Home
May 17, 2008 Est 1999 Scotland's award-winning independent newspaper
Law change will put spouses in the dock
Bid to make partners give evidence against each other
By Paul Hutcheon
Scottish Political Editor

HUSBANDS AND wives will no longer be able to refuse to give evidence against each other in court, under a change to the law planned by the Scottish government.

SLIDESHOW

The Last Women Of Inglefield

Ministers will confirm they will 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.

Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill will this week confirm the change when he publishes the SNP administration's criminal justice bill.

A husband, wife or civil partner can currently refuse to give evidence against their other half if that person is to stand trial. The only exception is where 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, and it has now been picked up by the SNP government.

MacAskill will plug the loophole by repealing sections in two pieces of legislation. It 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 couples can exploit the law in cases where violence against their 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 collapsed in 2005 when the accused, William Ferrie, married the dead man's former girlfriend prior to the trial, thus forcing the Crown to drop the case.

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.

"That is why the Scottish government is acting to close this loophole. Changing the law will boost protection for children and prevent couples covering up for each other.

"It is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to protect our children and prevent crime," he added. "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."

Conservative MSP Bill Aitken said: "There is a very arguable case for changing the law in this respect. There have been a number of cases where women have not spoken up on assault cases of a sexual nature. We will look very closely at the government's proposals."

A spokesman for the Law Society of Scotland said: "The criminal law committee believes that the minister'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'."

Share this story on: Digg | del.icio.us | Furl | reddit | NowPublic | Yahoo!
Posted by: Big Wullie, Glasgow on 1:36am Sun 4 May 08
Lets Hope Mr MacAskill also insists on Crown Office Giving Disclosure to all accused too, which should have kicked in in 2005 after Holland & Sinclair Privy Council cases.

Crown Office are in effect costing Legal Aid (for Commission and Dilligence petitons) thousands upon thousands of pounds when they clearly now have a duty to disclose all material, and sanctioned by the Justice Secretary who is very well aware of the issues at hand.

Failure to make Crown accountable here will result in calls for Mr MacAskill to resign in disgrace.

Clearly there should now be no need to apply for Commission & Dilligence.

What Say Ye Tae This Mr Mac

See Lord Advocate on You Tube On Disclosure:

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=-x11rHMJs
kY
Posted by: Guga, Rockall on 8:49am Sun 4 May 08
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.
Posted by: heady on 9:25am Sun 4 May 08
Guga wrote:
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.
Giga seems to want a presumption that civil partners cannot be forced to give evidence but also the possibility that there woul dbe a trial to see if someone entered a civil partnership for a nefarious purpose in which case the partner can be compelled. And she thinks Mr McAskill not fit for purpose?
Add your comment
Name:
Email: *
Location:
**
Security Image. Registered site users are not required to enter Security Image Information.
 
 e.g. 123-123
Comment:
Please note: All HTML tags will be ignored.
Format Text:

 
By posting a comment, I confirm that I have read and agree to the terms of use. Comments are not moderated but we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention and we may delete inappropriate postings. Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory. Remember, you are personally liable for what you post on this site. If you wish to complain about a comment, contact us here.
* Your email address will not be displayed
** To avoid register now or login