McSorley v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2005] ScotHC HCJAC_65 (27 May 2005)

McSorley v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2005] ScotHC HCJAC_65 (27 May 2005)

The reasons given by the first sift judge were adequate and intelligible, addressing all grounds of appeal; the second sift judges were entitled to adopt those reasons without further elaboration since the grounds of appeal had not changed.

Citation
[2005] ScotHC HCJAC_65
Parties
Petitioner: Timothy McSorley; Respondent: Her Majesty's Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Petition to the Nobile Officium (criminal Appeal) / Appellate Review of Refusal of Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Mens Rea, Corroboration, Appeal Sift Procedure, Adequacy of Reasons
Criminal Law Appellate Procedure Rape Mens Rea Corroboration Appeal Sift Procedure Adequacy of Reasons

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy McSorley

Petitioner

Her Majesty's Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition to the Nobile Officium (criminal Appeal) / Appellate Review of Refusal of Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second sift judges failed to give adequate reasons for refusal of leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the first sift judge's reasons for refusal were adequate and intelligible
  3. 3 Whether distress can corroborate mens rea in rape cases under pre-2002 law

Ratio Decidendi

The reasons given by the first sift judge were adequate and intelligible, addressing all grounds of appeal; the second sift judges were entitled to adopt those reasons without further elaboration since the grounds of appeal had not changed.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Prayer of the petition refused