A landmark ruling on corroboration that could see more rape cases go to trial will have “far-reaching consequences,” a law body has warned.
On October 30, an historic nine-judge panel supported an appeal by Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, who had called for a change to corroboration laws in the wake of two sexual offences trials that resulted in majority not proven verdicts.
The ruling means that statements made by victims during, or shortly after, a crime can provide a second source of evidence that the crime took place, and that the accused was responsible.
Previously, it was long-established law that two statements from the same person could not be used to corroborate each other.
The Law Society of Scotland, which represents more than 13,000 Scottish solicitors, warned the ruling amounted to a “fundamental change” that would have “far-reaching consequences”.
Stuart Munro, convener of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, said: “This judgement from the Lord Justice General and his colleagues in the High Court is highly significant and is bound to have far-reaching consequences.
“While the basic rule that crimes have to be proved by corroborated evidence hasn’t changed, this decision, and others like it, show that the court’s view on what can amount to corroboration has shifted considerably.
“Many cases that were previously thought to have insufficient evidence will now be capable of being prosecuted.
“Corroboration is painted by some as being a unique feature of Scotland’s criminal justice system, but we’re also the only jurisdiction that allows conviction by simple majority verdict.
“We now have a fundamental change to our criminal justice system in an area where Parliament considered change but thought better of it.”
The ruling, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, was earlier welcomed by the charity Rape Crisis Scotland, which supports victims of sexual violence.
Sandy Brindley, the charity’s chief executive, said: “This is a landmark judgment. Most reported rape cases never make it to court, and the most common reason given is lack of corroboration.
“This ruling removes a barrier to justice in sexual offence cases, meaning potentially more cases are able to make it to court.”