Monday, 15 December 2008
SCCRC Refuse FOI Request Against Solicitor James Keegan
My MSP has been denied access to information held by SCCRC.
He asked them how many complaints of Defective Representation they had received against James (Jim) Douglas Keegan of Keegan Smith Solicitors, Livingston.
They refused
He went to the FOI Commissioner who has also agreed to withhold this data, see here:
http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/UploadedFiles/Decision134-2008.pdf
They have quoted the cost being more than £600 and section 194J yet SCCRC themselves have now admitted that section 194J is no longer applicable nor effective due to them having evolved see extract copy from their e-mail to me here:
E-Mail dated 26th September 2008 from SCCRC
Quote:
Your previous email also referred to the Commission’s use of S194J of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and compliance with S20 of the Data Protection Act as reasons used for not disclosing information in the past. As you will appreciate, the Commission policy on disclosure has evolved, and continues to evolve, as relevant case law becomes more widely available. It is now the Commission’s view that S194J is no longer a defence to Data Protection legislation in its own right, which represents a change in approach since the date of the letter signed by Mr Mullan to which you refer.
I just wonder exactly what the cost would have been and if the SCCRC had asked Bill Kidd if he was willing to foot the bill.
We all know what the SCCRC are hiding but perhaps things might have been different had the jurors names leak been done sooner then we would have had the September e-mail from SCCRC quoted above and the FOI Commissioner would not have been able to withold this info from Bill Kidd:
Quote:
The Commissioner therefore agrees with the SCCRC that the disclosure of the information
under FOISA would constitute a breach of section 194J of the CPSA and that the disclosure of
the information is therefore exempt in terms of section 26(a) of FOISA.
We also know that at least 4 cases have been before SCCRC concerning the conduct of Mr Keegan and this should be ringing alarm bells.
It should also be ringing alarm bells that SCCRC want to keep this info secret.
It is about time our Courts accepted this Defective Representation is wider and more common than the general public have been led to believe.
Sunday, 14 December 2008
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Disclosure In Criminal Cases, SCCRC, Justice, Scotland
Following on the heels of SCCRC releasing Jurors Names and Address's I will now show up the Crown Office for the sham they are.
Since they are telling me and my MSP that Crown Witness's Statements and ID Parade reports are covered by Data Protection and Public Interest tests allowing them to keep these documents without having to release them, I have the following documents:
Crown Precognitions of the following witness's revealing their address's:
William Horn, Postman Robbed
John Henderson, Postman Robbed.
Steven Clark, Steelfixer, Crown Witness
Jean Park Or Clark, Crown Witness
Jaqueline Tiffney, Crown Witness
Michelle Jane Tiffney
David Livingstone Crown Witness.
Brian O'Neil,Crown Witness
Terence O'Neil, Crown Witness
Infact instead of writing every one here please see Crown List at the following:
As proof they are Crown Precognitions I will load some here where you can clearly see they have the Crown Stamp on them.
I will not load the full statements because I have reason to believe Crown do not have the originals, as I do.
"So much for crown precognitions never being Recoverable"
"So much for Data Protection"
"So much for Public Interest"
When I say originals I mean ones with watermarks through the paper and a set of copies with no watermarks
The most shocking document released by Crown Office if indeed they are right when they say they released the documents prior to trial are the Postman's Medical Records which can now be viewed on the following flickr site:
The following is shocking and reveals an old injury from 11/01/1973 and an old address registering at:
35 Station Rd
Broxburn
It also shows Postman Horn's date of birth as 11/01/1938
These documents have no relation to the crime I was charged with and therefore should never have been released by Crown Office.
I have no axe to grind with any of these witness's and have had all these documents since 1982 proving I have no intention of seeking any form of revenge.
The same as I have no issues with the Jurors.
It is the evidence being withheld from me that is firing me up to put these documents on public display here for all to see and nothing sinister in any way shape or form.
