Introduction

The case [2022] HCJAC 33, heard by the Scottish High Court of Justiciary on August 23, 2022, represents a significant judicial examination of the corroboration requirements under the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. The appellant, referred to as CA, was convicted of contravening two statutory provisions: section 1 of the aforementioned Act and section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. The primary contention of the appeal centers on alleged misdirections regarding corroboration standards and the assertion that the imposed sentence was excessively punitive.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant, CA, was convicted on two charges: contravention of section 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 and section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. The court sentenced CA to three years of imprisonment for the first charge and issued an admonition for the second. The appeal challenged the sheriff's directions on the necessity of corroboration for section 1 offenses and argued that the sentence was disproportionate. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, affirming that under section 1, a "course of behaviour" requiring corroboration by at least two independent sources suffices for conviction, even if individual incidents lack corroboration.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases to delineate the boundaries of corroboration in domestic abuse cases:

• Dalton v HM Advocate (2015 SCCR 125): Affirmed the necessity of corroboration for separate allegations of criminality.
• Spinks v Harrower (2018 JC 177): Established principles around corroboration but was deemed not applicable to the current statutory context.
• Wilson v HM Advocate (2019 HCJAC 36): Highlighted that multiple episodes within an omnibus charge should be viewed as separate crimes requiring individual corroboration.
• Rysmanowski v HM Advocate (2020 JC 84): Reinforced that separate criminal acts within a charge require individual corroboration unless mutually corroborative.
• Finlay v HMA (2020 SCCR 317): Dealt with corroboration under section 38(1) and served as a foundational reference for the current judgment.
• Campbell v Vannet (1998 SCCR 207): Distinguished between single offenses and multiple related offenses, emphasizing corroboration needs.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning pivoted on the statutory framework of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, particularly section 1, which defines abuse as a "course of behaviour" occurring on at least two occasions. The key points of reasoning include:

• Course of Behaviour: The court interpreted "course of behaviour" as a single offense comprising multiple incidents that collectively establish abuse.
• Corroboration Requirement: It was determined that corroboration is necessary for at least two incidents within the course of behaviour, allowing uncorroborated incidents to be admitted if they are part of the established course.
• Statutory Context Supremacy: The court emphasized that statutory offenses under the 2018 Act create distinct parameters, differentiating them from common assault charges where each act requires individual corroboration.
• Policy Intent: Reference to the policy memorandum accompanying the Act clarified legislative intent to prosecute ongoing abusive behavior as a unified offense.

Furthermore, the court distinguished the current case from previous interpretations, asserting that the legislation intended to streamline prosecution of domestic abuse by focusing on the overall pattern rather than isolated incidents.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future domestic abuse prosecutions in Scotland:

• Clarification of Corroboration Standards: Establishes that under section 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, only a subset of incidents within a course of abuse need corroboration, simplifying the evidentiary process.
• Empowerment of Prosecution: Facilitates the prosecution of complex abuse cases where multiple, possibly uncorroborated, incidents form a coherent pattern of behavior.
• Jury Directions: Provides clear guidance on how juries should assess corroborative evidence, enhancing consistency in verdicts.
• Legal Precedent: Serves as a precedent for interpreting statutory definitions of abuse, potentially influencing legislative reviews and future amendments.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment employs several legal terminologies and concepts that may be intricate for those unfamiliar with legal proceedings. Below is a simplification of these concepts:

• Corroboration: The requirement that evidence supporting a claim must be confirmed by at least two independent sources to ensure reliability.
• Course of Behaviour: A series of actions or incidents that collectively constitute a single offense, rather than multiple separate offenses.
• Libel: In legal terms, a detailed written statement of the charges or allegations against someone, not to be confused with defamation.
• Omnibus Charge: A single charge that encompasses multiple incidents or actions, treated collectively as one offense.
• Admonition: A formal warning or reprimand issued by the court, which does not carry the weight of a criminal conviction.

Understanding these concepts is crucial for comprehending how the court evaluates evidence and determines the application of the law in complex domestic abuse cases.

Conclusion

The [2022] HCJAC 33 judgment serves as a pivotal reference in the landscape of Scottish domestic abuse law. By affirming that a "course of behaviour" under section 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 requires corroboration for at least two incidents, the court has streamlined the evidentiary standards necessary for conviction. This approach balances the need for robust proof with the practicalities of prosecuting sustained abusive behavior. Additionally, the upholding of the sentence underscores the judiciary's commitment to addressing the severity of domestic abuse comprehensively. As a result, this judgment not only clarifies existing legal standards but also reinforces the mechanisms through which victims of domestic abuse can seek justice.