Corroboration in Sexual offence cases (Moorov, Distress)

Question 1

what is the Moorov Doctrine? explain..

or doctrine of mutual corroboration.

Answer 1

found in Moorov v HMA. 21 charges, 4 year period, in his business. corroborative evidence only available in 3 charges.
said there was sufficient relation of
time
place and
circumstance. for one woman to corroborate the other.

confirmed in MR V HMA.

Similar to Howden rule. one incident can be used to corroborate that of another incident, however we are not concerning ourselves with the identification of the individual but the offences themselves

Question 2

what are the requirements of the moorov doctrine?

Answer 2

the separate acts must be connected in some way by time, place or circumstance.

or there must be some sort of course of conduct which is established between the different events.

Question 3

case which showed that time, limited nature, had carried out other similar circumstances

Answer 3

Pringles V McPherson

time, limited nature, had carried out other similar circumstances. could not corroborate each other.

was not course of conduct, there had been an interruption here.

Question 4

evidence in pairs.

Answer 4

works in parings. referring to the indictment.

Question 5

identification

Answer 5

accused must be identified by at least one witness seen in Lindsay v HMA.

Question 6

passage of time how long can you wait?

Answer 6

the passage of time makes it difficult to say that it has been one course of conduct.

coffey v Houston - 2 years not too long
Turner v Scott- 3 years borderline
Mccrae v HMA 3 years 3 months not too long.

dodds v HMA the time between the last incident and the trial is irrelevant, it is the period between the offences which matters.

K v HMA -13 YEARS obvious similarities in locus, circumstances, similar age of victim. there is no maximum time. however the court said that this was exceptional.

ER v HMA 24 years was too long
charges occurred between 1986 and 1988 then in 2012 and 2013 said that the timescale between the offences had not demonstrated a course of conduct. he had no lack of opportunity to continue with the conduct.
case was unusual as it suggested that if the facts were different then 24 years might have been allowed.

RF vHMA where there is an opportunity for further offending, and it is not taken then this may go against the application of moorov.

Question 7

what is the current case we should look at when considering time?

Answer 7

this is in McAskill v HMA where all the circumstances should be taken into account of the case.
the more similar the conduct is in terms of time, character and circumstances the less important a time gap will be.

Question 8

the greater charge can corroborate the less serious charge but not the other way around

Answer 8

HMA v WB
lude practices and one of incest. incest could corroborate lude practices but not the other way around. incest is more serious than lude practices

Question 9

the response of the complainer after the incident

Answer 9

JC v HMA- each persons reaction is different, and this can be inferred from the jury. had been significant similarities in everything. although the outcome was different, this had been to the different conduct of the complainers, he conducted himself the same way in each case. appeal refused and moorov applied.

Question 10

morov must be live offences.

attempted crime can complete a completed crime?

Answer 10

a finding or admission of guilt has not been entered

yes this is possible.

Question 11

moorov in court. what actually happens?

Answer 11

is for the jury not the judge to decide whether there has been a necessary link to be established.

The judge does decide if there is sufficient evidence in the case.

Question 12

distress as corroboration

Answer 12

emotion can corroborate lack of consent in sexual assault and rape.
if there is distress directly after the incident and this is witnessed by a third party then the account by the third party can corroborate lack of consent. this is circumstantial evidence

Question 13

entries by diary?

Answer 13

walker v hMA - not has to be a third party.

Question 14

must the distress be caused by the sexual assault?

Answer 14

yes, but it is for the jury to decide this.

Question 15

case which shows a limitation to distress evidence

Answer 15

smith v Lees- committed lude practices. girl was seen with a tear coming out of her eye. held that the evidence was obvious that something distressing had happened. however not what had happened.
this outlined what distress can and cannot corroborate. it was held that it can corroborate a lack of consent. but not what happened. was said that distress if it could not corroborate would make it really difficult to corroborate sexual offences.

Question 16

what cannot come from the distress of the individual?

Answer 16

the actual mechanics of the act. this is one limitation

Question 17

distress and timing.

Answer 17

distress is usually strait after the offence. the greater the passage of time, the more difficult it is to prove that the distress comes from the incident itself

Question 18

case which showed distress 14 hours after

Answer 18

Mccrann v HMA- did not mention to work colleagues as she seemed happy and relaxed. did not tell her grown up son. held could not corroborate. noted it would vary case to case.

Question 19

CASE SHOWED that evidence after 12 hours by aunt

Answer 19

Moore v HMA- had visited 2 public houses. court found that the distress was not capable of corroborating the account. question as to whether the distress was caused by the incident.

Question 20

distress 12 hours after.

Answer 20

she delayed her distress until she had the opportunity to tell a close friend. cannon v HMA

Question 21

Where has it been said that they are taking a less strict approach to distress time periods? 15-18 HOURS after

Answer 21

P(RW) v HMA- complain was 15 and 16. first incident came 15-18 hours after the incident. into family friends house.
other was 27h after the incident. during night she phoned the police to come pick her up.
court said that the distress was accepted and her mother was not someone she could confide in.

Question 22

gap of 30 hours?

Answer 22

Wilson v HMA complainer was asleep and under the influence of alcohol. she had not told anyone as she had been shocked and not known what to do. during this time they messaged via text to ask if they could meet. then gave evidence of her distress. abnormal mood and had been upset.
distress was capable of supporting her account. 3rd party confirmed the evidence.

there were also other factors like significant age gap. no prior sexual intimacy. complainers abnormally inward behaviour this is a good case to show the direction the courts are moving into.

Question 23

distress evidence may not be helpful because?

Answer 23

everyone reacts to sexual assault differently ad not everyone reacts the same way. puts the spotlight back on the complainer which is not good.