Corroboration in Scots law

The importance of corroboration is a unique feature of Scots criminal law. A cornerstone of Scots law, the requirement for corroborating evidence means at least two different and independent sources of evidence are required in support of each crucial fact before a defendant can be convicted of a crime. This means, for example, that an admission of guilt by the accused is insufficient evidence to convict in Scotland, because that evidence needs to be corroborated by another source. However, testimony from some experts, such as forensic medical examiners or doctors, is accepted by courts on the basis of the expert's report alone, therefore requiring no corroboration.

Corroboration had, in some way, already been established by the time the earliest Institutional Writers had begun to illustrate Scots criminal law. MacKenzie described the ‘singularity’ of witnesses, and their ‘contrariety’, as insufficient proof - subsequently repeated by Hume, ‘…no one shall in any case be convicted on the testimony of a single witness’. A similar statement appears in Alison. Corroboration can also be traced to Biblical sources. The New Testament stated, ‘In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established’ - although it is unlikely that the requirement is based solely from the bible. Corroboration also has origins in Roman law. The Code of Justinian read, ‘We plainly order that the evidence of only one witness shall not be taken’. It has been suggested that at this time, the requirement was based on the distrust of juries - however, it is suggested that it was the mistrust of judges instead, which allowed corroboration to take root.

Following the Cadder ruling in 2010, Lord Carloway was appointed to lead a review of the 'corroboration rule' - The Carloway Review. In this review, Lord Carloway gave the following proposal – the current requirement for corroboration in criminal cases should be abolished.

Corroboration is a key element of modern policing, in that Scottish Criminal law requires a sufficiency of evidence to be presented, in other words; "There must be sufficient admissible evidence, to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the crime or offence libelled"

This involves the principle of corroboration which means that one piece of evidence must be backed up by another piece of evidence.

It is the responsibility of the police to gather all available evidence and disclose it to the Crown. The Crown will decide what evidence will be led and in which court should a trial be required.

...
Wikipedia