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have quoted the cost being more than £600 and section 194J yet SCCRC themselves have now admitted that section 194J is no longer applicable nor effective due to them having evolved see extract copy from their e-mail to me here: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.
Questions & Answers Of SCCRC
Sent the following to SCCRC:
Sent: 27 March 2008 16:20:41
To: info@sccrc.org.uk
For Attention Of Mr Chris Reddick FOI Officer
With ref to recent Telephone call today i have been informed that my FOI request has not been received at your office which i sent by E-Mail on 16/03/2008 to FOI@SCCRC.Org.UK.
For the avoidance of doubt please find copy pasted a copy of said request:
FOI Request
from: William Beck
Sent: 16 March 2008 22:50:28
To: foi@sccrc.org.uk; enquiries@itspublicknowledge.info
FAO Mr Chris Reddick FOI Officer
Dear Mr Reddick
Can you please provide me with the following imformation.
1. Details of what is the most ever complaints levelled against any "one Solicitor" in a Defective Representation Ground.
2. Details of what is the most ever complaints levelled against any "one Counsel" in a Defective Representation Ground.
Yours Faithfully
William Beck
SCCRC Reply:
Reply from SCCRC saying it is not in the public interset to release such data and it was an offence to do so, led to me sending the following:
Sent: 21 April 2008 23:43:35
To: info@sccrc.org.uk
Dear Sirs
With ref to above letter dated 17th April 2008 ref No MW, and with all due respect.
Not only am I an Appellant but as a member of the public i consider myself a stakeholder of SCCRC and entitled to ask the questions tabled.
Setting aside the above and taking account of your views i consider that:
1. The information i asked for would not identify anyone in particular.
2. The material i am asking for should not be covered by case related information but merely statistics.
3. The material sought should be available on request to any stakeholder.
4. The material sought is of such importance to the public for instance, to show there does not exist a culture to protect Lawyers and QCs within SCCRC.
5. The material sought is to allay public fears that lawyers and QCs do not get preferential treatment when the subject of such appeals.
6. To allay public fears that when more than one appeal is received against one Lawyer or QC then it is investigated with the utmost importance.
7. Your assertion that this would be unduly burdensome on the commission is flawed when taken in conjunction with some material already published by the commission on their web, for example:
"Statistics published in 2006-2007 annual report" at pages 7and 8 you publish data and details of how many cases are referred and for what reasons etc etc yet you are trying to tell me you do not know how many cases are received against any particular Lawyer or QC.
Is it not true Mr Hanlon that Solcase handles all data or Lexis Nexis and that in a matter of seconds the evidence would be available to you at the touch of a button ? Therefore making your allegation of my request being unduly burdensome seem trivial.
It seems that Lexis Nexis etc can identify quite easily exactly which Lawyers are submitting the most applications and they are invited to tea or dinner so why not how many applications have been received against a particular Lawyer or QC
It is not as if i am asking you for any details about named Lawyers or QCs like Keegan or Taylor.
I am only asking what is the largest amount of complaints levelled against any one Lawyer or QC.
I thank you sincerely for the info in regards to Criminal behaviour ref to section 194 J
You have raised a matter of great concern in that the commission have already released documents to me which you are now suggesting may have been criminal.
Namely:
The minutes of my trial.
The commission also released documents to me of another case namely:
"John Iain King"
which the commission referred to appeal against sentence.
So are you saying it depends on who is asked for the material whether it is released or not ?
Is it ok for some members to release documents but not others ?
Have the commission acted criminally before by releasing such documents ?
To whom would i make such complaints of a criminal nature against the commission for releasing documents in a criminal way ?
I await your reply with great anticipation
Yours Sincerely
William Beck
For which their time to respond has expired, Take it then they have no intention of replying eh ?
Their reply will be available soon on flickr
Good job my MSP is to ask Justice Secretary then if SCCRC have committed an offence by releasing Jurors Names and Addresses.
Can SCCRC choose who to reply to and who to ignore ? Seems they can.
Recently Asked Question By MSP:
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.
Quite Clearly According to Mr MacAskill SCCRC have no right to release Jurors Names And Addresses in the "Minutes of my Trial"
Sent: 27 March 2008 16:20:41
To: info@sccrc.org.uk
For Attention Of Mr Chris Reddick FOI Officer
With ref to recent Telephone call today i have been informed that my FOI request has not been received at your office which i sent by E-Mail on 16/03/2008 to FOI@SCCRC.Org.UK.
For the avoidance of doubt please find copy pasted a copy of said request:
FOI Request
from: William Beck
Sent: 16 March 2008 22:50:28
To: foi@sccrc.org.uk; enquiries@itspublicknowledge.info
FAO Mr Chris Reddick FOI Officer
Dear Mr Reddick
Can you please provide me with the following imformation.
1. Details of what is the most ever complaints levelled against any "one Solicitor" in a Defective Representation Ground.
