The Holyrood Justice Committee has delivered an eviscerating assessment of Lord Carloway's review into criminal procedure following its evidence sessions conducted during November and December.

It follows the submission of the Faculty of Advocates this week which also scorned many of the conclusions of the review, casting doubt on whether its central recommendations will be implemented by the Scottish Government.

Whilst the committee acknowledged the Carloway Review as "a thorough piece of scholarship", it took issue with many of its central recommendations, including the proposed abolition of the corroboration rule, and the additional procedural hurdles proposed for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

The committee said it was "important to stress that we have not yet reached a concluded view on whether we support his main recommendations."

and emphasised "the importance of ensuring that any future work on corroboration should avoid considering that single issue in isolation."

"Instead, it should also take into account the complex web of factors that, taken together, set the current balance between the state’s ability to secure a conviction and the individual’s right to a fair trial, and to be acquitted where there is a reasonable doubt," the letter said.

"Witnesses suggested that this might include not only rules on the admissibility, quality and sufficiency of evidence, but also, for example, the not proven verdict or the availability of convictions by simple majority verdict. They also underlined the importance of studying other jurisdictions, building on the comparative work already undertaken by Lord Carloway. Some witnesses proposed taking the opportunity to “future-proof” our laws and practices to reduce the risk of future ECHR referrals. In short, these witnesses argued, all relevant matters should be on the table."

It added that in sexual offences cases in particular, removal of corroboration would place considerable reliance on the credibility of the complainer, in turn leading defence counsel to place an increased emphasis on challenging that credibility.

"The Committee has concerns that this may have unintended consequences," it said.

"All of this points towards the continuing importance of considering all the issues surrounding the conduct of such cases in seeking to secure that justice is done, rather than focussing too narrowly on evidential issues."

It also said that the proposal to allow a court to draw an adverse inference from silence could risk "putting Scots law on a collision course with the ECHR."

"The Committee appreciates that this is a finely balanced issue, but is obviously concerned by any suggestion that changing the law could raise ECHR concerns. Again, the whole issue could be considered as part of a wider review of the law of criminal evidence."

The letter conlcudes by urging Mr MacAskill to "reflect",  and suggests that further consideration of Lord Carloway’s recommendations on the SCCRC is necessary.

The letter can be read in full here.