William Thomas Hill v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2016] HCJAC 35

Note of appeal against conviction:- On 18 September 2015, at the High Court of Justiciary, the appellant was convicted after trial of a contravention of section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 and a charge of attempted murder of two complainers relating to the willful fire rising of a property in Ayr. The appellant was admonished in respect of the statutory charge and he was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment in respect of the attempted murder charge. The appellant appealed against his conviction in relation to the attempted murder charge on the basis that the trial judge was wrong to repel a ‘no case to answer’ submission in terms of section 97 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 the contention being that there was insufficient evidence to identify the appellant as the perpetrator of the fireraising. The court refused the appeal here describing the case against the appellant as a “strong circumstantial” one. The court went on to list a number of adminicles of evidence which the jury were entitled to consider as circumstances from which they could infer the appellant’s involvement:- (1) the appellant and the subject of the grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing texts in charge 1, who was also one of the complainers in the attempted murder charge, Miss Wilson, had been in a relationship for about 4 years; (2) on 31 December 2014, the date of the fireraising, the relationship had broken down; (3) the other complainer in the attempted murder charge, James Riddex, lived at the locus and the appellant knew him and had visited him at his home and the appellant could walk from his own home over the golf course to the locus, a distance of around ¾ mile; (4) on 30 and 31 December 2014, shortly before the fireraising, the appellant sent a number of texts to Miss Wilson which were unpleasant and threatening exchanges in which the appellant described her as a “slag” who gave sexual favours to other men; (5) the final text sent from the appellant to Miss Wilson, around 30 minutes before the fireraising which was deliberately set by propping a mattress against the front door, stated “I told u what would happen if u went back up there”; (6) about 7 minutes after the fire was set the appellant made a 999 call to report the fire; (7) during that 999 call the appellant stated that he was at the golf course and that a guy had just set fire to what looked like a mat; (8) within minutes the fire brigade arrived at the locus where they found a mattress on fire at the door and a smell of white spirit with the complainers within the flat; and (9) during the appellant’s police interview he stated he had been at his home watching a film on television, that he had no mobile phone, that he denied sending any texts to Miss Wilson and around halfway through the interview he became visibly upset. In all of the circumstances the court considered that there was a compelling circumstantial case against the appellant and the trial judge had been correct to repel the ‘no case to answer’ submission.