2. Details of what is the most ever complaints levelled against any "one Counsel" in a Defective Representation Ground.
Yours Faithfully
William Beck
SCCRC Reply:
Reply from SCCRC saying it is not in the public interset to release such data and it was an offence to do so, led to me sending the following:
Sent: 21 April 2008 23:43:35
To: info@sccrc.org.uk
Dear Sirs
With ref to above letter dated 17th April 2008 ref No MW, and with all due respect.
Not only am I an Appellant but as a member of the public i consider myself a stakeholder of SCCRC and entitled to ask the questions tabled.
Setting aside the above and taking account of your views i consider that:
1. The information i asked for would not identify anyone in particular.
2. The material i am asking for should not be covered by case related information but merely statistics.
3. The material sought should be available on request to any stakeholder.
4. The material sought is of such importance to the public for instance, to show there does not exist a culture to protect Lawyers and QCs within SCCRC.
5. The material sought is to allay public fears that lawyers and QCs do not get preferential treatment when the subject of such appeals.
6. To allay public fears that when more than one appeal is received against one Lawyer or QC then it is investigated with the utmost importance.
7. Your assertion that this would be unduly burdensome on the commission is flawed when taken in conjunction with some material already published by the commission on their web, for example:
"Statistics published in 2006-2007 annual report" at pages 7and 8 you publish data and details of how many cases are referred and for what reasons etc etc yet you are trying to tell me you do not know how many cases are received against any particular Lawyer or QC.
Is it not true Mr Hanlon that Solcase handles all data or Lexis Nexis and that in a matter of seconds the evidence would be available to you at the touch of a button ? Therefore making your allegation of my request being unduly burdensome seem trivial.
It seems that Lexis Nexis etc can identify quite easily exactly which Lawyers are submitting the most applications and they are invited to tea or dinner so why not how many applications have been received against a particular Lawyer or QC
It is not as if i am asking you for any details about named Lawyers or QCs like Keegan or Taylor.
I am only asking what is the largest amount of complaints levelled against any one Lawyer or QC.
I thank you sincerely for the info in regards to Criminal behaviour ref to section 194 J
You have raised a matter of great concern in that the commission have already released documents to me which you are now suggesting may have been criminal.
Namely:
The minutes of my trial.
The commission also released documents to me of another case namely:
"John Iain King"
which the commission referred to appeal against sentence.
So are you saying it depends on who is asked for the material whether it is released or not ?
Is it ok for some members to release documents but not others ?
Have the commission acted criminally before by releasing such documents ?
To whom would i make such complaints of a criminal nature against the commission for releasing documents in a criminal way ?
I await your reply with great anticipation
Yours Sincerely
William Beck
For which their time to respond has expired, Take it then they have no intention of replying eh ?
Their reply will be available soon on flickr
Good job my MSP is to ask Justice Secretary then if SCCRC have committed an offence by releasing Jurors Names and Addresses.
Can SCCRC choose who to reply to and who to ignore ? Seems they can.
Recently Asked Question By MSP:
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.
Quite Clearly According to Mr MacAskill SCCRC have no right to release Jurors Names And Addresses in the "Minutes of my Trial"
Sunday 18 May 2008
James D Keegan Incompetent Solicitor To Avoid
Mr James Keegan is the solicitor that never interviewed 16 defence witnesses before my Trial.
He can be found here:
Keegan Smith Sse
Lomond House Beveridge Square
Livingston West Lothian EH54 6QF
Tel: 01506 497500
Please avoid this cowboy if you do not want convicted wrongly of any crimes.
His e-mail Address is:
jdkeegan1@msn.com
Should you wish to not accept my advice.
For your information he has also been involved in other cases claiming wrongful conviction, Noteably Wullie Gage's, The Edinburgh Three, and Dominic Ferrie.
Seems SCCRC have also had a few complaints about him too
He can be found here:
Keegan Smith Sse
Lomond House Beveridge Square
Livingston West Lothian EH54 6QF
Tel: 01506 497500
Please avoid this cowboy if you do not want convicted wrongly of any crimes.
His e-mail Address is:
jdkeegan1@msn.com
Should you wish to not accept my advice.
For your information he has also been involved in other cases claiming wrongful conviction, Noteably Wullie Gage's, The Edinburgh Three, and Dominic Ferrie.
Seems SCCRC have also had a few complaints about him too
Tuesday 13 May 2008
Two Bob Investigations By SCCRC
Every week I intend to compare the investigations of SCCRC.
For example:
Megrahi had £1,108,536 spent on his appeal and did not have to find witnesses.
In my own case i was told by SCCRCs Robin Johnston:
Mr Beck the Police cannot find Robert Muir Hamilton from Barlanark formerly of 50 Garvel Rd
My answer to him was:
I would not expect the police to find Mr Hamilton given the nature of my complaint (That the police intimidated him).
I would accept that Mr Beck if the private investigator we sent out had found him said Robin Johnston but he couldn't find him either.
I had to go to 50 Garvel Rd and ask Neighbours if they knew where my Uncle Bob had moved to.
