19/12/2012 Newsnight Scotland

country if it cannot put away childish things. Tonight on

Newsnight Scotland. Corroboration and the not proven verdict are

distinctive parts of Scots law. We'll ask the Justice Secretary why

he is considering getting rid of them. And the campaign to save the

stone circle at Glasgow's Sighthill. Good evening. Will Scottish

government plans to radically overhaul the justice system mean

fewer convictions and threaten more miscarriages of justice? Those are

just some of the concerns raised by the legal profession about

proposals to abolish corroboration, where two pieces of evidence are

needed before a conviction can be secured. Today, the Justice

Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, signalled a rethink with additional

safeguards now under consideration. But will it be enough to convince

critical judges, sheriffs, advocates and solicitors? Two years

ago, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Scotland's rules on police

questioning of a suspect without a lawyer present did not comply with

European human rights law. The so- called ruling led to prisoners

being released and some retrials. As Nat Fraser sat in the dock, he

showed very little emotion. For a second time he was found guilty of

murdering his wife. The government asked a senior judge to lead a

review of the system. He concluded that the Scottish tradition,

requiring each piece of evidence to be corroborated, effectively backed

up more than once, was based on medieval thinking. This was down to

consultation and much of the response from the legal profession

was that they would like to hang on to corroboration, thank you very

much. It might be old but it does not archaic and it serves a very

useful purpose and a purpose in terms of ensuring the quality of

the evidence which goes to the jury. Today, the Justice Secretary said

he still wants to abolish corroboration but he is opening a

new consultation on what the new safeguards might be. At the moment

the Scottish jury can convict on a majority. Can that be changed to 10

or nine out of 15? Should it be easier for the judge to rule there

is no case to one Sir? And what about the nightly -- uniquely

Scottish not proven verdict? Does that still retain winning or does

it offer the potential to confuse juries and the public? The

consultation is open until March. A short while ago I spoke to the

Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill. I first asked him, why the rethink?

It isn't a rethink, we are taking time to make sure we get things

right. We are intent on implementing the review. It is

quite clear that people take the view with some understandable

reasons why they think they should be safeguards if we're going to

abolish the law of corroboration. We want to make sure we get these

safeguards but we are intent on implementing the review and it is a

fundamental statement of the law of Scotland from the first arrest.

have been criticised for essentially rushing the review

following on from that decision. The new quickly endorsed the

proposals, particularly on corroboration. Now we have the

second consultation. Doesn't that indicate not only a rethink but the

fact that you perhaps acted too quickly beforehand? I don't think

so, it was necessary to bring in emergency legislation after the

decision and that was agreed by the whole Parliament. Clearly we then

had to make sure we got things right so we got Lord Carnalea, our

second most senior judge, to consider matters and he has come

back and the matters he mentioned that have to be clarified and given

further consideration were not part of his remit, such as a majority

verdict and juries but we are intent on implementing the review

and we are grateful for all the work he has done. We think it is

appropriate that we have an additional consultation to make

sure that the points were correctly made and understandably made, that

if corroboration goes, it must be balanced by safeguards and we will

go to consultation on those safeguards and that will allow was

to deliver the review and get the law of Scotland fundamentally fit

for purpose in the 21st century. Why if you going to press ahead

with abolishing corroboration, why is it appropriate to ignore the

most senior judges in Scotland? They have talked about the fact

this is a major safeguard. The justice of the piece as described

the idea of removing it as perverse, the showers Association says it

risks more wrongful convictions and all of those, are they wrong?

senior judge was opposed by the second most wrote it. Equally, we

have the police and the Chief Constable very much in support of

the Lord and Civics Scotland so it is important and you are correct to

point out the legal profession in its majority is opposed but our

second most senior judge Trafford this and he has not but it isn't

simply about the lawyers. This is about justice. About victims as

much as those who preside in the courts and on that basis, I

listened to the Chief Constable and Victim Support Scotland as well as

taking condescends of the legal profession and it is on that basis

that we go to further consult because many of the profession said

that whilst they did not support the abolition of corroboration, if

it was to go, there would have to be safeguards so that is what we

are doing. Going out to consult. To make sure the scales of justice are

Of will these reforms make the Scottish justice system less

uniquely Scottish? No, I think they will make it fit for purpose in the

21st century. Laws move and evolve and have to change with society. In

Scotland we brought in the law against stalking. It has now coming

south of the border. We change the legislation with regards to double

jeopardy, and clearly that was a law that had been sacrosanct for

many years. So what we have to do is make sure that the law in

Scotland is fit for purpose in the 21st century, and also that it is

not just fit for purpose for those in the legal profession, but fit

for purpose for those who live in wider society. I'm joined now by

the advocate and former head of the National Sexual Crimes Unit, Derek

Ogg QC. What do you say about that

discussion about making the law fit for purpose for the 21st century?

