A person who averted a jail sentence for rape is to have his conviction reviewed after prosecutors admitted “mistakes were made” throughout his trial.
Sean Hogg, 22, was convicted of raping a 13-year-old woman on numerous events in Dalkeith Park, Midlothian, in 2018, when he was aged 17.
Following his conviction, Hogg, from Hamilton, South Lanarkshire, was spared jail by Judge Lord Lake on the High Court in Glasgow.
He was as a substitute given a group payback order with 270 hours of unpaid work as a consequence of new pointers for sentences for under-25s.
However, the choose mentioned he would have handed a four- to five-year jail sentence had Hogg been aged over 25.
The sentence sparked outrage, with shadow Scottish justice secretary Jamie Greene describing it as a “total insult to the victim in this case”.
Hogg later claimed he was wrongfully convicted of the assaults and appealed, whereas the Crown Office deliberate to problem his “unduly lenient” sentence.
Scotland’s most senior judges will now assessment whether or not the conviction must be quashed – as a consequence of authorized errors.
Both the advocate depute and the trial choose have been recognized as having didn’t push for extra element or difficulty satisfactory instructions to the jury, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh was informed.
“The Crown’s position is clear, mistakes were made at the trial,” mentioned solicitor basic Ruth Charteris KC.
Ms Charteris mentioned there have been “three main issues: the decision to direct the jury on distress, an error made in directions, and also the verdict returned by the jury”.
She mentioned the trial choose had referred to the woman’s misery in one of many incidents the place there was no proof of penetration by Hogg, one thing Ms Charteris described as “a factual error on behalf of the judge”.
However, she argued that the jury nonetheless heard sufficient proof to convict Hogg of raping the woman on one event.
At the enchantment listening to on the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, Judge Lord Matthews described a number of the proof as “worthless” and mentioned: “There was a strong public interest in the trial being fair.”
Donald Findlay KC, representing Hogg, mentioned there had been a “miscarriage of justice”.
“What happened was wrong and ended up with a verdict being allowed to stand, which should not have been allowed to stand,” he mentioned.
Aamer Anwar, representing the woman, who’s now 18, mentioned in a press release that his consumer was “devastated” and had “told the truth”.
He mentioned: “My client in April of this year was left devastated.
“As far as she is worried, she got here ahead. She informed the reality. She spoke up. She believes the police and the jury did its responsibility.
“There is much more she wishes to say, but it would be inappropriate to comment further until the appeal court issues its judgment.”
Source: information.sky.com”