6 ms·

He thankfully had independent evidence to corroborate his assertion that the charge was false. In Scotland, prosecutors only require to provide the evidence th

by mortov 13y ago

He thankfully had independent evidence to corroborate his assertion that the charge was false. In Scotland, prosecutors only require to provide the evidence they intend to use against you; any other evidence, including exculpatory evidence can (and is) withheld - it's up to you to find that by yourself. Your only safeguard is the requirement for corroboration - a second piece of evidence to confirm what is suggested by another; in this case the informant's pictures would be considered corroboration of his claim. The Scottish Government is currently trying to remove the requirement for corroboration completely so a single allegation (without any supporting evidence) is sufficient for a conviction. What could possibly go wrong ?

DanBC 13y ago
But if they've seized the surveillance tapes that you made can you get those somehow? And if the evidence is as clear as these tapes apparently were why would they even continue with a prosecution? They must know that the tapes are going to be released at some point? It shows the importance of off-site backup. Sending the video to an off site store would have allowed his legal team to get access much earlier. You're right about the Scottish situation being scary.
- phaemon 13y ago
  The situation of Scotland removing a requirement that no other legal system has is "scary"? Why?
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Removing the need for evidence means more miscarriages of justice. In the article seven other cases are now being looked at because they might be wrong. That's a lot of time and money chasing innocent people, and not chasing guilty people. That's a lot of goodwill lost. Since we are policed with our consent they need all the goodwill they can get.
    - phaemon 13y ago
      But it doesn't remove the need for evidence. It actually allows more evidence to be produced and weighed. Do you have an argument for why the this corroboration rule, that no other country has, is actually a good thing? I'm willing to be convinced if there's a reasonable argument in favour.
      - Kliment 13y ago
        Because the prosecution is allowed to withhold any evidence that is in favor of the accused. If THAT were removed as well, and could be enforced, then the corroboration requirement would be unnecessary.
      - mortov 13y ago
        Corroboration is a safeguard against flawed accusations being given more credence than they deserve. There needs to be something to support an allegation other than simply 'me' accusing 'you' of a criminal act. While this is perhaps not called 'corroboration' in the way it is enshrined in current Scottish legislation, it is generally required - indeed, the Grand Jury in this case are, as I understand it, tasked with considering the allegation and any evidence the police have in order to consider if the allegation has merit before the case can proceed. To my mind, this sounds like a corroboration requirement by a different name. While Scotland has it's share of miscarriages of justice, corroboration does act as a safeguard against some of the circumstances where a miscarriage can happen. The concentration on various 'straw men' - typically involving cases of uncorroborated claims of sexual assaults as these are highly emotive - in the debate is a disservice which is setting Scotland up to become little more than a series of kangaroo courts (in my opinion). In the particular cases of [extremely rare] uncorroborated sexual assaults, convictions are often obtainable via the Moorov Doctrine where the same accused has often engaged in multiple independent acts which, as a whole, are considered corroboration. [In "American": the same MO points to the single suspect.] [Sexual assaults often have forensic evidence as corroboration so unlike the emotive arguments put forward, they do not actually always end up as he-said, she-said credibility competitions.]
      - scotty79 13y ago
        Policemen claiming something is evidence. If only one evidence is needed then it will be as in US. And that's scary.
  - webreac 13y ago
    Have you heard about the difference between the English adversarial system and the inquisitorial system ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system
johnchristopher 13y ago
It reminds me of that scene in "In the name of the father" which shows how one of the lawyer got access to some exculpatory evidences on a blunder from the "archivist". That and the "torture works to extract information" mentality pictured a frightening dystopia. Except it was not a dystopia and actually took place and still does in some part of the world.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Some part? It's very common in EVERY country, including the best of Western democracies. This very case happened in New York, not some third world dictatorship -- and tons of similar things happen all over.
anigbrowl 13y ago
The Scottish Government is currently trying to remove the requirement for corroboration completely so a single allegation (without any supporting evidence) is sufficient for a conviction. I seriously doubt that. Please cite a reliable source or an original document for this, I suspect you've misunderstood a proposal and drastically exaggerated what it means.
- rhizome 13y ago
  GP appears to misunderstand to what "corroboration" applies (evidence, not allegations), but he's not completely wrong, and at any rate an explanation is not hard to find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroboration_in_Scots_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroboration_in_Scots_law
- spikels 13y ago
  Here's a BBC article but it has been discussed frequently in the Scottish press. Google is your friend. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25731836 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-2573...

