Mohammed v HM Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Turnbull,Lord Glennie,Lord Justice Clerk (Dorrian) |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] HCJAC 27 |
| Docket Number | No 30 |
| Date | 17 June 2020 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
[2020] HCJAC 27
Lord Justice Clerk (Dorrian), Lord Glennie and Lord Turnbull
Advocate (HM) v SM (No 2) [2019] HCJAC 40; 2019 JC 183; 2019 SCCR 262; 2019 GWD 21–322
Farmer v Guild 1991 SCCR 174
Moorov v HM Advocate 1930 JC 68; 1930 SLT 596
Wali v HM Advocate [2007] HCJAC 11; 2007 JC 111; 2007 SCCR 106; 2007 GWD 13–264
Watson v HM Advocate [2019] HCJAC 51; 2019 JC 187; 2019 SCCR 291; 2019 GWD 24–385
Justiciary — Evidence — Sufficiency — Mutual corroboration — Charge of indecent assault and two charges of rape — Whether sufficient degree of similarity in conduct and circumstances — Whether mutual corroboration available
Justiciary — Charge to jury — Misdirection — Mutual corroboration — Charge of indecent assault and two charges of rape — Whether sufficient degree of similarity in conduct and circumstances — Whether trial judge ought to have directed jury to acquit of remaining charges in event of acquittal on first charge of rape — Whether misdirection
Aadam Mohammed was charged on an indictment at the instance of the Right Honourable W James Wolffe QC, Her Majesty's Advocate, the libel of which set forth two charges of rape and a charge of indecent assault. The cause came to trial at the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh before Lord Summers and a jury. On 24 June 2019, the appellant was convicted of the charge of indecent assault and of one charge of rape. The further allegation of rape was found not proven. The appellant appealed against conviction to their Lordships in the High Court of Justiciary.
The appellant was indicted on two charges of rape and one charge of indecent assault. The Crown relied upon the doctrine of mutual corroboration to prove the charges. Following trial at the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh, the appellant was convicted by the jury of the charge of indecent assault and of one charge of rape. He appealed.
The appellant argued that, given the absence of the requisite similarity of the charges, the doctrine of mutual corroboration had not been available to the jury to find the charges proved and that, in particular, the doctrine could not apply between the charge of indecent assault and the single charge of rape of which he was convicted.
Held that: (1) the doctrine of mutual corroboration required that the charges displayed such similarities in time, place and circumstances of behaviour as to demonstrate that the individual incidents had been component parts of one single course of criminal conduct persistently pursued, but there was no rule that what might be perceived as less serious criminal conduct could not provide corroboration of a more serious libel. The fact that the nature of the alleged criminality varied significantly in degree was not of itself a reason for disapplication of the doctrine; whether the doctrine could be applied was always a question of fact and degree, and where there were only two incidents, care had to be taken in its application for obvious reasons (para 11); (2) while there had been a sufficiency of evidence in respect of all three charges at the close of the Crown case, the situation changed once the jury had determined to reject the evidence on the first charge of rape. The nature of the allegations, the circumstances of the commission, and the locus had all been quite different between the two remaining charges and, in all the circumstances, once the jury had discarded the first charge of rape, it had not been open to them to conclude that the remaining two charges created the circumstances necessary for the application of mutual corroboration and the jury ought to have been directed that, if they rejected the evidence on the first charge of rape, they required to acquit the appellant on the remaining charges (paras 12–14); and appeal allowed.
Watson v HM Advocate 2019 JC 187 considered.
The cause called before the High Court of Justiciary, comprising the Lord Justice Clerk (Dorrian), Lord Glennie and Lord Turnbull, for a hearing on 8 June 2020.
At advising, on 17 June 2020, the opinion of the Court was delivered by the Lord Justice Clerk (Dorrian)—
Opinion of the Court— [1]...
To continue reading
Request your trial