What can we help you with today?
DS v HM Advocate
References may be made to sexual offences, violence, or other sensitive matters. Some viewers may find the content distressing.
Where necessary, certain information may be restricted to protect the identity of complainers and witnesses.
Hearings are livestreamed as part of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service’s support for open justice.
Please note that recording, storing or broadcasting the proceedings is only possible if permitted under the law on fair dealing or if authorised by the Lord President under the Judicial Office for Scotland Broadcast Protocol.
Any unauthorised capture, re-use, re-editing or redistribution of the material could attract liability for breach of copyright, in addition to the possibility of contempt of court proceedings.
Playback unavailable: A Contempt of Court order is in force in respect of these proceedings; playback of this content is not available. Thank you for your understanding.
DS v HM Advocate
HCA/2025/652/XC
Appeal against Conviction
Thursday 10 September 2026
10:30 until conclusion
Lord Justice Clerk
Lord Matthews
Lady Carmichael
Ann Ogg, Solicitor Advocate
The appellant was convicted of a charge of lewd, indecent and libidinous practices for which he received a sentence of 18 months. The complainer was 12 years old at the time of the offence.
During the charge to the jury the sheriff listed three ways in which the jury was able to corroborate the account of the complainer. The first was a comment that the complainer, in her evidence, alleged the appellant had made to her three years later to the effect that he said “Don't let it ruin your life. There is no harm.” This was denied by the appellant. It is accepted that it could not corroborate the complainer’s account as it did not come from an independent source. No one other than the complainer spoke to this statement.
There were messages which were sent between the appellant and the complainer. These could have been capable of corroborating the complainer’s account. The appellant argues that it is not known which of the three sources the jury relied on to return the verdict that they did. Accordingly, it is said that the misdirection by the judge has led to a miscarriage of justice. The Crown accept that there was a misdirection but contend that the verdict reached was one that a reasonable jury could have come to on the evidence and that there is no miscarriage of justice.