I went with my wife and only had to ask the bottom flat who lived next door to Mr Hamilton, Yes he said no problem he (Mr Hamilton, Uncle Bob)he has moved up to the Crescent, Millbeg Crescent, the close with the ramp for his wifes wheelchair.
We came home and then looked up Robert Hamilton in the phone book and heh presto you wouldn't beleive it, Yes his "Name Address and Phone Number" were there all the time without the need to leave my house.
I passed the information on to Robin Johnston.
The moral of the two bob in this case was it would have cost SCCRC two bob to find Mr Hamilton instead i had to find him.
How many other cases are SCCRC being told by the Police, They cannot find Witness's ?
How many more times will they employ police and Private Investigators when they need only look at the phone book ?
For the avoidance of doubt Conversations between myselve and SCCRC were all tape recorded and prove I did not get the fair hearing I was entitled to, with SCCRC not even bothering to interview my Witness's.
Hear Robin Johnston here assure me he had sent Donal Shaw a copy of his own ID Parade report, Which clearly wasn't done until i produced tape recording below:
Watch out for next weeks take.
For example:
Megrahi had £1,108,536 spent on his appeal and did not have to find witnesses.
In my own case i was told by SCCRCs Robin Johnston:
Mr Beck the Police cannot find Robert Muir Hamilton from Barlanark formerly of 50 Garvel Rd
My answer to him was:
I would not expect the police to find Mr Hamilton given the nature of my complaint (That the police intimidated him).
I would accept that Mr Beck if the private investigator we sent out had found him said Robin Johnston but he couldn't find him either.
I had to go to 50 Garvel Rd and ask Neighbours if they knew where my Uncle Bob had moved to.
I went with my wife and only had to ask the bottom flat who lived next door to Mr Hamilton, Yes he said no problem he (Mr Hamilton, Uncle Bob)he has moved up to the Crescent, Millbeg Crescent, the close with the ramp for his wifes wheelchair.
We came home and then looked up Robert Hamilton in the phone book and heh presto you wouldn't beleive it, Yes his "Name Address and Phone Number" were there all the time without the need to leave my house.
I passed the information on to Robin Johnston.
The moral of the two bob in this case was it would have cost SCCRC two bob to find Mr Hamilton instead i had to find him.
How many other cases are SCCRC being told by the Police, They cannot find Witness's ?
How many more times will they employ police and Private Investigators when they need only look at the phone book ?
For the avoidance of doubt Conversations between myselve and SCCRC were all tape recorded and prove I did not get the fair hearing I was entitled to, with SCCRC not even bothering to interview my Witness's.
Hear Robin Johnston here assure me he had sent Donal Shaw a copy of his own ID Parade report, Which clearly wasn't done until i produced tape recording below:
Watch out for next weeks take.
Friday 25 April 2008
Lord Advocate On Disclosure Policies
This is dedicated to all fighting for disclosure in Scotland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x11rHMJskY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebOQ8jhw-9g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNb6ONidmc0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqsMu0G-1rY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW2V0HG4Jlk
I do not think i need say anymore to those up against these three at Crown Office.
The videos were taken before Elish was lord Advocate but quite clearly she is aware and has conceded that disclosure is a must for accused in Scotland under Bonomy and Holland and Sinclair Privy Council yet our courts are being clogged up daily with commission and dilligence cases costing thousands of pounds.
The three Elish, Brisbane and Pattison have all been involved at some stage in refusing me disclosure to put to bed my claims i was fitted up for this Robbery yet here the three sit together and agree on disclosure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x11rHMJskY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebOQ8jhw-9g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNb6ONidmc0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqsMu0G-1rY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW2V0HG4Jlk
I do not think i need say anymore to those up against these three at Crown Office.
The videos were taken before Elish was lord Advocate but quite clearly she is aware and has conceded that disclosure is a must for accused in Scotland under Bonomy and Holland and Sinclair Privy Council yet our courts are being clogged up daily with commission and dilligence cases costing thousands of pounds.
The three Elish, Brisbane and Pattison have all been involved at some stage in refusing me disclosure to put to bed my claims i was fitted up for this Robbery yet here the three sit together and agree on disclosure.
Wednesday 16 April 2008
Nigel Muckle
"Nigel Muckle" from Mid Calder Likes to fly-fish at Swanswater Fishery in stirling.
It can be seen here
http://www.swanswater-fishery.co.uk/pages/pictures.htm
It can be seen here
http://www.swanswater-fishery.co.uk/pages/pictures.htm
Kenny MacAskill Agree's On Disclosure In Scots Cases
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Kenny MacAskill Agree's On Disclosure
Call for prosecutors to provide full details to defence lawyersCriminal prosecutors should be legally bound to provide full information to defence lawyers in advance of a trial, the Scottish Government was told yesterday.
The call came from a retired judge who said the information should include material favourable to the accused, even if it weakens the Crown case.
The call came from Lord Coulsfield in a report commissioned from him last year by the previous administration.Lord Coulsfield, who retired in 2002, was one of three judges who presided at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands.
