Moorov corroboration rejected over alleged nephew and niece offences
A man accused of sexually abusive conduct towards his nephew and niece has been acquitted after a judge ruled that there was insufficient similarity between the acts alleged against the two complainers to meet the corroboration rule as applied in the leading case of Moorov v HM Advocate..
Lord Uist in the High Court upheld a submission of no case to answer in the trial of the man, referred to as AP.
The charges were (1) lewd and libidinous practices against his nephew between 1991 and 1997, when the boy was aged between eight and 13, involving mutual masturbation, oral sex and anal penetration; and (2) a single instance of sexual abuse of his niece when she was aged about nine by entering her bedroom, leaning over her and putting his hand inside her pyjama top and touching her on the body. The alleged abuse in each case occurred when the complainer was staying overnight at AP's home. The girl, who said in evidence that AP had fondled her, had made early disclosure and there had been no further contact.
The Crown argued that there were significant similarities between the charges and there was no rule that less serious conduct could not corroborate more serious conduct. Lord Uist accepted this, but ruled: "The conduct involved in each charge is quite different: that in charge 1 involved repeated instances of the most grave sexual abuse over a period of years, whereas that in charge 2 involved a single incident of relatively minor touching."
He added: "I do not think that any of the judges who have opined on this issue ever envisaged that the sort of conduct libelled in charge 2 could corroborate the sort of conduct libelled in charge 1. In this case the underlying similarity of conduct in the two charges is lacking with the consequence that the jury would not be entitled to apply the rule of mutual corroboration."