tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post8064673361385577752..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: Hanging with Frank in double jeopardy...Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-64391461088738337612010-03-28T08:32:19.393+01:002010-03-28T08:32:19.393+01:00Duty done, to the answer!
Your twitching layman&#...Duty done, to the answer!<br /><br />Your twitching layman's instincts are correct, Calum. The 'Moorov doctrine' <i>(originating, predictably enough, in the case of Moorov v. HM Advocate of 1930)</i> is indeed a rule of evidence which adds a dash of complexity to the ordinary requirement that crucial evidence is corroborated. I'll quote the <i>Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia's</i> characterisation of the rule. Its authors have a far more acute talent for concision and accuracy than I do:<br /><br /><i>"Where an accused is tried on two or more charges alleging similar acts which are so connected in time, character and circumstances as to justify an inference that they are instances of a course of similar conduct systematically pursued by him, the evidence of a single witness in relation to one charge may be corroborated by the evidence of another single witness in relation to another."</i><br /><br />It is my understanding that the doctrine is most usually employed to corroborate in cases of a string of sexual offences. It generates the result, for example, that if Uncle X only sexually abuses one of his young nieces, and the only evidence of his criminality is Niece A's evidence - that will be insufficiently corroborated to convict him. By contrast, if Uncle X engaged in a similar pattern of abuse against A's sister B, then under Moorov, their evidence could mutually corroborate. Equally, as I understand the matter, if Uncle X extended his predations to their mother, C, corroboration under Moorov would not be possible, since an act of rape is absent the same quality of "similarity" furnished in relation to the C's second daughter.<br /><br />I hope that is clear as mud!<br />Cheerio,<br />LPWLallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-1700824728411589142010-03-26T16:30:39.624+00:002010-03-26T16:30:39.624+00:00I've hardly had a breath of time free over the...I've hardly had a breath of time free over the past couple of days, Calum. I'll give you a decent answer on this one tomorrow!<br /><br />Cheerio,<br />LPWLallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-32728888345993917162010-03-25T16:10:50.818+00:002010-03-25T16:10:50.818+00:00As a layman in the law who thinks he once heard so...As a layman in the law who thinks he once heard something interesting, I can't help asking whether the Moorov doctrine was something to do with corroboration? I thought it was that a pattern of previous behaviour could corroborate otherwise uncorroborated evidence. I might be in Alicante trying to get to Forfar on this, right enough!Calum Cashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01059728094634130387noreply@blogger.com