He was asked by the previous administration to review the law in the light of a 2005 ruling by the Privy Council which overturned the convictions of two men, James Holland and Alvin Sinclair, on the grounds of "non-disclosure".
His findings include a recommendation for legislation requiring the prosecution to have regard to "the over-riding requirement of a fair trial".
The legislation should provide a definition of a duty of disclosure, and require prosecutors to disclose to the defence "all material evidence or information which would tend to exculpate the accused whether by weakening the Crown case or providing a defence to it," said the judge.
This already happens in England and Wales and Lord Coulsfield said: "I do not see that there is any practicable alternative in the short or medium term.
"Non-disclosure by the Crown is a major issue in some of the most high-profile cases in Scotland, such as that of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi who earlier this year was granted leave to launch a second appeal against his conviction.
Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, said: "The government welcomes this positive and helpful report. Disclosure is vital because it is essential that the defence have all the necessary information available to ensure a fair trial.
"Effective disclosure also contributes to a more effective criminal justice system and to earlier resolution of cases. I am indebted to Lord Coulsfield for his careful analysis. We will shortly publish a consultation paper to invite further views."
Elish Angiolini, Lord Advocate, said: "The report marks a significant step towards achievement of the required degree of clarity in this complex area of law and practice."
12:01am Thursday 13th September 2007
Clearly Mr MacAskill is aware of the need for disclosure to ensure a fair hearing under Sections 6 (1) & 6 (3) of European Right to a fair hearing.Why then are people like Gage, Megrahi, Dixon, McDonald and Beck etc etc having to ask our courts to grant full disclosure ????????????????It is absolutely Ludicrous and Appalling that Disclosure is not automatically granted now as a matter of course
Kenny MacAskill Agree's On Disclosure
Call for prosecutors to provide full details to defence lawyersCriminal prosecutors should be legally bound to provide full information to defence lawyers in advance of a trial, the Scottish Government was told yesterday.
The call came from a retired judge who said the information should include material favourable to the accused, even if it weakens the Crown case.
The call came from Lord Coulsfield in a report commissioned from him last year by the previous administration.Lord Coulsfield, who retired in 2002, was one of three judges who presided at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands.
He was asked by the previous administration to review the law in the light of a 2005 ruling by the Privy Council which overturned the convictions of two men, James Holland and Alvin Sinclair, on the grounds of "non-disclosure".
His findings include a recommendation for legislation requiring the prosecution to have regard to "the over-riding requirement of a fair trial".
The legislation should provide a definition of a duty of disclosure, and require prosecutors to disclose to the defence "all material evidence or information which would tend to exculpate the accused whether by weakening the Crown case or providing a defence to it," said the judge.
This already happens in England and Wales and Lord Coulsfield said: "I do not see that there is any practicable alternative in the short or medium term.
"Non-disclosure by the Crown is a major issue in some of the most high-profile cases in Scotland, such as that of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi who earlier this year was granted leave to launch a second appeal against his conviction.
Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, said: "The government welcomes this positive and helpful report. Disclosure is vital because it is essential that the defence have all the necessary information available to ensure a fair trial.
"Effective disclosure also contributes to a more effective criminal justice system and to earlier resolution of cases. I am indebted to Lord Coulsfield for his careful analysis. We will shortly publish a consultation paper to invite further views."
Elish Angiolini, Lord Advocate, said: "The report marks a significant step towards achievement of the required degree of clarity in this complex area of law and practice."
12:01am Thursday 13th September 2007
Clearly Mr MacAskill is aware of the need for disclosure to ensure a fair hearing under Sections 6 (1) & 6 (3) of European Right to a fair hearing.Why then are people like Gage, Megrahi, Dixon, McDonald and Beck etc etc having to ask our courts to grant full disclosure ????????????????It is absolutely Ludicrous and Appalling that Disclosure is not automatically granted now as a matter of course
Tuesday 8 April 2008
New Addresses For Crown Witnesses.
Since Crown Office have sought to rely on Data protection and Public Interest tests to refuse to hand over important documents relevant to my appeal please find below the names and addresses of (past and present) the two main witnesses at my trial:
Police Constable "Nigel Muckle" from Livingston Police Station:
Past Address. 35 Raeburn Rigg, Livingston, West Lothian.
Present Address. 148 Maryfield Park, Mid Calder, West Lothian. EH5 OSD
Second most important Witness "Kenneth Ashford", Chemist:
Past Address. 3 Sandilands Drive, Mid Calder, West Lothian.
Present Address. 32 Ochiltree Cres, Mid Calder, West Lothian. EH53 ORT
For the avoidance of any doubt these are available for anyone to view on the Voters Roll at your local library.
Is it possible i have the names and current addresses of all the witnesses in my case ?
Anything is possible Via a PC.
Watch this space and see what else can be revealed about you.
Crown Office in their letter to my MSP have said these documents would identify living people therefore are exempt from release.
Wonder what they will try next.