have no doubt that Kenny MacAskill or any of the figures in Scottish

government, that their intention is to have a modern legal system that

is fit for everyone. You heard the Justice Secretary say that it has

got to be fair for victims of crime and those alleged to be

perpetrators, and that his lawyer talk. We have got to maintain that

people are innocent until they are proven guilty. I don't think Kenny

MacAskill can be criticised for his position today. He went to

consultation. A lot of people come and say, we are not necessarily

married to corroboration, but it is a safeguard. No victim once a

wrongful conviction. If you're determined to get rid of it, then

you have to have Malden, effective safeguards in its place, as they do

in England. And he has come out and quite sensibly in a mature way as

governments are supposed to behave, said we have listened, come up with

some ideas and we will see what we think. What should those safeguards

be? That is the question. So what about the safeguards he suggested?

I think it is right to increase the majority for a guilty verdict if we

do away with corroboration. I have come round to the way of thinking

that the verdict should perhaps be this - Provan and not proven. That

will concentrate the jury's mind on what their job is. They were not

eye witnesses. They have to listen to the evidence. The question is,

has the Crown proved its case beyond reasonable doubt? The answer

is they either have proved it or they have not. It may be that those

are the two verdicts we should have. And what about the majority? This

consultation suggests that it could be eight or nine out of 15, or

should we move towards the English system where they are the look for

a unanimous verdict or something much higher in terms of a majority?

I think they should be a substantial majority, because it is

logical that is something is proved beyond reasonable doubt, it should

be approved by a substantial majority. One judge said to me, it

is easier to convict someone of murder in Scotland by a majority

than it is to change there rules of your Golf Club, which normally

require a 2000 majority of members voting. I would be in favour of

reducing the size of the jury to 12 and increasing the majority to 10.

But other safeguards, judges should have the power to assess quality of

evidence and not allow THAT is so ropey to go to a jury. -- not allow

it a case that is ropey. He thank you very much. It's been a

few centuries since Glasgow's Sighthill has been the site of

midsummer parties. Dominated by tower blocks and overlooking the M8,

it is a less than bucolic spot these days. But it is also the site

of the only astronomically aligned stone circle to have been built in

Scotland for around 3,000 years. Now there are fears that the circle

could be taken down as part of plans to regenerate the area. Our

local government correspondent It is one of Glasgow's best-kept

secrets. An astronomical stone circle within walking distance of

the city centre. The stones are carefully placed to mark the

positions of the Sun and the moon. All of the Stones and the circle

have astronomical -- astrological alignments. The shadow will fall to

the central stone, and the central stone's shadow will fall on to the

midwinter sunset marker, which is where hopefully we will see it go

down in a few days. But this stone circle is certainly

not the work of prehistoric man. This may seem like an ancient site,

but it is barely 30 years old. The In fact, it was a job-creation

project, but no mean feat either. A helicopter helped put the stones

into place. Though the circle was never completed, and attracted the

ire of some natural -- national politicians. It was denounced in

the House of Commons almost immediately after the initial phase

was completed by either Mrs Thatcher or Sir Keith Joseph. It is

not clear who said it. But they said, it will be no more nonsense.

But at least they had heard of it. Stuart Braithwaite is the guitarist

in a local group whose father was a respected astronomer and one of the

creators. This is a beautiful, beautiful thing that should be part

of Glasgow's heritage and culture, and they think that the people

would love to come up here and see the view. It is a great atmosphere.

I think they should be better sign age. People should know where this

is. And it would be great if they had a little plaque telling some of

their history about it, the history of the people that made it, and

they think it would be a great thing for the community.

But does the circle have a future? There are plans for a massive

redevelopment of Sighthill, and that means the possibility the

stones may be removed. It is a fantastic opportunity, a fantastic

regeneration opportunity for the City, where we propose to spend

around �250 million to complete the redevelop the area to provide new

housing, new schools and effectively reconnect Sighthill

with the city centre by the introduction of new bridges

connecting it to the city. I think it is a once in a generation

opportunity on the back of the Olympic Games bid of 2018 to bring

forward regeneration proposals by 20 years.

There is something we need to emphasise here, there is no

suggestion that the Youth Olympics should not happen. There is no

suggestion that the redevelopment of Sighthill should not happen. All

that we need to do to preserve the circle is to put a bend into the

green pedestrian street that his plans to go through here. Just put

a bend in it and the circle can stand aside it as a feature. It is

too early on in the process to have a definitive position on that. What

we have done is meet on this subject and mentioned that if it is

affected by the development proposals, we are happy to work

with them and looking at how we can move and store the statues and find

This Friday, an event is taking place at the circle to mark the

winter solstice. So, will it survive into the future as it is,

Jamie MacKay the reporting there. Now a quick look at tomorrow's

front pages. The Scotsman leaves on a story that we were covering