Carloway review says end corroboration in crime cases

prison cell The review is proposing a radical overhaul of the criminal justice system

Related Stories

A report into Scotland's justice system has recommended that corroborated evidence will no longer be required in criminal cases.

Lord Carloway, who undertook the major review, also said suspects should be given the right to see a lawyer.

His review was set up after a UK Supreme Court judgement stopped police questioning suspects who had not been offered access to a lawyer.

Lord Carloway said the criminal law should be "re-cast" for modern society.

Overall, the judge made 76 recommendations, including;

  • a simplified, unitary system of arrest, on reasonable grounds for suspicion and detention
  • an arrest will trigger a set of rights including access to a lawyer
  • any proceedings against the suspect constitute a fair trial
  • suspects being charged should be brought before the court within 36 hours of arrest
  • and a less rule-bound approach to the evidence gathered with the general requirement for corroboration being dropped

Lord Carloway says the requirement for evidence to be corroborated in Scottish criminal cases is archaic

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill requested the review in October last year following the UK Supreme Court's decision to uphold an appeal by Peter Cadder.

It ruled that police could not question a suspect without offering him or her access to a solicitor first.

On launching his report, the judge said: "The task facing the review was to identify how criminal law and practice in Scotland, from the moment a suspect is identified right through to the consideration of any appeal and beyond, should be re-cast to meet the challenges and expectations of modern society and legal thinking.

"The report recognizes that it is not starting from a blank sheet of paper. It cannot effect total reconstruction, riding roughshod over sound existing traditions.

"The recommendations therefore seek to mould new elements and new thinking with existing practices in order to create a more robust, revitalised and modern system.

"In particular, they seek to re-structure and reinforce the system's foundations by instilling a human rights approach in larger measure and at greater depth. The aim is a system that not only surpasses minimum requirements today, but also stands up to developments for the foreseeable future."

The review held 77 meetings, undertook three visits to see the current Scottish legal system at work and carried out a public consultation which received 50 responses.

Long term reform

Lord Carloway also spoke to experts from Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and Germany.

Mr MacAskill welcomed Lord Carloway's report, saying the government continued to work closely with criminal justice partners to ensure that Scotland had a modern robust justice system "fit for the 21st Century".

He added: "The Carloway Review builds upon the actions we took last October and will frame longer term reform.

"The recommendations are far reaching and, while respectful to traditional systems that have served us well over centuries, seek to reshape and respond to present-day obligations and expectations."

Scottish Labour's Johann Lamont said that abolishing corroboration in all criminal cases was a "profound and fundamental change to Scots law".

But she added: "Lord Carloway has made a strong and compelling case for change that deserves further debate and careful consideration.

"On the right to remain silent, we note Lord Carloway's conclusion that it is important that the right to a fair trial is not compromised but will study the evidence in the report that informs this point of view.

"We must have the courage to make bold changes to strengthen our legal system so it better serves the victims of crime, but it is absolutely essential that any new rules ensure an appropriate sufficiency of evidence before prosecutions proceed. A careful balance must be struck."

Fair trial

Scottish Conservative Justice spokesman David McLetchie said he welcomed the changes, if abolishing corroborating meant more people could be brought to trial.

He added: "In particular it may bring justice to women who have been the victims of serious sexual assault.

"However, we must not forget the presumption of innocence which is the cornerstone of our justice system. Whatever crime an individual may have been charged with, he or she must receive a fair trial and guilt must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt."

Scottish Liberal Democrat justice spokesperson Alison McInnes said she too welcomed the report.

She added: "Protecting peoples' rights and ensuring a fair trial must be at the heart of any reforms. Our justice system must be robust, and it must be fully compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.

"Lord Carloway's report has those goals at its core, however, the changes put forward are both radical and substantial and so will need further detailed study."


More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 17.

    Always ask yourself ... if I was falsely arrested what would I want?

    Call for draconian regulations and those same rules may convict you. It is the burden of the system to prove your guilt. The state is already powerful, the inidividual needs rules to stand a chance of victory if they are innocent.

    For those suggesting this helps criminals, the advantages above, career criminals already enjoy.

  • rate this

    Comment number 16.

    I am concerned about removing the corroboration requirement. There is a certain brand of bureaucrat that believes that we all have the right to be a criminal and that success in the justice system is about convicting greater numbers of people. We also need political supervision to return to the Crown Office. Career civil servants are not capable of providing what we require of a Lord Advocate.

  • rate this

    Comment number 9.

    According to this report, shortly after an arrest has been made the suspect is entitled to see a solicitor. So if an arrest is made late at night after a drunken affray, the tax payer will fund a lawyer to be there even when it would be better if he was allowed to sleep it off?
    I would do away with the right to remain silent.

  • rate this

    Comment number 6.

    With the exception of a small group of people most people don't know all their rights or how the legal system works in any detail and should be able to obtain guidance from a professional, non-biased person - hence a Lawyer - as soon as the law impacts their normal lives.


More Scotland stories



  • HandshakeKiss and make up

    A marriage counsellor on healing the referendum hurt

  • Pellet of plutoniumRed alert

    The scary element that helped save the crew of Apollo 13

  • Burnt section of the Umayyad Mosque in the old city of AleppoBefore and after

    Satellite images reveal Syria's heritage trashed by war

  • Woman on the phone in office10 Things

    The most efficient break is 17 minutes, and more nuggets

  • Amir TaakiDark market

    The bitcoin wallet with controversial users

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.