Petition for disclosure can be found here :
http://gopetition.com/petitions/grant-disclosure-to-scottish-defendants.html
Who has signed it can be found here:
http://gopetition.com/petitions/grant-disclosure-to-scottish-defendants/signatures.html
Police Constable "Nigel Muckle" from Livingston Police Station:
Past Address. 35 Raeburn Rigg, Livingston, West Lothian.
Present Address. 148 Maryfield Park, Mid Calder, West Lothian. EH5 OSD
Second most important Witness "Kenneth Ashford", Chemist:
Past Address. 3 Sandilands Drive, Mid Calder, West Lothian.
Present Address. 32 Ochiltree Cres, Mid Calder, West Lothian. EH53 ORT
For the avoidance of any doubt these are available for anyone to view on the Voters Roll at your local library.
Is it possible i have the names and current addresses of all the witnesses in my case ?
Anything is possible Via a PC.
Watch this space and see what else can be revealed about you.
Crown Office in their letter to my MSP have said these documents would identify living people therefore are exempt from release.
Wonder what they will try next.
Petition for disclosure can be found here :
http://gopetition.com/petitions/grant-disclosure-to-scottish-defendants.html
Who has signed it can be found here:
http://gopetition.com/petitions/grant-disclosure-to-scottish-defendants/signatures.html
Monday 7 April 2008
Can SCCRC Defectively Represent Appellants ???
Can SCCRC Defectively Represent Appellants
shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Test Forum 1
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 defectice 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 Taylor QC 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
shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Test Forum 1
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 defectice 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 Taylor QC 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
Saturday 5 April 2008
Crown Office Continue To Hide Witness Satatements
During the course of the investigation by SCCRC into my case, They managed to interview a John McFadyen (Joiner) Whom i told them could speak to being in my house on 12th Dec 1982 to give me an estimate for work to my kitchen.
SCCRC managed to ascertain that indeed this witness not only gave a statement to the police but he was called to the Procurator fiscals office in Glasgow to be precognosed.
This is news to me as i was told by my defence team that they could not find this witness at the time of my trial.
Crown Office have though told SCCRC that no statements exist for this witness who has spoken to SCCRC but is now a registered alcoholic and he cannot remember the dates etc etc.
The main issue ignored by SCCRC is the fact Crown had a statement from this witness and so did the police at the time of my trial, which was not released to me
Three questions remain unanswered here:
1. Why where they not revealed at trial ?
2. Where are they now ?
3. Why did SCCRC not pursue this matter further by interviewing the Police and Fiscal
I have more evidence of witness statements being withheld from my defence team at the time of trial but all will be revealed soon.
Watch out for expert reports which discredit SCCRC
SCCRC managed to ascertain that indeed this witness not only gave a statement to the police but he was called to the Procurator fiscals office in Glasgow to be precognosed.
This is news to me as i was told by my defence team that they could not find this witness at the time of my trial.
Crown Office have though told SCCRC that no statements exist for this witness who has spoken to SCCRC but is now a registered alcoholic and he cannot remember the dates etc etc.
The main issue ignored by SCCRC is the fact Crown had a statement from this witness and so did the police at the time of my trial, which was not released to me
Three questions remain unanswered here:
1. Why where they not revealed at trial ?
2. Where are they now ?
3. Why did SCCRC not pursue this matter further by interviewing the Police and Fiscal
I have more evidence of witness statements being withheld from my defence team at the time of trial but all will be revealed soon.
Watch out for expert reports which discredit SCCRC
Wednesday 2 April 2008
Statements Taken By SCCRC Worthless Say "Law Society"
Please view the following for proof of corruption between SCCRC and Law Society.
When i complained to Law Society that Jim Keegan Solicitor had lied to SCCRC when he said that at the time of my trial, He would not have been given access to the crown precognitions, Infact the crown are still quite cagey about releasing such documents now.
Seen Here:
The Law Society did not interview Robin Johnston of SCCRC to ascertain if indeed Mr Keegan used these words or not.
They allowed Keegan to claim he had difficulty remembering the details of my case well at least this is what they are claiming.
They came to the conclusion that the Statement made by Keegan to SCCRCs Senior Legal Officer was at best only another persons interpretation of what another has said and dismissed my complaint out of hand.
Mr keegan told the Law Society also that the author of his statement was mistaken and can be viewed here:
Surely they could not allow this without interviewing Robin Johnston ??? Yes they did.
Mr Keegan has now claimed to the Law Society that if the witness statements were amongst the documents he handed me in 1982 then the witnesses must have refused to co-operate.
This was not investigated by law Society, Even though i claimed Keegan was a liar again.
He is now trying to claim my family including my Brother and Father along with my Aunt and Cousins refused to co-operate, This is not the case.
If Law Society had bothered to investigate they would find out that Keegan did not attempt to interview any of them before my trial.
Law Society's opinion can be viewed here:
And Here
And Here
Basically in a nutshell, Either Keegan or Johnston has lied, Certainly Keegan is now trying to backtrack on his statement.
Certainly Law Society lacked proper investigation.
Certainly now Keegan is saying something totally different from what SCCRC said he had said causing concern among SCCRC and Lawyers alike.