I sent Kenny MacAskill and SCCRC an E-Mail before releasing the Jurors names to the press, begging them to release the other documents I have been asking for and explained if SCCRC and Crown Office released all documents they hold in regards to my case then I would have taken the Jurors names and Address's down from my flickr site.
They refused, so no point in asking them again before releasing these documents eh.
I will finnish with a copy of Crowns Letter from Crown clearly stating they released all the documents prior to my trial.
They must be stupid to continue to refuse to release all my documents when they claim to have already done so at the trial ? You would think they would learn.
It also states crown precognitions are never recoverable but we now know this to be a lie, don't we not
Since they are telling me and my MSP that Crown Witness's Statements and ID Parade reports are covered by Data Protection and Public Interest tests allowing them to keep these documents without having to release them, I have the following documents:
Crown Precognitions of the following witness's revealing their address's:
William Horn, Postman Robbed
John Henderson, Postman Robbed.
Steven Clark, Steelfixer, Crown Witness
Jean Park Or Clark, Crown Witness
Jaqueline Tiffney, Crown Witness
Michelle Jane Tiffney
David Livingstone Crown Witness.
Brian O'Neil,Crown Witness
Terence O'Neil, Crown Witness
Infact instead of writing every one here please see Crown List at the following:
As proof they are Crown Precognitions I will load some here where you can clearly see they have the Crown Stamp on them.
I will not load the full statements because I have reason to believe Crown do not have the originals, as I do.
"So much for crown precognitions never being Recoverable"
"So much for Data Protection"
"So much for Public Interest"
When I say originals I mean ones with watermarks through the paper and a set of copies with no watermarks
The most shocking document released by Crown Office if indeed they are right when they say they released the documents prior to trial are the Postman's Medical Records which can now be viewed on the following flickr site:
The following is shocking and reveals an old injury from 11/01/1973 and an old address registering at:
35 Station Rd
Broxburn
It also shows Postman Horn's date of birth as 11/01/1938
These documents have no relation to the crime I was charged with and therefore should never have been released by Crown Office.
I have no axe to grind with any of these witness's and have had all these documents since 1982 proving I have no intention of seeking any form of revenge.
The same as I have no issues with the Jurors.
It is the evidence being withheld from me that is firing me up to put these documents on public display here for all to see and nothing sinister in any way shape or form.
I sent Kenny MacAskill and SCCRC an E-Mail before releasing the Jurors names to the press, begging them to release the other documents I have been asking for and explained if SCCRC and Crown Office released all documents they hold in regards to my case then I would have taken the Jurors names and Address's down from my flickr site.
They refused, so no point in asking them again before releasing these documents eh.
I will finnish with a copy of Crowns Letter from Crown clearly stating they released all the documents prior to my trial.
They must be stupid to continue to refuse to release all my documents when they claim to have already done so at the trial ? You would think they would learn.
It also states crown precognitions are never recoverable but we now know this to be a lie, don't we not
Friday, 13 June 2008
Expert Reports Called For Only In A Few Cases, Selectively
It has come to my attention that in a couple of cases SCCRC have asked for expert opinions.
Expert Identification Evidence.
Until these cases are dealt with i will not mention them in name.
They are cases in which Identification was the main issue and very high profile.
Are SCCRC only asking for reports in high profile case and not others ? and if so does this not amount to defective representation and selective Justice.
For the avoidance of doubt i do have an opinion (In my favour) from the same expert that SCCRC have already used in another (at least one very high profile) Case
Why then did SCCRC not ask this very same expert for an opinion in my case ?
Are SCCRC being selective in order to save funds ?
Are SCCRC being selective to save Colleagues ? ie ....MODERATED...who sat on their Commission ?
Are SCCRC being allowed to pick and choose who gets access to justice ?
These are serious questions which need answering so if you are watching Mr Sinclair from SCCRC perhaps you might wish to take me up on my offer and answer the above questions
Expert Identification Evidence.
Until these cases are dealt with i will not mention them in name.
