Sufficiency and Corroboration Flashcards
Gonshaw v Bamber 2004 SLT 1270.
No case to answer - lack of corroborative evidence
His submission of no case to answer on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to identify him was rejected.
He then went on to make incriminating statements on the stand which led to his conviction.
He appealed stating that there had been a miscarriage of justice as the Judge wrongfully refused his claim of “no case to answer” due to lack of evidence, which forced him to take the stand and self incriminate himself.
HELD There had been a miscarriage of justice where G’s conviction was secured in circumstances in which he should have been acquitted immediately after the close of the prosecution evidence and should not have been required to consider giving evidence on his own behalf.
*Fox v HM Advocate 1998 JC 94
The complainer had got drunk at a party, had become unconscious and been put to bed. When she awoke she discovered F having intercourse with her and objected, F stopped and left. The complainer was later seen to be in some distress.
F appealed on the grounds that the complainer’s distress was no more consistent with her account than it was with his, and the trial judge had failed to direct the jury on determining the cause of the complainer’s distress.
HELD refusing the appeal, that provided that circumstantial evidence was independent and supported the direct evidence it was corroborative and it was NOT the case that corroborative evidence had to be more consistent with the complainer’s account than any competing account,
Meredith v Lees 1992 JC 127
Confessions - “sufficient independant check”
The evidence against the accused comprised a detailed confession of the crime to the police and the evidence of the complainer who stated, while pointing to her stomach, that the accused had touched her on the leg, that this was not nice and that she did not like it.
. The sheriff convicted the accused on the view that while the complainer’s evidence lacked detail it was sufficient to corroborate the evidence of the accused’s confession. The accused appealed on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
HELD that it was the quality of the complainer’s evidence and the weight to be attached to it, rather than the amount of detail or the accuracy with which the incident was described, which mattered in determining WHETHER IT PROVIDED A SUFFICIENT INDEPENDANT CHECK of the confession to establish the truth of it and that the accused was guilty of the crime
Manuel v HM Advocate 1958 JC 41
Special Knowledge confessions
One statement made by the panel amounted to a confession of capital murder in which reference was made to the disposal of the body of the victim and of a shoe belonging to the victim in two different places in a certain field. Thereafter the panel, accompanied by police officers, went to that field. The panel there indicated certain places where digging and search revealed respectively the body of the victim and a shoe belonging to her.
Held that the actings of the panel subsequent to the confession constituted sufficient corroboration of the confession, and that, as there was no evidence of inducement, all the confessions were admissible in evidence.
Yates v HM Advocate 1977 SLT (Notes) 42
Distress as Corroboration
Established distress as corroboration for rape.
General view is that if the complainer is seen by another person and the complainer is in a state of distress then this can be linked to the claim of rape and used as corroborating evidence.
Smith v Lees 1997 JC 73
Distress as coroboration
Since there was no independent evidence supporting the allegation that S carried out the acts libelled, C’s evidence of A’s distress could not be used to support A’s evidence that specific acts were committed upon her by S. Although facts and circumstances could support or confirm eyewitnesses’ evidence
C’s evidence that something distressing occurred could not in itself corroborate the crucial fact of whether S had caused the victim to handle his penis, therefore there was insufficient evidence for conviction.
Fulton v HM Advocate 2000 JC 62
Accused was charged with being in the possession of sawn-off shotgun.
At the trial the prosectuin led evidence ot the effect that when the gun was found the owner of the presidence where the accused lived was extremely surprised and shocked that there was a gun on his premises.
The crown tried to rely on this shock to prove that if that it was only the accused and the owner who lived there and the owner was very shocked meant that it must have been the accuseds.
The trial judge told the jury that if they accepted this evidence that the owner was genuinely shcoekd,then this could be used to corroborate the owner’s own evidence that the shotgun was not his and together this could be used to imply that it was the acused that owned the shotgun.
Convicted, appealed on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to convict.
Held that if the jury were convinced that the police officer’s evidence was evidence of a genuine spontaneous reaction then they were entitled to treat it as an independent piece of evidence. Which could corroborate the evidence that the owner was not in possession of the gun.
Appeal refused.
*Moorov v HM Advocate 1930 JC 68
The Moorov Docterine
Man had been convicted of a number of assaults, some of which were indecent assaults.
They were alleged to have taken place on his premises.
The complainers were all ex-employees of his
In each of the particular charges there was only one piece of evidence available. (There was no eye-witnesses ect.)
One of the incidents happened 4 years before the rest of them, the rest were closesly connected over the space of 3 years.
Moorov was convicted, appealed.
Court established that because they were so similar/closely connected ect. they could infer that this was part of a course of criminal conduct undertaken by moorov.
The appeal was mostly I relation to the time, and wither the incidence that was separated for 4 years could be connected for the moorov principle to operate.
Court held that there was too much of an interval for that particular charge but the rest of the charges were upheld.
***THIS case established that corroboration could be established in this manner.
Carpenter v Hamilton 1994 SCCR 108
Breakdown of Moorov Doctrine - “character and circumstances”
Involved charges of breach of the peace. One action involved suggest noises, while another involved the man exposing himself.
The course of conduct occurred in the same place and occurred very close I time
The judge said that the Moorov doctrine should be applied.
One of the reasons for this was that the suggested noises suggested indecency.
The conduct was not identical but the noises were indecent AND the other charge related to indecent exposure.
On appeal the court found this was enough to establish similarity
Howden v HM Advocate 1994 SCCR 19
The Howden Docterine
The accused was charged with an attempted robbery of a building society and the robbery of a bank.
The circumstances were veery similar and they happened whithin 14 days of each pther.
The accused was positively identified for attempted robbery but there was only tentative identification for the bank robbery.
Held that the Jury could find the accused guilty of the bank robbery if they believed that both instances were carried out by the same person.
He was convicted, appealed.
They held that the weak identification for the second charge was unimportant as long as the jury believed that both offences were carried out by the same person.
Townsley v Lees 1996 SLT 1182
Howden and Moorov Principles
The accused was charged with three counts of theft while acting with another person.
In each of the three charges the accused was said to have offered to sell rose bushes to an elderly woman, then engage her in conversation.
The othr went round back of house and committed theft.
The ways thr thefts were executed were exactly the same.
*one of the complainers identified the accused as being similar in height and age to the person who had come to the house.. One of her neighbours said the accused was of a similar height and build.
The 2nd complainer identified the accused as the woman who called to the house.
The 3rd complainer could not identify the accused at all.
The accused was convicted on the evidence described, argued on appeal that there was insufficient identification evidence to justify the application of the Moorov doctrine.
Court was very clear in saying that there was sufficient identification between charge 1 and 2 to allow the Moorov doctrine to apply. And that the Howden doctrine was used to secure corroboration.
Appeal refused.
