Rules of Evidence
Ten years ago and more - I was appointed as a Member of the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) - by Scottish Ministers.
The GTCS was - and still is - the professional regulatory body for teachers in Scotland and deals with a wide range of policy matters - including how to handle complaints.
My role was to look at issues from a 'public interest' point of view - since most other members were either teachers - or were drawn from a teaching background.
One of the first things that struck me was the inadequacy of the complaints procedures.
Because they required - at that time - third party corroboration before a complaint against a teacher could even be investigated.
In other words, an independent third party witness had to back up the initial complaint - before the GTCS would take the matter seriously.
Now given my trade union background - I though this was a monstrous position for the GTCS to adopt - because in other areas of working life all complaints were properly investigated - even anonymous complaints.
Many of my teaching colleagues on the GTCS thought this was crazy - there will be a flood of bogus complaints they cried - and teachers will face the the modern day equivalent of 'kangaroo courts'.
Complete nonsense of course - because offences involving harassment and bullying - or even child abuse - are not carried out right under the noses of independent witnesses.
No, the kind of people who behave in this way wait for the 'right' moment - when no one else is around.
So demanding independent corroboration - no matter what the circumstances - is an impossible hurdel to overcome - and means that bullies, harrassers and abusers find it much easier to escape justice.
The fact is that other forms of evidence can be just as powerful - and with safeguards to protect both the complainer and the accused - there is no need to insist on corroboration.
Many employers have come to that conclusion in dealing with such problems at the workplace - so have some courts - and so did the GTCS, albeit after a long hard fight.
So maybe the time has come to consider a change in Scots law - a change in the rules of evidence - when it comes to dealing with accusations of rape and sexual assault.
The GTCS was - and still is - the professional regulatory body for teachers in Scotland and deals with a wide range of policy matters - including how to handle complaints.
My role was to look at issues from a 'public interest' point of view - since most other members were either teachers - or were drawn from a teaching background.
One of the first things that struck me was the inadequacy of the complaints procedures.
Because they required - at that time - third party corroboration before a complaint against a teacher could even be investigated.
In other words, an independent third party witness had to back up the initial complaint - before the GTCS would take the matter seriously.
Now given my trade union background - I though this was a monstrous position for the GTCS to adopt - because in other areas of working life all complaints were properly investigated - even anonymous complaints.
Many of my teaching colleagues on the GTCS thought this was crazy - there will be a flood of bogus complaints they cried - and teachers will face the the modern day equivalent of 'kangaroo courts'.
Complete nonsense of course - because offences involving harassment and bullying - or even child abuse - are not carried out right under the noses of independent witnesses.
No, the kind of people who behave in this way wait for the 'right' moment - when no one else is around.
So demanding independent corroboration - no matter what the circumstances - is an impossible hurdel to overcome - and means that bullies, harrassers and abusers find it much easier to escape justice.
The fact is that other forms of evidence can be just as powerful - and with safeguards to protect both the complainer and the accused - there is no need to insist on corroboration.
Many employers have come to that conclusion in dealing with such problems at the workplace - so have some courts - and so did the GTCS, albeit after a long hard fight.
So maybe the time has come to consider a change in Scots law - a change in the rules of evidence - when it comes to dealing with accusations of rape and sexual assault.
