HM Advocate v ER [2016] ScotHC HCJ_98 (01 November 2016)

HM Advocate v ER [2016] ScotHC HCJ_98 (01 November 2016)

The court held that the 24-year time gap between the sets of offences, combined with the lack of compelling or extraordinary similarities, precluded the application of the Moorov doctrine. The similarities relied upon by the Crown were not sufficiently striking or special to justify treating the offences as part of a single course of conduct. Therefore, there was an insufficiency of evidence to allow the charges to go to the jury.

Citation
[2016] ScotHC HCJ_98
Parties
Prosecutor: Her Majesty’s Advocate; Accused: ER
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / No Case to Answer Submission at Close of Crown Case
Outcome
no case to answer submission upheld; accused acquitted on specified charges
Legal Topics
Moorov Doctrine, Corroboration, Sexual Offences, Domestic Abuse, Time Gap in Corroboration
Criminal Law Moorov Doctrine Corroboration Sexual Offences Domestic Abuse Time Gap in Corroboration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty’s Advocate

Prosecutor

ER

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / No Case to Answer Submission at Close of Crown Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Moorov doctrine can be applied to corroborate charges separated by a 24-year time gap
  2. 2 Whether similarities in conduct are sufficient to establish a course of criminal conduct for corroboration purposes
  3. 3 Whether physical violence and sexual offences can be corroborated by each other under Moorov

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the 24-year time gap between the sets of offences, combined with the lack of compelling or extraordinary similarities, precluded the application of the Moorov doctrine. The similarities relied upon by the Crown were not sufficiently striking or special to justify treating the offences as part of a single course of conduct. Therefore, there was an insufficiency of evidence to allow the charges to go to the jury.

Court Disposition

no case to answer submission upheld; accused acquitted on specified charges

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of charges 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 13