Did the Law Society investigate independently and Impartially? No, They never investigated at-all
When i complained to Law Society that Jim Keegan Solicitor had lied to SCCRC when he said that at the time of my trial, He would not have been given access to the crown precognitions, Infact the crown are still quite cagey about releasing such documents now.
Seen Here:
The Law Society did not interview Robin Johnston of SCCRC to ascertain if indeed Mr Keegan used these words or not.
They allowed Keegan to claim he had difficulty remembering the details of my case well at least this is what they are claiming.
They came to the conclusion that the Statement made by Keegan to SCCRCs Senior Legal Officer was at best only another persons interpretation of what another has said and dismissed my complaint out of hand.
Mr keegan told the Law Society also that the author of his statement was mistaken and can be viewed here:
Surely they could not allow this without interviewing Robin Johnston ??? Yes they did.
Mr Keegan has now claimed to the Law Society that if the witness statements were amongst the documents he handed me in 1982 then the witnesses must have refused to co-operate.
This was not investigated by law Society, Even though i claimed Keegan was a liar again.
He is now trying to claim my family including my Brother and Father along with my Aunt and Cousins refused to co-operate, This is not the case.
If Law Society had bothered to investigate they would find out that Keegan did not attempt to interview any of them before my trial.
Law Society's opinion can be viewed here:
And Here
And Here
Basically in a nutshell, Either Keegan or Johnston has lied, Certainly Keegan is now trying to backtrack on his statement.
Certainly Law Society lacked proper investigation.
Certainly now Keegan is saying something totally different from what SCCRC said he had said causing concern among SCCRC and Lawyers alike.
Did the Law Society investigate independently and Impartially? No, They never investigated at-all
Wednesday 19 March 2008
Data Protection Joke From Crown Office
Robin Johnston above responsible for non investigation of my appeal to SCCRC, Also responsible for investigating Lockerbie.It will be shown that SCCRCs Robin above totally lacked investigation into my grounds, Accepted my defence teams evidence without redress, or investigation and totally disregarded what i was saying despite evidence to back all i submitted to them.
Despite repeated attempts to obtain Crown Witnesses Precognitions from Crown Office over the years to Cross Check them with the ones i already have in my possession Crown Office are still telling my MSP that they are covered by Data Protection as they identify living People.
What a Joke.
The following is intended purely just to show the public that this Data Protection is a Joke.
For a start anyone chaged in Scotland is provided with a list of witnesses names and address's so you would think this would do away with data protection right away.
To add insult to injury though, I already have "Crown Witneses Precognitions" as Crown put it but further insult comes from the fact that once a witness gives evidence in court then their "Data" becomes public Knowledge. Thus not covered by Data Protection.
We only need look at recent Appeals on the High Court Website to find cases were peoples details are published daily with evidence also of what witnesses said what and how.
Further insult in my case comes from the fact that not only do i have Crown Precognitions i also have the "Minutes" of my trial Provided by SCCRC, Which among other things contains the Jurors Names and Address's.
All documents mentioned above can be viewed bellow:
What a Joke.
The following is intended purely just to show the public that this Data Protection is a Joke.
For a start anyone chaged in Scotland is provided with a list of witnesses names and address's so you would think this would do away with data protection right away.
To add insult to injury though, I already have "Crown Witneses Precognitions" as Crown put it but further insult comes from the fact that once a witness gives evidence in court then their "Data" becomes public Knowledge. Thus not covered by Data Protection.
We only need look at recent Appeals on the High Court Website to find cases were peoples details are published daily with evidence also of what witnesses said what and how.
Further insult in my case comes from the fact that not only do i have Crown Precognitions i also have the "Minutes" of my trial Provided by SCCRC, Which among other things contains the Jurors Names and Address's.
All documents mentioned above can be viewed bellow:
The following documents containing Jurors names and addresses have been removed pending enquiry at SCCRC who released these to me.
Apparently they have committed a criminal act by revealing such documents and for the sake of the jurors who i have no axe to grind i have decided to take their names and addresses down.
However the document will remain part of my argument that crown have a duty to reveal all pertinent material and they should not be allowed to claim they reveal living people therefore they do not need to reveal pertinent and key material to me when all along i have their names and addresses and have had them for 26 years
I will continue to post copies of all Crown Precognitions including the two Postmen who where Robbed in Livingston on 12 Dec 1981 at Carmondean Shopping Centre (Safeway Superstore) until i have published all witness's names and address's, Then i will ask my MSP to do another FOI request asking for them again now that their names and Address's are revealed to the public.
Watch out also not only for their names and Address's from 1981 but also for their current address's found via the voters roll, Like Nigel Muckle Policeman no longer from Livingston but now residing in Mid Calder.
Full names and address's will be revealed.
Charge sheet and list of Crown Witness's are listed in the following two documents:
Despite this Crown have continually refused to hand over basically what i already have.
Their letter of refusal from 2005 can now be viewed below with their pathetic excuse for non disclosure
Note this letter is signed by head of High Court Unit.
