Sufficiency Flashcards
Aspects of sufficiency
1) Proof of the crucial facts of the crime libelled
a) crime was committed
b) that it was committed by the accused
2) Proof of such facts by corroborated evidence
Crime libelled was committed
Essential ingredients that make definition. Crucial facts must be corroborated.
Smith v Lees - Rape, essential can change
If it’s not essential then it can be proved by only one witness
Yates v HM Advocate - Rape and knife
Committed by the accused
Must be done in one of several recognised manners
Corroboration
Fox v HM Advocate - It strengthens, confirms or supports the direct evidence.
They don’t need to coincide
Identifying the accused as perpetrator
Identity is crucial so it must be corroborated.
Dock identification - P v Williams - Assaulted children
Identity Parade
Evidence from another witness as to prior identification at scene - Muldoon v Herron - Elderly couple ID, then later didn’t
Evidence from another witness as to prior identification at parade - Bennet v HM Advocate
VIPER Parade - HM Advocate v Kelly - Scarred man
CCTV/Video footage - Gubains v HM Advocate - Form own views about sexual assault video
Holland v HMA - Appealed against conviction of assault and robbery for procedure of dock identification. It lacked safeguards that were offered in identificated parade
Quality of identification
Need not be unequivocal but needs to be positive, even if the perpetrator resembles the accused then it is regarded as a positive identification.
Ralston v HM Advocate - One said it was, other said resemble and other possibly
Farmer v HM Advocate - I think could be positive identification
Each identification attempt will be viewed on its own facts
Howden Principle
When accused is charged with more than one compliant, Crown must normally corroborate the identification of the accused in relation to each separate charge.
Howden v HM Advocate - Committed two robberies which were similar.
Needs to be: Accused committed the crime libelled in one charge
Due to similarities between the circumstances of the offences, the same person must have committed both offences, sufficient evidence to identification in relation to both charges.
Used to fill the gap, Townsley v Lees confirmed it
Neutral Evidence
It does not incriminate or exculpate an accused in the circumstances. Usually a matter of context.
Gallagher v HM Advocate - Running away from flat, blood on trainers but not tested, being in the flat at the time
Redpath v Webster - ‘She’ll never press anyway’ held to be neutral
Inconsistent evidence
Evidence relied on doesn’t match the principal evidence, it cannot be said to conform or support it.
Miller v HM Advocate - Stabbing in toilet other spoke of punch in chest
Corroboration of confession
It is a statement against the accused’s own interests. Only spoken to one person. Can’t corroborate your confession, but very little is needed to corroborate it.
Meredith v Lees - Very little corroboration is needed where there is a confession
Hartley v HM Advocate - Drowning in a burn, confession then denied, but surrounding evidence made it evident it happened
Special Knowledge Confessions
It contains within it information about how the crime was committed where the only reasonable explantation for the confessor having such information is that he was perpetrator of the crime.
Manuel v HM Advocate - Finding of body and the shoe
Wilson v McAughey - Confession can still demonstrate special knowledge even if police know
Moorov Doctrine
Moorov v HM Advocate - Sexual assaulted multiple women, all similar. If similar in time, character and circumstance and there is a unity of intent.
Pringle v McPherson
Distress Corroboration
Complainer exhibits distress shortly after the offence and this is witnessed by another 3rd party, the account of the distress offered to the court by that other witness can be used to corroborate lack of consent.
Smith v Lees - Tent
McCrann v HM Advocate - Distress couldn’t corroborate lack of consent 14 hours earlier
Circumstantial Evidence
Not in itself directly probative of an issue, and in order for it to be of evidential value the court must be able to draw an inference from it which supports that issue.
Case can be based on purely circumstantial evidence although usually the main source of evidence is looked for and then the other source confirms or supports it.
If an inference of guilt can be drawn from all sources as long as it comes from two then it is corroborated.
Norval v HM Advocate
Smith v HM Advocate - Money couldn’t exactly tell it was for drugs
DNA and Fingerprint Evidence
Welsh v HM Advocate - If DNA or fingerprint found somewhere which would not normally have access to then connected with crime, then regarded as sufficient evidence.
Lagan v HM Advocate - Fingerprint of water tap
Maguire v HM Advocate - Jumper
If no explanation offered then, where the DNA or fingerprint is found that they wouldn’t normally have access to it will be regarded as sufficient in the absence of innocent explanation:
Based on circumstantial evidence or facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused.
Limits - Timing is an issue, Dunbar v HM Advocate -