They are cases in which Identification was the main issue and very high profile.
Are SCCRC only asking for reports in high profile case and not others ? and if so does this not amount to defective representation and selective Justice.
For the avoidance of doubt i do have an opinion (In my favour) from the same expert that SCCRC have already used in another (at least one very high profile) Case
Why then did SCCRC not ask this very same expert for an opinion in my case ?
Are SCCRC being selective in order to save funds ?
Are SCCRC being selective to save Colleagues ? ie ....MODERATED...who sat on their Commission ?
Are SCCRC being allowed to pick and choose who gets access to justice ?
These are serious questions which need answering so if you are watching Mr Sinclair from SCCRC perhaps you might wish to take me up on my offer and answer the above questions
Two Bob William Peel
My Two Bob Investigation
This week highlights the case of William Peel from Edinburgh, He writes:
William Peel Edinburgh V SCCRC
This was found on the BBC.Co/Action network, web site
"I have just had my application to the SCCRC rejected.
I doubt that they are deliberately biased.
They probably have the blinkered view that many professionals have – they cannot believe there is anything wrong with the System that has nurtured them. The Commission gave every appearance of conducting a thorough, diligent review of my case.
However, I did lose confidence when it reported on a document I sent as evidence. The reviewer of the document made a significant misinterpretation of one of the facts that suggested he had given it no more than a cursory glance.
In my case, I believe the SCCRC were unable to see the wood of justice for the trees of legal minutiae.
They considered my case solely on the basis of its legal merits and seldom appeared to apply rational, logical thought and common sense to the process. Perhaps lawyers think that Justice is achieved through the application of legal procedures.
For myself, I suspect that Justice, if it happens, is often no more than a by-product, a sort of bonus, of the legal process.
There were 3 main problems with my case, which was to do with a motoring ‘incident’ manufactured by three civilian witnesses, one of whom knows a serving policeman (I was framed): First, the Crown withheld evidence from the Defence – I did not know until the trial that the Crown witnesses would claim that a van had broken down at the site of the ‘incident’.
The Commission dealt with this by referring to a number of legal precedents, including the recent case of the Libyan Al Megrahi.
It concluded, "The appeal court will therefore require to be persuaded that the additional evidence is (a) capable of being regarded as credible and reliable by a reasonable jury, and (b) likely to have had a material bearing on, or a material part to play in, the determination by such a jury of a critical issue at the trial.
" It did not think the information would have had a material bearing on the decision of the Sheriff (there was no jury).
Second, one of the witnesses was unable to identify me in the dock, until firmly instructed to do so by the prosecutor.
The Commission raised the case of Holland v HMA, saying that "in that case, the broad submission that evidence derived from a witness identifying the accused in the dock was, by its nature, so unfair as to be incompatible with the appellants right to a fair trial under article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights was rejected.
"All this legal obfuscation, and there were reams of it, meant little to me. However, it was when I presented the third plank of my argument that I saw how the SCCRC appeared to have had a common sense by-pass.
Long after the trial, I persuaded the police to release an Incident Log.
This showed that two of their officers had attended a broken down van near the scene of the alleged incident.
The Log placed the van at a distance of 1.5 kilometres from the site, and some 40 minutes later.
I wrongly supposed that these discrepancies would cast serious doubt on the reliability of the Crown witnesses.
I was in for a surprise: "It is not clear to the Commission why this would suggest that the witnesses were lying in describing the incident which they spoke to in evidence.
The information does not clearly undermine the witnesses' reliability…""
By william peel in Edinburgh, City of - on 28 Mar 2007 at 14:25
The above was posted on my BBC site last year.
Would SCCR have acted in this way in the case of Megrahi ?
I have never been able to contact William Peel so if anyone out there knows him, ask him to give us a call at the forum just to let us know how he is progressing with his case.
This week highlights the case of William Peel from Edinburgh, He writes:
William Peel Edinburgh V SCCRC
This was found on the BBC.Co/Action network, web site
"I have just had my application to the SCCRC rejected.
