Appeal court rules that distress displayed by complainers to witnesses can be used to corroborate rape claims (Scotland)

[IwantToRetire]

Scottish judges’ ruling on sexual assault prosecutions hailed as ‘seismic’

“Most rape cases never make it to court. In many cases, this is because of the requirement in Scotland for corroboration. Up until now, this has meant that every piece of evidence must be backed up by another piece. This is an issue which particularly affects sexual crime cases.

“Survivors of sexual violence often delay reporting what has happened to them, for a variety of reasons. This means that it isn’t always possible to gather forensic evidence to prove that penetration occurred. In England, if a woman is raped or sexually abused but does not report or undergo a forensic medical exam within a short timeframe, it is still possible for her case to get to court. In Scotland, this is far less likely. This isn’t acceptable.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/18/scotland-judges-ruling-on-sexual-assault-prosecutions-hailed-as-seismic

.
Hundreds of rape victims who were told there was 'not enough evidence' to prosecute their attackers are set to use a new Scottish law to re-open their cases as victim testimonies will now count as evidence

• Independent testimony showing distress can be used in court for the first time
• Now charity urges women to contact police if they believe ruling could be used to bring them justice

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12657283/Hundreds-rape-victims-told-not-evidence-prosecute-attackers-set-use-new-Scottish-law-open-cases-victim-testimonies-count-evidence.html

Is the difference in Scotland, about corroboration, to do with the Scottish system being “Inquisitorial” rather than the “Adversarial” common law system in the rest of the UK?

I came across this video by chance, which mentioned that difference due to different histories in the development of the legal systems in Scotland and the rest of the UK. I knew that Scottish law was related to French law but not what that meant in practice.

Or is this a red herring??

I have no idea. I didn't even know this about corroboration. Its grotesque.

I had hoped to come back to this thread and find lots of informed comment.

Not only is there no information, but just one comment.

How strange, when rape and how the justice system deals with it is so fundamental to how women continue to be oppressed by the male state.

It was the whole crux of why that bastard who was acquitted of the rape of the 13 year old had his conviction quashed.

New changes to corroboration rules - an explainer

Up until now, every piece of evidence for every part of a crime must be backed up by another piece. This is corroboration. This is an issue which particularly affects sexual crime cases. Up until this week, for a rape to be prosecuted in Scotland, corroboration was needed for each element of the crime, so lack of consent, the identity of the accused, and penetration all had to be separately corroborated.

Last week, the High Court of Justiciary Appeal published a judgement about how corroboration is used in Scottish criminal trials. The judgement was published after the Lord Advocate had asked the Court to review how corroboration is used, specifically, requirements for corroboration in sexual offence cases.

This judgment sets out that from now, while corroboration is still required, there is no requirement to prove the separate elements of a crime by corroborated evidence. This is a seismic change, and one we hope will improve access to justice in relation to rape and sexual abuse.

Read Rape Crisis Scotland explainer here https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/news/new-changes-to-corroboration-rules---an-explainer/

The story of three women who led the way in changing the law around proving corroboration in Scotland.

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/the-sisterhood-behind-the-change-to-corroboration-laws-in-scotland