Ogg v H. M. Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1938 |
| Date | 06 May 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 22. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.; HIGHCOURT.
Lord Russell. Lord Justice-Clerk. Lord Mackay. Lord Wark.
Procedure—Indictment—Relevancy—Time—Exceptional latitude—Charge of indecent conduct "on various occasions" extending over seven years.
A panel was tried in the High Court on an indictment, the first charge in which set forth"that you … did on various occasions between first January 1930 and first June 1937, the particular dates being to the prosecutor unknown, in your dwelling-house at …, commit acts of gross indecency with" X.
An objection was taken to the relevancy of this charge on the ground that the latitude of time which had been taken was so exceptional as to render the charge irrelevant from lack of specification.
The presiding judge (Lord Russell) sustained this objection, in view, inter alia, of the fact that what was libelled as the offence was not a continuous course of conduct, but acts which were alleged to have taken place on various occasions during the course of seven years, the particular dates of these occasions being unknown and unspecified.
H. M. Advocate v. A. E., 1937 J. C. 96,distinguished.
Evidence in criminal cases—Sufficiency—Corroboration—Panel charged with a series of sexual offences—Direct evidence of one witness only for each charge—Inter-relation of alleged criminal acts—Separation in time—Whether evidence relating to one act corroborative of evidence relating to others.
A panel, who was indicted in the High Court on ten separate charges of sexual offences of a similar character, was convicted of four of the offences charged. In the first three of these offences the victim had been accosted by the panel. The first two offences were committed on or about 15th September 1934, the third offence on a date between September and November 1935, and the fourth in June 1937. The only witness to the first three offences was in each case the victim himself, but there was ample independent evidence to support the fourth conviction.
The panel appealed, under the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926, against his conviction, on the ground, inter alia, that the evidence on which he had been convicted of the first three offences had not been corroborated as required by law.
In a question whether the law of Moorov v. H. M. Advocate, 1930 J. C. 68, could in the circumstances be applied, to the effect of finding proved a particular course of criminal conduct systematically pursued by the appellant,—
Held that it could not be affirmed of the offences—in view particularly of the substantial intervals of time between them, and that the first three had each been deponed to by one witness only—that they were so closely related as regarded time and circumstance as to justify the Court in treating the evidence in each as properly corroborative of a particular course of criminal conduct systematically pursued by the panel; and conviction quashed so far as relating to the first three offences.
Peter Allan Ogg and another were charged on indictment with separate offences of a sexual nature. The charges so far as relating to Ogg were ten in number, and included the following:—"(1) You the said Peter Allan Ogg, being a male person, did on various occasions between 1st January 1930 and 1st June 1937, the particular dates being to the Prosecutor unknown, in your dwelling-house at … commit acts of gross indecency with … another male person, … contrary to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, Section 11: (2) you the said Peter Allan Ogg, a male person, did on one occasion between 1st September and 31st December 1934, the particular date being to the Prosecutor unknown, in your motor car then being driven by you on Queensferry Road, between Edinburgh and Queensferry, commit an act of gross indecency with W. K., … another male person, … contrary to the said Act and Section: (3) you the said Peter Allan Ogg did on said last-mentioned occasion on the grass verge adjoining said Queensferry Road at a point to the Prosecutor unknown [commit sodomy with the] said W. K. …: (6) you the said Peter Allan Ogg, a male person, did on one occasion between 1st September and 30th November 1935, the particular date being to the Prosecutor unknown, in a public urinal at Bellevue, Edinburgh, commit an act of gross indecency with L. I. J., another male person, contrary to the said Act and Section: … (13) you the said Peter Allan Ogg, a male person, did, on 21st June 1937, at a [dwelling-house] aforesaid, commit an act of gross indecency with T. L., … another male person, contrary to the said Act and Section."
The case was tried before Lord Russell and a jury at a sitting of the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh on 1st March 1938 and following days.
Objection was taken on behalf of the panel Ogg to the relevancy of the first charge. The ground of objection was that the latitude in the time over which the offences charged were alleged to have taken place was so unusual and exceptional as to render the charge irrelevant from lack of specification.1
Lord Russell sustained the objection.
LORD RUSSELL .—Objection is taken by counsel for the panel to the relevancy of charge (1) in respect that the latitude in the time over which the offences charged are alleged to have taken place is so unusual and exceptional that it renders the charge irrelevant from lack of specification. In this charge the accused is charged with committing on various occasions between 1st January 1930 and 1st June 1937 certain acts, at a locus described, with another male person described. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v HM Advocate
...did take place, there was not a single course of conduct but rather two separate courses of conduct; (3) (approvingOgg v. H.M. AdvocateSC1938 J.C. 152, per Lord Justice-Clerk Aitchison at p. 158) that, although the interval of time between similar offences was not in all cases critical, it ......
-
The People (at the suit of the DPP) v Clement Limen
...were “ highly analogical, not to say metaphorical” and were not to be applied pedantically. He adopted the formulation of Lord Wark in Ogg v. H.M. Advocate, 1938 J.C. 152:- “The test in each case, and in considering each particular charge, is, Was the evidence with regard to other charges ......
-
R v Boardman
...is a reference to finding a man "doing the same kind of criminal thing in the same kind of way towards two or more people". So in Ogg v. H.M. Advocate 1938 Scots Law Times 513 the trial Judge had told the jury that while in general the mere fact that a number of similar offences are charge......
-
Notes Of Appeal Against Conviction And Sentence By William Hugh Lauchlan And Charles Bernard O'neill Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...at 893; cf Urquhart v HM Advocate 1987 SCCR 31; Dudgeon v HM Advocate 1988 SLT 476; Moorov v HM Advocate 1930 JC 68; Ogg v HM Advocate 1938 JC 152; Ainsworth v HM Advocate 1997 SLT 56; Walsh v HM Advocate 1960 JC 51; Thomson v H M Advocate 1998 SCCR 657; and Reid v H M Advocate 1999 SCCR 76......
-
Wiping the Slate Clean: Reforming Scots Law's Approach to Evidence of the Accused's Bad Character
...Lord Justice-General (Clyde).41 ibid, 80 per the Lord Justice-Clerk (Alness), 89 per Lord Sands.42 Note the emphasis in Ogg vHM Advocate 1938 JC 152.43 See, eg, Pringle vMcPherson [2010] HCJAC 127; 2011 JC 190 (twelve years); KvHM Advocate[2011] HCJAC 52; 2012 JC 74 (thirteen years).44 See ......
-
The Moorov doctrine and coercive control: Proving a ‘course of behaviour’ under s. 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018
...when there is a lengthy time gap,33especially when there are only two22. Ibid. at [27].23. In the older case of Ogg vHM Advocate 1938 JC 152 it was stressed that difficulties arise ‘where the inter-relation is not directand obvious’ (at paras. 157–158).24. AK vHM Advocate [2011] HCJAC 52 at......