Collateral Evidence Flashcards
A v B (1895) 22 R 402
Similair fact evidence - Civil Cases
In an action of damages for rape the pursuer, besides making averments of rape, stated that the defender was of a brutal and licentious disposition, and had on two specified occasions attempted to ravish two other women.
Held that the latter averments were irrelevant, and fell to be deleted from the record.
HM Advocate v Joseph 1929 JC 55
similair fact evidence - Criminal cases
In an indictment the charges against the accused were that, having conceived a fraudulent scheme for obtaining money from the public in Scotland and elsewhere by means of counterfeit drafts, he (1) on 21st September 1927 uttered in a bank in Dundee a forged document which purported to be a draft of a finance company in New York, and (2) on 23rd September in the same bank pretended by telephone from London that the draft was genuine. The indictment further charged the accused with pretending, in pursuance of the scheme, in an hotel in Brussels, in October, that a forged document was a genuine draft of the same finance company.
Held by Lord Murray that, while admittedly the incident in Belgium could not be made the subject of a substantive charge, that incident and the crime charged were sufficiently closely connected to admit of evidence relating to that incident being used by the prosecution for the purpose of supporting the other charges.
Moorov v HM Advocate 1930 JC 68
Mr Moorov charged with a series of assaults and sexual assaults
The vast majority of the assaults could only be verified by the women he allegedly attacked.
Behaviour all occurred within a 3 year period.
HELD, the evidence about the other sexual assaults COULD be given as corobatory evidence as long as there was “sufficient interrelation in time, place and circumstances.”
Cumming v HM Advocate 2003 SCCR 261
Character of Complainer - s.275
C was charged with lewd practice against girls.
Evidence was excluded under S.274 and it was held that the evidence did not meet the requirements to be an exception under S.275.
On appeal the court held that the evidence should have been allowed in.
Held, that both pieces of evidence were relative and probative.
Said that refusing the evidence could prejudice a fair trial to the detriment of the accused, and also said that allowing the evidence would do little damage to the alleged Victims’ dignity.
*DS v HM Advocate 2007 SC (PC) 1
Character of Complainer - s.275A
D argued that, by creating a risk that his previous conviction would be disclosed to the jury, s.275A of the 1995 Act penalised him for exercising his legitimate right to lead or elicit evidence in terms of s.275(1) of the 1995 Act; and that the risk that his previous conviction would be disclosed in this way prejudiced his right to a fair trial by making him hesitate to exercise his right under s.275(1)of the 1995 Act.
Held: Section 275A of the 1995 Act provided an element of parity or balance in the treatment of the two sides by giving the jury an opportunity, when considering its verdict, to have regard also to what the accused had done on other occasions. For all those reasons s.275A of the 1995 Act did not violate the right of the accused to a fair trial.
HM Advocate v Ronald 2007 SCCR 451
s.274/s.275
Evidence was excluded from the trial under S.274
Tried to get evidence introduced through the use of S.275. The evidence is related to inconsistent claims by the claimant of sexual assault in the past and evidence indicating that the claimant was mentally unstable and suffered from alcohol dependency.
Evidence of the previous allegations of sexual assault made in previous cases was held to be relevant and admitted under S.275
Evidence regarding her personality disorder was relevant under S.275.
Also held that expert evidence could be given under S.275.
Carberry v HM Advocate 1975 JC 40
- At their trial the Crown led evidence that one of the accused, at the time of his arrest, had volunteered a statement that he had got the car the night before from a man whom he had met a year earlier “when they had both been in Barlinnie.”
- the applicants argued that the Crown had deliberately elicited incompetent evidence, being that of the statement made by one of their number before referred to, and had commented thereon to the jury, contrary to section 67 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1887.
- Held that there had been no breach of said section 67, in respect that, although the reference to “Barlinnie” was equivalent to a reference to a previous conviction, the statement in its entirety was, in the special circumstances of the case, both competent and relevant evidence in support of the substantive charge of conspiracy; and applications refused.
Leggate v HM Advocate 1988 SCCR 391
(Current Approach to s.266(4)(b) when attacking witness’s character as a necessity of defence)
(Disapplied O’Hara v HM Advocate)
Appellant was convicted of assault/robbery
Most evidence against him came from police witnesses.
He claimed that the police were fabricating evidence.
His allegation was seen as a threat to the police witness character.
Court therefore allowed the cross examination of the accused under S.266(4)(b) of the 1995 Act.
Court allowed this cross examination of the accused and he was convicted.
On appeal, he claimed in line with O’Hara that he needed to attack the character of the police to establish his defence case, so the S.266(4)(b) should not be applied.
The court rejected this appeal and applied S.226(4)(b).
McCourtney v HM Advocate 1977 JC 68
(Colateral evidence)
(accused gives evidence against co-accused.)
Basically says where A gives evidence against his co-accused B the judge has no digression but to allow B to attack the character of the of A (the co-accused who betrayed him).
