Analysis: Sad loss of key safeguard in our justice system

And so farewell, corroboration. Your time has come. Our government welcomed the 2011 report by Lord Carloway into aspects of our justice system in light of the Cadder case (when the UK Supreme Court pointed out that, like almost everywhere else, Scotland should allow a suspect to speak to a solicitor before being interviewed).

It contained much that would modernise our system and make it human-rights proof in many ways. Unfortunately, it also recommended the abolition of corroboration due to it being “archaic” and a barrier to the conviction of some guilty people.

Some saw this change as involving a necessary rebalancing of the system to compensate for the convictions that previously depended on confession evidence, typically rape cases where the fact of intercourse must be corroborated.

Others suggested this was too simplistic a view, and, in any event, even after Cadder, most suspects were still interviewed without legal advice, as many seem not to understand their rights and the implications of being interviewed without advice.

Despite corroboration being seen by many, including all of the rest of our High Court judges, as an essential safeguard against miscarriages of justice, our government agreed it had to go. Decisive and modern? Certainly. Implications fully thought through? Not at all. Based on good evidence? No.

Statistically insignificant and artificial testing done for the Carloway Review suggested there would be more convictions without corroboration. Little thought seems to have been given to the quality of convictions in the absence of corroboration.

Any system can increase convictions by removing essential safeguards, but a safeguard-free, target-led justice system will guarantee the conviction of the innocent along with the guilty. There can never be a correct number or percentage of convictions. They should always depend on the quality of the evidence.

It has been suggested that corroboration was only about quantity of evidence – just count to two – but to many it offered a quality check and avoided prosecutions being mounted on the word of a single witness.

No doubt emboldened by the support of Chick Young (yes, that one), the decision to abolish corroboration was announced before the rather embarrassing further consultation into what might, er, replace corroboration as a safeguard. Talk about sentence first, verdict afterwards.

And so, majority in hand and, consequently, only a rather submissive justice committee in the way, a key safeguard against miscarriages looks likely to go without any satisfactory answer as to its replacement. No doubt the bill will suggest something, perhaps minor change to the majority required for a guilty verdict – ten rather than eight out of 15 for a guilty verdict? If so, they should be ashamed because there is no-one who can offer the wrongly accused any comfort in such tinkering.

And most cases don’t involve juries. What safeguards for them? The High Court judges suggested a proper review of the whole system of safeguards. Sadly, the government seems to see this as a vote-winner as opposed to senseless vandalism of justice.

• John Scott, QC, is a leading human rights lawyer.