Corroboration in rape cases

[IlianaDupree]

Does anyone know anything about corroboration in rape cases?

I think it's scottish law and as I'm not legally minded I don't really get it, so if anyone does know what it's about could you explain it in simple terms, thank you ever so much.

There are proposals around to change the corroboration part so I'd like to understand it.

I will be posting in legal too.

Yes, it is Scots law which I don't know that much about but as far as I can tell, there is currently a requirement for there to be more than one piece of evidence bearing witness to a crime. I'm not sure how this works in practice but it would mean that just the victim's testimony would not be enough, there would have to be other evidence eg evidence of physical damage.

According to the article below the prosecution currently have to prove that sex took place, that the victim did not consent and that the defendant knew the victim did not consent. In English law, you only have to prove that the defendant did not reasonably believe the victim consented. Obviously this is very subjective and physical evidence of force would really help the prosecution prove their case, but it is not a requirement as it is in Scotland.

In England the prosecution would be able to draw on other things from the victim's testimony to back up their story, such as the relationship between them, background, context etc. In English law there are guidelines which help the court decide whether D reasonably believed he had consent. [[http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/ guidelines here]

www.holyrood.com/2011/11/rape-charity-welcomes-corroboration-proposal/

guidelines here

There was a law in action podcast on corroboration - probably a year or two ago now, I'll try and find it...

I think this was what I was thinking of. Not specifically about corroboration but it was definitely mentioned, and in the context of rape.

Thankyou

All seems to be weighted towards the suspect, no surprise.

Yes - and I'm not sure why that human rights woman is going on about right to a fair trial being endangered. 'Reasonable belief' is a key thing in lots of bits of English law and seems to work OK, if anything it is quite lenient to the defendant but that is standard when there is a potential custodial sentence.

I know, there doesn't seem to be much concern from her for the human rights of the victim.

I'm contemplating looking at EU law as most stuff I've been looking at is often discounted under EU law.