sufficiancy and coroboration

Question 1

the corob rule def

Answer 1

whether there is corb is a Q of law.
this is a matter for judge NOT jury
where there is corob there is SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

Question 2

sufficiency of evidence def

Answer 2

this means that that the court MAY convict but is not REQUIRED to. it may still concluded that the case has NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

Question 3

civil evidence scot act 1988 s.1

Answer 3

corob no longer required in civil matters

Question 4

civil evidence scot act 1988s.8

Answer 4

civil matters where corob may still be required. require evidene from a person who is not one of the alledged parties to marriage/ civil partnership

Question 5

game scot act 1,2,6
poaching prevention act s.3
salmon and freshwater fisheries
traffic offenders s,21

Answer 5

corob required to prove all crim offences unless stat provides otherwise

Question 6

is corob required in burden of proof?

Answer 6

whilst burden of proof on defence in crim case the defence never required to prove anything by corob evidence where the BURDEN OF PROOF IS A PERSUASIVE ONE

Question 7

GILLESPIE V macmillian

Answer 7

CORROB REQUIREMENT MEANS:

it is not enough to have just a single witness
accused speeding two police man timing the car. took two speeds to work out what the accused was speeding. If one piece of that evidence was interfered with then the police officers evidence = mistaken = NO CORB
COURT HELD in this instance the police did corob

Question 8

SMITH V LEES

Answer 8

CRUCIAL FACTS. must be proven be corrob evidence these are facts which make up the def if the relevant crime

Question 9

Lord adv ref no 1 2001

Answer 9

certain facts must be established by corrob. these are FUNDAMENTAL or CRUCIAL or ESSTIAL FACTS or as the facta probanda, the facts which require to be proved

so for RAPE:

1. pen of complainers vag
2. accused private member
3. forcibly
4. no consent

Question 10

yates v hm adv

Answer 10

DISPUTE AS TO WHAT IS CRUCIAL FACT. rape case knife to overcome = a detail NO NEED FOR COROB

Question 11

lockwood v walker

Answer 11

failure to prove a crucial fact
if even one cruicial fact is not proven by corob evidence, there can be no conviction.

lude behaviour towards child. only evidence of childs age came from child themselves thus case fell

Question 12

s.97 and 160 1995 act

Answer 12

failure to prove a crucial fact
if there is no corob the case should not be allowed to go to the jury. the defence can object that there is no case to answer at the end of the prosecution case.
if there is corrob evidence, the accused should be acquitted at this point.

Question 13

gonshaw v bamber

Answer 13

failure to prove a crucial factsubmission wringly rejected and accused goes on to incrim himself.

accused had an absolute right to be acquitted could not be subsequent evidence provided any conviction would have been quashed.

Question 14

107A 1995 act

Answer 14

failure to prove a crucial fact.

the prosecution now has a right to appeal against a no case to submission being held

Question 15

fox v hm

Answer 15

THE NATURE OF CORROB EVIDENCE
evidence need not be directly corrob. corrob evidence supports or confirms the direct evidence of a witness.

wife of murder victim=accused forced wife into house. evidence of finger prints deceased blood on clothes.

accused states= deceased had a nose blled and prints are there fron helping him in to the ghouse. consitient with the accused story. cannot corob if the JURY DISMISS AS LIES

hearsay circumstantial must point clearly if points to alternative explanation cannot corrob. HELD JURY TO DECIDE WHAT EVIDENCE TELLS THEM

Question 16

little v hm adv

Answer 16

THE NATURE OF CORROB EVIDENCE

a conviction is possible on circumstantial evidence alone ie blood sample and finger prints and cctv

Question 17

Ralston v hm adv

Answer 17

common instance identification
where there is an EMPHATIC POSTIVE ID very little else is required.
weak realying on ID must be positive id

Question 18

mair v hm adv

Answer 18

common instance identification
not 2 witness have to give +ve ID. just one give +ve ID and the other argue the accused looks like.
75% sure = +ve ID or cast iron certain

if neither witness can provided a +ve ID not enough to meet SUFFICIENCY TEST

Question 19

hartly v hm OLD LAW

Answer 19

common instance confession

very little is required corrob an unequivocal confession

Question 20

meredieth v lees

Answer 20

common instance confession

but that is gen now regarded as going too far
a sufficient idependent check
have to view with suspension IF NOT CLEAR if crime in fact occurred crime of lack of behaviour anxious to insure others then the accused stated the crime happened.

