We use cookies to collect anonymous data to help us improve your site browsing experience.

Click 'Accept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Search

What can we help you with today?

Skip to main

Case: HCA/2025/608/XC

Thomas Ferguson v HM Advocate

Livestreaming of the Criminal Appeal Court

Notice to viewers

References may be made to sexual offences, violence, or other sensitive matters. Some viewers may find the content distressing.

Where necessary, certain information may be restricted to protect the identity of complainers and witnesses.

Restrictions

Hearings are livestreamed as part of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service’s support for open justice.

Please note that recording, storing or broadcasting the proceedings is only possible if permitted under the law on fair dealing or if authorised by the Lord President under the Judicial Office for Scotland Broadcast Protocol.

Any unauthorised capture, re-use, re-editing or redistribution of the material could attract liability for breach of copyright, in addition to the possibility of contempt of court proceedings.

information icon

This case has been adjourned until 26 November 2026.

About this case

Case name

Thomas Ferguson v HM Advocate

Case reference

HCA/2025/608/XC

Type of appeal

Appeal against Conviction

Date of hearing

Thursday 23 July 2026

Time of hearing

10:00 until conclusion

Judges

  • Lord Justice Clerk
  • Lord Matthews
  • Lady Carmichael

Counsel for the Appellant (FT)

Paul Nelson KC and Gareth Reid, Advocate

Case description

The appellant was convicted of rape. Prior to trial, he applied under section 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to lead evidence of sexually suggestive messages sent to him by the complainer prior to the alleged rape. The preliminary hearing judge refused the application. The appellant now argues that this resulted in a miscarriage of justice.