The Scottish Government

Lord Coulsfield's analysis and recommendation:

5.42 There is a further point about statements which applies to both solemn and summary trials. It is now the norm for the previous statements of witnesses to be available to both prosecution and defence, but not to the witnesses themselves. The complaint has been made that too often the result is that the trial takes the form of a one-sided memory-test, where any discrepancy between the witness's words at court and the words in their statement may be the subject of meticulous cross-examination. Sometimes this may be valid and important, but in many cases it seems of dubious value for the pursuit of justice. This is not strictly an issue of disclosure in the sense with which this report is concerned but I agree with the suggestion that witnesses should be able to refer to copies of their statements when called to give evidence in court, in all cases where these statements have been made available to the Crown and to the defence. It has been suggested that this might lead to an increased risk of witnesses standing by a statement containing a version of events which might have been given carelessly or inadvertently, or which had been embellished (inadvertently or deliberately). However, I believe that rigour in the way statements are taken, as I recommend below, should reduce the risk that such problems will arise. Elsewhere in the UK, the practice of giving witnesses copies of their statements is accepted and uncontroversial.

R2. Witnesses should be able to refer to copies of their statements when called to give evidence in court, in all cases where these statements have been made available to the Crown and to the defence.

Question:

Q. Do you agree that witnesses should be able to refer to copies of their statements when called to give evidence?