WILLIAM WOTHERSPOON v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a continued appeal by the Appellant against a conviction for assault to severe injury at a Sheriff Court. The original ground of appeal was rejected by the Court on 22 July 1998. However, the Court permitted the Appellant to lodge an additional ground of appeal, which was received on 8 January 1999. The additional ground involved the submission of new evidence under Section 106(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, supported by an affidavit from a witness, who claimed to have been present at the scene of the incident and whose account broadly supported the defence and contradicted the prosecution's case. The witness’s credibility was later challenged by the Court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the additional evidence submitted under Section 106(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 should be admitted for consideration by the Court.
2. Whether the witness evidence is credible and reliable enough that a reasonable jury could regard it as such.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant submitted an affidavit from a witness claiming to have been present at the scene of the assault and providing an account consistent with the defence, contradicting the Crown’s case.
• The Appellant argued that this constituted additional evidence under the relevant statutory provision and should be considered by the Court.
• The Appellant's counsel acknowledged that the issues covered by the affidavit had been canvassed at trial but maintained the evidence’s relevance and importance.

Respondent's Arguments

• This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the affidavit evidence submitted by the Appellant’s witness and applied the established legal standard from Church v Her Majesty's Advocate, which permits rejection of evidence that no reasonable jury would find credible or reliable. The Court noted contradictions within the witness’s affidavits, including false claims about withdrawing money from a nearby cash machine and the existence of an arrest warrant. Further, the witness had a criminal record involving dishonesty, undermining his credibility. Given these factors, the Court determined that the evidence lacked sufficient reliability and credibility to be admitted as additional evidence under the relevant statutory provision.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED THE APPEAL on the basis that the additional evidence was not credible or reliable. The direct effect is that the Appellant’s conviction stands, and no new precedent was established by this decision.