Appeal rejected.
Lord Carloway considered each of the grounds of appeal with meticulous care, and reflected his evaluation of the likely effect on the jury’s verdict of the additional or undisclosed evidence, and of the potential evidence which was unavailable because of defects in investigation: ‘The points raised in this appeal are essentially matters of fact which the appellant maintains might, or perhaps would, have made a difference in the jury’s deliberations. But the reality is that this was a complainer who was demonstrated to have given different accounts to the police and others after the occurrence of the incident. The defence brought out a number of points in favour of the defence position, including the lack of damage to the clothing. There was ample material available at the trial which could have persuaded the jury that there was a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant. But, the jury had no reasonable doubt and it is easy to see why. Although there were substantial variations in the complainer’s early accounts, she ultimately spoke clearly to leaving the nightclub, ending up at the appellant’s flat and being raped by him. . . [T]he evidence of the bruising to the complainer’s breast, arms, thighs and buttocks must have seemed to the jury, as it does to this court, to be of some note. The ornamental chain of her trousers was broken. In addition, it was not disputed that the complainer had left the appellant’s flat abruptly. She did not go home, as might have been anticipated after a consensual event, but went first to a male friend’s house in the early hours of the morning in a distressed state. When she left his flat, she still did not go home, but called a female friend to pick her up from a shopping centre some time around 3.30 am, when she was witnessed still to be in a state of distress. In addition, there was the appellant’s own account where, at parts of his interview, he accepts that he escorted the complainer to his flat when he knew she was in a drunken state. He admitted that things ‘got a wee bit out of control’ at some point, albeit that he had an alternative explanation for this. He admitted that he did not provide the complainer with his name or address, so that she could telephone a taxi. The jury would have been entitled to regard these admissions as highly supportive of the complainer’s account and not consistent with an episode of consensual intercourse . .
The evidence therefore fully entitled the jury to reach the verdict they did and nothing in the grounds of appeal or otherwise has persuaded the court that a miscarriage of justice did occur, or even might have occurred, in this case.’
Judges:
Lord Carloway
Citations:
[2010] ScotHC HCJAC – 44, 2010 SCCR 589, 2010 GWD 18-355, 2010 SCL 1056
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
See Also – Gordon v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 24-Apr-2009
. .
Cited by:
See Also – Gordon, for Judicial Review SCS 29-Nov-2013
(Extra Division, Inner House) Challenge to refusal of order for review of failure of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the reclaimer’s case to the High Court.
Held: Appeal refused. . .
See Also – Gordon v Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Scotland) SC 22-Mar-2017
The appellant the Commission’s decision not to refer his case back to the court. They had agreed that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred, but concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to make such a referral. His statement had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.414933
