The Faculty of Advocates has responded to Lord Carloway's review proposal that the doctrine of corrobaration be abolsihed by cautioning against "undue haste", and calling for a more thorough reviews of the issue, which came to define the Carloway Review.

The submission is made before the issue is debated by the Justice Committee tomorrow.

The Faculty said Carloway's conclusion on corroboration did not account for "existing procedural and evidential issues closely related to the requirement for corroboration, or giving adequate consideration to any additional safeguards or consequential changes required in the event of its abolition."

"The Faculty remains of the view, as stated in its response to the Consultation Document, that the matters considered (including corroboration) are of such fundamental importance to the administration of justice in Scotland that they should be the subject of much fuller consideration by a Royal Commission," the response states.

"The requirement for corroboration must be considered in context, both procedural and evidential."

The response adds that Carloway's review proposed options regarding evidence and procedure which it described as "a radical departure from our existing law," addin that the only prior review of such scope took place over a far longer timeframe than Carloway's reiew.

"In contrast, in the present consultation exercise consultees have been given a period of a matter of seven weeks in which to consider certain fundamental questions such as the abolition of corroboration and the modification of the right to silence," it says.

"In our opinion, good law reform requires an extensive pre-consultation review of problems and possible options for reform; the preparation of a detailed consultation paper; an adequate period for public discussion and consultation, a thorough analysis of the consultation responses and the publication of a report and recommendations.

"Furthermore, for the reasons that we shall give, we consider that many of the reforms that are canvassed in the consultation paper do not relate to the ratio decidendi of Cadder and cannot therefore be said to arise in consequence of it: for example, the abridgment of the right to silence.

"For these reasons we fear that there is a risk that the Review may lead to fundamental changes, the results of which may be difficult to predict, that are the product of undue haste."

The response can be read in full here.