Advocate, HM v M' Donald
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 10. |
| Date | 30 April 1928 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Lord Blackburn.
Evidence in Criminal Cases—Sufficiency—Corroboration—Panel charged with indecent practices towards his two daughters—Whether evidence of the one child as to her experience sufficient corroboration of evidence of the other.
A father was charged with using lewd, indecent, and libidinous practices towards his two daughters, girls above the age of twelve and under the age of sixteen, in contravention of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1922, sec. 4 (1). He was also charged with having incestuous intercourse with one of them. At the trial the only direct evidence of indecent conduct was the evidence of the two children, each of whom deponed to particular acts of misconduct on the part of the panel towards herself only.
Held (by Lord Blackburn) that the evidence of one child was sufficient corroboration of the evidence of the other.
Charles M'Donald was charged, on an indictment at the instance of his Majesty's Advocate, with using lewd, indecent, and libidinous practices, on a number of occasions libelled, towards his two lawful daughters, both of whom were above the age of twelve years and under the age of sixteen years, contrary to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1922, section 4 (1). He was also charged with having incestuous intercourse with the elder of the two. The alleged offences were all committed in the house in which the panel resided, those against the elder being dated between 1st and 30th April 1926, 11th and 28th August 1926, 1st March and 30th April 1927,1st and 31st August 1927, and 1st and 30th November 1927. In the case of the younger the alleged offences took place on various occasions between 1st and 30th January 1928.
The accused was tried before Lord Blackburn and a jury in the High Court at Glasgow on 30th April 1928.
The only witnesses who gave evidence as to indecent conduct upon the part of the panel were the two daughters, each of whom deponed to indecent conduct towards herself, but herself only.
In these circumstances, counsel for the panel argued that there was not sufficient evidence in law to justify the jury in finding the panel guilty of any of the charges in the indictment.
The Advocate-Depute argued that the evidence of one child as to her experiences was sufficient corroboration of the evidence of the other child, and that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a verdict of guilty upon all the charges. Reference was made to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Kilbourne
...I have already committed myself to the view that such corroboration is competent in the case of offences against young girls— McDonald 1928 J.C. 42. That appears to me to be a class of case isolated from all others in one respect at any rate, viz., that a child of tender age is not only lia......
- Reza v General Medical Council
-
Alexander Lewis Hutchison Reid V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...Court of Justiciary. On being convicted the pannel appealed to the High Court of Justiciary. Cases referred to: Advocate (HM) v McDonald 1928 JC 42 Ainsworth v HM AdvocateUNK 1996 SCCR 631 Fox v HM AdvocateSC 1998 JC 94 Moorov v HM AdvocateSC 1930 JC 68 Percy v HM Advocate 1998 SLT 333 The ......
-
M.r. V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...para [30]) that the charges had to involve the same crime "in any reasonable sense". There had been no argument in HM Advocate v McDonald 1928 JC 42 that offences ought to be grouped into different categories and that the lesser could not corroborate the greater. Such grouping was approved ......
-
‘Robust and Raring to Go?’– Judges' Perceptions of Child Witnesses
...the``child victim'' of sexual abuse' (1999) 8 Social and Legal Studies 391±409. See, too,the Scottish case of H.M. Advocate v. McDonald (1928) J.C. 42, at 44.65 The definition of `sexual grooming' is contested in the literature but it is an offenceunder s. 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003......