:00:07. > :00:10.country if it cannot put away childish things. Tonight on
:00:10. > :00:16.Newsnight Scotland. Corroboration and the not proven verdict are
:00:16. > :00:19.distinctive parts of Scots law. We'll ask the Justice Secretary why
:00:19. > :00:23.he is considering getting rid of them. And the campaign to save the
:00:23. > :00:26.stone circle at Glasgow's Sighthill. Good evening. Will Scottish
:00:26. > :00:34.government plans to radically overhaul the justice system mean
:00:34. > :00:36.fewer convictions and threaten more miscarriages of justice? Those are
:00:36. > :00:39.just some of the concerns raised by the legal profession about
:00:39. > :00:41.proposals to abolish corroboration, where two pieces of evidence are
:00:41. > :00:43.needed before a conviction can be secured. Today, the Justice
:00:43. > :00:47.Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, signalled a rethink with additional
:00:47. > :00:57.safeguards now under consideration. But will it be enough to convince
:00:57. > :00:59.
:00:59. > :01:04.critical judges, sheriffs, advocates and solicitors? Two years
:01:04. > :01:08.ago, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Scotland's rules on police
:01:08. > :01:12.questioning of a suspect without a lawyer present did not comply with
:01:12. > :01:17.European human rights law. The so- called ruling led to prisoners
:01:18. > :01:22.being released and some retrials. As Nat Fraser sat in the dock, he
:01:22. > :01:27.showed very little emotion. For a second time he was found guilty of
:01:27. > :01:33.murdering his wife. The government asked a senior judge to lead a
:01:33. > :01:37.review of the system. He concluded that the Scottish tradition,
:01:37. > :01:42.requiring each piece of evidence to be corroborated, effectively backed
:01:42. > :01:45.up more than once, was based on medieval thinking. This was down to
:01:45. > :01:48.consultation and much of the response from the legal profession
:01:48. > :01:54.was that they would like to hang on to corroboration, thank you very
:01:54. > :01:58.much. It might be old but it does not archaic and it serves a very
:01:58. > :02:03.useful purpose and a purpose in terms of ensuring the quality of
:02:03. > :02:07.the evidence which goes to the jury. Today, the Justice Secretary said
:02:07. > :02:12.he still wants to abolish corroboration but he is opening a
:02:12. > :02:18.new consultation on what the new safeguards might be. At the moment
:02:18. > :02:22.the Scottish jury can convict on a majority. Can that be changed to 10
:02:22. > :02:28.or nine out of 15? Should it be easier for the judge to rule there
:02:28. > :02:32.is no case to one Sir? And what about the nightly -- uniquely
:02:32. > :02:37.Scottish not proven verdict? Does that still retain winning or does
:02:37. > :02:41.it offer the potential to confuse juries and the public? The
:02:41. > :02:48.consultation is open until March. A short while ago I spoke to the
:02:48. > :02:51.Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill. I first asked him, why the rethink?
:02:51. > :02:55.It isn't a rethink, we are taking time to make sure we get things
:02:55. > :02:59.right. We are intent on implementing the review. It is
:03:00. > :03:03.quite clear that people take the view with some understandable
:03:03. > :03:09.reasons why they think they should be safeguards if we're going to
:03:09. > :03:15.abolish the law of corroboration. We want to make sure we get these
:03:15. > :03:19.safeguards but we are intent on implementing the review and it is a
:03:19. > :03:21.fundamental statement of the law of Scotland from the first arrest.
:03:21. > :03:27.have been criticised for essentially rushing the review
:03:27. > :03:31.following on from that decision. The new quickly endorsed the
:03:31. > :03:34.proposals, particularly on corroboration. Now we have the
:03:34. > :03:39.second consultation. Doesn't that indicate not only a rethink but the
:03:39. > :03:44.fact that you perhaps acted too quickly beforehand? I don't think
:03:44. > :03:48.so, it was necessary to bring in emergency legislation after the
:03:48. > :03:53.decision and that was agreed by the whole Parliament. Clearly we then
:03:53. > :03:57.had to make sure we got things right so we got Lord Carnalea, our
:03:57. > :03:59.second most senior judge, to consider matters and he has come
:04:00. > :04:05.back and the matters he mentioned that have to be clarified and given
:04:05. > :04:08.further consideration were not part of his remit, such as a majority
:04:08. > :04:12.verdict and juries but we are intent on implementing the review
:04:12. > :04:14.and we are grateful for all the work he has done. We think it is
:04:14. > :04:19.appropriate that we have an additional consultation to make
:04:19. > :04:23.sure that the points were correctly made and understandably made, that
:04:24. > :04:27.if corroboration goes, it must be balanced by safeguards and we will
:04:27. > :04:31.go to consultation on those safeguards and that will allow was
:04:31. > :04:36.to deliver the review and get the law of Scotland fundamentally fit
:04:36. > :04:40.for purpose in the 21st century. Why if you going to press ahead
:04:40. > :04:45.with abolishing corroboration, why is it appropriate to ignore the
:04:45. > :04:51.most senior judges in Scotland? They have talked about the fact
:04:51. > :04:56.this is a major safeguard. The justice of the piece as described
:04:57. > :05:04.the idea of removing it as perverse, the showers Association says it
:05:04. > :05:12.risks more wrongful convictions and all of those, are they wrong?
