Those associated with the Scottish legal system
have generally been proud of its efficiency and fair treatment of
defendants. Indeed along with education
it was cited often during the referendum campaign as symbolic of the country`s
status as an independent nation within the United Kingdom. With the recent amalgamation of the separate
police forces in Scotland into a unified command; Police Scotland, there has now been
established an expert group to examine the ramifications of abolishing “corroboration”
in the courts. The most widespread example
is that two witnesses not excluding police officers are required to give evidence against a
defendant whereas a single witness is sufficient in the other parts of the
U.K. There are also going to be
questions as to changing the number of jurors and the majority needed to
convict. All these proposals are,
according to the arguments, to safeguard
the innocent until proved guilty concept of our justice system. It seems strange therefore if the Herald report is comprehensive that that most
unusual of all processes in Scots law, the verdict of “not proven” , is not up for consideration. On the surface that verdict alone seems
calculated to ensure that any shadow of doubt in the prosecution case is firmly placed in favour of the defendant.
Not proven wasn't strictly in the terms of reference for the consultation, but the group have actually included it in the consultation document anyway!
ReplyDeleteJust another point on the current situation "Two witnesses" is not strictly speaking true. Evidence from two sources are required but they needn't both be witnesses. Each critical part of the case must be corroborated.