Moorov Doctrine MM PDF

Preview

Summary

The moorov doctrine and its history summarised using lecture and case notes in the form of a mind map. ...

Description

Provides

limited to pairs of charges and to charges on the same indictment

that the evidence of one witness (Witness A) in a case of criminal conduct forming part of a series of two or more instances of criminal conduct may be capable of providing corroboration for the evidence of a witness (Witness B) in another case/ cases closely connected in time/ character/circumstance and where an underlying unity can be proven

Limitations

wider doctrine of 'similar fact evidence' prevails in UK

authority for the proposition that corroboration of one charge (A) may be found in evidence of another, similar, charge (B) even with no positive identification of the accused in relation to charge A jury is able to find that the two offences must have been committed by the same person, and there is corroborated evidence of identity in relation to charge B

Lord Justice-General Clyde

the test I think is whether the evidence of a single witness leads by necessary inference to the establishment of some circumstances or state of fact underlying and connecting several charges

Howden v HMA 1994 Moorov Doctrine What is the test of sufficiency? (for mutual corroboration)

where there is similarities between A and B judicial interpretation of Moorov remains uncertain

noted there is authority which suggests that Moorov may only operate where there are at least two live charges remaining on the indictment the evidence relating to charges of which the accused has been acquitted must be left out of account

if it had been independently established, would have afforded corroboration of the evidence given by the single witnesses in support of the separate charged the connection between the separate acts must be such as to exhibit them as subordinates in some particular and ascertained unity of intent

PM v HMA 2011

read in conjunction with RG v HMA

court JL v HMA 2016

there is no maximum interval of time fixed by law beyond which the Moorov principle cannot apply the probative effect of a significant time gap can only be determined in light of the circumstances of the case the more similar the conduct the less important a significant time gap may be Time, character & circumstance

the evidence must be such as to show the events are linked in such a way as to justify the conclusion that each is com-

AK v HM Advocate 2012 Lord Justice Clerk Gill

AS v HM Advocate 2015, Lord Justice Clerk Carloway

AS v HM Advocate

not enough that the events constitute isolated instances of similar conduct MR v HMA 2013...