Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons

Appellant: I Paterson, Sol Adv; Criminal Law, Paisley

Respondent: G Wade AD; Crown Agent

30 April 2013

[1] The appellant was charged with lewd and libidinous practices towards underage girls. Charge 9 concerned a contravention of section 6 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, namely lewd and libidinous practices towards a girl aged over 12 and under 16 years. The complainer NK was born on 5 September 1994, and the incident was libelled as having occurred "between 1 February 2008 and 29 February 2008". Charge 10 contained a contravention of the same section but involving another complainer, AM, who was born on 19 August 1993. The incident was libelled as having occurred "between 1 October 2008 and 31 October 2008".

[2] The point taken by the appellant's solicitor advocate in this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence of the incidents occurring within the latitude selected by the Crown in each charge.

[3] We deal with charge 9 first. NK gave evidence that the incident occurred when she was aged between 12 and 14, which she subsequently clarified as when she was aged 13. When her police statement was put to her with the date of the incident being February 2008, she responded "if the statement said February, I would agree". In our opinion it was open to the jury to find that the incident had occurred within the period of the libel.

[4] In relation to charge 10, AM gave evidence. Leaving aside the sheriff's three reports, we understand from the terms of the sheriff's charge that, at the trial, it was agreed that the incident involving AM occurred on 10 October 2008. Mr Paterson, solicitor advocate, in a helpful and responsible submission, explained that the defence counsel's notes of his speech to the jury confirmed that date to be the case. The advocate depute further assisted this court by advising that the procurator fiscal put AM's police statement dated 24 October 2008 to her. In that statement, AM said that the incident had happened two weeks previously. In her evidence in court, AM accepted that timescale.

[5] In these circumstances, we are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before the jury entitling them to conclude that in each charge the incident occurred within the period of the libel. In the result therefore, the appeal is refused.

ES