WILLIAM WALKER v. PRODUCATOR FISCAL, EDINBURGH

[1] The only issue which arises in this appeal is that focused in the first question to the stated case, namely whether there were sufficient circumstances of similarity between the evidence of the complainer on charges 1 and 2 and the evidence of complainers on other charges for the doctrine of mutual corroboration to be applied. Leave to appeal against the other charges was refused by the judge at first sift and there was no attempt to reinstate the challenge against conviction on those charges.

[3] In relation to the doctrine of mutual corroboration the sheriff had regard to MR v HMA [2013] HCJAC 8 where the court said:

"[20] What the court is looking for are the conventional similarities in time, place and circumstances in the behaviour proved in terms of the libel ........... such as demonstrate that the individual incidents are component parts of one course of criminal conduct persistently pursued by the accused ...... Whether these similarities exist will often be a question of fact and degree..."

The sheriff noted that the behaviour was always towards someone with whom the appellant had a close emotional and domestic relationship, and showed a similar pattern of behaviour within each such relationship. The sheriff observed that there was no maximum interval of time beyond which the doctrine could not be applied, and the time lapse required to be considered in the context of the appellant's marital history, since the behaviour took place in the context of marital relationships.