Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Loophole on spouses' evidence to be closed



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 May 2008
HUSBANDS and wives will no longer be able to refuse to give evidence against each other in court, under a planned change to the law announced by Kenny MacAskill.
The justice secretary said he intends to repeal the legislation on so-called "spousal compellability" in a move that is intended to address fears that couples are exploiting the legal loophole to avoid jail sentences.

A husband, wife or civil part
ner can currently refuse to give evidence against their other half if that person is to stand trial, except when one half of a couple has been the victim of an offence committed by their partner.

The previous Scottish Executive published a consultation paper on the issue in 2006. Following that, the SNP administration has decided to repeal Section 264 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and Section 130 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

The move will mean couples, whether married or in a civil partnership, will no longer have legal protection to avoid giving evidence.

The action is intended to address concerns that the law can be exploited in cases where violence against a couple's children has taken place and the spouse is a witness.

Ministers are also concerned that the law does not currently prevent an accused from marrying the key witness for the prosecution in order to undermine the Crown's case.

A murder trial at the High Court in Paisley in 2005 collapsed when the accused, William Ferrie, married the dead man's former girlfriend prior to the trial, thus forcing the Crown to drop the case.

Mr MacAskill said: "For too long, spouses have been able to escape justice thanks to laws that mean their other half does not have to give evidence against them.

"This is not acceptable and has resulted in the past in people marrying their partners prior to trial, for example on a charge of abusing their children, just to avoid having to give evidence against them.

"Changing the law will boost protection for children and prevent couples covering up for each other… It is entirely unreasonable that where a child is assaulted or a crime committed justice is thwarted due to a marriage. That loophole needs to be closed for justice to be served.

"Marriage is an important institution and should not be a means of avoiding answering awkward questions in court."

Robert Black, professor emeritus of Scots law at Edinburgh University, said the loophole was "an anachronism".

"The policy is based on the view that marriage is so sacrosanct that the law should not ask one spouse to say anything that may incriminate the other. Today, that view either doesn't exist, or it is held by very few people."

However, a spokesman for the Law Society of Scotland said that Mr MacAskill's desire to amend the law in this area "may rest upon an over-exaggerated conception of any undesirable problems resulting from the current law".

He added: "Dworkin's maxim is appropriate in this regard – 'Hard cases make bad law'."



The full article contains 507 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 May 2008 10:32 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Legal Issues
 
1

Guga II,

Rockall 05/05/2008 04:33:03
I can see the force of a change in the law in cases involving children of the spouses concerned. I can also see the force of a change in the law to prevent abuses such as marrying someone to prevent them giving evidence, but it looks like Kenny MacAskill has jumped in boots and all, once again, and intends this legislation to cover every married couple, in all circumstances.

This is the same waste of space that doesn't want to gaol anyone under the age of 18, even if they are violent neds and thugs. This is also the waste of space, and known drinker, that wants to punish everyone that enjoys the odd drink by forcing supermarkets to charge more for alcohol. This, according to his weird logic, will stop underage people drinking. The man is living on another planet.

In any event, MacAskill is not fit for purpose. He should be booted out of that job before he does Scotland, and the Scottish people, some real harm.
2

yockel,

05/05/2008 06:43:07
Did anyone bother to establish why this was a priniciple of Scots Law in the first place? Was it introduced to prevent a greater harm than would be caused without the rule. Too often we see legislators amending the law because they don't actually understand what the current law is or they have no conception of why it is the way it is. In the Paisley case a simple amendment to require parties to have been married at the time of the alledged incident would have done but the truth is, it is the badly thougth through Civil Partnership legislation that has really messed things up and this change is now needed to patch things up.
3

RandomWaffle,

05/05/2008 09:37:46
#2 - Prof Black knew why the law was there and Kenny MacAskill is an ex-lawyer. Paisley case is just one example of the issue - and it would be wrong to legislate just to deal with one particular recent manifestation of the problem rather than the whole issue.
4

Tina McGreevy,

Glasgow 05/05/2008 10:43:36
Here's an idea - why doesn't Kenny McAskill just scrap all of our laws and start over afresh. It certainly seems as though he is trying to.
5

bluehead,

edinburgh 05/05/2008 11:19:10
I liked what kenny macaskill said before the scottish
elections,he sounded very sensible,now every thing he
says seems to be insensible,the latest one about making wifes etc to give evidence against each other
in court will cause more problems than it solves.
6

John Blackley,

Florida 05/05/2008 14:31:01
There was a principle in law - once upon a time - that the household was sacrosanct and that, so long as no crime was committed within the household, adult members of the household were to be treated as a single entity. In other words, the sanctity of the household took precedence over the needs of the state.

With the breakdown of traditional families, advocates of the supremacy of the state have the excuse to do away with that principle. Such people can now say, "Your needs and your wishes are important to us (they usually tell lies like this at election time) but the needs of the state are more important." (They usually don't actually say this last part.)

One more small step away from the the rights of the individual, one small step closer to state control.
7

yockel,

05/05/2008 16:22:17
#3 "Prof Black knew why the law was there"
Ask him did you?

"and Kenny MacAskill is an ex-lawyer" good point!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.