Brian Laing v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2016] HCJAC 33

Note of appeal against conviction:- On 10 August 2015, at Paisley Sheriff Court, the appellant was convicted after trial of a contravention of section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 by striking at the front door of the flat with a machete, kicking the door and breaking a bedroom window. On 7 September 2015, following the obtaining of a Criminal Justice Social Work Report, the appellant was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment. The appellant appealed against his conviction. At the close of the Crown case a submission was made in terms of section 97 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 that there was no case to answer. The sheriff repelled the submission on the basis that there were a number of circumstances which, when taken together, allowed the inference to be drawn that the appellant was the perpetrator of the conduct:- (1) a trail of blood spots leading along the common passageway to the locus and the blood being that of the appellant; (2) the location of the blood on the broken glass beneath the broken window; (3) the window having been broken in the course of the disturbance; (4) the appellant having recent cuts to his fingers; (5) the appellant’s explanation about not being in Woodside Crescent but knowing the occupant; (6) the absence of any explanation for the presence of the appellant’s blood at the locus; and (7) the similarities in appearance between the appellant and the perpetrator as spoken to by the eyewitnesses. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the appellant had been the perpetrator, in particular, only one witness had spoken to the recovery of the blood and only one forensic scientist had spoken to its analysis and, as such, there was insufficient proof of the appellant’s involvement. It was further submitted that there was no evidence to say when the blood was deposited and all that could be said was that at some point the appellant had bled in the close. On behalf of the Crown it was submitted that taking all of the circumstances together the jury were entitled to draw an inference that the appellant was the perpetrator. It was further submitted that where there was a single positive identification very little else was required. Here the court refused the appeal and referred to Nelson v HMA 1988 SCCR 536 and Ralston v HMA 1987 SCCR 467 where it was stated that where there is a single positive or emphatic identification very little else by way of corroboration would be required to establish the identity of the perpetrator. The court viewed the recovery of the appellant’s blood recovered from the broken pane of window as allowing an inference to be drawn that the appellant had cut himself at the time when the window was smashed. Other facts and circumstances including recent injuries on the appellant’s hands and general similarities in appearance between the appellant and the descriptions of the perpetrator by the eyewitnesses were sufficient for corroboration.