Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Official Report
317KB pdf
New Petition
Corroboration (PE1436)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of a new petition: PE1436, by Colette Barrie, is on the abolition of the corroboration requirement. There is a note on the petition by the clerk—paper 1—and a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on it.
Probably all members will know that the Scottish Government set up the Carloway review. I understand that the responses to that review are due in by 5 October. I also understand that the Scottish Government’s legislative programme, which will be debated this afternoon, may contain a legal reform bill that will incorporate aspects of it, and that there may be reference to the Cadder ruling. Members will recall that we have had a long and detailed debate about legal representation.
I am sure that members will be aware from reading the papers that the retrospective abolition of the corroboration requirement is an essential element of the petition. The issue is interesting and requires members’ attention. There is quite a lot of detail. Members will be aware that corroboration has been an essential element of Scots law so the debate is a serious one. It is clear that there is a lot of sympathy from the Scottish Government on the issue. The other side of the coin is that many campaigners have raised awareness that corroboration often makes it quite difficult to get convictions in domestic abuse and rape cases. The petition is therefore very interesting and very good.
There is a strong argument for referring the petition to the Justice Committee, because it has already taken evidence on the matter. That is clearly for the committee as a whole to decide, so I am keen to hear members’ views.
As you know, the committee tends not to want to close or refer petitions on at the first hearing; rather, we always like to give them a little bit of a run through the system. However, I do not see any sense in taking a twin-track approach in which we would essentially duplicate the work of the Justice Committee. We are perfectly entitled to refer the petition to that committee so that it can incorporate it into its deliberations, rather than our simply going through the motions and repeating its work.
The petition is very interesting. Obviously, the Justice Committee is looking at some of the issues. I have sympathy with some aspects of the petition, and will be interested in what the Justice Committee comes up with on retrospective abolition of the corroboration requirement.
I agree with Mark McDonald. The petition and the issue are important. If the Justice Committee is taking evidence, I am not saying that we would miss the boat if we wrote to others and waited for them to reply, but the petition is best left to it. I agree with the convener’s recommendation.
I agree with the recommendation to pass the petition to the Justice Committee.
I concur with the general feeling of the committee. I also want to bring to its attention one of the most salient points, which is that removing the requirement for corroboration retrospectively or otherwise would not create any new criminal offences. I am happy to refer the matter to the Justice Committee.
Are members satisfied that we should formally refer the petition to the Justice Committee?
Members indicated agreement.