12 October 2023 , 17:57
875
0
A man who had his rape conviction against a schoolgirl quashed could face a private prosecution by his accuser's family.
Sean Hogg was found guilty of assaulting a 13-year-old, but was not sentenced to jail time before his conviction was overturned yesterday. Lawyers for the 22-year-old lodged an appeal and alleged a "very significant miscarriage of justice" had taken place. The jury's verdict was thrown out after appeal judges concluded there was an "insufficiency of evidence" to convict Hogg.
Solicitor Aamer Anwar has since said: "The family will consider all viable legal options which could include private prosecution as well as a civil action – they have urged the Scottish Government to rethink their proposals to abolish rape trials. The First Minister placed justice at the heart of his campaign when he stood for office. But what is proposed by his government are fundamental attacks on due process, demolishing the right to a fair trial."
The teenager also told of her "devastation" after the conviction was quashed. The Crown confirmed they wouldn't seek a fresh prosecution against Hogg, who left Edinburgh's High Court of Criminal Appeal with a smile on his face. Hogg's case sparked a public outcry after the trial judge spared him a prison term over the alleged offences, which took place when he was 17, reports the Daily Record.
Speaking on behalf of the accuser, Mr Anwar said: "She states that when she went to the police, she had a hope for justice. When the jury returned a verdict of guilty, she thought that finally she could move on with her life. Whilst she appreciates that senior judges have come to this decision after very careful consideration, nonetheless that does not take away from her feeling of devastation and knowing that there is no hope of closure."
Sherlock Holmes Museum boss wins fight to evict brother from home in 10-year row
Hogg, of Hamilton, South Lanarkshire, was convicted of raping the girl in Dalkeith Country Park, Midlothian, on a number of occasions in 2018. In April, judge Lord Lake ordered him to carry out 270 hours of unpaid work instead of being jailed as a result of guidelines for sentencing under-25s that were introduced in Scotland last year.
Critics, including author JK Rowling, said it was appalling that anyone found guilty of rape should escape a prison sentence. Anwar added: "My client's grandmother has said that they have been left to pick up the shattered pieces of their granddaughter's life. They felt they were left in the dark by the Crown. Now they must protect their granddaughter, whose life has been turned back six years to when she was 13. It is clear that the trial judge misdirected himself and in doing so, misdirected the jury. The appeal was grounded on procedural unfairness.
"To conclude, it is important for my client that at court today, and in my meeting after court with the Solicitor General Ruth Charteris KC, the Crown did not renounce the right to prosecute should new evidence become available."
The three appeal judges – Lord Pentland, Lady Dorrian and Lord Matthews – concluded in a written ruling that the judge misdirected the jury during the trial at the High Court in Glasgow. The court heard previously Lord Lake mistakenly gave directions to jurors that the alleged "distress" of the teen seen by a witness related to a second alleged attack by Hogg and could offer key corroboration. During the appeal, Hogg's counsel, Donald Findlay KC, argued the timing of the teen's distress was actually unclear.
The appeal judges agreed, adding: "We do not consider that the evidence in this case would have entitled the jury to reach such a conclusion without indulging in a significant degree of speculation." They concluded: "The result is that the appeal must succeed, and [Hogg] must be acquitted. We should make it clear however that we are satisfied that, but for the error of the trial judge, this would have been the result at trial." During the appeal hearing, Charteris told the judges there was enough evidence to uphold one count of rape against Hogg and asked them to impose a "substitute verdict".
In their ruling yesterday, the judges said: "It would not in our view be justifiable for this court to amend the verdict to reflect an approach to the case so radically different from that which had been adopted at the trial." After the judges delivered their ruling, the Solicitor General told the court that the Crown took the view it was "not in the public interest to seek a new prosecution" against Hogg.