Appeal Against Conviction And Sentence By Pgt Against Her Majesty's Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Turnbull,Lord Justice General,Lord Brodie |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] HCJAC 14 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Docket Number | HCA/2019/331/XC |
| Date | 02 April 2020 |
| Published date | 02 April 2020 |
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
[2020] HCJAC 14
HCA/2019/331/XC
Lord Justice General
Lord Brodie
Lord Turnbull
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD JUSTICE GENERAL
in
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
by
PGT
Appellant
against
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE
Respondent
Appellant: Shand; The Cumbernauld Law Practice
Respondent: Edwards QC, AD; the Crown Agent
2 April 2020
General
[1] On 8 May 2019 at the High Court in Glasgow the appellant was convicted of
3 charges as follows:
“(1) On an occasion between 13 March 1997 and 12 March 1999 … at an address in
Beechwood Road … Cumbernauld you … did indecently assault [GT] born … 1985,
your nephew, and did induce him to consume alcohol, remove his lower clothing,
2
touch his penis, masturbate him, push him face down onto a bed, lie on top of him,
penetrate his anus with your penis and have unnatural carnal connection with him;
(2) on an occasion between 1 … and 31 March 2000 … at an address in
Beechwood Road, Cumbernauld … you … did indecently assault [GT], born … 1985,
your nephew … and did touch his penis and testicles over his clothing; and
(3) on an occasion between 1 January … and 31 December 2006 … at …
Dalshannon Place, Cumbernauld you … did assault [BT] your wife … and did seize
hold of her, remove her lower clothing, lie on top of her, penetrate her vagina with
your penis and you did thus rape her.”
The appellant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Evidence
[2] The complainer in charges (1) and (2) is the appellant’s nephew. On the first charge,
he spoke to an incident in which, as libelled, the appellant had assaulted him and committed
an act of sodomy. This took place when the complainer was 12 or 13 years of age. He had
gone to the appellant’s home in Cumbernauld in response to a request to fix a computer.
The appellant had given the complainer alcohol, which had made him feel dizzy. The
complainer and the appellant had gone into a bedroom. The complainer remembered lying
on his back. The appellant had come in, removed the complainer’s clothing and committed
the act libelled. He said to the complainer that he (the complainer) was the black sheep of
the family and that he would get him into trouble with his parents unless he co-operated.
This made the complainer afraid, as he did not wish to upset his mother and father.
[3] The second charge related to an incident in March 2000 when the complainer was
15 years of age. It also occurred in the appellant’s home, after a party at the complainer’s
grandparents’ home to celebrate their golden wedding. The complainer had been drinking
at the party. He was given more drink when he arrived at the appellant’s home. The
incident took place in the bedroom. The appellant threatened to tell the complainer’s
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 books & journal articles
-
The Moorov doctrine and coercive control: Proving a ‘course of behaviour’ under s. 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018
...definition is consistent with other Scottish domestic abuse legislation and policy. For analysis see Cairns (2017).73. PGT vHM Advocate [2020] HCJAC 14.74. Ibid. at [15].75. Donegan vHM Advocate [2019] HCJAC 10 illustrates the sorts of markers of similarity that may be accepted by the HighC......