Rape decriminalised in Scotland

[Hoardasurass]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/alleged-teen-rapist-avoids-justice-30315356?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
Does anyone know what we can do about this

Who the fuck is he connected to that Donald Findlay represented him.

Yes, he's kind of the Ben Cooper of Scottish criminal defence. Unfortunately I thought it would go that way when I saw he was defence counsel.

No apologies for DM link.

"The defence lawyer told the court that the complainer whose evidence led to Hogg's conviction had to have her account of being sexually assaulted corroborated."

Where is this, Scotland or a fucking Gulf state? The victims saying she's been raped isn't enough, she has to be corroborated? So sick of this woman hating shit

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12618953/Man-conviction-quashed-jury-guilty-raping-13-year-old.html#article-12618953

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

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.

"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.

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.

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

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."

^^

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.

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.

To be fair to DF, that is his job.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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/

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

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?

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.

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.