:05:12. > :05:15.senior judge was opposed by the second most wrote it. Equally, we
:05:15. > :05:19.have the police and the Chief Constable very much in support of
:05:19. > :05:24.the Lord and Civics Scotland so it is important and you are correct to
:05:24. > :05:28.point out the legal profession in its majority is opposed but our
:05:28. > :05:32.second most senior judge Trafford this and he has not but it isn't
:05:32. > :05:36.simply about the lawyers. This is about justice. About victims as
:05:36. > :05:41.much as those who preside in the courts and on that basis, I
:05:41. > :05:44.listened to the Chief Constable and Victim Support Scotland as well as
:05:44. > :05:48.taking condescends of the legal profession and it is on that basis
:05:48. > :05:51.that we go to further consult because many of the profession said
:05:51. > :05:55.that whilst they did not support the abolition of corroboration, if
:05:55. > :06:02.it was to go, there would have to be safeguards so that is what we
:06:02. > :06:12.are doing. Going out to consult. To make sure the scales of justice are
:06:12. > :06:15.
:06:15. > :06:21.Of will these reforms make the Scottish justice system less
:06:21. > :06:26.uniquely Scottish? No, I think they will make it fit for purpose in the
:06:26. > :06:31.21st century. Laws move and evolve and have to change with society. In
:06:31. > :06:35.Scotland we brought in the law against stalking. It has now coming
:06:36. > :06:40.south of the border. We change the legislation with regards to double
:06:40. > :06:43.jeopardy, and clearly that was a law that had been sacrosanct for
:06:43. > :06:48.many years. So what we have to do is make sure that the law in
:06:48. > :06:51.Scotland is fit for purpose in the 21st century, and also that it is
:06:52. > :07:01.not just fit for purpose for those in the legal profession, but fit
:07:02. > :07:02.
:07:02. > :07:05.for purpose for those who live in wider society. I'm joined now by
:07:05. > :07:10.the advocate and former head of the National Sexual Crimes Unit, Derek
:07:10. > :07:15.Ogg QC. What do you say about that
:07:15. > :07:20.discussion about making the law fit for purpose for the 21st century?
:07:20. > :07:24.have no doubt that Kenny MacAskill or any of the figures in Scottish
:07:24. > :07:28.government, that their intention is to have a modern legal system that
:07:28. > :07:32.is fit for everyone. You heard the Justice Secretary say that it has
:07:32. > :07:37.got to be fair for victims of crime and those alleged to be
:07:37. > :07:42.perpetrators, and that his lawyer talk. We have got to maintain that
:07:42. > :07:47.people are innocent until they are proven guilty. I don't think Kenny
:07:47. > :07:52.MacAskill can be criticised for his position today. He went to
:07:52. > :07:57.consultation. A lot of people come and say, we are not necessarily
:07:57. > :08:02.married to corroboration, but it is a safeguard. No victim once a
:08:02. > :08:07.wrongful conviction. If you're determined to get rid of it, then
:08:07. > :08:14.you have to have Malden, effective safeguards in its place, as they do
:08:14. > :08:18.in England. And he has come out and quite sensibly in a mature way as
:08:18. > :08:24.governments are supposed to behave, said we have listened, come up with
:08:24. > :08:29.some ideas and we will see what we think. What should those safeguards
:08:29. > :08:33.be? That is the question. So what about the safeguards he suggested?
:08:33. > :08:37.I think it is right to increase the majority for a guilty verdict if we
:08:37. > :08:45.do away with corroboration. I have come round to the way of thinking
:08:45. > :08:50.that the verdict should perhaps be this - Provan and not proven. That
:08:50. > :08:56.will concentrate the jury's mind on what their job is. They were not
:08:56. > :09:00.eye witnesses. They have to listen to the evidence. The question is,
:09:00. > :09:04.has the Crown proved its case beyond reasonable doubt? The answer
:09:04. > :09:11.is they either have proved it or they have not. It may be that those
:09:11. > :09:15.are the two verdicts we should have. And what about the majority? This
:09:15. > :09:18.consultation suggests that it could be eight or nine out of 15, or
:09:18. > :09:22.should we move towards the English system where they are the look for
:09:22. > :09:26.a unanimous verdict or something much higher in terms of a majority?
:09:26. > :09:30.I think they should be a substantial majority, because it is
:09:30. > :09:35.logical that is something is proved beyond reasonable doubt, it should
:09:35. > :09:39.be approved by a substantial majority. One judge said to me, it
:09:39. > :09:45.is easier to convict someone of murder in Scotland by a majority
:09:45. > :09:52.than it is to change there rules of your Golf Club, which normally
:09:52. > :09:57.require a 2000 majority of members voting. I would be in favour of
:09:57. > :10:02.reducing the size of the jury to 12 and increasing the majority to 10.
