Principles Governing Late Admission of Hearsay Evidence and Transparent Sentencing in Multi-Offence Cases

Introduction

This commentary examines the decision of the Scottish High Court of Justiciary in Appeal against Conviction and Sentence by Kyle Beveridge ([2025] HCJAC 23), delivered on 21 May 2025 by Lord Justice Clerk Lord Matthews, Lady Wise and Lord Beckett. The appellant, Mr. Beveridge, was convicted of multiple counts of domestic abuse and rape spanning three complainants over an eight-year period. He challenged (1) the trial judge’s admission of late hearsay evidence under section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and (2) the length of the custodial term within his extended sentence. The court’s ruling articulates two significant principles: the stringent requirements for admitting late hearsay statements and a transparent, structured approach to sentencing multiple offences in the wake of HM Advocate v Fergusson 2024 JC 376.

Summary of the Judgment

The appeal court made two core determinations:

• Although the trial judge erred in admitting the late hearsay notice on inadequate information, the error did not lead to a miscarriage of justice because the route to verdict on the key charge (rape) depended exclusively on mutual corroboration among complainers, unaffected by the hearsay evidence.
• The 12-year custodial term of a 16-year extended sentence was upheld. Following Fergusson, the court confirmed that a sentencing judge must identify individual or grouped sentences for each complainant or offence, state the aggregate total, and then explain any reduction from that total to ensure proportionality and transparency. Mr. Beveridge’s overall sentence was found neither excessive nor inappropriate.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Section 259 Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995: Governs admission of hearsay from witnesses unfit to testify. It requires notice before trial and “good reason” for late applications (s.259(6)(b)).
• Glass v HM Advocate 2019 JC 17: Established that wrongful admission of evidence warrants reversal only if there is a miscarriage of justice.
• HM Advocate v Fergusson 2024 JC 376: Prescribed best practice for sentencing multiple charges—identify individual or grouped sentences, state the cumulative total, then explain any reduction to avoid excessive or derisory outcomes.
• McDade v HM Advocate 1997 SCCR 52: Early articulation of the difficulty in aggregating sentences for multiple offences.
• Other authorities on appellate review of sentence: Barnes v HM Advocate 2024 JC 364; Murray v HM Advocate 2013 SCCR 88; McGill v HM Advocate 2014 SCCR 46; Miller v HM Advocate 2024 JC 253.

Legal Reasoning

1. Admission of Late Hearsay Evidence: Section 259 requires notice “before trial,” subject to exceptions only if there is good reason for late notice. Here, the Crown furnished minimal information on the fourth day. The trial judge accepted that Alzheimer’s rendered the witness unfit and admitted the hearsay. On appeal the Crown conceded the procedural error. The court then considered whether that error caused a miscarriage of justice under Glass. It held that the jury’s route to verdict on the rape charge depended solely on mutual corroboration among complainers. Since the flawed hearsay played no part in that route—properly identified in the judge’s directions—the error was harmless.

2. Sentencing Multiple Offences: The court reaffirmed Fergusson requiring transparency when sentencing on multiple charges. The sentencing judge must:

• Identify individual or grouped offences (e.g., by complainant or offence type).
• Announce the appropriate sentence for each.
• State the straightforward cumulative total.
• Explain any reduction from the total to ensure fairness and proportionality.

In this case, the judge set out sentences for each of the six charges, calculated a total custodial term of 25½ years, then explained a 51% reduction to a 12-year custodial term within a 16-year extended sentence. The court concluded that this exercise fully complied with Fergusson and avoided disproportion.

Impact

This decision clarifies two important points:

• Hearsay Admission: Late notices must meet both timing and substantive “good reason” requirements. Even conceded procedural errors will only result in quashing a conviction if they undermine the factual foundation or a route to verdict.
• Sentencing Transparency: Post-Fergusson, sentencing judges are obliged to explain how multi-charge totals are derived and why they have been reduced. Appellate courts will not disturb a sentence that follows this structured approach and falls within the permissible range.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Route to Verdict: In Scottish criminal law, a jury must find a legal “route” to convict, often requiring corroboration—either mutual (between complainers) or corroboration by other evidence.
• Extended Sentence: A custodial term plus a period of supervised release for offenders assessed as a high risk of serious harm.
• Hearsay under Section 259: Allows an unfit witness’s prior statements to be admitted if notice is given and there is good reason for any late application.

Conclusion

Beveridge [2025] HCJAC 23 reinforces rigorous adherence to procedural safeguards when admitting late hearsay and cements the transparent sentencing framework laid down in Fergusson. Judges must ensure that late hearsay notices contain substantive justification and that sentencing remarks clearly map individual sentences to a reduced aggregate total. The decision will guide lower courts in balancing procedural fairness with efficient trial management and in achieving proportionate, comprehensible sentences in complex multi-offence cases.