I doubt that they are deliberately biased.
They probably have the blinkered view that many professionals have – they cannot believe there is anything wrong with the System that has nurtured them. The Commission gave every appearance of conducting a thorough, diligent review of my case.
However, I did lose confidence when it reported on a document I sent as evidence. The reviewer of the document made a significant misinterpretation of one of the facts that suggested he had given it no more than a cursory glance.
In my case, I believe the SCCRC were unable to see the wood of justice for the trees of legal minutiae.
They considered my case solely on the basis of its legal merits and seldom appeared to apply rational, logical thought and common sense to the process. Perhaps lawyers think that Justice is achieved through the application of legal procedures.
For myself, I suspect that Justice, if it happens, is often no more than a by-product, a sort of bonus, of the legal process.
There were 3 main problems with my case, which was to do with a motoring ‘incident’ manufactured by three civilian witnesses, one of whom knows a serving policeman (I was framed): First, the Crown withheld evidence from the Defence – I did not know until the trial that the Crown witnesses would claim that a van had broken down at the site of the ‘incident’.
The Commission dealt with this by referring to a number of legal precedents, including the recent case of the Libyan Al Megrahi.
It concluded, "The appeal court will therefore require to be persuaded that the additional evidence is (a) capable of being regarded as credible and reliable by a reasonable jury, and (b) likely to have had a material bearing on, or a material part to play in, the determination by such a jury of a critical issue at the trial.
" It did not think the information would have had a material bearing on the decision of the Sheriff (there was no jury).
Second, one of the witnesses was unable to identify me in the dock, until firmly instructed to do so by the prosecutor.
The Commission raised the case of Holland v HMA, saying that "in that case, the broad submission that evidence derived from a witness identifying the accused in the dock was, by its nature, so unfair as to be incompatible with the appellants right to a fair trial under article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights was rejected.
"All this legal obfuscation, and there were reams of it, meant little to me. However, it was when I presented the third plank of my argument that I saw how the SCCRC appeared to have had a common sense by-pass.
Long after the trial, I persuaded the police to release an Incident Log.
This showed that two of their officers had attended a broken down van near the scene of the alleged incident.
The Log placed the van at a distance of 1.5 kilometres from the site, and some 40 minutes later.
I wrongly supposed that these discrepancies would cast serious doubt on the reliability of the Crown witnesses.
I was in for a surprise: "It is not clear to the Commission why this would suggest that the witnesses were lying in describing the incident which they spoke to in evidence.
The information does not clearly undermine the witnesses' reliability…""
By william peel in Edinburgh, City of - on 28 Mar 2007 at 14:25
The above was posted on my BBC site last year.
Would SCCR have acted in this way in the case of Megrahi ?
I have never been able to contact William Peel so if anyone out there knows him, ask him to give us a call at the forum just to let us know how he is progressing with his case.
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
More Questions About SCCRC By MSP
Teachers
S3W-13233 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Tuesday, May 20, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in implementing recommendations 29 and 30 of The ACPOS and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service working group formed to develop joint protocols, as recommended in the Bonomy Report.
Answered by Frank Mulholland QC (Wednesday, May 28, 2008): Both recommendations relate to the disclosure of evidence in criminal proceedings by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) and the Scottish police.
Recommendation 29 suggested that the police and COPFS should commit to a process of full disclosure in all solemn cases in connection with the implementation of High Court Reform in 2005.
Recommendation 30 suggested that COPFS should consider a pilot for routine disclosure of a summary of the Crown case in summary cases.
I am pleased to confirm that both recommendations have been implemented in full, Recommendation 29 was implemented in November 2004 when the then Lord Advocate Lord Boyd issued a Crown Practice Statement in relation to the disclosure of evidence by the Crown in High Court Cases.
