H. M. Advocate v W.B.
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 1969 |
| Date | 29 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 13. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
High Court.
The Lord Justice-Clerk.
Evidence—Sufficiency—Corroboration—Lewd practices and incest—Whether witnesses speaking to charges separated by interval of 15 months mutually corroborative.
Evidence—Sufficiency—Corroboration—Lewd practices and incest—Whether evidence of incest corroboration of evidence of lewd practices—Whether evidence of lewd practices corroboration of evidence of incest.
A panel was charged on an indictment which set forth, in chronological order, five charges of (1) lewd practices with his step-daughter A.; (2) lewd practices with his step-daughter M.; (3) incest with M.; (4) lewd practices with his step-daughter L.; (5) incest with L. The third and fourth charges were separated by an interval of 15 months. All the offences were alleged to have taken place in the house where the panel lived with the three girls in family.
Held by the Lord Justice-Clerk (1) that, notwithstanding the interval, the doctrine laid down in Moorov v. H. M. Advocate, 1930 J. C. 68, could properly be applied between all five charges; (2) that the evidence as to incest of either girl who deponed to incest, involving, as it did, indecency and lewdness, could properly be used as corroborating the evidence of the other two girls as to lewd practices; but (3) that the evidence of lewd practices could not be used as corroborating the evidence of incest.
W.B. was charged on an indictment at the instance of Her Majesty's Advocate which set forth that "you did in the house occupied by your wife … at [an address in Edinburgh] (1) on various occasions between 1st March 1967 and 30th June 1967, both dates inclusive, use lewd, indecent and libidinous practices and behaviour towards A., then aged thirteen years, daughter of and residing with [the panel's wife], being a girl of or above the age of twelve years and under the age of sixteen years …: Contrary to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1922, section 4 (1); (2) on various occasions between 1st August and 22nd September 1967, both dates inclusive, use lewd, indecent and libidinous practices and behaviour towards your step-daughter, M., then aged fifteen years, daughter of and residing with [the panel's wife], being a girl above the age of twelve years and under the age of sixteen years …: Contrary to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1922, section 4 (1); (3) on 23rd and 24th September 1967 have incestuous intercourse with your step-daughter, said M.: Contrary to the Incest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.r. V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...category. Macphail (Evidence, para 23.33) disagreed with the result in Kennedy and preferred that in Cox (supra) and HM Advocate v WB 1969 JC 72. In WB the Lord Justice Clerk (Grant, at 73 to 74) held that evidence of lewd and libidinous behaviour could not corroborate a charge of incest, b......
-
Russell v HM Advocate
...be applied in relation to two charges of incest where the interval between the alleged crimes was three years. In H.M. Advocate v. W.B.SC 1969 J.C. 72 the Lord Justice-Clerk (Grant) held that the doctrine ofMoorov could be applied to charges separated by an interval of fourteen or fifteen m......
-
Dean Stewart V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...thereafter appealed against conviction to their Lordships in the High Court of Justiciary. Cases referred to: Brown v HM AdvocateSC 1969 JC 72; 1970 SLT 121 Dodds v HM AdvocateSCUNK 2003 JC 8; 2002 SLT 1058; 2002 SCCR 838 Moorov v HM AdvocateSC 1930 JC 68; 1930 SLT 596 Reid v HM AdvocateSCU......
-
B v HM Advocate
...thereafter appealed against conviction to their Lordships in the High Court of Justiciary. Cases referred to: Advocate (HM) v BrownSC 1969 JC 72; 1970 SLT 121 Advocate (HM) v CoxSC 1962 JC 27 Austin v FraserUNK 1998 SLT 106; 1997 SCCR 775 Carpenter v HamiltonUNK 1994 SCCR 109 Hughes v HM Ad......