Scottish judges asked to overturn rape case rule ‘barrier’

Last year the Lord Advocate secured an important change in the rules on evidence of distress in rape cases.

She has followed that up by asking the High Court to rule that the judges in 1937 were wrong.

Dorothy Bain will argue that statements taken from alleged victims shortly after the offence should be allowed to corroborate other evidence that the crime happened and the accused was the perpetrator.

Law lecturer Dr Andrew Tickell, from Glasgow Caledonian University, said it would amount to a very significant change.

“This would effectively be the end of corroboration as we’ve known it for almost 100 years in Scotland,” he said. “That is a huge intervention in the justice system.

“It would mean we could rely on the evidence of a single witness potentially to corroborate far more than they can under the current law.”

If the Lord Advocate wins, it would mean more cases involving rape and other sexual offences will go to court, although no-one can say how many.

Dr Tickell said that would amount to a significant change to Scots Law without the approval of the Scottish Parliament and might increase the pressure on a court system already facing a major backlog in cases.

“Corroboration is seen in two different ways,” he said. “Some people see it as a safeguard against wrongful convictions but other people see it as a barrier to cases getting into court.

“If you have a lower corroboration threshold, it means you can bring more cases forward.

“That doesn’t mean the jury will convict, it doesn’t mean they’ll be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, but it means the cases can get to court.”