Ralston v HM Advocate 1987 SCCR 467
Citation: Ralston v HM Advocate 1987 SCCR 467
Rule of thumb: If you provide a witness statement about the facts of what happened, can you later change your mind? As a general rule, no, the first statement a person gives is presumed to be true.
Judgment:
the basic facts of this case were that Ralston was alleged to have carried out an assault with intention to rob. 2 witnesses identified Ralston as being at the scene, and a third witness at an identification parade stated that Ralston was probably the perpetrator. This was deemed to provide the necessary corroboration – known as effective corroboration rather than technical corroboration which requires 2 forms of direct evidence, ‘‘[T]he Lord Justice General is simply making the point that evidence may afford corroboration and even though it is small in amount, provided it has the necessary character or quality and it will have the necessary character or quality if it is consistent with the positive identification evidence which requires corroboration.’
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.