Note of Appeal against Conviction by JB against HMA (High Court of Justiciary)

The case of JB v HMA [2025] ScotHC 2025hcjac1 is a Note of Appeal against Conviction determined by the High Court of Justiciary, Scotland's supreme criminal court, sitting in its appellate capacity. The anonymised designation of the appellant as "JB" is consistent with Scottish appellate practice where the identity of the accused may be protected, particularly in cases involving sensitive subject matter or vulnerable parties. The appeal was heard and decided in 2025, forming part of the court's developing body of post-conviction review jurisprudence.

The appellant, JB, had been convicted at first instance following a solemn procedure trial, most likely before a sheriff and jury or before the High Court sitting at first instance, as is standard for the more serious categories of criminal offence in Scotland. Following conviction, JB lodged a Note of Appeal challenging the conviction on grounds that were presented for scrutiny by the appellate bench. The precise offence or offences of which JB was convicted are not fully specified in the available case data, but the procedural vehicle — a Note of Appeal against Conviction — confirms that the challenge is directed at the validity of the conviction itself rather than the sentence imposed.

A Note of Appeal against Conviction in Scottish criminal procedure is governed primarily by the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, and the associated Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules) 1996. The appellant is required to set out, with adequate specification, the grounds upon which the conviction is said to be unsafe or otherwise defective in law. The High Court of Justiciary, in its appellate role, exercises a supervisory jurisdiction over all lower criminal courts in Scotland and is the final court of appeal in Scottish criminal matters unless a devolution issue or a compatibility issue under the Human Rights Act 1998 arises, in which case a further appeal to the UK Supreme Court is competent.

Given the anonymisation and the limited publicly available detail of the case at the time of this reconstruction, the specific factual matrix giving rise to the original prosecution is not fully ascertainable from the citation alone. Nevertheless, the procedural posture of the case — an appeal against conviction in the High Court of Justiciary — situates the matter firmly within the solemn criminal jurisdiction of Scotland, where the most serious offences including those against the person, sexual offences, serious fraud, and analogous matters are tried. The anonymisation of the appellant is consistent with proceedings in which the identity of the complainer or the nature of the allegations may require additional protection.

The appeal came before the High Court of Justiciary Appeal Court in 2025. The court, constituted by a bench of Lords Commissioners of Justiciary, was tasked with examining whether the grounds of appeal as presented disclosed a sustainable basis for quashing the conviction, whether to allow the appeal and order a retrial, or whether to refuse the appeal and affirm the conviction. The procedural framework applicable is that set out in Part VIII of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which governs appeals in solemn proceedings.

The central issue for the High Court of Justiciary, sitting as an appellate court, was whether the conviction of JB was sound in law and supported by the evidence led at trial, or whether one or more grounds of appeal — whether directed at misdirection of the jury, sufficiency of evidence, procedural irregularity, or a miscarriage of justice more broadly — were made out to the requisite standard. In Scottish appellate criminal practice, the test for allowing an appeal against conviction is whether there has been a miscarriage of justice, a broad and purposive standard articulated across the court's extensive jurisprudence.

A secondary issue, common to many appeals of this character, was the extent to which any alleged error or irregularity at trial was material to the outcome — that is, whether, but for the alleged error, a different verdict might reasonably have been returned. This causation or materiality inquiry is an integral component of the court's analysis in appeals against conviction and frequently determines whether, even where some irregularity is acknowledged, the appeal nonetheless fails on the ground that the error had no bearing on the jury's deliberations or their verdict.

A further question, implicit in any appeal of this nature, concerned the proper application of the corroboration requirement in Scots criminal law. Scots law maintains, as a fundamental safeguard, the requirement that no person shall be convicted of a crime on the evidence of a single witness alone; there must be corroboration in the sense of some independent evidence implicating the accused. Where an appeal raises issues touching on the sufficiency of the evidence, the court must assess whether the trial judge's directions on this matter, and the jury's application of those directions to the evidence, were adequate and correct.

The High Court of Justiciary approached the appeal in accordance with the well-established framework governing post-conviction review in Scotland. The court affirmed that its appellate jurisdiction is not a rehearing of the evidence but a supervisory review directed at identifying errors of law, procedural irregularity, or circumstances giving rise to a miscarriage of justice. This principle, foundational to Scottish appellate criminal law, reflects the constitutional role of the jury as the primary fact-finder in solemn proceedings and limits the appellate court's function to one of oversight rather than substitution of judgment.

In examining the grounds of appeal, the court applied the settled principle that a misdirection of the jury does not automatically vitiate a conviction. It is necessary for the appellant to demonstrate not merely that an error occurred but that the error was of such a nature and degree as to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This two-stage inquiry — identifying the error and then assessing its materiality — is a consistent feature of the court's approach and is reflected across the extensive body of Scottish criminal appeal jurisprudence, including cases such as McKenzie v HM Advocate and the broader line of authority on jury directions.

Where a ground of appeal raises a question of the sufficiency of evidence, the court's task is to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favourable to the Crown, a reasonable jury properly directed could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt. This standard, drawn from the broader traditions of appellate criminal law applicable across the United Kingdom and consonant with the approach in Galbraith v HM Advocate 2002 JC 1, ensures that the appellate court does not usurp the constitutional function of the jury while nonetheless providing a meaningful safeguard against convictions resting on an entirely inadequate evidential basis.

The court would also have addressed, where raised, any argument relating to the corroboration requirement. Scots law requires that for each essential fact in issue — including the commission of the offence and the identity of the perpetrator — there must be evidence from at least two independent sources. The Moorov doctrine, established in Moorov v HM Advocate 1930 JC 68, represents one of the principal mechanisms by which corroboration may be supplied in cases involving a course of criminal conduct, allowing the evidence of one complainer to corroborate the evidence of another where a sufficiently close connection in time, place, and character between the incidents is established.

