Summary of Appeal Opinion — High Court of Justiciary (Appeal against Conviction)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal by the Appellant against conviction on two charges of sexual offending after a four-day trial held in April 2025. The trial resulted in convictions on two charges (one alleging penetration with an implement and one alleging rape) and a not-proven outcome on a third charge. The Appellant appealed under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 106(3)(a), relying on evidence not heard at trial. An appeal hearing took place on 4 December 2025 at which the Appellant gave evidence and the court heard testimony from Witness A, Witness B and Witness C for the Appellant, and from Complainer A, Complainer B and Officer D for the Respondent. A written affidavit from Official I was also placed before the court. The court was constituted by Judge Beckett (delivering the opinion), sitting with Judge Doherty and Judge Armstrong.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the additional evidence, not heard at the original trial, was supported by a reasonable explanation for its absence from trial such that it could found an appeal under section 106(3) read with subsection (3A) of the 1995 Act.
2. Whether the additional evidence was capable of being regarded as credible and reliable by a reasonable jury, and if so whether it was of such significance that its absence rendered the conviction a miscarriage of justice in terms of the guidance in Megrahi (and related authorities).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant relied on evidence described as having been discovered after trial: Witness A reported that, at a post-lockdown encounter at a public soft-play venue, the complainers and others sought to procure false allegations against the Appellant and said that allegations "did not need to be true." This evidence was not known to the Appellant before or during trial.
• There was a reasonable explanation for the evidence not being led at trial because the Appellant did not know of it and only learned of it after conviction; supporting affidavits and witness testimony were produced to explain the discovery of the material.
• The newly-founded evidence was said to be highly probative of collusion and of the complainers' willingness to give false testimony, directly bearing on credibility — a central issue at trial — and therefore its absence was a miscarriage of justice under the tests in Megrahi and related authorities.
• The Appellant submitted that witnesses B and C supported the credibility of Witness A, and that some contemporaneous material (texts) adduced at the appeal reinforced the contention of calculated messaging by the complainers.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent relied on established appellate guidance (Megrahi and related cases) for evaluating new evidence and submitted that the material now founded on was not capable of being regarded as credible and reliable by a reasonable jury.
• Specific criticisms were advanced in relation to Witness A: she had been interviewed twice by police about related matters in 2022 and had not mentioned the alleged soft-play incident; that omission seriously undermined her credibility.
• Witness B's evidence was said to be internally inconsistent and evasive, including denials about the nature of her relationship with Witness C and instances of leaving the courtroom when challenged; those features damaged reliance on her account as primary hearsay support.
• Witness C was described as unconvincing and of poor evidential quality. The Respondent further pointed to the complainers' consistent testimony and the way in which police inquiries led to the complaints as supporting the conclusion that there had been no pre-trial conspiracy to fabricate.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by applying the statutory test in section 106(3) read with subsection (3A) and the multi-factor guidance in Megrahi and related authorities. The following points capture the court's step-by-step analysis as recorded in the opinion:

• The court accepted that the appeal required consideration of (a) whether there was a reasonable explanation for the evidence not being led at trial, and (b) whether the evidence was capable of being regarded by a reasonable jury as credible and reliable and of such significance that its absence rendered the conviction a miscarriage of justice.
• The court examined the quality of the evidence adduced at the appeal hearing from Witness A, Witness B and Witness C in the context of the whole trial record, including the testimony of Complainer A and Complainer B and relevant documentary material (text exchanges).
• The court identified multiple serious defects in the evidence relied upon by the Appellant: Witness B's evasiveness and apparent untruths about her relationship with Witness C (including leaving the courtroom when challenged); Witness C's unconvincing demeanour; and Witness A's account being inconsistent with her previous police interviews in August and October 2022 where she did not mention the alleged soft-play incident.
• The court noted that Complainer A and Complainer B gave straightforward, credible evidence in the appeal hearing and that the documented process by which police enquiries arose (Officer D's unchallenged evidence) did not support a narrative of pre-existing collusion to fabricate complaints.
• The court considered the contemporaneous messaging between Complainer A and Complainer B (2017 and 2022) and found that those communications undermined the contention that the complainers had conspired as described by Witness A.
• Applying Megrahi and Kidd, the court concluded that the evidence now founded upon was not of the necessary quality: it was not capable of being regarded by a reasonable jury as credible and reliable and therefore lacked the requisite significance to establish a miscarriage of justice.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL REFUSED

Holding: The court refused the appeal. It concluded that the additional evidence relied upon by the Appellant was not credible or reliable and, accordingly, had no material significance sufficient to render the convictions a miscarriage of justice.

Implications: The direct consequence is that the Appellant's convictions stand and the trial court's verdicts are upheld. The opinion records no finding that establishes a new legal precedent; the court applied established authorities (Megrahi, Kidd and related cases) and emphasised evaluation of new evidence in the context of the entire trial record rather than creating any new legal test.

Court composition and representatives (anonymised): Opinion delivered by Judge Beckett (sitting with Judge Doherty and Judge Armstrong). Appellant represented by Attorney Ogg; Respondent represented by Attorney Cameron. Officer D and Official I gave factual evidence in the appeal hearing.