THE woman who Sean Hogg was convicted of raping while she was 13 has said she has “no hope of closure” after the conviction was quashed.
Hogg, now 22, smirked as he left court on Wednesday after being told he would not be subject to a retrial following his acquittal.
He had been convicted of raping the then 13-year-old girl on various occasions in 2018, when he was aged 17.
He was spared jail by Judge Lord Lake at the High Court in Glasgow in April and was instead given 270 hours of unpaid work, although he said if Hogg was over 25, he would have been sentenced to four or five years behind bars.
Hogg claimed he was wrongfully convicted of the attacks in Dalkeith Park, Midlothian, and appealed.
Judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh quashed the conviction after prosecutors admitted “mistakes were made” during his trial.
After the news broke on Wednesday, solicitor Aamer Anwar (below) released a statement on behalf of his anonymous client, who described a “feeling of devastation”.
Anwar said: “My client has asked me to make a statement on her behalf. She retains her anonymity. 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.
“My client will remain ever grateful to the police who carried out a robust investigation. My client wishes to thank the jury for doing their duty. My client has, however, a question for the judiciary, the Government, and the Lord Advocate.
“She asks, is there anyone who will say that it was never the intention of the sentencing guidelines for under 25s to mean that convicted rapists could escape imprisonment?
“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. It is always the responsibility of the trial judge to formulate the appropriate legal directions to give a jury. In this case, the procedure adopted was manifestly unfair and prejudicial to the defence and, on this basis the appeal had to succeed.
“My client believes in jury trials for rape and serious crime. She feels that 15 ordinary men and women are best placed to decide innocence or guilt.
“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 Crown Office had planned to challenge the “unduly lenient” sentence of unpaid work, if the appeal against conviction had not succeeded.
In a previous hearing, both the advocate depute and the trial judge were identified as having failed to push for more detail or issue adequate directions to the jury.
