The UK Supreme Court has issued a ruling that raises significant questions about the fairness of rape trials in Scotland. The court assessed two cases from October last year, concluding that they did not breach the European Convention on Human Rights’ Article 6, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. However, the court also advised that Scottish courts should alter their approach to evidence in sexual offence trials, suggesting that current practices could infringe on defendants' rights under the same article.

This dual conclusion has sparked debate, with some legal experts suggesting it could lead to numerous appeals from men convicted of sexual offences in Scotland. Critics argue that the ruling appears contradictory, as it simultaneously affirms the fairness of specific trials while indicating that the broader approach to evidence may be flawed.

One case highlighted is that of Andrew Keir, who was sentenced to five years in prison for raping a woman who was intoxicated and asleep. Critics of the trial process point to Scotland's 'rape shield' legislation, which restricts the admission of evidence regarding the character or past sexual history of the accuser. In Keir's case, crucial evidence was excluded, including CCTV footage showing the woman engaging in intimate behaviour with him earlier in the evening. This evidence, they argue, could have influenced the jury's understanding of the events leading up to the alleged assault.

Witness statements and other relevant evidence were reportedly blocked from being presented in court, leading to claims of significant evidence tampering. While the Supreme Court's ruling does not negate the possibility of rape occurring later in the evening, it raises concerns about whether the jury had access to all pertinent information to make an informed decision.

The Supreme Court's Lady Simler and Lord Rees have both commented on the implications of excluding evidence, with Simler questioning the relevance of prior consent and Rees suggesting that the ruling reflects a misunderstanding of jury capabilities. This has led to a growing sentiment among defence lawyers, such as Thomas Ross KC, who have begun to refuse rape cases, citing a lack of confidence in the fairness of trials.

In response to these issues, a group called Justice for Innocent Men Scotland has emerged, advocating for those they believe have been wrongfully convicted. The group consists mainly of women whose loved ones are imprisoned for rape, highlighting the complexities surrounding these cases.

The Supreme Court's ruling has ignited a broader discussion about the balance between protecting victims and ensuring fair trials for the accused. As the legal landscape evolves, the implications of this ruling for future cases remain uncertain, with many calling for a reassessment of the current practices in Scottish courts.