Question 21

manual v hm adv

Answer 21

SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CONFESSIONS
a confession by the accused that demonstates special knowledge may be corrob by proof that this knowledge was true. confession contained details such as local of body that only the perp would know

Question 22

wilson v mcaughey

Answer 22

SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CONFESSIONS
is something that the police did not themselves know.such as the local of the body that only the body of the perp would reasonably know

Question 23

Wilson v HM

Answer 23

SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CONFESSIONS special knowledge may not be if in public domain.
SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE in public domain due to press. but 2 witness able to corrob statement so admissable

Question 24

low v hm

Answer 24

SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CONFESSIONS: for doctrine to operate the confession itself must be spoken to by two witnesses.
WHEN IT WAS MADE CONFESSION MUST BE TO ONE OR MORE SOURCE

Question 25

WOODLAND

Answer 25

SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CONFESSIONS:

reset passage of TIME NOT special knowledge

Question 26

YATES V HM

Answer 26

DISTRESS AS CORROB:

the fact that the witness is observed in a state of shock or distress may corob her events

Question 27

P V HM

Answer 27

DISTRESS AS CORROB:
the distress must not be too remote in time from the incident there is no fixed time limit all depens on the circumstances A period excess of 24 hrs accepted

Question 28

MCCRANN V HM

Answer 28

DISTRESS AS CORROB:
distress must not be too remote in time from the incidentWHERE DISTREES WAS DISPLAYED THE AFTERNOON AFTER A RAPE. THE FACT THST THE COMPLAINER HAD EARLIER OPPORTUNITIES TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE RAPE PREVENTED HER FROM USING DISTRESS AS CORROB.
she didn’t show distress during full work day then broke down in afternoon

Question 29

SMITH V LEES

Answer 29

DISTRESS AS CORROB distress cannot corrob a crucial fact and in practice its role is limited ti corrob the lack of consent
LECTURER
docterin cannot say a crime has been commited when you only have the complainers word . suggests ealier cases misapplied confines doctrine of distress where defence is consent.

COUNTER- true all of the circumstantial evidence doesn’t give a clear picture . draw on an inference hurry able to decide what distress of victim tell you.

• distress be observed and corrb
• up to a day
• good reason why did not exhibit earlier

Question 30

WILKINSON V HM ADV

Answer 30

DISTRESS AS CORROB evidence of distress establish mensrea was. indifferent to consent

Question 31

FULTON V HM

Answer 31

DISTRESS AS CORROB emotions other than distress prehab=ps used as evidence in the same way
EMOTION = SURPRISE.
the police Q as to the possession of fire arm of flatmate the flatmates SURPRISE acted as corrob for lack of INVOLVEMENT IN CRIME ADMISSABLE

Question 32

MOOROV DEF

Answer 32

allegations by the accused can be mutually corrob if they are so interraled by CHARACTER, CIRCUMSTANCES and TIME as to justify an inference that they are parts of criminal conduct systematically pursued by the accued.

Question 33

CARPENTER V HAMILTON

Answer 33

MOOROV CHARCATER AND CIRCUMSTANCES
these two aspects of the test are rarly distinguished. crimes do NOT have to have the same NAME if CLEAR NEXUS ESTABLISHED

indecent exposure and breach of the peace BUT moorov apply as broadly similar activity.

different level of seriousness as part of the conduct by the same accussed REASONABLY SEEN AS PART OF THEIR ACTION
IE A CATALOGUE OF SEXUAL ASSULTS TOWARDS CHILDREN

Question 34

HUGHS V HM ADV

Answer 34

MOOROV CHARCATER AND CIRCUMSTANCES
COURTS TEND TO HOLD THAT INDECENT ACTS WITH CHILDREN ARE SUFFICIENTLY RELATED REGARDLESS UN THE NATURE THOF THE ACTS CONCERNED
Behaviour differnet but pre pubestant brother and sister MOOROV triggered. nexus sexual assult if part of same fam.

