Murphy v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2007] ScotHC HCJAC_57 (09 October 2007)

Murphy v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2007] ScotHC HCJAC_57 (09 October 2007)

There is no rule of law requiring dock identification; identification may be established by direct or indirect evidence. The trial judge did not err in rejecting the no case to answer submission, nor in his directions to the jury. Loss of evidence due to passage of time did not render the trial unfair. Defective representation claim was not substantiated. The appellant received a fair trial and the convictions stand.

Citation
[2007] ScotHC HCJAC_57
Parties
Appellant: Michael John Murphy; Respondent: H. M. Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal refused; convictions and sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Fair Trial, Oppression, Miscarriage of Justice, European Convention on Human Rights Article 6
Criminal Law Evidence Human Rights Identification Evidence Fair Trial Oppression Miscarriage of Justice European Convention on Human Rights Article 6

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael John Murphy

Appellant

H. M. Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting a no case to answer submission regarding identification evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on identification methods
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was denied a fair trial due to loss of evidence and passage of time

Ratio Decidendi

There is no rule of law requiring dock identification; identification may be established by direct or indirect evidence. The trial judge did not err in rejecting the no case to answer submission, nor in his directions to the jury. Loss of evidence due to passage of time did not render the trial unfair. Defective representation claim was not substantiated. The appellant received a fair trial and the convictions stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; convictions and sentence affirmed.