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.
Sunday 25 May 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)