DS v HM Advocate [2011] ScotHC HCJAC_125 (14 December 2011)

DS v HM Advocate [2011] ScotHC HCJAC_125 (14 December 2011)

The only misdirection identified was the failure to direct the jury on the limited evidential significance of the de recenti statement. However, this omission did not result in a miscarriage of justice because the jury was properly directed on corroboration and the Crown case was strong, with independent evidence supporting the complainer's account. The directions on burden of proof, corroboration, and the essentials of rape were sufficient to ensure the jury was not misled. The appeal was refused.

Citation
[2011] ScotHC HCJAC_125
Parties
Appellant: D S; Respondent: Her Majesty's Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Corroboration, Consent, Misdirection, De Recenti Statements, Special Defence
Criminal Law Rape Corroboration Consent Misdirection De Recenti Statements Special Defence

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D S

Appellant

Her Majesty's Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to give adequate directions regarding prior inconsistent statements
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to direct the jury about de recenti statements and their evidential significance
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge failed to direct the jury that distress must be spontaneous and genuine

Ratio Decidendi

The only misdirection identified was the failure to direct the jury on the limited evidential significance of the de recenti statement. However, this omission did not result in a miscarriage of justice because the jury was properly directed on corroboration and the Crown case was strong, with independent evidence supporting the complainer's account. The directions on burden of proof, corroboration, and the essentials of rape were sufficient to ensure the jury was not misled. The appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction refused.