Advocate criticises Lord Carloway’s comment that corroboration-supporters have ‘transparent self-interest’

The lord justice clerk has been criticised by an advocate for saying his critics have “transparent self-interest”.

Lord Carloway said in a speech at a conference of Commonwealth Law Reform Agencies in Edinburgh that his proposals to abolish corroboration has been met with “real hostility” from some lawyers.

He suggested in his speech that some of this ire came from lawyers who had a financial interest in retaining corroboration.

Lord Carloway said: “Reactionary or excessively defensive forces among the legal profession can, and often do, behave in a manner obstructive to progressive law reform, especially where there is transparent perceived financial self-interest.”

In contrast, Thomas Ross (pictured right), chair of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) argued lawyers are in fact acting against their own financial interest.

He said this is because without corroboration more cases would end up in court, resulting in more business for defence lawyers.

Mr Ross said: “Every single defence lawyer I know is against a measure that would increase his or her cash flow. Self interest?

“Let us be honest, those who represent accused people for a living are not highly thought of in polite society.

“Many believe that we are ‘in bed’ with the accused, working on a bonus system like Premier League footballers, cash for results.

“The suggestion that we would stand in the way of law reform to serve the interests of those same accused does not help.”

Lord Carloway produced a report corroboration in the wake of Cadder in which the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish police’s practice of interviewing suspects without a solicitor was held as being incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and was, as such, unlawful under the Scotland Act 1998.

His proposals are subject to a “spin-off” review by Lord Bonomy which looks at safeguards in the event corroboration is abolished.

In response to the lord justice clerk’s comments that the Supreme Court is “remote” and “far removed from the realities of Scots law”, the former solicitor general and senior judge Lord McCluskey, 85, said the UKSC’s location was “unimportant” and that Edinburgh is remote to those in the Highlands.

Lord McCluskey added: “What is important is that the Scottish judges who sit in the Supreme Court are invariably two of the very best Scots lawyers of their entire generation.”

On the question of the Supreme Court, Mr Ross said he thought it guaranteed the human rights of all UK citizens, wherever they lived.

He also said he agreed with most of Lord Carloway’s proposed reforms and most of his speech but added: “Will Lord Carloway clarify who he means when he talks of ‘reactionary lawyers’, or are all of those who have publicly disagreed with him to be tarred with the same brush?

“If so, will his use of this pejorative term encourage or discourage lawyers of future generations to become involved in the process of law reform?”