The Crown Practice Statement took full effect from 1 January 2005 and continues to apply to all High Court cases indicted on or after 1 April 2005 and was extended to all solemn cases from 1 September 2005.
In relation to Recommendation 30, a successful pilot was conducted in Dumfries and Galloway in 2007 and the new process was rolled out nationally in September 2007 to support the Summary Justice Reform programme. All summary complaints now include a summary of evidence against the accused.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice
S3W-13232 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Tuesday, May 20, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive when it intends to implement the recommendations on disclosure contained in Review of the Law and Practice of Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings in Scotland.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Thursday, May 29, 2008): As the Scottish Government announced on 29 April 2008, we will in the near future bring forward legislation to deliver the review''s recommendations on disclosure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-13233 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Tuesday, May 20, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in implementing recommendations 29 and 30 of The ACPOS and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service working group formed to develop joint protocols, as recommended in the Bonomy Report.
Answered by Frank Mulholland QC (Wednesday, May 28, 2008): Both recommendations relate to the disclosure of evidence in criminal proceedings by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) and the Scottish police.
Recommendation 29 suggested that the police and COPFS should commit to a process of full disclosure in all solemn cases in connection with the implementation of High Court Reform in 2005.
Recommendation 30 suggested that COPFS should consider a pilot for routine disclosure of a summary of the Crown case in summary cases.
I am pleased to confirm that both recommendations have been implemented in full, Recommendation 29 was implemented in November 2004 when the then Lord Advocate Lord Boyd issued a Crown Practice Statement in relation to the disclosure of evidence by the Crown in High Court Cases.
The Crown Practice Statement took full effect from 1 January 2005 and continues to apply to all High Court cases indicted on or after 1 April 2005 and was extended to all solemn cases from 1 September 2005.
In relation to Recommendation 30, a successful pilot was conducted in Dumfries and Galloway in 2007 and the new process was rolled out nationally in September 2007 to support the Summary Justice Reform programme. All summary complaints now include a summary of evidence against the accused.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice
S3W-13232 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Tuesday, May 20, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive when it intends to implement the recommendations on disclosure contained in Review of the Law and Practice of Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings in Scotland.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Thursday, May 29, 2008): As the Scottish Government announced on 29 April 2008, we will in the near future bring forward legislation to deliver the review''s recommendations on disclosure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, 25 May 2008
Edward Milne "Two Bob" Investigation By SCCRC
Edward Milne Two Bob
It has come to my attention that in the case of Edward Milne V HMA SCCRC dismissed his appeal without interviewing "any" witnesses apart from his Solicitor.
Mr Milne claims they would never have contemplated attempting to try this with Megrahi whom they spent £1,108,536 investigating even travelling to other Countries.
Diplomatic relations would suffer severely if this was done in Megrahi's case.
There was plenty of witnesses claims Mr Milne to speak to his claims but SCCRC just didn't want to know.
For proof of this SCCRC have actually given Mr Milne this in writing here:
http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee311/ed-forfar/?action=view¤t=SCCRCEdMilneNov07.jpg
Conclusive proof they never saw fit to interview any witnesses put forward by Mr Milne to speak of his claims.
SCCRC would also have been able to ascertain from Crown exactly who gave evidence at Mr Milne's trial.
SCCRC would also have been aware of Trading Standards involvement yet they never interviewed any of them.
Exactly what does one need to do to get a fair hearing in this country.
Justice cannot be said to be done while Foreigners are afforded more Justice than our own People.
It can certainly be suggested that Megarhi has had preferential treatment over others at SCCRC
Mr Milne claims that SCCRC also took 3 Years to investigate and give him a decision and that given they only interviewed his lawyer this is perverse.
It has come to my attention that in the case of Edward Milne V HMA SCCRC dismissed his appeal without interviewing "any" witnesses apart from his Solicitor.
Mr Milne claims they would never have contemplated attempting to try this with Megrahi whom they spent £1,108,536 investigating even travelling to other Countries.
