A CONVICTED rapist who was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for raping a 15-year-old girl on a Scottish beach has lost his appeal against conviction in the High Court in Edinburgh.

The case has taken an extraordinary twist – the written judgement contained the most severe criticism of the prosecuting authorities in many years.

Convicted after a trial of abducting, assaulting and raping the girl, the rapist – who cannot be named for legal reasons – appealed on grounds of a miscarriage of justice during his trial.

Lawyers for the accused challenged the conviction on grounds that the trial judge had misdirected the jury and that the advocate deputy prosecutor in the case had stated evidence as fact, particularly alleging that the accused was a liar and referring to a “sexual assault” which was not in the indictment.

With three judges sitting as the Appeal Court, they unanimously found that no miscarriage of justice had taken place, but issued a stinging rebuke to the Crown Office.

In the judgement issued at the weekend, Lord Malcolm wrote the findings with which the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, and Lord Glennie concurred.

Lord Malcolm wrote: “It is clear that a substantial and prejudicial departure from good and proper practice occurred at this trial. That it should happen at all is concerning in itself. However, the matter does not stop there.

“This appeal was based upon criticism of the conduct of one of the Lord Advocate’s deputes in a rape trial conducted in the High Court. The presumably carefully considered position of the Crown in response to this appeal was presented by another of the Lord Advocate’s deputes.

“If (her submissions) were the carefully considered position of the Crown, the failure to acknowledge that something had gone seriously amiss requiring, at the very least, clear and direct action by the trial judge, would suggest that there is a broader question as to the ethos and culture in the prosecuting authority.

“The cross-examination of the appellant started on the declared basis that he was a liar, who was trying to fool the jury to escape his guilt.

“There was an unpleasant and disrespectful tone to the questioning, allied to various attempts to diminish the appellant in the eyes of the jury.

“In cross-examination and in his speech the advocate depute made it clear that both he and the prosecuting authority considered the accused man to be guilty of the charge. The questionable tactic of trying to force him to accuse others of being liars was regularly deployed.”

The trial judge had made extensive remarks to ensure that the jury was correctly advised about which parts of the evidence and the Advocate Depute's remarks to ignore.

Lord Malcolm wrote: “While the court wishes to express its disapproval as to what happened in the present case, it has concluded that the fairness of the proceedings was saved by the judge’s careful directions.”

Concluding that there had been no miscarriage of justice, Lord Malcolm stated: “In the light of our decision on the first ground, namely that the directions were adequate to cure the problem created by, amongst other things, the advocate depute’s questions, it follows that this ground of appeal also falls to be refused.”