4 replies to this topic

[RyanF109]

I'm having difficulty understanding one particular part of some notes I have here on the sufficiency of evidence. Could somebody explain what is meant by the second point, explaining under what circumstances a single witness account may be accepted...

May be accepted if it is sufficient for conviction if there are two witnesses whom the court believes irrespective of the number of contradictory witnesses whose evidence is disbelieved.

[smt]

I know little about Scottish law but after reading that paragraph it sounds to me like they're saying:

providing there are at least two witnesses, the offender can be convicted (notwithstanding the offender producing their own witnesses (if the court disbelieves their testimony)).

[SkinSte]

With the caveat I know nothing about Scottish law, to me that reads that as long as there are two pieces of corroborating evidence from two witnesses then that may be found to be the truth even if you have 3 or more winesses who's evidence corroborates an alternative view if the court deems the former more believable than the latter.

[smt]

With the caveat I know nothing about Scottish law, to me that reads that as long as there are two pieces of corroborating evidence from two witnesses then that may be found to be the truth even if you have 3 or more winesses who's evidence corroborates an alternative view if the court deems the former more believable than the latter.

That's how I read it too.

Perhaps this simplifies things:

Common Law

At Common Law, the evidence of a single witness, however credible, is not sufficient to prove a charge against an accused person, or to establish any critical and material fact, such as the identification of the accused. There must be corroboration of the evidence of that witness, either by the testimony of another witness or by evidence of facts and circumstances. At Common Law, it suffices for conviction if there are two witnesses whom the court believes, irrespective of the number of contradictory witnesses whose evidence is disbelieved.

[MacGregor]

A single witness account can be accepted where there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to corroborate the testimony of the witness. Page 106 of the Jury Manual 2012 (section 2.1.5) has a nice little section that explains the idea quite well.