Question 35

K V HM ADV

Answer 35

MOOROV CHARCATER AND CIRCUMSTANCESRECENT CASE LAW SUGGESTS THAT SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CHARGES WERE NOT ENOUGH TO PERMIT THE TRIGGER OF MOOROV- IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THEY SHOW A COURSE OF CONDUCT SYSTEMATTICALLY PURSUED!
time gap of 13 years FATAL to moorov unless special conduct features that has a connection . crs of conduct REALIES ON TIME PERIOD 1ST VICTIM COULD RELY ON THAT 2ND VICTIM IS SIMILAR AGE AND CALLED THE SAME NAME

Question 36

MOOROV V HM

Answer 36

MOOROV TIME
Ran business and salesman interview candates in office committed sexual assult in privacy of office on candidates convicted of 7 incdiment = 21

THE NECCESSARY TIME DEPENDS ON NATURE OF ACTS

EARLY CASES GAP OF 2 YEARS LONG DEPEND ON CIRCUMSTANCE BUT ANY MORE THAN 3.5 YEARS COURT RELUCTANT TO GRANT

Question 37

STEWART V HM

Answer 37

MOOROV TIME
EARLY CASES GAP OF 2 YEARS LONG DEPEND ON CIRCUMSTANCE BUT ANY MORE THAN 3.5 YEARS COURT RELUCTANT TO GRANT
conversely the less similar allegation the closer theu will have to be connected for in time for MOORV to apply

4 year gap and moorov applied

Question 38

SINGLE V HM

Answer 38

MOOROV TIME
EARLY CASES GAP OF 2 YEARS LONG DEPEND ON CIRCUMSTANCE BUT ANY MORE THAN 3.5 YEARS COURT RELUCTANT TO GRANT
conversely the less similar allegation the closer theu will have to be connected for in time for MOORV to apply

4-5 YEARS moorov not apply

Question 39

PRINGLE V HM

Answer 39

MOOROV TIME
in recent years the courts have shown willingness to etent time period to 13 years BUT V. LIMMITED. school teacher accussed of abuse on outward bound trips charges = continuous period of a few years court held IT COULD APPLY BUT ACCUSATION OF 10 YEARS PRIOR TO CONTINOUS ABUSE GAP +TOO LONG NO MOOROV= fatal to charge

Question 40

LINDSAY V HM

Answer 40

MOOROV ID
there MUST be IDENTIFICATION evidence in respect of each charge for moorov to apply though not neceearly eyewitness. 2 cases of assult and robbery
1st had a positive ID the 2nd victim unable to ID accused. another witness followed perp and witness accused standing over loot with knife= ID enough for moorov

Question 41

HM V MC QUADE

Answer 41

MOOROV IN PRACTICE
normally used where sexual offences are concerned assult in gorbels. MOTIVE LESS.
and inflicte in the same area MOOROV APPLY

Question 42

MCCUDDEN V HM

Answer 42

MOOROV IN PRACTICE
but not confined to such cases.
2 similar attempts to bribe footballers each case strong similarities

Question 43

MOOROV v HOWDEN

Answer 43

moorov relies on at least witness FOR APPLICATION

where as HOWDEN HOLDS WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ID THE ACCUSED AS HAVING COMMITTED THE CRIME IF THAT CRIME IS SUFFICIANTLY SIMILAR TO ANOTHER WHICH HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF

Question 44

HOWDEN v Hm

Answer 44

HOWDEN DOCTRINE
DISTINCT FROM MOOROV!!

even where there is no evidence ID the accused as having committing one crime if that crime is sufficiently similar to another which has been proved of committing he may be committed of both

Question 45

townsley v lees

Answer 45

HOWDEN DOCTRINE series of break ins and thefts with similar patter; would target elderly people. one accused would engage in convo the other would steal goods.
for were there were witnesses MOOROV apply

BUT one had no witness the so the HOWDEN DOCTRINE applied due to similarities in crime. however committed crime 1 and 2 must have commited 3

Question 46

gillian v hm adv

Answer 46

HOWDEN DOCTRINEdocterine enforce to cases where corob evidence comes from other charges that the accused is facing.
IF NOT WITHIN SIMILAR FCAT EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSABLE

Question 47

McHale v hm adv

Answer 47

the HOWDEN DOCTRINElegit inference that the same gang carried out crime if x carried out crime Y then x must have carried out crime Q. BUT HELD not legit inference if interval of a few weeks not same to assume thay McPhail was getaway driver just because weeks agai he had been getaway driver for similar crime CAN INFER OVER A COUPLE OF DAYs

Question 48

hm adv v joseph

Answer 48

similar fact evidence
moorov and howden require the crimes to be connected all at the same time if that is not possible then similar fact evidence is used.

it may be possible to admit aimilar fact evidence but the law is unclear as to how to develop it