by mortov 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

But if they've seized the surveillance tapes that you made can you get those somehow? And if the evidence is as clear as these tapes apparently were why would they even continue with a prosecution? They must know that the tapes are going to be released at some point? It shows the importance of off-site backup. Sending the video to an off site store would have allowed his legal team to get access much earlier. You're right about the Scottish situation being scary.

phaemon 13y ago
The situation of Scotland removing a requirement that no other legal system has is "scary"? Why?
- DanBC 13y ago
  Removing the need for evidence means more miscarriages of justice. In the article seven other cases are now being looked at because they might be wrong. That's a lot of time and money chasing innocent people, and not chasing guilty people. That's a lot of goodwill lost. Since we are policed with our consent they need all the goodwill they can get.
  - phaemon 13y ago
    But it doesn't remove the need for evidence. It actually allows more evidence to be produced and weighed. Do you have an argument for why the this corroboration rule, that no other country has, is actually a good thing? I'm willing to be convinced if there's a reasonable argument in favour.
    - Kliment 13y ago
      Because the prosecution is allowed to withhold any evidence that is in favor of the accused. If THAT were removed as well, and could be enforced, then the corroboration requirement would be unnecessary.
    - mortov 13y ago
      Corroboration is a safeguard against flawed accusations being given more credence than they deserve. There needs to be something to support an allegation other than simply 'me' accusing 'you' of a criminal act. While this is perhaps not called 'corroboration' in the way it is enshrined in current Scottish legislation, it is generally required - indeed, the Grand Jury in this case are, as I understand it, tasked with considering the allegation and any evidence the police have in order to consider if the allegation has merit before the case can proceed. To my mind, this sounds like a corroboration requirement by a different name. While Scotland has it's share of miscarriages of justice, corroboration does act as a safeguard against some of the circumstances where a miscarriage can happen. The concentration on various 'straw men' - typically involving cases of uncorroborated claims of sexual assaults as these are highly emotive - in the debate is a disservice which is setting Scotland up to become little more than a series of kangaroo courts (in my opinion). In the particular cases of [extremely rare] uncorroborated sexual assaults, convictions are often obtainable via the Moorov Doctrine where the same accused has often engaged in multiple independent acts which, as a whole, are considered corroboration. [In "American": the same MO points to the single suspect.] [Sexual assaults often have forensic evidence as corroboration so unlike the emotive arguments put forward, they do not actually always end up as he-said, she-said credibility competitions.]
    - scotty79 13y ago
      Policemen claiming something is evidence. If only one evidence is needed then it will be as in US. And that's scary.
- webreac 13y ago
  Have you heard about the difference between the English adversarial system and the inquisitorial system ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

johnchristopher 13y ago

It reminds me of that scene in "In the name of the father" which shows how one of the lawyer got access to some exculpatory evidences on a blunder from the "archivist". That and the "torture works to extract information" mentality pictured a frightening dystopia. Except it was not a dystopia and actually took place and still does in some part of the world.

coldtea 13y ago
Some part? It's very common in EVERY country, including the best of Western democracies. This very case happened in New York, not some third world dictatorship -- and tons of similar things happen all over.

anigbrowl 13y ago

The Scottish Government is currently trying to remove the requirement for corroboration completely so a single allegation (without any supporting evidence) is sufficient for a conviction. I seriously doubt that. Please cite a reliable source or an original document for this, I suspect you've misunderstood a proposal and drastically exaggerated what it means.

rhizome 13y ago
GP appears to misunderstand to what "corroboration" applies (evidence, not allegations), but he's not completely wrong, and at any rate an explanation is not hard to find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroboration_in_Scots_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroboration_in_Scots_law
spikels 13y ago
Here's a BBC article but it has been discussed frequently in the Scottish press. Google is your friend. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25731836 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-2573...