Corroboration had, in some way, already been established by the time the earliest Institutional Writers had begun to illustrate Scots criminal law.
[6] Following the case of Cadder v HM Advocate in 2010, Lord Carloway was appointed to lead a review of the corroboration rule.
[7] However, the abolition of the rule of corroboration was resisted by those who did not at the time consider this to be prudent either because of the risk of miscarriage of justice or because it was unlikely to increase conviction rates.
By 2022, two thirds of Scottish judges were of the opinion when consulted that corroboration should be abolished, both for the complexity of its rules, and for the problems posed in rape or domestic abuse cases involving women or children.
[13] Corroboration is required in Scots law as the evidence of one witness, however credible, is not sufficient to prove a charge against an accused or to establish any material or crucial fact.
1 of 2023[17] it was held by the Inner House that proof of a victim's distress after an alleged rape could constitute corroboration of a lack of consent.
[18] [19] A year later, in June 2024, a nine judge panel was called to hear a further case in which a ruling was sought by the Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, that the prosecution could rely on statements taken shortly after an alleged rape as corroboration of other evidence and of the fact that the accused committed the crime.
The Moorov doctrine can be used where a series of crimes have been committed and are closely linked by time, character, circumstance and place of commission as to constitute a course of conduct by the accused.