William McBride v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2016] HCJAC 78

Note of appeal against conviction:- The appellant was convicted after trial of charges 2, 8 and 11. The appellant was sentenced to a cumulo sentence of 5 years imprisonment. The appellant appealed against his conviction in relation to charge 11. It was contended on his behalf that the trial judge erred repelling the ‘no case to answer’ submission made on behalf of the appellant at the close of the Crown case in terms of section 97 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in allowing the jury to consider that the doctrine of mutual corroboration could apply when the time interval between charges 8 and 11 was 22 years and 4 months. The court was referred to a number of recent authorities in relation to the limitations of the doctrine. In the present case the court allowed the appeal having considered that there were insufficient similarities, which the Crown relied upon, viewed individually or cumulatively, which amounted to the necessary compelling special features which would allow a jury to hold that they were component parts of a single course of criminal conduct systematically pursued by the appellant. As a result of his conviction in relation to charge 11 being quashed the appellant’s sentence was modified in relation to charges 2 and 8 by having his sentence of 5 years quashed and substituting a sentence of four years and six months imprisonment.