Clarifying Joint Criminal Responsibility in Stalking: Insights from Miller v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2021]

Introduction

The case of Kevin Miller and Lauren Miller against Her Majesty's Advocate ([2021] ScotHC HCJAC_30) represents a pivotal moment in Scottish criminal jurisprudence concerning the complexities of joint criminal responsibility under stalking legislation. This case revolved around convictions for stalking under Section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. The appellants, a father and daughter duo, challenged their convictions on various grounds, ultimately leading to the quashing of their convictions due to inadequate jury directions regarding the concept of "concert" or joint criminal intent.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court of Justiciary examined the convictions of Kevin Miller (KM) and his daughter Lauren Miller (LM) for charges related to stalking their estranged wife and mother, Linda Miller. The charges under scrutiny involved complex interactions and a series of actions aimed at coercing Linda back to the family home. The court focused on whether the Crown had sufficiently established that both appellants acted in concert with the necessary intent to cause fear or alarm, as required by the statute.

The court found that the trial sheriff had failed to provide adequate directions to the jury on the doctrine of concert and the requirements for establishing criminal intent. This deficiency led to a miscarriage of justice, resulting in the quashing of convictions related to charges 10 and 14. However, convictions for charge 1 were upheld due to sufficient corroborative evidence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

McGartland v HM Advocate 2015 SCCR 192: Emphasized the trial judge's duty to tailor jury directions to the specific circumstances of the case.
Green v HM Advocate 2020 JC 90: Highlighted the necessity for clear jury instructions in complex concert cases.
Khalid v HM Advocate 1990 JC 37: Clarified that knowledge of a co-accused's actions is insufficient for joint criminal responsibility without active facilitation of a common purpose.
Fee v HM Advocate 2017 SCCR 166: Reinforced that one accused's knowledge of another's conduct does not establish joint responsibility.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously dissected the Crown's failure to adequately define the common criminal purpose (concert) and the necessary intent or knowledge required for a stalking conviction. It underscored that mere actions, such as apologies or attempts to reconcile, do not inherently satisfy the elements of criminal stalking unless coupled with the requisite intent to cause fear or alarm.

Furthermore, the court criticized the Crown for not providing clear guidance on how joint responsibility was established, especially when actions were performed independently by each appellant. The lack of detailed instructions on distinguishing between lawful conduct and criminal intent left the jury without a clear framework to assess the evidence, leading to unjust convictions.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent in Scottish law by reinforcing the necessity for precise jury instructions, especially in cases involving joint criminal responsibility and stalking. It serves as a cautionary tale for prosecutors to ensure that all legal elements, particularly intent and the notion of concert, are explicitly addressed and clearly conveyed to the jury.

Future cases involving joint actions and stalking will likely reference this judgment to argue for or against the sufficiency of jury directions. Additionally, it may influence legislative discussions on clarifying the statutory definitions and requirements for stalking offenses.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Concert in Criminal Law

Concert refers to a situation where multiple individuals work together with a common purpose to commit a criminal offense. Establishing concert requires demonstrating not just that each individual performed certain actions, but that they did so with shared intent or a prearranged plan.

Stalking under Section 39(1)

Under Section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, stalking involves engaging in a course of conduct that causes another person to fear or become alarmed. For a conviction, it must be proven that the perpetrator had the intent or knowledge that their actions would likely cause such fear or alarm.

Miscarriage of Justice

A miscarriage of justice occurs when the legal proceedings result in an unjust outcome, often due to errors in law application, insufficient evidence, or flawed jury instructions. In this case, inadequate jury directions regarding the concept of concert led to wrongful convictions.

Conclusion

The Miller v. Her Majesty's Advocate case underscores the critical importance of clear and comprehensive jury instructions in criminal trials, particularly those involving complex doctrines like joint criminal responsibility. By highlighting the Crown's shortcomings in articulating the necessary elements of concert and criminal intent, the High Court has reinforced standards that aim to prevent miscarriages of justice. This judgment not only serves as a guide for future prosecutions but also emphasizes the judiciary's role in ensuring that juries are adequately equipped to discern the nuances of criminal conduct. The decision ultimately fosters a more robust and fair legal process, safeguarding the rights of the accused while upholding judicial integrity.