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.
Friday, 25 April 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)