CH v HM Advocate [2016] ScotHC HCJAC_4 (19 January 2016)

CH v HM Advocate [2016] ScotHC HCJAC_4 (19 January 2016)

The directions, when considered as a whole, were sufficient in law. The jury’s verdict demonstrated they understood the distinction between charges requiring mutual corroboration and those capable of proof by other means. The appeal was refused as the verdict was reasoned and no miscarriage of justice occurred.

Citation
[2016] ScotHC HCJAC_4
Parties
Appellant: C H; Respondent: Her Majesty’s Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Corroboration, Jury Directions, Mutual Corroboration, Distress Evidence, Miscarriage of Justice
Criminal Law Rape Corroboration Jury Directions Mutual Corroboration Distress Evidence Miscarriage of Justice

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C H

Appellant

Her Majesty’s Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's directions on corroboration and mutual corroboration were confusing or amounted to a misdirection resulting in a miscarriage of justice
  2. 2 Whether charges 10 and 11 could be proved independently of mutual corroboration

Ratio Decidendi

The directions, when considered as a whole, were sufficient in law. The jury’s verdict demonstrated they understood the distinction between charges requiring mutual corroboration and those capable of proof by other means. The appeal was refused as the verdict was reasoned and no miscarriage of justice occurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused