M.R. v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

[1] On 19 August 2011, at the High Court in Edinburgh, the appellant was convicted of ten charges involving sexual offences against three daughters, two nieces and a daughter-in-law. The significant libels, for purposes of the main argument in the appeal, are as follows:

(6) on an occasion between 1 June 1973 and 30 August 1973 ... on an unclassified road near to the A73 ... you ... did assault SG, your niece, born ... January 1962 ... remove her clothing, climb on top of her, place your private member against her private parts and rape her, to her injury".

[2] On 23 September 2011 the appellant was sentenced to a total custodial period of eleven years, the period on charge (4) being three years and that on charge (6) being a consecutive seven years (see infra ).

"Equally, it would be open to you to take the view that rape is merely a different degree of essentially the same course of sexually abusive conduct against younger females in the family circle assuming, of course, you found the course of conduct established. In that event you would have corroboration and you would be entitled to convict, I say.

However, and this is another qualification, I think there would be difficulty, as a matter of law, in finding a course of conduct that extended to rape if there was not at least one other incident forming part of the course of conduct involving a different victim that at least approached rape. On that basis, I must direct you that, in the circumstances of this case, you would not be entitled to convict on charge 6 of rape unless you were also to find charge 4 of assault on [D] while naked on the bed etc. established to your satisfaction".