THREE convicted rapists have had their cases referred to the High Court after developments in medical science.
David Pugh, Kevin Kane and Brian Meighan were found guilty of rape at the High Court in Edinburgh in October 2000, with the Crown Office relying on evidence from a forensic examiner in respect of injuries to the complainer.
All three men insisted sexual activity with the complainer was consensual.
They were convicted by a jury and sentenced to six years in jail and detention.
There cases have now been referred to the High Court of the Justiciary by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
It follows fresh evidence now available – arising from research and developments in medical science – which could be considered as likely to have been of assistance to the jury, and there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
The trio appealed against their convictions but were refused by the High Court of Justiciary in June 2002.
They applied to the commission in 2004 and it was decided not to refer their case as it did not meet the test that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
A judicial review was then sought and dismissed by the Outer House of the Court of Session in July 2006.
In April 2019, Pugh applied again to the Commission, relying upon fresh evidence in the form of three expert reports which refuted the opinion given by the forensic medical examiner at trial.
Meighan and Kane both also applied in September 2020.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here