:10:02. > :10:12.But other safeguards, judges should have the power to assess quality of
:10:12. > :10:12.
:10:12. > :10:17.evidence and not allow THAT is so ropey to go to a jury. -- not allow
:10:17. > :10:19.it a case that is ropey. He thank you very much. It's been a
:10:19. > :10:22.few centuries since Glasgow's Sighthill has been the site of
:10:22. > :10:26.midsummer parties. Dominated by tower blocks and overlooking the M8,
:10:26. > :10:29.it is a less than bucolic spot these days. But it is also the site
:10:29. > :10:32.of the only astronomically aligned stone circle to have been built in
:10:32. > :10:35.Scotland for around 3,000 years. Now there are fears that the circle
:10:35. > :10:45.could be taken down as part of plans to regenerate the area. Our
:10:45. > :10:50.
:10:50. > :10:57.local government correspondent It is one of Glasgow's best-kept
:10:57. > :11:02.secrets. An astronomical stone circle within walking distance of
:11:02. > :11:07.the city centre. The stones are carefully placed to mark the
:11:07. > :11:16.positions of the Sun and the moon. All of the Stones and the circle
:11:16. > :11:20.have astronomical -- astrological alignments. The shadow will fall to
:11:21. > :11:25.the central stone, and the central stone's shadow will fall on to the
:11:25. > :11:31.midwinter sunset marker, which is where hopefully we will see it go
:11:31. > :11:38.down in a few days. But this stone circle is certainly
:11:38. > :11:48.not the work of prehistoric man. This may seem like an ancient site,
:11:48. > :11:51.
:11:52. > :11:56.but it is barely 30 years old. The In fact, it was a job-creation
:11:56. > :12:01.project, but no mean feat either. A helicopter helped put the stones
:12:01. > :12:06.into place. Though the circle was never completed, and attracted the
:12:06. > :12:08.ire of some natural -- national politicians. It was denounced in
:12:08. > :12:14.the House of Commons almost immediately after the initial phase
:12:14. > :12:22.was completed by either Mrs Thatcher or Sir Keith Joseph. It is
:12:22. > :12:30.not clear who said it. But they said, it will be no more nonsense.
:12:30. > :12:36.But at least they had heard of it. Stuart Braithwaite is the guitarist
:12:36. > :12:41.in a local group whose father was a respected astronomer and one of the
:12:41. > :12:44.creators. This is a beautiful, beautiful thing that should be part
:12:44. > :12:50.of Glasgow's heritage and culture, and they think that the people
:12:50. > :12:54.would love to come up here and see the view. It is a great atmosphere.
:12:54. > :12:58.I think they should be better sign age. People should know where this
:12:58. > :13:02.is. And it would be great if they had a little plaque telling some of
:13:02. > :13:05.their history about it, the history of the people that made it, and
:13:05. > :13:12.they think it would be a great thing for the community.
:13:12. > :13:16.But does the circle have a future? There are plans for a massive
:13:16. > :13:22.redevelopment of Sighthill, and that means the possibility the
:13:22. > :13:27.stones may be removed. It is a fantastic opportunity, a fantastic
:13:27. > :13:30.regeneration opportunity for the City, where we propose to spend
:13:30. > :13:33.around �250 million to complete the redevelop the area to provide new
:13:33. > :13:36.housing, new schools and effectively reconnect Sighthill
:13:36. > :13:40.with the city centre by the introduction of new bridges
:13:40. > :13:45.connecting it to the city. I think it is a once in a generation
:13:45. > :13:48.opportunity on the back of the Olympic Games bid of 2018 to bring
:13:48. > :13:52.forward regeneration proposals by 20 years.
:13:52. > :13:56.There is something we need to emphasise here, there is no
:13:56. > :14:00.suggestion that the Youth Olympics should not happen. There is no
:14:00. > :14:05.suggestion that the redevelopment of Sighthill should not happen. All
:14:05. > :14:10.that we need to do to preserve the circle is to put a bend into the
:14:10. > :14:14.green pedestrian street that his plans to go through here. Just put
:14:14. > :14:20.a bend in it and the circle can stand aside it as a feature. It is
:14:20. > :14:27.too early on in the process to have a definitive position on that. What
:14:27. > :14:29.we have done is meet on this subject and mentioned that if it is
:14:29. > :14:34.affected by the development proposals, we are happy to work
:14:34. > :14:42.with them and looking at how we can move and store the statues and find
:14:43. > :14:47.This Friday, an event is taking place at the circle to mark the
:14:47. > :14:57.winter solstice. So, will it survive into the future as it is,
:14:57. > :14:57.
:14:57. > :15:04.Jamie MacKay the reporting there. Now a quick look at tomorrow's
:15:04. > :15:08.front pages. The Scotsman leaves on a story that we were covering