McBrearty v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2004] ScotHC 24 (13 April 2004)

Counsel's decisions not to pursue psychiatric evidence or further cross-examination regarding KM's false allegation were reasonable and within the legitimate scope of professional discretion; the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate to prevent speculation; no miscarriage of justice occurred.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2004] ScotHC 24
Parties: Appellant: Samuel McBrearty; Respondent: Her Majesty's Advocate
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 13 April 2004
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome: appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics: Rape, Lewd, Indecent and Libidinous Practices, Defective Legal Representation, Credibility of Witnesses, False Memory Syndrome, Expert Evidence Admissibility

Criminal Law Rape Lewd, Indecent and Libidinous Practices Defective Legal Representation Credibility of Witnesses False Memory Syndrome Expert Evidence Admissibility

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Samuel McBrearty

Appellant

Her Majesty's Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

1 Whether the trial judge erred in failing adequately to correct improper remarks by the advocate depute
2 Whether legal representation was defective due to failure to pursue psychiatric evidence and cross-examination regarding false allegations
3 Admissibility of expert evidence on pathological lying

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal against conviction refused

Orders

Appeal refused as regards convictions; continued on question of sentence

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.