Watch out next for postmen's Crown Precognitions with their address's and other people's Data handed to me by SCCRC.
SCCRC Incompetence and Data Protection sham.
SCCRC lost important documents which i have kept regarding my case, including letters i sent to George Younger the then Secretary of State for Scotland (Now Dead) and Justice at Chancery Lane London.
For proof of their incompetence and negligence they handed me other peoples documents and in particular as mentioned above Jurors names and address's but below clearly they handed me documents concerning an appeal to them by John King against his sentence. See below for proof:
The following documents has also been removed due to the fact SCCRC may have Criminally Revealed this to me.
It will remain as a small documents unable to read as proof it exists:
John Iain King Appeal To SCCRC Removed (Referral To Appeal Court Document)
See Postmen's Address's that were robbed in my case Below:
Postman William John Young Horn, 86 Stewartfield Crescent, Broxburn, West Lothian.
Postman John Ramsay Smart Henderson, 32 Charles Crescent, Bathgate, West Lothian.
Quite clearly these statements are either Police or Crown Witness statements, They certainly bear the Crown Stamp.
Despite these being released to me Crown Office are and have for many years told me they cannot release these to me as they contain Data which identifies living people.
The above two postmen are listed as ages 44 and 46 in 1982 which would make them 70 and 72, Crown should state if they have evidence these witness's are still living since they have sought to use data protection as a ban on releasing these documents.
The fact that i have these documents and crown refuse to release them speaks volumes.
My MSP has done a FOI request asking for these documents and been told they were released at the time of trial.
This certainly adds credence to my complaint that my defence team had them at the time of my trial which they have sought to convince SCCRC they never saw.
Mr Taylor QC says if he had seen the crown witness's statements he would seriously have considered calling David Livingston, The fact he never called this crucial crown witness means he defectively represented me.
SCCRC never asked Crown office if they were released to my defence team but since crown have now confirmed they were, speaks volumes about the SCCRCs reluctance to investigate their own as they should have asked when they were released.
Clearly Crowns Solicitor General is satisfied these documents were released to my defence team at the time of trial.
Why then did SCCRC not ask Crown this simple question when they allegedly investigated my case.
The only conclusion one can then draw was they tried to shield their Mr Taylor QC for his incompetence.
Pages 6 and 7 extracts from SCCRC decision from October 2003 Below which quite clearly contradict what Crowns Mr Mulholland is saying above.
Who is right ?????
Quite clearly Mr Keegan and Mr Taylor QC tried to convince SCCRC that at the time of my trial they would not have had access to the crown precognitions.
Instead of covering up for their Colleagues SCCRC should have asked Crown Office if the documents had been released
More Crown Precognitions below despite Crown telling me for years they are non disclosable, What a joke.
Michelle Jane Tiffney. Aged 12, Schoolgirl, of 122 Harburn Avenue, Deans, Livingston, West lothian.
Jaqueline Tiffney aged 15 of same address as above.
Watch out for more incriminating evidence against SCCRC, James Keegan, Solicitor and William Taylor QC.
Also to come are copies of Medical case records relating to Horn And Henderson (Postmen that were Robbed) all in the name of exposing Data Protection Farce within Crown Office.
More Crown Witnesses addresses and statements:
Brian O'Neil, 263 Raeburn Rigg, Carmondean, Livingston, West Lothian
Terence O'Neil, 22 Dargai Place, Uphall, West Lothian
Sunday 9 March 2008
Complaints To Justice Minister Jamieson About Conduct Of SCCRC
Letter of complaint to Justice minister "Cathy Jamieson" regarding the lack of Investigation into my case by SCCRC Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
By Clicking on the photo it will allow you to view larger version.
After clicking it will take you to flickr.
Once there above the photo click All Sizes.
Hey presto, Enlarged photo.
Answer from Justice minister but note it was passed to the sole sponsers of SCCRC Justice Department What a Joke:
I just had to reply to this Blase Reply and this can be seen here:
Be sure to watch out for further letters to Justice Minister concerning SCCRC and also The Standards Commissioner for Scotland with their replies.
Their replies certainly show a culture of cover up and lack of investigation into the conduct of SCCRC and allows them (SCCRC) to do what they want, when they want, and all sanctioned by the Justice Minister and Justice Department.
Chief Executive of SCCRC can be seen here:
Response to latest reply informing me wrongly that i could complain to The Standards Commissioner who in turn wrote back saying they could not investuigate my type of complaints.
Basically bar taking Judicial review against SCCRC there is no one to whom you can complain.
When i did complain to SCCRC the person whom i was complaining of answered my complaints Gerard Sinclair "Flasher" seen above deals with all complaints even ones directed against him.
The reply listed below was sent despite them knowing i had no access to the internet ?
