M v Jessop
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Neutral Citation | 1989 SCCR 324 |
| Date | 1989 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
3 cases
-
M.r. V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...lewd and libidinous behaviour could not corroborate a charge of incest, because the latter was a much more serious offence. PM v Jessop 1989 SCCR 324, determined that sodomy, and attempted sodomy, were so closely related that they could corroborate each other in relation to brothers. It had......
-
C W Appellant Against HM Advocate Respondent
... ... To accept the argument advanced for the appellant it would in my view be necessary to conclude that these cases had been wrongly decided. It would certainly be necessary to conclude that PM v Jessop , in which evidence in a charge of sodomy — penetration essential — was corroborative of evidence of an attempted sodomy, where penetration is not an essential element for proof. The same would have to be said of McA v HM Advocate where the doctrine was applied as between three charges of ... ...
-
A N M V. Her Majesty's Advocate
... ... [3] Mr Paterson, who appeared for the appellant, acknowledged that authority was against him. In PM v Jessop 1989 SCCR 324 the appellant was convicted of attempted sodomy on an 11 year-old boy and of sodomy of an 8 year-old boy; the boys were brothers and the appellant their cousin. It was submitted that the evidence of one of the boys of attempted sodomy of him was incapable of affording corroboration of ... ...