Introduction

The case of John Docherty and Don Templeton versus Her Majesty's Advocate ([2021] HCJAC 36) is a significant appeal judgment delivered by the Scottish High Court of Justiciary on February 11, 2020. The appellants, Docherty and Templeton, were convicted of attempting murder by shooting, an incident that occurred at a farm in Bridge of Weir on October 31, 2017. The central issue under appeal was the sufficiency of the evidence against each appellant, with the appellants arguing that the trial judge erroneously dismissed submissions of no case to answer.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court reviewed the circumstantial evidence presented during the trial, which primarily consisted of four sets of CCTV footage, witness testimonies, and mobile records linking the appellants to the scene. The court evaluated whether the cumulative evidence was sufficient to support the inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In its analysis, the court determined that the evidence did indeed allow for reasonable inferences of the appellants' involvement in the attempted murder, thereby upholding the convictions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced McPherson v HMA [2019] SCCR 129, emphasizing the nature of circumstantial evidence and its capacity to support inferences of guilt. This precedent underscored the principle that circumstantial evidence should be considered in the aggregate, allowing for multiple reasonable interpretations but requiring a logical connection that points towards guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning was rooted in the assessment of the cumulative circumstantial evidence. It established that:

• The identification of Don Templeton as the driver via CCTV footage, combined with Docherty's presence in the vehicle, linked both appellants to the incident.
• Docherty's actions, such as paying for fuel and purchasing drinks at the petrol station, suggested active participation rather than mere presence.
• The rapid departure from the farm immediately after the shooting implied premeditated intent and awareness of the criminal act.
• The testimony of witnesses corroborated the presence and actions of both appellants at the critical moments surrounding the incident.

The court concluded that these interrelated pieces of evidence collectively established a coherent narrative of planning and execution of the attempted murder, thus meeting the threshold for sufficiency.

Impact

This judgment reaffirms the threshold for sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in Scottish law, particularly in criminal cases involving serious charges like attempted murder. It highlights the importance of considering the totality of evidence rather than isolated facts, thereby providing clarity on how such evidence should be evaluated by courts. Future cases involving circumstantial evidence will likely reference this judgment to determine whether the accumulated evidence can substantiate reasonable inferences of guilt.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Circumstantial Evidence: Unlike direct evidence, which directly links a defendant to the crime (e.g., eyewitness testimony), circumstantial evidence relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.

Inference of Guilt: This refers to the logical conclusion that can be drawn from the available evidence, suggesting that the defendant is guilty. For an inference to be valid, it must be reasonable and supported by the totality of the evidence.

Sufficiency of Evidence: This legal standard requires that the evidence presented must be adequate to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is insufficient, the case should be dismissed.

Conclusion

The judgment in Docherty and Templeton Appeal Case underscores the Scottish High Court's stance on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence. By meticulously analyzing the interconnected pieces of evidence and establishing reasonable inferences of guilt, the court upheld the principle that circumstantial evidence, when comprehensive and coherent, is sufficient for conviction. This case serves as a pivotal reference for future legal proceedings, reinforcing the necessity for courts to evaluate the entirety of circumstantial evidence in determining judicial outcomes.