Daniel Robertson, convicted of the rape of MM and AF and sentenced to seven years in prison, appealed on the grounds that he was unable to properly complete his testimony, which could have led the jury to make adverse inferences about his credibility. His counsel argued that his low intellectual capacity and emotional distress during cross-examination affected his ability to testify fully, and that he should have been given more time to compose himself.

A report by Professor Gary MacPherson indicated that while Robertson was fit for trial, he required simple language and short breaks due to his low intellectual capacity. During his testimony, Robertson became visibly distressed and, at times, responded with “no comment” to questions, leading his counsel to request a desertion of the trial.

The trial judge, however, was sympathetic to Robertson’s condition, allowing adjournments and breaks, and concluded that his failure to answer questions was not due to his mental state but because he had no satisfactory answer. The appeal was rejected by the court, with Lord Carloway emphasising that the trial judge had acted reasonably, and there was no evidence of unfairness or unfitness to stand trial.