Jamieson v. HMA [1994] ScotHC HCJ_2 (19 January 1994)

Jamieson v. HMA [1994] ScotHC HCJ_2 (19 January 1994)

A direction requiring reasonable grounds for belief in consent is a misdirection; the jury must be instructed that honest belief alone suffices for acquittal, regardless of reasonableness.

Citation
[1994] ScotHC HCJ_2
Parties
Appellant: Jamieson; Respondent: HM Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 January 1994
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Rape, Mens Rea, Mistake of Fact, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Rape Mens Rea Mistake of Fact 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamieson

Appellant

HM Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a conviction for rape requires absence of honest belief in consent
  2. 2 Whether jury directions must specify that honest belief in consent need not be reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

A direction requiring reasonable grounds for belief in consent is a misdirection; the jury must be instructed that honest belief alone suffices for acquittal, regardless of reasonableness.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • verdict of trial court set aside
  • conviction on charge (1) quashed