We Asked How Often Moorov Is Used. The System Cannot Answer.
Scotland's courts have no way to identify how often juries are directed on the Moorov doctrine. That finding was set out here. The obvious follow-on question was whether the prosecution service could fill that gap.
It cannot.
A Freedom of Information response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service confirms that no searchable category exists for cases where Moorov is relied upon. The full response is here.
What was asked
The request was direct. How often is Moorov relied upon in solemn proceedings? How often does it feature in appeals? How often do those appeals succeed?
These are not technical questions. They are the kind of questions any justice system should be able to answer about its own operation.
They were not answered.
The response
COPFS explained that references to the Moorov doctrine typically appear within case papers, Crown Counsel instructions, or minutes, not in any searchable field. Identifying relevant cases would require staff to examine files individually.
Even restricting the exercise to a single financial year would exceed the statutory cost threshold.
The information exists. It just cannot be examined in any useful form.
Why this matters
The Moorov doctrine is not a procedural detail. It is the mechanism by which separate allegations can be treated as mutually corroborative. In some cases, it is what allows a prosecution to proceed at all.
To understand what that means in practice, consider what it does to an accused person. Someone with no prior convictions can face trial where multiple complainers' allegations are used to reinforce each other, each lending apparent weight to the others, without any single allegation needing to stand entirely on its own. That is a significant power. It can determine whether a prosecution proceeds, how a jury is directed, and ultimately whether someone is convicted.
Nobody can tell you how often that happens. Nobody can tell you whether its use is increasing. Nobody can tell you how often an accused person challenges it on appeal, or how often those challenges succeed.
A system that cannot see itself
This response does not stand alone.
The courts do not record Moorov directions in any form that permits identification across cases. Section 275 applications are logged only once per case, regardless of how many are made. No system-level view exists of how these mechanisms operate over time.
The picture is consistent. When a direct attempt is made to measure one of Scots law's more consequential doctrines, the system cannot produce an answer without manually reconstructing it from individual files.
This is not a matter of effort. It reflects how the system is designed.
An accountability problem
Nothing here calls into question the legal validity of the Moorov doctrine itself.
The issue is accountability. A doctrine that cannot be tracked cannot be properly examined. It cannot be compared across years, case types, or outcomes. If it is being applied inconsistently, or if appeals against it are succeeding at a rate that should prompt scrutiny, there is currently no way to know. That is not an IT problem. It is a justice problem.
If the system cannot see how it builds cases, it cannot reliably identify when something has gone wrong. And if it cannot identify when something has gone wrong, it cannot correct it.
What should exist
The minimum requirement is straightforward. Cases where the Moorov doctrine is relied upon should be flagged at the point of indictment. Appeals involving Moorov should be identifiable in court records. Outcomes should be recorded. None of that requires new law. It requires a decision that this information is worth keeping. The Scottish Parliament's Criminal Justice Committee has the remit to ask why that decision has not been made. So do the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Court Service. The question is whether anyone will.
We asked how often Moorov is used. The system has no answer. That is no longer just an administrative gap. It is a question about whether Scottish criminal justice is willing to examine itself.
Written by the Accused.scot Editorial
25.03.2026
Editorial note: Accused.scot is an independent commentary site focused on justice process, evidence, and fair-trial principles in Scotland. Our work critiques systems, policy, and public discourse, not private individuals. We welcome reasoned challenge to our arguments. We do not engage in personal disputes or online pile-ons.