Trying to keep some semblance of normality, I return to tweeting about evidence and criminal procedure. The LJG has stated, in Watson v HMA [2020] HCJAC 21, published today, that "a trial was conducted that flew in the face of basic rules of evidence and procedure..."

The case concerns an appeal from a sheriff court trial for sexual offences with intent to rape (which was deleted from the libel). Suffice to say the AC refuses the appeal but then embarks on a scathing analysis of the trial, which included a 275 application(& the SD of consent)

The AC, again goes though the houses, in terms of reminding practitioners (Crown and defence) and trial courts of their obligations in terms of 275 and the common law...

Similar facts narrated to judgments published on the topic before (no Crown opposition, a 275 application lacking in specification, questioning caught by 274 but not covered by an application, permitted by the court regardless)...

of particular note, reference in the judgment to the the fact that a 275 application was granted earlier in the case, without any record of the reasons for it being granted noted (this isn't the first time that serious procedural problems like that have been flagged by the AC)

Of perhaps most significance are the comments by the LJG at para [47] that the were the conduct revealed in this case to be repeated then "the situation in sexual offences trials would be unsustainable..." This is, whatever your view, a pretty remarkable statement.

you might recall pre-pandemic (tho probably not tbf!), I was involved in the production of a report with @tony_convery, that argued for the introduction of ILR for complainers in 275 hearings, following time spent in Ireland, considering the use of SLR there.

We're hoping to make that report available very shortly for anyone who is interested. I think in light of these consistent appeals and the above comments, there is a pressing debate to be had on the topic. An overview of our report is here: https://twitter.com/EamonPHKeane1/status/1233357411953643520

The judgment in Watson v HMA is here: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2020hcjac21.pdf?sfvrsn=0

The case is actually called MacDonald v HMA, but you know, it's been a long day.