For the avoidance of doubt J Clark Pearson sits on the board of the user group set up by SCCRC to discuss policies etc, see here:
Stakeholders’Views
The Commission has also set up a User Group Forum
whose members comprise:
The Commission’s Chief Executive, Director of
Administration and Senior Legal Officer;
Tom Higgins, Appeals Manager Justiciary Office;
Lindsay Anderson, Crown Office Policy Group;
Chief Superintendent Janette Joyce, Strathclyde Police;
Stuart Sproul, Prison Officer, HMP Shotts;
Graham Walker, Criminal Defence Solicitor;
William McVicar, Criminal Defence Solicitor; and
Clark Pearson, Scottish Executive Justice Department.
Thie above can be found on page 19 of the annual report of SCCRC for 2004-2005 Here:
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/viewfile.aspx?id=97
Quite clearly he should not be dealing in any way with complaints against someone he knows.
This shows our Last Government allowed conflicts of interest like this to flourish and did absolutely Hee Haw to protect the public interests in conflicts like this.
Indeed it was the First and Justice Ministers that passed my complaints to Pearson.
Be sure to look again in a few days time when the Standards Commissioner's letters will be published.
The standards commissioner whom Justice Minister said i could complain!!!!
Letters from Standards commissioner:
Confidential to myself, No chance when they choose to cover matters up and refuse to fully explore my complaints.
If Taylor resigns in Lockerbie then he should have done the same 2 years previous when my own case and complaints against him were accepted for review by SCCRC
Quite clearly another whitewash.
Why was i told to complain to someone who could not deal with my type of complaints.
Mr Taylor resigned once the Lockerbie Bomber appealed to allow SCCRC to remain independent and Impartial, This being the case why did Taylor not resign in 2001 when my case against him was accepted for review.
SCCRC allowed Mr Taylor to remain on the Commission despite me making serious allegations about the way he handled my trial, In particular his Incompetence and Negligence.
Where was the Independence and Impartiality that i was entitled to the same as Megrahi.
Be sure to look out for next paper chasing tactics and further complaints against SCCRC Here.
By Clicking on the photo it will allow you to view larger version.
After clicking it will take you to flickr.
Once there above the photo click All Sizes.
Hey presto, Enlarged photo.
Answer from Justice minister but note it was passed to the sole sponsers of SCCRC Justice Department What a Joke:
I just had to reply to this Blase Reply and this can be seen here:
Be sure to watch out for further letters to Justice Minister concerning SCCRC and also The Standards Commissioner for Scotland with their replies.
Their replies certainly show a culture of cover up and lack of investigation into the conduct of SCCRC and allows them (SCCRC) to do what they want, when they want, and all sanctioned by the Justice Minister and Justice Department.
Chief Executive of SCCRC can be seen here:
Response to latest reply informing me wrongly that i could complain to The Standards Commissioner who in turn wrote back saying they could not investuigate my type of complaints.
Basically bar taking Judicial review against SCCRC there is no one to whom you can complain.
When i did complain to SCCRC the person whom i was complaining of answered my complaints Gerard Sinclair "Flasher" seen above deals with all complaints even ones directed against him.
The reply listed below was sent despite them knowing i had no access to the internet ?
For the avoidance of doubt J Clark Pearson sits on the board of the user group set up by SCCRC to discuss policies etc, see here:
Stakeholders’Views
The Commission has also set up a User Group Forum
whose members comprise:
The Commission’s Chief Executive, Director of
Administration and Senior Legal Officer;
Tom Higgins, Appeals Manager Justiciary Office;
Lindsay Anderson, Crown Office Policy Group;
Chief Superintendent Janette Joyce, Strathclyde Police;
Stuart Sproul, Prison Officer, HMP Shotts;
Graham Walker, Criminal Defence Solicitor;
William McVicar, Criminal Defence Solicitor; and
Clark Pearson, Scottish Executive Justice Department.
Thie above can be found on page 19 of the annual report of SCCRC for 2004-2005 Here:
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/viewfile.aspx?id=97
Quite clearly he should not be dealing in any way with complaints against someone he knows.
This shows our Last Government allowed conflicts of interest like this to flourish and did absolutely Hee Haw to protect the public interests in conflicts like this.
Indeed it was the First and Justice Ministers that passed my complaints to Pearson.
Be sure to look again in a few days time when the Standards Commissioner's letters will be published.
The standards commissioner whom Justice Minister said i could complain!!!!
Letters from Standards commissioner:
Confidential to myself, No chance when they choose to cover matters up and refuse to fully explore my complaints.
If Taylor resigns in Lockerbie then he should have done the same 2 years previous when my own case and complaints against him were accepted for review by SCCRC
Quite clearly another whitewash.
Why was i told to complain to someone who could not deal with my type of complaints.
Mr Taylor resigned once the Lockerbie Bomber appealed to allow SCCRC to remain independent and Impartial, This being the case why did Taylor not resign in 2001 when my case against him was accepted for review.
SCCRC allowed Mr Taylor to remain on the Commission despite me making serious allegations about the way he handled my trial, In particular his Incompetence and Negligence.
Where was the Independence and Impartiality that i was entitled to the same as Megrahi.
Be sure to look out for next paper chasing tactics and further complaints against SCCRC Here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)