Moynihan v HM Advocate [2016] ScotHC HCJAC_85 (05 October 2016)

Moynihan v HM Advocate [2016] ScotHC HCJAC_85 (05 October 2016)

The absence of a direction on the evidential value of prior inconsistent statements did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the issue of credibility and reliability was fully before the jury and addressed in counsel's speeches. The sentence imposed was excessive and improperly calculated by including a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ScotHC HCJAC_85
Parties
Appellant: Sean Barry Moynihan; Respondent: Her Majesty’s Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal against conviction refused; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Rape, Prior Inconsistent Statements, Jury Directions, Sentencing, Order for Lifelong Restriction
Criminal Law Rape Prior Inconsistent Statements Jury Directions Sentencing Order for Lifelong Restriction

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sean Barry Moynihan

Appellant

Her Majesty’s Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury on the evidential value of prior inconsistent statements used to challenge the complainer's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive and improperly calculated

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of a direction on the evidential value of prior inconsistent statements did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the issue of credibility and reliability was fully before the jury and addressed in counsel's speeches. The sentence imposed was excessive and improperly calculated by including a subsequent conviction; the appropriate punishment part is 6 years, based on a starting point of 15 years, less 20%, and halved.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction refused; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • Punishment part of Order for Lifelong Restriction reduced to 6 years