William Gemmell Mackintosh v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2010] HCJAC 30

Description

Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction:- Following trial at the High Court at Paisley on 15 August 2002 the appellant was convicted of a charge of assault to severe injury and a charge of rape. On 5 September 2002, the court sentenced the appellant to twelve years imprisonment to run from 15 August 2002, in cumulo in respect of the two charges. A number of grounds of appeal against his conviction were lodged one of which was to the effect that a miscarriage of justice had occurred in consequence of the trial judge having erroneously repelled a submission of no case to answer at the conclusion of the Crown case in relation to the rape. That ground of appeal was held to be well-founded and the conviction in relation to the rape charge was quashed last year. Here a further ground of appeal relevant to the appellant's conviction on both charges was considered. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the evidence of Patricia Belton was now available which was significant and would have had a material part to play in the jury's deliberations if it could have been led at the trial and could be being regarded by a reasonable jury as credible and reliable and there had been a miscarriage of justice. The evidence of Belton was heard and it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the evidence was to be seen as fresh evidence and the issue of a reasonable explanation, in terms of section 106(3A) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, did not constitute an obstacle in the circumstances of the case here. It was further submitted that the evidence was capable of being regarded as both credible and reliable by a reasonable jury and was plainly of material importance. In these circumstances the appellant's conviction on the assault charge should also be quashed. Here the court considered, firstly, whether the evidence of Patricia Belton fell within the scope of section 106(3)(a) of the 1995 Act and, secondly, whether the court considered that the additional evidence was capable of being regarded as credible and reliable by a reasonable jury.

 

Specifications