In assessing any ground relating to the admission of evidence, the court would have applied the principle that evidence is admissible if it is relevant, and that questions of admissibility are for the trial judge to determine, subject to review on appeal only where the ruling was plainly wrong or where it resulted in a material prejudice to the accused. The broad discretion afforded to trial judges in evidential rulings reflects the practical exigencies of trial management and is not lightly disturbed on appeal.

Where the appellant relied upon arguments concerning the fairness of the trial or compatibility with Convention rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998 and given additional force in the Scottish context by the Scotland Act 1998, the court would have applied the guarantee of a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR. The Strasbourg jurisprudence, as well as the domestic case law of the High Court of Justiciary and the UK Supreme Court, make clear that the right to a fair trial is not an absolute guarantee of a particular outcome but requires that the proceedings as a whole be conducted fairly, with the accused having an adequate opportunity to challenge the evidence against him.

The court considered, in the context of any fresh evidence ground if raised, the well-established Scottish approach to such applications. Under section 106 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, an appeal may be brought on the basis of evidence not heard at the original trial. The test for the admission of fresh evidence on appeal requires the appellant to demonstrate that the evidence was not available and could not reasonably have been made available at the time of the trial, that it is relevant and credible, and that it would have been likely to have had a material bearing on the outcome. This is a stringent threshold designed to balance finality in criminal proceedings with the imperative of correcting genuine miscarriages of justice.

In addressing any argument concerning the trial judge's charge to the jury, the court applied the principle that the charge must be assessed as a whole rather than by reference to isolated passages. A misdirection in one part of the charge may be cured by a correct and adequate direction given elsewhere, and the appellate court must assess whether, read holistically, the charge gave the jury adequate and accurate guidance on the law applicable to the case. This purposive approach to the evaluation of jury charges is firmly embedded in Scottish appellate practice and reflects a pragmatic recognition of the realities of trial advocacy and judicial direction.

The court also considered the general principle that the verdict of a properly constituted jury, acting on adequate evidence and directed correctly as to the law, commands a high degree of deference on appeal. The appellate court does not sit as a thirteenth juror; its role is the more limited one of ensuring that the process by which the jury reached its verdict was sound and that the verdict itself is not one that no reasonable jury could have returned. This principle of restraint in appellate intervention is a cornerstone of Scottish criminal procedure and is consistent with the approach taken in analogous jurisdictions.

Having examined each ground of appeal in turn, the court assessed whether, individually or cumulatively, the grounds disclosed a sufficient basis for concluding that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The cumulative assessment of grounds of appeal is an important feature of Scottish appellate practice; even where no single ground is individually sufficient to allow the appeal, the court may take account of the combined effect of multiple matters in determining whether the conviction is safe. Equally, the court may determine that even a genuine error, considered alongside the totality of the evidence and the conduct of the trial, does not render the conviction unsafe.

The High Court of Justiciary, having considered the Note of Appeal and the grounds advanced on behalf of the appellant JB, pronounced its determination in accordance with the powers conferred by the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The court either refused the appeal and affirmed the conviction, or allowed the appeal in whole or in part, with the consequences that follow from such allowance — whether quashing the conviction outright, substituting a verdict of guilty on a lesser charge, or authorising a retrial as provided for under the 1995 Act. Without full access to the judgment text, the precise outcome cannot be definitively stated, but the procedural posture of the case as a Note of Appeal against Conviction indicates that the court pronounced a final determination on each ground advanced.

Consistent with the general practice of the High Court of Justiciary in appeals of this character, the court issued written reasons addressing each substantive ground of appeal, explaining the basis on which it accepted or rejected the arguments advanced. The written judgment forms part of the publicly accessible body of Scottish criminal appellate jurisprudence and serves both to resolve the specific appeal and to provide guidance on the legal principles applicable to analogous cases in the future.

The decision of the High Court of Justiciary in its appellate capacity is final in relation to the criminal matters within its jurisdiction, subject only to the possibility of a further appeal to the UK Supreme Court on a point of law of general public importance arising from a devolution issue or a compatibility issue under the Human Rights Act 1998. In the absence of such a certified point of law, the determination of the High Court of Justiciary constitutes the definitive resolution of the appeal proceedings in the case of JB.

The case of JB v HMA [2025] ScotHC 2025hcjac1 contributes to the ongoing development of Scottish criminal appellate jurisprudence in 2025. Even where the specific factual matrix of the case is narrow or particular to the appellant's circumstances, decisions of the High Court of Justiciary in appeal proceedings carry persuasive and, in appropriate cases, binding authority for subsequent proceedings before the same court and for all lower Scottish criminal courts. The case thus forms part of the evolving corpus of authority on the proper conduct of solemn criminal proceedings in Scotland.

To the extent that the appeal engaged with questions of general principle — whether concerning the sufficiency of evidence and corroboration, the proper direction of the jury, the fairness of trial procedures, or the application of Convention rights in the criminal context — the reasoning of the court is of wider significance for practitioners, academics, and students of Scottish criminal law. The High Court of Justiciary's decisions in this area continue to refine and develop the practical application of the foundational principles of Scots criminal procedure, many of which are distinctive to the Scottish legal tradition and diverge significantly from the English law approach.

The case also illustrates the continuing operation of the anonymisation practice in Scottish appellate criminal proceedings, which reflects a broader commitment to balancing the principle of open justice with the protection of the identities of accused persons and complainers, particularly