Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[1] On 10 August 2012, at Aberdeen High Court, the appellant was convicted of four charges involving an escalating pattern of abduction or attempted abduction of girls in Aberdeen over the period October 2007 to January 2012. The final incident, with which this appeal is concerned, involved the abduction, assault to injury and rape of EW, aged 15, by seizing her in the street, putting her in the back of his car, handcuffing her, driving her to Torry Battery, pulling down her lower clothing, grabbing her bottom and repeatedly penetrating her vagina.
[2] On 7 December 2012, the appellant was made the subject of an Order for Lifelong Restriction, with a punishment part of 5 years. This appeal concerns only the rape element of the conviction; the appellant having accepted that he abducted the girl and drove her to the locus.
[5] There was no DNA from the appellant on the complainer or her clothes. However, traces of DNA from an unknown male were found on the upper front of the complainer's pants, which could have been transferred there directly by contact or by secondary means.
[6] In his interview by the police, the appellant admitted abducting the complainer and taking her to the Torry Battery. He said that he had not sexually assaulted her. When they had arrived at the car park, the complainer had wanted the toilet. She had sat down near "a little fence thing". He had then left. In a subsequent voluntary statement, he had admitted handcuffing the complainer, sitting her down and seizing her when she had attempted to get up. However, he still maintained that he had then driven off.
[7] The appellant did not give evidence, but the defence line was in accordance with his interview and statement to the police. The complainer was cross-examined on the basis that she had not been raped by the appellant. In his speech to the jury (see charge p 59), the appellant's solicitor advocate challenged the complainer's credibility and reliability by focusing upon her drunken state, the absence of DNA from the appellant and the finding of the DNA of another male on her pants. He stressed that there was no forensic evidence to corroborate the complainer's account of penetration.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.