Rape decriminalised in Scotland

Here's a bit more about his earlier offences. It seems he was only jailed because he asked to be!

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/crime-courts/1805859/inverness-sheriff-court-beauly-man-who-threatened-girls-for-images-jailed/

This guy

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12730443/paedophile-posed-teenage-boy-blackmail-rape-girl.html

From the article

Pemberton received jail terms in 2018 and 2019 for offences against five youngsters.

He was released in 2000. I'm assuming there were two trials. Possibly a victim came forward after or during an initial trial, so there was a second trial. He was released very quickly, although I didn't notice any information on when the first lots of offences were committed. Perhaps he was on remand for a long time and that was discounted off his sentence?

I hope this time around he has the book thrown at him. He's a monster.

Yes, I agree entirely.

It's a very fair point. The whole contract of law is, 'you don't take the law into your own hands and seek your own justice because you can trust in the fairness and effectiveness of the law of the land'.

If it's no longer fair or effective, the contract is broken and yes, people will inevitably seek their own justice.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the woman who was raped by that scooter was thinking of taking a private prosecution. It might have been speculation in the newspaper though. I think it's the only way she's likely to get any sort of justice.

IANAL but I doubt you can retrospectively review after a change in law. I did wonder if this particular case was publicised because of this upcoming change. Women had been working towards it for years, apparently.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4925496-appeal-court-rules-that-distress-displayed-by-complainers-to-witnesses-can-be-used-to-corroborate-rape-claims-scotland

Pertinent thread to this.

I wonder if there’s a case for a retrospective review of the case in the light of this decision?

The Times has an article on the case with words from the brave girl, now women, it's an archive link

https://archive.ph/nEQGR

Here's Findlays website with details of how to hire him. He's popular at after dinner events.

https://www.donaldrfindlayqc.co.uk/engage-with-donald/

I am woefully ignorant as to how the law works but have just googled Donald Findlay. Would the accused directly have appointed (and paid) him or would he have put himself forward because he found the case interesting and/or winnable? Could the accused appoint someone as renowned as DF via Legal Aid or is it down to being able to afford such an eminent and successful barrister/lawyer (slightly embarrassed I don’t know the difference!) Can we surmise that the accused was well-connected or have friends in high places in order to secure the services of DF?

I have always been curious as to how these things work. Hoping some kind and knowledgeable MN person will help educate me. I have never understood how certain legal people seem to thrive on defending those accused of the most heinous crimes. It’s always smacked of a bit of an egotistical intellectual exercise and an opportunity to demonstrate skill and knowledge rather than a true desire for justice. I hope I’m wrong on this.

Could be. He's certainly not covered himself in glory in his personal life.

Northernsouloldies Today 18:10

Yes, I know that you weren't advocating vigilanteeism, but my goodness, if my daughter had been his victim, I don't know how I'd react to this.

Maybe it's confirmation bias, but I always see to see him in the news defending wee scrotes, rather than defending any other kind of criminal. (Or perhaps all/most criminals are wee scrotes).

It wasn't meant to be taken literally, I'm definitely not in the flog em hang em bracket. It was the smugness, he knows he's done wrong and clean got away with it.

The smugness just heaps the insult on further doesn’t it?

I can’t help but hope - even if just for the smugness- that this case follows him round like the stink of dung to the end of his days.

@DdraigGoch

I genuinely don't know, I was just chipping in my tuppenceworth from my, thankfully limited, experience, Hopefully someone else can answer re the age question.

It wasn't meant to be taken literally, I'm definitely not in the flog em hang em bracket. It was the smugness, he knows he's done wrong and clean got away with it.

I agree sinnerboy

I don’t want to see vigilantes roaming the streets but I suspect it will happen.

It has happened up here (not after a sexual assault but relentless bullying culminating in serious assault). Someone just had enough of the authorities doing nothing. It was reported that the person who met another form of ‘justice’ was not harmed physically.

I didn’t agree with the parent’s actions. I do, however, understand it. And my sympathy still lies with the original victim - not the one who got telt.

To be fair to DF, that is his job.

Just as I thought it couldn't get worse. Those photos of him are enraging.

As for Donald Findlay, always seems to be him defending the wee scrotes.

Northernsouloldies · Today 16:11

I wouldn't tire of punching that smug little fucker.

I'm not calling for it, but this and similar cases are very likely to result in vigilante action. I despair.

Lady Dorrian said Lord Lake and the prosecutor had agreed that a legal rule for rape cases known as the Moorov doctrine was the correct way to convict Hogg.
Moorov, which is named after a case in the 1930s, is when corroboration can be found from evidence of similar incidents of sexual assault committed around the same time.
At his trial, Mr Hogg had initially faced sexual assault charges against a second woman. However, he was acquitted of these.
Lady Dorrian said the Moorov rule was therefore wrongly applied in this case.
She wrote: "The only available means of corroboration was the application of Moorov, without that there could be no route any verdict of guilt."

^^

But surely in the case of a 13 year old, he's committed an offence purely on the basis of her age, no?

I would urge people to read the whole story on the BBC News site.

The Moorov doctrine referred to in it, incidentally, is the reason Isla Bryson/Adam Graham was found guilty of rape.

"Corroboration" doesn't mean there has to be a witness, it just means there needs to be corroborating evidence, not just he said/she said.

I was on the jury for a rape trial once. We acquitted because, in the jury's opinion, the evidence (e.g. CCTV before and after, ME's evidence/photos, inconsistencies in witness statements) corroborated his account that the sex was consensual.

I understand how difficult it is to even get a case to court, never mid convict, but I don't agree with getting rid of corroboration.

Corroboration is a feature of Scottish criminal law.

There has been a consultation on removing the requirement for corroboration but AFAIK nothing concrete has come of it yet.

In some ways Scotland is a medieval dump. The campaign by Scottish Labour, ghf SNP and the Greens to be "progressive" in gender ideology and "hate crimes" will ensure that it continues to be so.