In the Scottish Courts
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835301700106 |
| Published date | 01 January 1953 |
| Date | 01 January 1953 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Scottish Courts
THE
DOCTRINE
OF MUTUAL CORROBORATION
McCudden v.
H.M.
Advocate
(1952
S.L.T. 357)
INthis appeal to
the
High Court of Justiciary against
conviction on indictment of two charges of attempted
bribery,
the
High Court judges concurred in deciding
that,
in
the
special circumstances of
the
case,
it
was safe to apply
what has become known as
"The
Rule in Mooroo"
and
that
accordingly
the
evidence led on one charge could be used to
supply corroboration of
the
evidence in
the
other. This
doctrine of
mutual
corroboration was first elaborated in
Scotland in
the
case of Moorov v.
H.M.
Advocate (1930
].C.68).
The indictment preferred in
the
court below libelled
three contraventiens of
the
Prevention of Corruption Act,
1906, section
I-the
first relating to an
attempt
to bribe a
member of Football Club
A;
the
second to an
attempt
to
bribe amember of Football Club
B;
and
the
third to an
attempt
to bribe amember of Football Club A,
but
a
different member from
that
involved in
the
first charge. By
direction of
the
trial judge, a verdict of not guilty was
returned on
the
first charge. On
the
others
the
jury
found
the
accused guilty.
The
material evidence on these two
charges consisted of
the
accounts given
by
the
two players
(one in each charge) approached
by
the
accused-one
on
26th October
and
the
other on 15th November. As appears
later,
the
two interviews were, in
many
ways, similar in
character
and
technique.
In
course of his charge to
the
jury,
the
trial judge
(Lord Russell)
said:
", . . . On
the
assumption, and only
on
the
assumption
that
you are accepting Telfer
and
Waldie
(the two players referred to) as credible witnesses, is there
material from which you can find evidence relevant as
corroboration to
the
testimony of each of these two single
witnesses PNow here is
the
direction
and
explanation in
62
To continue reading
Request your trial