Watson v HM Advocate

JurisdictionScotland
JudgeLord Justice-General (Carloway),Lord Menzies,Lord Drummond Young
Judgment Date09 July 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HCJAC 51
Date09 July 2019
CourtHigh Court of Justiciary
Docket NumberNo 21

[2019] HCJAC 51

Lord Justice-General (Carloway), Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young

No 21
Watson
and
HM Advocate
Cases referred to:

AD v HM Advocate [2017] HCJAC 84; 2017 GWD 38-583

AK v HM Advocate [2011] HCJAC 52; 2012 JC 74; 2011 SLT 915; 2011 SCCR 495; 2011 SCL 744

AS v HM Advocate [2014] HCJAC 135; 2015 SCCR 62; 2015 SCL 245

Advocate (HM) v P [2015] HCJAC 62; 2015 SLT 485; 2015 SCCR 403; 2015 SCL 798

Advocate (HM) v SM (No 2) [2019] HCJAC 40; 2019 JC 183

Advocate's (Lord) Reference (No 2 of 1992) 1993 JC 43; 1993 SLT 460; 1992 SCCR 960

B v HM Advocate [2008] HCJAC 73; 2009 JC 88; 2009 SLT 151; 2009 SCCR 106; 2009 SCL 266

CW v HM Advocate [2016] HCJAC 44; 2016 JC 148; 2016 SLT 709; 2016 SCCR 285; 2016 SCL 535

Campbell v Vannet 1998 SCCR 207; 1998 GWD 9-433

Donegan v HM Advocate [2019] HCJAC 10; 2019 JC 81; 2019 SCCR 106; 2019 GWD 10-134

Geddes v HM Advocate [2015] HCJAC 10; 2015 JC 229; 2015 SCCR 139; 2015 SCL 342; 2015 GWD 7-138

HMcA v HM Advocate [2014] HCJAC 41; 2015 JC 27; 2014 SCCR 441; 2014 GWD 16-291

JC v HM Advocate [2016] HCJAC 100; 2017 SCL 53; 2016 GWD 37-658

JGC v HM Advocate [2017] HCJAC 83; 2017 SCCR 605; 2017 SCL 1042

Jamal v HM Advocate [2019] HCJAC 22; 2019 JC 119; 2019 SLT 479; 2019 SCCR 135

KH v HM Advocate [2015] HCJAC 42; 2015 SLT 380; 2015 SCCR 242; 2015 SCL 674

MR v HM Advocate [2013] HCJAC 8; 2013 JC 212; 2013 SCCR 190; 2013 SCL 338; 2013 GWD 4-115 and HCJ, 19 August 2011

McMahon v HM Advocate 1996 SLT 1139

Reynolds v HM Advocate 1995 JC 142; 1996 SLT 49; 1995 SCCR 504

SM v HM Advocate [2018] HCJAC 22; 2018 GWD 10-119

TN v HM Advocate [2018] HCJAC 20; 2018 SCCR 109; 2018 GWD 8-99

Justiciary — Evidence — Sufficiency — Corroboration — Mutual corroboration — One charge of rape and another of sexual assault by rubbing the complainer's legs and making a sexual comment — Whether capable of constituting mutual corroboration

Graham Thomas Watson was charged on indictment at the instance of the Right Honourable W James Wolffe QC, Her Majesty's Advocate, with, inter alia, contraventions of secs 1 and 3 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009. The appellant pled not guilty and a trial took place before Lord Uist and a jury at the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh between 17 and 23 August 2018. On 23 August 2018, the appellant was convicted of contraventions of secs 1 and 3 of the 2009 Act. The appellant thereafter appealed against conviction to their Lordships in the High Court of Justiciary.

Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 9) (‘the 2009 Act’) provides that a person commits the offence of rape when he, inter alia, penetrates the vagina of another person with his penis intentionally or recklessly, without that person consenting and without any reasonable belief that the person consents. Section 3 provides, inter alia, that a person commits the offence of sexual assault if they intentionally or recklessly sexually touch another person without that person consenting and without any reasonable belief that the person consents. Section 13 provides that there is no consent, inter alia, in circumstances where the complainer is incapable of consenting because of the effect of alcohol or any other substance. Section 14 provides, inter alia, that a person is incapable of consenting to any conduct when asleep or unconscious.

The appellant was indicted, inter alia, on separate contraventions of secs 1 and 3 of the 2009 Act. The appellant and both complainers had been at a large family birthday party. The appellant was said to have rubbed the leg of one complainer and made a comment to her about having sex with her. The other complainer had been helped to bed because of her level of intoxication. Her evidence was that she woke when the appellant touched her private parts, and that the appellant then raped her. The appellant stated that the intercourse was consensual. Both complainers were young women who were cousins of the appellant's wife.

On appeal it was argued for the appellant that mutual corroboration could not apply across the two charges because of the dissimilarities in the character and circumstances of the offences.

The respondent argued that mutual corroboration could apply, but that in any event both charges were capable of being corroborated independently without mutual corroboration.

Held that: (1) mutual corroboration could be applied where the two incidents occurred within hours of each other, in connection with the same celebration, in respect of women much younger than the appellant, both of whom were cousins of his wife, where one incident involved the appellant stating that he wanted to have sexual intercourse later and the other incident consisting of sexual intercourse taking place later that evening (paras 15, 16); (2) in any event, both charges were capable of being established without mutual corroboration (paras 17, 18); and appeal refused.

Observed that notes of appeal should contain simple, clear propositions, preferably numbered. Narration of evidence, quotation from authority, and discussion of the law were for the written case and argument and not for the note of appeal, and even then only in a succinct and articulate manner. Each ground of appeal relied upon in a note of appeal should be stated in a clear, preferably numbered, proposition (para 20).

MR v HM Advocate 2013 JC 212 applied.

The appeal called before the High Court of Justiciary, comprising the Lord Justice-General (Carloway), Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young, for a hearing, on 9 July 2019.

Eo die, the court refused the appeal for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Court which was subsequently delivered by the Lord Justice-General (Carloway)—

Opinion of the Court—

General

[1] On 23 August 2018 at the High Court in Edinburgh the appellant was found guilty of two charges as follows:

‘(1) On 15 January 2017 at … Ann...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Duthie v HM Advocate
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Justiciary
    • 30 Marzo 2021
    ...HCJAC 32; 2007 JC 198; 2007 SCCR 303 TN v HM Advocate [2018] HCJAC 20; 2018 SCCR 109; 2018 GWD 8-99 Watson v HM Advocate [2019] HCJAC 51; 2019 JC 187; 2019 SCCR 291; 2018 GWD 8-99 Williamson v Wither 1981 SCCR 214 Textbooks etc referred to: Scottish Government, A Criminal Offence of Domesti......
  • Mohammed v HM Advocate
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Justiciary
    • 17 Junio 2020
    ...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 ra......
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT