- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
WATSON, APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION BY GRAHAM THOMAS WATSON AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE
Factual and Procedural Background
On 23 August 2018 at the High Court in Edinburgh, the Appellant was found guilty of two sexual offences occurring in January 2017. The first charge involved the Appellant sexually assaulting a 19-year-old female relative of his wife at a family gathering, where the victim was intoxicated and asleep before being raped by the Appellant. The second charge involved the Appellant sexually assaulting another female relative of his wife, aged 25, at a nightclub by repeatedly touching her leg without consent. The Appellant was sentenced on 4 October 2018 to five years imprisonment. The incidents took place within hours of each other, both connected to the same family celebration.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the circumstances and character of the offences were sufficiently similar to permit the application of mutual corroboration between the two charges.
- Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that there was sufficient evidence to apply mutual corroboration.
- Whether the jury could convict charge 1 (rape) in the absence of corroboration of penetration.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The offences differed in behaviour and character such that mutual corroboration was inappropriate.
- The incident of touching the leg (charge 3) was insufficient to corroborate the rape charge (charge 1).
- The trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the application of mutual corroboration and failed to instruct that corroboration of penetration was necessary.
Respondent's Arguments
- The only real issue was consent; the incident in charge 3 was admitted in part by the Appellant and could stand alone without mutual corroboration.
- There is no rule preventing less serious conduct from corroborating a more serious crime.
- The evidence demonstrated an underlying unity of conduct linking the offences as part of a single course of conduct persistently pursued by the Appellant.
- The trial judge’s directions were appropriate and there was no misdirection affecting the verdict.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| CW v HM Advocate 2016 SCCR 285 | Definition of underlying unity of conduct for mutual corroboration. | Used to assess whether separate incidents could be linked as a single course of conduct. |
| MR v HM Advocate 2013 JC 212 | Mutual corroboration principles and no rule against less serious conduct corroborating more serious crime. | Guided the court’s analysis of mutual corroboration and was cited to support the court’s decision to refuse the appeal. |
| K v HM Advocate 2015 SCCR 242 | Requirement that offences be of the same character for mutual corroboration. | Considered in evaluating the similarity of the offences. |
| AD v HM Advocate [2017] HCJAC 84 | Mutual corroboration and assessment of similarities. | Supported the principle that less serious conduct can corroborate more serious charges. |
| HM Advocate v P 2015 SLT 485 | Limits on applying mutual corroboration when offences are dissimilar. | Referenced by the Appellant but distinguished by the court. |
| HM Advocate v SM (No 2) [2009] HCJAC 40 | Requirement for sufficient similarities for mutual corroboration. | Referenced in the Appellant’s argument regarding insufficient similarities. |
| Jamal v HM Advocate [2019] HCJAC 22 | Assessment of whether incidents are part of a single course of conduct. | Considered in evaluating the unity of conduct in this case. |
| Lord Advocate's Reference (No. 2 of 1992) 1992 SCCR 960 | Banter is not a defence to sexual assault. | Used to reject the Appellant’s claim that touching was banter. |
| Campbell v Vannet 1998 SCCR 207 | Charge can stand alone without mutual corroboration. | Supported the Crown’s position that charge 3 could be proved independently. |
| McMahon v HM Advocate 1996 SLT 1139 | Assessment of underlying unity of conduct. | Guided the court’s factual evaluation of the linkage between offences. |
| B v HM Advocate 2009 JC 88 | Unity of conduct for corroboration. | Supported the court’s reasoning on mutual corroboration. |
| Reynolds v HM Advocate 1995 SCCR 504 | When to remove a case from the jury for lack of connection between offences. | Referenced in relation to whether the jury could properly consider the charges together. |
| AS v HM Advocate 2015 SCCR 62 | Jury’s role in assessing similarities under proper directions. | Supported the court’s deference to jury assessment. |
| Geddes v HM Advocate 2015 JC 229 | Erroneous directions to be ignored if they do not affect the verdict. | Used to affirm that any minor misdirection did not invalidate the verdict. |
| AK v HM Advocate 2012 JC 74 | Linking comment as evidence of unity of conduct. | Used to emphasize the significance of the Appellant’s comment to one complainer. |
| HMcA v HM Advocate 2015 JC 27 | Less serious conduct can corroborate more serious charges. | Supported the Crown’s argument on mutual corroboration. |
| JGC v HM Advocate 2017 SCCR 605 | Assessment of evidence for mutual corroboration. | Referenced in relation to evaluating the evidence. |
| SM v HM Advocate [2018] HCJAC 22 | Mutual corroboration principles. | Used to support the Crown’s submissions. |
| JC v HM Advocate [2016] HCJAC 100 | Mutual corroboration and unity of conduct. | Referenced by the Crown. |
| Donegan v HM Advocate [2019] HCJAC 10 | Mutual corroboration principles. | Referenced by the Crown. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined whether the two offences could be linked as parts of a single course of conduct persistently pursued by the Appellant, a key requirement for mutual corroboration. It acknowledged that while it is uncommon for a relatively minor sexual assault (touching a leg) to corroborate a serious offence like rape, the temporal proximity of the incidents (within hours), their connection to the same family event, the involvement of the same accused and related victims, and the Appellant’s explicit comment indicating intent to engage sexually with one complainer supported such linkage.
The court further noted that mutual corroboration was not strictly necessary for either charge to be proved: the Appellant admitted the conduct underlying charge 3, and charge 1 was corroborated by the testimony of the cousin who described the victim’s intoxicated state and circumstances that supported lack of consent. The court found no misdirection by the trial judge that prejudiced the Appellant; any direction suggesting mutual corroboration was required was in fact favorable to the Appellant.
Ultimately, the court deferred to the jury’s assessment of the evidence and found the verdicts to be reasonable and supported by sufficient evidence.
Holding and Implications
The court refused the appeal, affirming the convictions and sentence imposed by the trial court.
The decision confirms that mutual corroboration can apply even when offences differ in seriousness, provided there is an underlying unity of conduct demonstrated by similarities in time, place, circumstances, and character. It also underscores the jury’s role in assessing such connections under appropriate judicial direction. No new precedent was established; the ruling primarily upheld existing principles and the trial court’s application of them.
Alert