Wright v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2005] ScotHC HCJAC_117 (25 October 2005)

Wright v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2005] ScotHC HCJAC_117 (25 October 2005)

The refusal of the section 275 application was within the discretion of the trial judge given the lack of specification and remoteness of alleged prior incidents; sufficient circumstantial evidence corroborated the complainer's account that she was asleep, supporting lack of consent and mens rea; jury directions, though not ideal, adequately identified the critical factual issue and did not result in miscarriage of justice.

Citation
[2005] ScotHC HCJAC_117
Parties
Appellant: James Wright; Respondent: Her Majesty's Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Corroboration, Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Rape Consent Corroboration Evidence Jury Directions

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Wright

Appellant

Her Majesty's Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of section 275 application denied appellant ability to demonstrate reasonable belief in consent
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient corroborated evidence for conviction
  3. 3 Whether jury directions on mens rea and corroboration were deficient

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal of the section 275 application was within the discretion of the trial judge given the lack of specification and remoteness of alleged prior incidents; sufficient circumstantial evidence corroborated the complainer's account that she was asleep, supporting lack of consent and mens rea; jury directions, though not ideal, adequately identified the critical factual issue and did not result in miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed