Caselaw: Rodgerson v PF Alloa – “Significant Sexual Element” in a Social Media case.

In the recent appeal of Rodgerson v Procurator Fiscal, Alloa [2016] HCJAC 12, the question of whether the circumstances of the offence contained a “significant sexual element” was considered. That phrase is important.  The Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides for the registration of offenders who have committed sexual offences.  Schedule 3 to the Act specifies offences Read more about Caselaw: Rodgerson v PF Alloa – “Significant Sexual Element” in a Social Media case.[…]

Insight: Sexual Assault – A Higher Hurdle?

In the recent case of Tait v HM Advocate [2015] HCJAC 58, the Appeal Court was asked to consider whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 20 of the 2009 Act ought to be quashed. The interesting aspect of this appeal was the approach of the Court to the interpretation of Section 20 of the Act, Read more about Insight: Sexual Assault – A Higher Hurdle?[…]

Caselaw: Oppression by the Crown

In HM Advocate v JRD, the Trial Judge deserted a case simpliciter having decided that the Crown acted oppressively in bringing forth allegations against the accused for which there was no evidential basis. The accused was indicted for trial on three charges.  The first two charges related to the same complainer, CD: –  (1) that on various Read more about Caselaw: Oppression by the Crown[…]

Caselaw: Sexual Offences Prevention Orders – EA v HM Advocate

This interesting little case (EA v HM Advocate [2014] HCJAC 96) may have sneaked under the radar. I now come back to it for two reasons; firstly it is an important lesson in the requirements for the imposition of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO); and, secondly (and less importantly) I was involved in the drafting of Read more about Caselaw: Sexual Offences Prevention Orders – EA v HM Advocate[…]