Diplomatic relations would suffer severely if this was done in Megrahi's case.
There was plenty of witnesses claims Mr Milne to speak to his claims but SCCRC just didn't want to know.
For proof of this SCCRC have actually given Mr Milne this in writing here:
http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee311/ed-forfar/?action=view¤t=SCCRCEdMilneNov07.jpg
Conclusive proof they never saw fit to interview any witnesses put forward by Mr Milne to speak of his claims.
SCCRC would also have been able to ascertain from Crown exactly who gave evidence at Mr Milne's trial.
SCCRC would also have been aware of Trading Standards involvement yet they never interviewed any of them.
Exactly what does one need to do to get a fair hearing in this country.
Justice cannot be said to be done while Foreigners are afforded more Justice than our own People.
It can certainly be suggested that Megarhi has had preferential treatment over others at SCCRC
Mr Milne claims that SCCRC also took 3 Years to investigate and give him a decision and that given they only interviewed his lawyer this is perverse.
Saturday, 24 May 2008
Questions About SCCRC & FOI etc
S3W-13233 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Tuesday, May 20, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in implementing recommendations 29 and 30 of The ACPOS and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service working group formed to develop joint protocols, as recommended in the Bonomy Report.
Due for answer Thursday, June 05, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-13232 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Tuesday, May 20, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive when it intends to implement the recommendations on disclosure contained in Review of the Law and Practice of Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings in Scotland.
Due for answer Thursday, June 05, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom of Information
S3W-12565 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force, referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner and ordered to be disclosed have been appealed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The Scottish Information Commissioner has never instructed the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to disclose information, therefore no such appeals have ever been made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-12564 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force and referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner have been disclosed.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The Scottish Information Commissioner has never instructed the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to disclose information in relation to any case referred to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-12563 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force have been referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): One such request had been referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner by 31 March 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-12562 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force have been (a) disclosed in the first instance, (b) refused in the first instance, (c) disclosed after review and (d) refused after review.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): Nineteen requests for information, made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, have resulted in information being released, while eight have been refused. Two requests resulted in partial disclosure. To date, four requests for review have been received and, in each case, the original decision to withhold information was found to have been correct.
In addition, in one case the SCCRC did not hold the information requested and, in another, the information requested was obtained from another source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-12561 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests have been received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had received a total of 32 such requests by 31 March 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice
S3W-12510 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission holds records of the names of individual solicitors referred to the commission on grounds of defective representation.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): Individual applications from members of the public and/or their legal representatives will include the names of solicitors involved in a case, as will the Statement of Reasons that the Commission provides in relation to each application.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom of Information
S3W-12509 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that the disclosure of the names of solicitors referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for defective representation would contravene section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-12508 on 9 May 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice
S3W-12508 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers it to be in the public interest to disclose the names of solicitors referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for defective representation.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): Solicitors are not referred to the SCCRC. Once an application has been reviewed by the SCCRC it can be referred to the High Court.
When the court considers a case, the details of that case (including the names of any solicitors or other legal representatives involved) will be contained in any published opinion and will be a matter of public record.
Section 194J of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 makes it an offence for any member or employee of the SCCRC to disclose information obtained by the SCCRC in the exercise of any of its functions. The possibility of information provided by applicants, witnesses and/or victims subsequently being disclosed, other than in court, could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system, including the work of the SCCRC. Witnesses and/or people under investigation should not be inhibited or deterred from co-operating in investigations by the possibility that information provided may be disclosed or that their identity is revealed to the public, outwith the protection of the court. Accordingly, such information is not normally made available.
Justice
S3W-12507 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive what action can be taken against solicitors referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for defective representation.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): Solicitors are not referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Where the Commission refers a case to the High Court, and the court overturns a conviction on the grounds of defective representation, it may be possible for disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the legal representative concerned. The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates are responsible for investigating complaints against solicitors and advocates respectively.
The Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman (SLSO) looks into complaints about how the professional bodies handle complaints against legal practitioners. Under the terms of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, the SLSO will be replaced by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commissioner (SLCC). The SLCC will receive complaints about legal practitioners where local resolution between the practitioner and client has been attempted but has proven unsuccessful. The SLCC will investigate complaints about service while the professional bodies will continue to address concerns relating to conduct. We anticipate that the new body will become operational in late 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-12506 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive what constitutes defective representation by solicitors.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The approach to be taken by the courts in cases in which there is an allegation of defective representation is defined in Anderson vs H.M. Advocate (1996 SCCR 114). The then Lord Justice General stated that the conduct of the defence by the accused''s legal representative can only provide a ground for appeal if it deprives the accused of a fair trial. He further stated that this can only have occurred where the conduct was such that the accused''s defence was not presented to the court.
This may be because the accused was deprived of the opportunity to present his defence; or because his legal representative acted contrary to his instructions as to the defence he wished to be put forward; or because of other conduct which, because his defence had not been put, had the effect of denying him a fair trial.
In considering applications for review based on defective representation, the SCCRC applies the above approach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-12505 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many appeals against convictions have been referred to the high court in each year since 1999, broken down by grounds of appeal.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The information requested is provided in the following table.
Conviction Referrals from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2008
Year
Number of Referrals
Main Grounds
1999-2000
2
1 x New Evidence
1 x Change in Witness Testimony
2000-01
4
2 x Change in the Law
1 x New Evidence
1 x Unfair Trial
2001-02
9
6 x New Evidence
1 x Defective Representation
1 x Sentencing Issue
1 x Reasonable Doubt as to Applicant''s Guilt
2002-03
10
4 x New Evidence
2 x Jury Impropriety
1 x Reasonable Doubt as to Applicant''s Guilt
1 x Defective Representation
1 x Sentencing Issue
1 x Disclosure of Evidence
2003-04
2
2 x New Evidence
2004-05
6
5 x New Evidence
1 x Procedural Irregularity
2005-06
3
1 x Misdirection by Trial Judge
1 x Change in the Law
1 x Insufficiency of Evidence
2006-07
7
2 x Misdirection by Trial Judge
1 x Sentencing Issue
1 x Disclosure of Evidence
1 x Change in the Law
1 x New Evidence
1 x Abuse of Process
2007-08
3
1 x Multiple Referral Grounds
1 x New Evidence
1 x Unreasonable Verdict
Total
=SUM(ABOVE) 46
It should be noted that there may be other grounds of review. The commission''s system records only the main ground in the first instance.
Due for answer Thursday, June 05, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-13232 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Tuesday, May 20, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive when it intends to implement the recommendations on disclosure contained in Review of the Law and Practice of Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings in Scotland.
Due for answer Thursday, June 05, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom of Information
S3W-12565 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force, referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner and ordered to be disclosed have been appealed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The Scottish Information Commissioner has never instructed the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to disclose information, therefore no such appeals have ever been made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-12564 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force and referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner have been disclosed.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The Scottish Information Commissioner has never instructed the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to disclose information in relation to any case referred to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-12563 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force have been referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): One such request had been referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner by 31 March 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-12562 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force have been (a) disclosed in the first instance, (b) refused in the first instance, (c) disclosed after review and (d) refused after review.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): Nineteen requests for information, made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, have resulted in information being released, while eight have been refused. Two requests resulted in partial disclosure. To date, four requests for review have been received and, in each case, the original decision to withhold information was found to have been correct.
In addition, in one case the SCCRC did not hold the information requested and, in another, the information requested was obtained from another source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-12561 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests have been received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had received a total of 32 such requests by 31 March 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice
S3W-12510 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission holds records of the names of individual solicitors referred to the commission on grounds of defective representation.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): Individual applications from members of the public and/or their legal representatives will include the names of solicitors involved in a case, as will the Statement of Reasons that the Commission provides in relation to each application.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom of Information
S3W-12509 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that the disclosure of the names of solicitors referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for defective representation would contravene section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-12508 on 9 May 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice
S3W-12508 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers it to be in the public interest to disclose the names of solicitors referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for defective representation.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): Solicitors are not referred to the SCCRC. Once an application has been reviewed by the SCCRC it can be referred to the High Court.
