Spendiff v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2005] ScotHC HCJAC_68 (07 June 2005)

Spendiff v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2005] ScotHC HCJAC_68 (07 June 2005)

There was sufficient corroborative evidence, both from the complainer's distress and from circumstantial facts, to support the jury's finding that the complainer was asleep and did not consent at the time of penetration. The trial judge's directions, even if more demanding than current law, did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's mens rea could be inferred from the circumstances, and the law as applied at trial or as now understood would not have changed the outcome.

Citation
[2005] ScotHC HCJAC_68
Parties
Appellant: Robert James Spendiff; Respondent: Her Majesty's Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Note of Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Clandestine Injury, Corroboration, Mens Rea, Consent, Distress Evidence
Criminal Law Rape Clandestine Injury Corroboration Mens Rea Consent Distress Evidence

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert James Spendiff

Appellant

Her Majesty's Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Note of Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient corroboration of the complainer's lack of consent and unconsciousness at the time of penetration
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the law of clandestine injury and rape
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's mens rea for rape was established by corroborated evidence

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient corroborative evidence, both from the complainer's distress and from circumstantial facts, to support the jury's finding that the complainer was asleep and did not consent at the time of penetration. The trial judge's directions, even if more demanding than current law, did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's mens rea could be inferred from the circumstances, and the law as applied at trial or as now understood would not have changed the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed