HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. ANDREW ROY ROOSE [1999] ScotHC 74 (23rd March, 1999)
Charge 1 is irrelevant because the conduct alleged, while criminal under statute, cannot constitute the common law crime of shameless indecency, and an age differential alone does not establish a relationship of trust sufficient to support the charge.
- Citation
- [1999] ScotHC 74
- Parties
- Prosecutor: Her Majesty's Advocate; Accused: Andrew Roy Roose
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Preliminary Objection to Relevancy of Indictment
- Outcome
- Charge 1 held irrelevant; trial adjourned and statutory period extended pending possible advocacy of the decision.
- Legal Topics
- Shameless Indecency, Statutory Sexual Offences, Age of Consent, Relevancy of Indictment
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty's Advocate
Prosecutor
Andrew Roy Roose
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Preliminary Objection to Relevancy of Indictment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conduct alleged in Charge 1 constitutes the common law crime of shameless indecency
- 2 Whether an age differential alone can establish a relationship of trust sufficient for the charge
Ratio Decidendi
Charge 1 is irrelevant because the conduct alleged, while criminal under statute, cannot constitute the common law crime of shameless indecency, and an age differential alone does not establish a relationship of trust sufficient to support the charge.
Court Disposition
Charge 1 held irrelevant; trial adjourned and statutory period extended pending possible advocacy of the decision.
Orders
- Trial diet adjourned to sitting commencing 22 February at Edinburgh.
- Twelve month period extended until 5 March.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment