Moorov v His Majesty's Advocate 1930 JC 68 is a Scots criminal and evidence law case that concerns admissibility of similar fact evidence.[1] The High Court of Justiciary established the Moorov doctrine[2] in its judgment, which is predominantly used in criminal prosecutions involving allegations of rape and sexual abuse.[1][3][4][5][6]
Moorov v His Majesty's Advocate | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Decided | 18 July 1930 |
Citation(s) | [1930] ScotHC HCJAC_1, 1930 JC 68, 1930 SLT 596 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Lord Justice-General (Lord Clyde), Lord Justice-Clerk (Lord Alness), Lord Ormidale, Lord Anderson, Lord Sands, Lord Blackburn, and Lord Morison |
Keywords | |
admissibility, Similar fact evidence |
The doctrine states that the prosecution of two or more separate offences, each witnessed by only one person, can be grouped together to evidence the accused's pattern of behaviour to the court and the jury.[1][6]
Samuel Moorov was a draper and the proprietor of Samuel Moorov & Son on Argyle Street, Glasgow.[1] He was accused of committing seven assaults and nine indecent assaults against his female employees between 1923 and 1930.[7]
This case brought light on the original course of similar fact evidence which was generally regarded as inadmissible in court. It created a "course of conduct" which related from a connection of special circumstances, such as recurring sexual offences, similar to the case itself. The course of conduct is sufficient as it determines the use of corroboration for each victim involved.
It is found that in incidents where intercourse is admitted and distress is proven, distress can corroborate.
"It is acknowledged that the recommendation to remove the requirement for corroboration will attract particular comment and, no doubt, criticism. There may be further consequences of abolition that will need to be worked through, as the criminal justice system is progressively reformed. This is the nature of law in society. But the initial decision, which has to be taken, is whether, of itself, corroboration continues to contribute more than it detracts from a fair, efficient and effective system."[13]