Robson v HM Adv [2014] ScotHC HCJAC_53 (4 June 2014)

Robson v HM Adv [2014] ScotHC HCJAC_53 (4 June 2014)

The court held that dock identification is admissible in Scots law and that, in this case, sufficient safeguards existed through cross-examination, judicial directions, and corroboration. The sheriff's directions were adequate, and the identification evidence was for the jury to assess. The high threshold for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ScotHC HCJAC_53
Parties
Appellant: Greg Robson; Respondent: Her Majesty’s Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Dock Identification, Moorov Doctrine, Intent to Rape, Jury Directions, Identification Evidence, Section 106(3)(b) Criminal Procedure (scotland) Act 1995
Criminal Law Dock Identification Moorov Doctrine Intent to Rape Jury Directions Identification Evidence Section 106(3)(b) Criminal Procedure (scotland) Act 1995

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greg Robson

Appellant

Her Majesty’s Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dock identification by Miss C should have been admitted in evidence
  2. 2 Whether there was a misdirection concerning 'intent to rape'
  3. 3 Whether no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned a verdict of guilty based on the identification evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that dock identification is admissible in Scots law and that, in this case, sufficient safeguards existed through cross-examination, judicial directions, and corroboration. The sheriff's directions were adequate, and the identification evidence was for the jury to assess. The high threshold for overturning a jury verdict under section 106(3)(b) was not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused