shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

Mr Beck,

The Law has NOT changed. The only time a Spouse CAN be compelled to give evidence is when the offence has been committed against THEM. Section 264 of the 95 Act is still in force.

I too completed a consultation paper when I was a trainee. (and I make reference to the paper completed by the justice committee) if you want, private message me your email address and I'll send it to you.

_________________
Mr Fiscal

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/05/02150833

News Release
Listen
Law 'loophole' to be changed
05/05/2008

Spouses and civil partners will no longer be able to refuse to give evidence against their other half.

The Scottish Government will take an early legislative opportunity to repeal the law which exempts spouses from giving evidence against their partner.

Currently a husband, wife or civil partner can only be required to give evidence against their other half if they are the victim of an offence by their partner.

Justice Secretary Kenny 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 will act 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. 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."

Michael Sheridan, Secretary of the Scottish Law Agents Society said:

"Logic dictates that any spouse or partner is either competent and compellable in all circumstances or in none. Therefore it is right that they will no longer be able to refuse to give evidence against their partner."

On June 27, 2006, the previous Scottish Executive issued a short consultation paper on the issue of spousal compellability.

The consultation ended on 19 September 2006 and 15 responses were received.

Following the consultation on possible changes to the law, the Scottish Government has decided to repeal Section 264 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and Section 130 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

The Scottish Government will take an early legislative opportunity to repeal the law. This will mean that spouses and civil partners will no longer be able to refuse to give evidence against their other half.

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

Believe me section 264 is still in force at the moment....ask another legal professional.

For clarity I just checked Westlaw which is an online resource for lawyers and it shows it to still be in force.
_________________
Mr Fiscal

W.Roughead · Joined: 25 Oct 2008 Posts: 120 Location: Scotland.

"On June 27, 2006, the previous Scottish Executive issued a short consultation paper on the issue of spousal compellability.

The consultation ended on 19 September 2006 and 15 responses were received.

Following the consultation on possible changes to the law, the Scottish Government has decided to repeal Section 264 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and Section 130 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

The Scottish Government will take an early legislative opportunity to repeal the law. This will mean that spouses and civil partners will no longer be able to refuse to give evidence against their other half."
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/05/02150833

So far, it has not actually been repealed. "The Scottish Government will take an early legislative opportunity to repeal the law."

Perhaps the "early opportunity" has not yet occurred.

The same article appeared in the Scots Law Reporter in May 2008.
_________________
“Send not to know for whom the bell tolls – it tolls for thee.” John Donne.

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

Thank you W Roughead.
_________________
Mr Fiscal

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

WR

I have actually e-mailed Crown Office in this regard and will reserve judgement till they reply.

I cannot find anything available on the net to say it has or hasn't been repealed but heh I am not a lawyer and do not profess to be a know all.

You would think though that a Lawyer would be able to link any relevant documents to prove their points.

Notice the Logo has gone though so it is clear he/it/she/whatever is not an Advocate and was acting Illegally by using such logo without express permission.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

MODERATOR: Posting removed - not relevant.

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

Yes quite correctly you noticed that the logo has gone....quite a visual genious aren't you, and moreover you are correct I was using the logo without permission but given your rather litigious and obtuse nature I thought better of my idea.

Secondly, you will notice from the Westlaw site that is restricted to those individuals who require access; law students and lawyers so I am not permitted to copy and paste such information...plus I would hazard a guess as to the fact you would not understand it's content....the system requires an element of training....

MODERATED: Not relevant to the subject

Good luck with your endeavours Mr Beck.
_________________
Mr Fiscal

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

In a recent e-mail to Westlaw:

/enquiries@westlaw.co.uk

Can anyone interested in law and justice join the site? Or is it only
/ legal professionals who can join?

Thank you

Answer:

Anyone can join the site, but the service is through an annual
subscription. Can you please call me on the number below
to discuss?

Kind regards,

Thomas Bourke
Legal Research Consultant
0800 0282200
www.westlaw.co.uk

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 148

This discussion originated with fiscal's hypothetical story about a woman being beaten by her husband, and the police charging him with something he did not do in order to give her a chance to get AWAY.

In that story, the man had been reported to the police several times, although it is not clear who did the reporting.

Why, in those circumstances, would the officers need to make up a charge against him? If the wife is a compallable witness (because she is the victim), and has obvious injuries which could be corroborated by the medical profession, why don't the police just charge him with assaulting his wife?

Fiscal wrongly stated that she could not be forced to to give evidence against him (hence the need to make up a charge) - repeal of section 264 or otherwise has no bearing on the original scenario painted by fiscal, since it refers to spouses giving evidence against their partners for crimes outwith those which make the partner the victim!

_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone