboration may, in part, be supported by the government with a view to increasing the number of convictions the Crown can obtain. That, in my view, would (if indeed it is part of the motivation) make it a very bad idea because it distorts justice (see this earlier post from me on Justice published on this blog).
The consultation response from the Senators of the College of Justice provides a glimmer of hope for the continued existence of corroboration in Scotland. All of Lord Carloway’s colleagues have united in support for corroboration leaving him on his own among the senior judiciary in Scotland. The weight and authority of the Senators should also cause the Justice Secretary to reconsider his position on the future of corroboration. When almost all of Scotland’s senior judiciary (who are responsible for upholding the law) you certainly be foolish to ignore them.
In the judge’s response to the consultation they state:
In our view, it is often difficult to assess the true facts on the basis only of the evidence of one witness. A witness may be credible and plausible, yet not be telling the truth (or the whole truth). The Scottish courts have on many occasions been grateful for the requirement of corroboration, which in our view provides a major safeguard against miscarriages of justice.
There is little to say about this submission from the judges. It will always be the case that a case will be stronger the more there is to verify the evidence. The judges make a good point that simply relying on one witness is not particularly helpful. As they state a witness can appear as though they are a reliable witness, but the truth of the matter is that their version of events are not an accurate reflection of what happened. They state that corroboration acts as a major safeguard against miscarriages of justice. This is something that I would agree with entirely.
We are also concerned that the abolition of corroboration may result in less diligent police investigation pre-trial: knowing that corroboration is not required, there may be a relaxation in the search for supporting evidence (even though such may well exist).
This is an interesting point and is certainly one that is echoed by the few police officers I have spoken to. They state that it wouldn’t necessarily be about being lazy, but it would be a sensible way to use resources (particularly at a time when resources are under pressure). Of course, in the most serious or complex investigations there is unlikely to be much change. The very nature of such investigations is that corroborative evidence would still likely exist. The danger exists in the less complex and serious investigations. While they might be less complex or serious in terms of the gravity; a criminal investigation is sufficiently serious to ensure that a thorough and effective job is done. The effect on the life of a person who is convicted of a criminal offence can be significant: they may lose their job, seeking employment becomes more difficult, there may be financial hardship and the stress of an investigation and trial can cause marital and family problems. We cannot allow a situation to develop where it is more likely that innocent people will suffer the effects of a wrongful conviction. That is, in my view, a much greater injustice than a guilty person escaping conviction.
The judges also raise interesting points on the issue of increasing convictions. Their view is that rather than increasing the number of convictions it might well cause a reduction in the number of convictions obtained by the Crown. They cite a possible reluctance on the part of a jury to convict where it is a situation of one person’s word against the word of another. The senior judiciary have a wealth of experience from which they can draw such conclusions and I wouldn’t want to disagree with them on that point. It does, with a bit of consideration, seem like a conclusion that can be sensibly arrived at.
The judges broadly support Lord Carloway’s other recommendations, which are less controversial and do make sense in light of the line of authority developing as a result of Cadder. Their response can be read here.
prout de jure 