When the court considers a case, the details of that case (including the names of any solicitors or other legal representatives involved) will be contained in any published opinion and will be a matter of public record.
Section 194J of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 makes it an offence for any member or employee of the SCCRC to disclose information obtained by the SCCRC in the exercise of any of its functions. The possibility of information provided by applicants, witnesses and/or victims subsequently being disclosed, other than in court, could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system, including the work of the SCCRC. Witnesses and/or people under investigation should not be inhibited or deterred from co-operating in investigations by the possibility that information provided may be disclosed or that their identity is revealed to the public, outwith the protection of the court. Accordingly, such information is not normally made available.
Justice
S3W-12507 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive what action can be taken against solicitors referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for defective representation.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): Solicitors are not referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Where the Commission refers a case to the High Court, and the court overturns a conviction on the grounds of defective representation, it may be possible for disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the legal representative concerned. The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates are responsible for investigating complaints against solicitors and advocates respectively.
The Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman (SLSO) looks into complaints about how the professional bodies handle complaints against legal practitioners. Under the terms of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, the SLSO will be replaced by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commissioner (SLCC). The SLCC will receive complaints about legal practitioners where local resolution between the practitioner and client has been attempted but has proven unsuccessful. The SLCC will investigate complaints about service while the professional bodies will continue to address concerns relating to conduct. We anticipate that the new body will become operational in late 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-12506 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive what constitutes defective representation by solicitors.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The approach to be taken by the courts in cases in which there is an allegation of defective representation is defined in Anderson vs H.M. Advocate (1996 SCCR 114). The then Lord Justice General stated that the conduct of the defence by the accused''s legal representative can only provide a ground for appeal if it deprives the accused of a fair trial. He further stated that this can only have occurred where the conduct was such that the accused''s defence was not presented to the court.
This may be because the accused was deprived of the opportunity to present his defence; or because his legal representative acted contrary to his instructions as to the defence he wished to be put forward; or because of other conduct which, because his defence had not been put, had the effect of denying him a fair trial.
In considering applications for review based on defective representation, the SCCRC applies the above approach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S3W-12505 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many appeals against convictions have been referred to the high court in each year since 1999, broken down by grounds of appeal.
Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The information requested is provided in the following table.
Conviction Referrals from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2008
Year
Number of Referrals
Main Grounds
1999-2000
2
1 x New Evidence
1 x Change in Witness Testimony
2000-01
4
2 x Change in the Law
1 x New Evidence
1 x Unfair Trial
2001-02
9
6 x New Evidence
1 x Defective Representation
1 x Sentencing Issue
1 x Reasonable Doubt as to Applicant''s Guilt
2002-03
10
4 x New Evidence
2 x Jury Impropriety
1 x Reasonable Doubt as to Applicant''s Guilt
1 x Defective Representation
1 x Sentencing Issue
1 x Disclosure of Evidence
2003-04
2
2 x New Evidence
2004-05
6
5 x New Evidence
1 x Procedural Irregularity
2005-06
3
1 x Misdirection by Trial Judge
1 x Change in the Law
1 x Insufficiency of Evidence
2006-07
7
2 x Misdirection by Trial Judge
1 x Sentencing Issue
1 x Disclosure of Evidence
1 x Change in the Law
1 x New Evidence
1 x Abuse of Process
2007-08
3
1 x Multiple Referral Grounds
1 x New Evidence
1 x Unreasonable Verdict
Total
=SUM(ABOVE) 46
It should be noted that there may be other grounds of review. The commission''s system records only the main ground in the first instance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
