Abstract
This article traces the development of the similar fact rule in Scots law and explores its relative underdevelopment compared to English law and the law of other Commonwealth jurisdictions. Drawing on the recent House of Lords decision in R v Z1 the article suggests that the operation of a similar fact rule is considerably more limited in Scotland than elsewhere. The article acknowledges that the existence of the rule of mutual corroboration arising from the Moorov doctrine partly explains and compensates for this lack of a fully developed similar fact rule in Scots law. However, the article argues that the restricted opportunities for prosecution based on previous misconduct evidence are disadvantageous to Scots law.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
