ROBERT ALEXANDER MACKIE v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

[1] The appellant is Robert Alexander Mackie who was convicted at the High Court at Glasgow of a charge in these terms:

"On 27 January 1999 at the house occupied by [him] ... [he] did assault [the complainer] ... seize hold of her by the body, pull chains from around her neck, repeatedly punch her on the head, seize hold of her by the neck, pull her onto a settee, forcibly remove her clothing, attempt to kiss her on the mouth, lie on top of her and did rape her."

The issue in this appeal is, therefore, whether the medical evidence was so ambiguous that no reasonable jury could choose to interpret it in such a way that it would support the direct evidence of the complainer. If not, it was a matter for the jury to decide whether they interpreted the medical evidence in such a way that it fitted with the complainer's direct evidence and so provided the necessary corroboration.

[2] The appellant admitted having had sexual intercourse with the complainer on the occasion in question but said that this had been with her consent. The only issue, accordingly, was whether the Crown had established that the intercourse had occurred without the complainer's consent and as a result of force, as the complainer said.

[4] As can be seen from this account of the complainer's evidence, she spoke to a struggle during which she was struck on the upper part of her body and was threatened. As a result, she eventually gave up the struggle and the appellant had sexual relations with her.