A man’s conviction for rape has been overturned after a jury previously found him guilty.
A 22-year-old man’s conviction for raping a 13-year-old girl has been overturned by the jury.
The conviction of a man who was found guilty of raping a 13-year-old girl and sentenced to unpaid work has been overturned.
After being acquitted, Sean Hogg, aged 22, left the court with a smirk on his face, knowing that he would not have to go through a retrial.
In 2018, when he was 17 years old, he was found guilty of repeatedly sexually assaulting a 13-year-old. Despite the severity of the crime, Judge Lord Lake at the High Court in Glasgow decided not to send him to prison. Instead, he ordered him to complete 270 hours of unpaid work. However, the judge mentioned that if the offender had been older than 25, he would have received a prison sentence of four or five years.
According to recent court guidance in Scotland, individuals who are under 25 years old and involved in criminal activities are given more lenient treatment due to their presumed brain immaturity. Lord Lake, during Hogg’s sentencing, mentioned that he had taken the guidelines into account.
Hogg asserted that he was unjustly found guilty of the assaults in Dalkeith Park, Midlothian, and lodged an appeal. The judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh have subsequently overturned his conviction following the acknowledgment by prosecutors that errors occurred during his trial.
After being acquitted, Sean Hogg, aged 22, left the court with a smirk, knowing that he would not have to go through another trial.
Judge Lord Lake at the High Court in Glasgow spared Hogg from imprisonment in April. Instead, Hogg was ordered to complete 270 hours of unpaid work. However, the judge mentioned that if Hogg had been older than 25, he would have received a prison sentence of four or five years.
Lady Dorrian, the judge, stated that there was not enough evidence to support a conviction. Therefore, the appeal is successful.
Hogg’s lawyer, Donald Findlay, KC, told judges Lady Dorrian, Lord Matthews and Lord Pentland at the Court of Criminal Appeal that his client had been being wrongly convicted.
Mr. Findlay claimed that Lord Lake failed to adhere to the appropriate legal protocols employed in Scotland for determining the culpability of a rapist.
The defense attorney informed the court that the individual who provided evidence resulting in Hogg’s conviction needed to have her claim of sexual assault supported by additional evidence.
Mr. Findlay stated that Lord Lake informed the jurors during his legal instructions that the testimony of the accuser could be supported by a statement from a man who claimed that she seemed ‘upset’ after the incident that resulted in Hogg’s guilty verdict.
The attorney informed the court that it was incorrect for Lord Lake to have disclosed this information to the jurors.
He stated that the testimony from the witness regarding ‘distress’ was unable to support the complainant’s account.
Mr Findlay said: ‘My submission is that the jury were misdirected by the trial judge and it pains me to say this but there has been a very significant miscarriage of justice at the hands of the judge.’
Earlier this year, Sean Hogg (depicted in the picture) received a community payback order as a result of his conviction for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old schoolgirl.
Solicitor General Ruth Charteris KC said: ‘It is not in the public interest to seek a new prosecution.’
Following the hearing, Ms Charteris expressed, “I am aware that the complainant has faced significant challenges within the criminal justice system. I have extended an invitation to meet with her and her family, should they find it beneficial.”
“I cannot reword”
If the appeal against conviction had not been successful, the Crown Office intended to contest the sentence, deeming it too lenient.
During a prior court session, it was noted that both the prosecuting attorney and the presiding judge did not sufficiently request additional information or provide proper instructions to the jury.
Donald Findlay KC, who is representing Hogg, stated during the hearing that there has been an unjust outcome.
During Hogg’s trial, the jury was informed that he targeted a 13-year-old schoolgirl, whose identity is protected by law, when he was 17 years old.
According to legal documents, Hogg engaged in multiple attacks against her from March to June 2018. He committed an assault by intimidating the teenager, forcefully holding her wrists, and sexually assaulting her.
Hogg’s lawyer, Donald Findlay, KC, told judges Lady Dorrian, Lord Matthews and Lord Pentland at the Court of Criminal Appeal that his client had been being wrongly convicted
Hogg was not only instructed to perform unpaid work but also subjected to supervision and required to be on the sex offenders’ registry for a duration of three years.
Lord Lake stated that rape is a highly grave offense, which is why it is prosecuted in the High Court.
Considering the situation, her age and weaknesses worsen the situation. In terms of the severity, I must take into account your responsibility and also consider your age as a contributing factor.
If an individual over the age of 25 commits this offense, they will receive a prison term of four to five years.
I find it unsuitable and have no intention of sending you to jail. You have no prior record of imprisonment, and as a first-time offender who was 17 at the time (now 21), I don’t believe that incarceration will aid in your rehabilitation.
Prosecutor Ruth Charteris, KC, told the court the Crown believed that there was enough evidence to allow it to maintain Hogg’s conviction. If the appeal judges rule against Hogg, then the Crown will make submissions to the court about his sentence being unduly lenient.
Lady Dorrian stated that they will carefully review the matters in this case and provide their decision in writing at an appropriate time.
After the case, Aamer Anwar, the lawyer representing the complainer, stated that his client was deeply affected in April of this year. From her perspective, she bravely came forward, honestly shared her story, and firmly believes that both the police and the jury fulfilled their responsibilities.
She has more to say, but it would not be suitable to provide further comments until the Appeal Court releases its judgment.
