The Scottish Government has performed a u-turn on its flagship policy to abolish corroboration in criminal cases during the current parliament.

With other politicians caught up in the general election frenzy,

Justice Secretary Michael Matheson quietly shelved one of the most controversial proposals of the SNP's second term.

Mr Matheson took the decision after hearing a whole range of proposals from a team of experts led by High Court judge Lord Bonomy to rebalance Scots law if the historic safeguard of corroboration was scrapped.

He inherited the proposed abolition from his predecessor Kenny MacAskill, but baulked at further piecemeal reform.

Speaking to an almost empty Holyrood, he said: "The issues Lord Bonomy raises are of crucial importance, and we should take the time to consider them fully.

"The Scottish Government will look at Lord Bonomy's detailed recommendations as a package, alongside the corroboration requirement itself, and form a view on the best way forward."

Mr Matheson was speaking almost exactly a year after Mr MacAskill, shelved his own proposal, passed as part of the Criminal Justice Bill, pending the Bonomy report.

The abolition of corroboration, under which at least two pieces of evidence are require to convict, had sparked real concern among many lawyers that a basic safeguard of Scots Law was to be lost.

Others, including both the police and advocates for rape victims, had hoped reform would boost woeful conviction rates for crimes committed in private.

Lord Bonomy's report was finally published on Tuesday. It came up with a series of proposed balances to support people accused of crime if corroboration was abolished.

These included moves to video all people being interviewed under caution, free legal advice in police stations and, crucially, a call for an examination of why juries convict or acquit in cases of crimes alleged to have taken place in private, such as rapes.

However, Lord Bonomy also recommended that corroboration should be preserved for cases where the accused as confessed or where evidence is hearsay.

Even passionate supporters of abolition, faced with the sheer complications of Lord Bonomy's recommendations, welcomed the decision.

Sandy Brindley, of Rape Crisis Scotland, said: "I still believe corroboration is a barrier to justice, especially for rapes and domestic abuse cases.

"This is the right decision, because some of the recommendations, such as changes to majority verdicts without the abolition of not proven verdict, could have meant we paid such a price for getting rid of corroboration that things were worse for victims.

"We also really want to see the results of the studies in to jury decisions, because ultimately public attitudes to victims are most important."

Many justice insiders agree it is not the rule of corroboration that prevents convictions for rape and other crimes committed in private, but the reluctance of juries to convict.

Police Scotland has brought a renewed focus on investigation rapes, other sexual offences and domestic violence since it was set up.

The number of recorded rapes has gone up. So, said Mr Matheson, have convictions. However, 20 per cent of acquittals last year were on a not proven verdict, said Ms Brindley.

Mr Matheson refused to apologise for what Liberal Democrat Alison McInnes, a prominent critic of the the abolition of corroboration, called the "obstinacy" of SNP ministers on corroboration.

Hugh Henry, Labour's justice spokesman, said: "This U-turn is a humiliation for Kenny MacAskill, who just 14 months ago shamefully attacked all those who raised concerns about the abolition of corroboration as 'abandoning the victims of crime'.

"I am glad to see that this juvenile approach to our criminal justice system has been abandoned."

Alistair Morris, president of the Law Society of Scotland, said: "It is essential that we maintain a criminal justice system which is fair to both those accused of crime and those who are victims of crime and that every effort is made to minimise the possible risk of miscarriages of justice within our criminal courts."

Thomas Ross of the Scottish Criminal Bar Association, said: "As soon as the proposal to remove the need for corroboration was made, our members identified it as a very dangerous proposal, and one likely to be productive of miscarriages of justice."