THERE’S a great deal of mythology about corroboration. Is it always two witnesses? No. So what is it? I once asked two leading legal professors if they could give me a two-page definition. Not that they could agree upon the answer. I told this to a very senior sheriff who stated that when he sat on the bench he just knew it when it hit him. How does this help the investigating officer or prosecutor leading the case?



When the Lord Justice Clerk carried out his review into this and other areas of evidence he stated that it seemed to come from Romano-canonical law and applied at a time when we did not have forensic science, CCTV, or other significant tools; moreover, at a time when there was little legal defence and you could hang for stealing a horse.

It was he who proposed its abolition as part of his reform package to bring Scots criminal law into the 21st century. To update and modernise it as well as balance the rights of the accused with that of the victim and the community. No other western jurisdiction has it nor have they sought to invoke it.

Why is that? It’s because it denies justice to many, many victims of crime and in particular women and children who suffer abuse behind closed doors, in the absence of other witnesses. The number of cases – whether of rape, sexual offences or domestic abuse – that cannot proceed due to a lack of corroboration is truly shameful.

At a time when the Scottish Government is delivering on tackling inequality it’s regrettable this issue is delayed. Breaking the glass ceiling is admirable and addressing the issue of women offenders appropriate but so is delivering justice for the women denied it. It’s not just women and children who suffer. The elderly and vulnerable who are preyed upon also lose out. It was for these reasons that the removal was supported not just by police and prosecutors but by Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Womens Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland and agencies representing the frail and elderly.

Against them was ranged the legal profession who the Lord Justice Clerk recently pointed out had vested interests in opposition. It was significant that those who mopped up the blood or wiped away the tears were for its routine removal whilst those who said they were only doing their job when they presided or defended were not.

Legislative time is precious and timescales short. It’s understandable, perhaps, why the Scottish Government have deferred. Building a consensus would be helpful. However, what cannot be forgotten are the tens of thousands of victims of crime who are denied access to justice. For that reason all right-minded parties must commit in their 2016 manifestos to deliver its routine removal. To do otherwise is not only to deny access to justice to many but to inflict further injury on brave victims who forsook anonymity to support the Scottish Government in its removal.