Another Potential Victim Of James Keegan QC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-28811152

 

A woman who stabbed her neighbour to death in Edinburgh on Christmas Day has been jailed for life after being found guilty of murder.

Melissa Young, 37, must serve at least 20 years before she can apply for parole for killing Alan Williamson at a Glenure Loan flat on 25 December 2013.

The Crown earlier ejected her plea of guilty to culpable homicide.

Passing sentence, Judge Lord Boyd told Ms Young she had been convicted of a "cruel and wicked attack".

He said: "Having murdered him you set about trying to persuade health professionals that you were suffering from diminished responsibility.

"While it's true that you have a severe personality disorder it's clear it played no part in what happened that night.

"You showed no remorse, in fact you told this court that you were 'indifferent' to his death."
Devil Lucifer
He said it would be for the parole board to decide whether Ms Young should be released on licence. The sentence was backdated to 27 December last year when she was remanded in custody.

Before the five-day trial began Young admitted killing Mr Williamson on the grounds of "abnormality of mind" but she denied murdering him.

She claimed she saw a bright light and heard voices in her head before she "flipped" and stabbed Mr Williamson 29 times.

Young, who has a tattoo of the Virgin Mary on one arm and the Devil Lucifer on the other, said the archangel Saint Michael had taken over her body and used her as an instrument of God to punish the "unclean demon".

She attacked Mr Williamson after he rejected her Christmas present of a pair of unisex trainers and a copy of the Sun newspaper's 2014 calendar.

Young said if he had accepted the gifts from her she would not have stabbed him.
Shocked community
The jury heard that when police arrived at her flat in Clermiston, Edinburgh, Ms Young's hands were covered in blood and Mr Williamson was lying dead behind her front door.

Jim Keegan QC, defending, said in his closing speech doctors had revealed his client was liable to "violent and dangerous outbursts".

He added: "This can only have been a frenzied and savage attack. It's a very tragic case."

Det Insp Grant Johnston, of Police Scotland, said: "Melissa Young carried out a violent attack on her neighbour and the severity of the injuries inflicted led to his death.

"Officers in attendance quickly detained Young and at no time was there ever any risk to other members of the public although this incident did shock the local community

"The length of sentence handed down today reflects the violent nature of this offence."

When A High Court Judge Must Recuse Himself (Scotland)

I would say the best case to refer to would be Hoekstra V HMA where it was said because Lord McLuskey had spoken publicly and voiced an opinion about Human Rights being a Goldmine For Lawyers, A Pain In The Neck For Judges, and most importantly I think: A Field Day for Crackpots.

Lord McLuskey then sat in judgement of Hoekstra which concerned principally Human Rights Issues therefore he was not deemed to be fit to hear such a case when he obviously had made it clear he was against such rights.

Another Scottish case from 2006 is that of Raymond Gilmour a Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission Referral.

In Gilmour, Lord Marnoch had acted as an Advocate Depute (Prosecutor) against Gilmour in 1982 he was not deemed fit to be hearing his appeal in 2006.

What follows is the hearing in Gilmour:

APPEAL COURT,HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY

Lord Justice Clerk Lord Abernethy Lord Marnoch

[2006] HCJAC 73 Appeal No:XC464/03

OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK in REFERRAL BY THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION

in the case of RAYMOND McKENZIE GILMOUR Appellant;

against HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE Respondent: _______
For the Appellant:Shead, Miss Mitchell;Gordon Ritchie & Co., Paisley

For the Crown:Miss Grahame, A.D.;Crown Agent

4 October 2006

[1] This referral relates to the conviction of the appellant at Glasgow High Court on 7 June 1982 on a charge of rape and murder.The appellant unsuccessfully appealed against conviction (cf. Gilmour v HM Adv, 1982 SCCR 590).The advising of the appeal took place on 17 December 1982.

[2] The hearing in this referral was fixed to begin yesterday.Shortly before the case was called it was discovered that Lord Marnoch, who took no part in the prosecution or in the appeal itself, had appeared as advocate depute at the advising of the appeal.The minutes of that advising show that the court merely announced its decision and that there was no further discussion of any kind.

[3] Counsel for the appellant objected at the outset to Lord Marnoch's taking part in the referral.He submitted that since Lord Marnoch had been personally involved in the case on behalf of the Crown in respect of his appearance at the advising, a fair-minded observer would apprehend that he had had access to the Crown papers in the case and therefore that justice would not be seen to be done (cf Haney v HM Adv, 2003 SCCR 253, at para [7]).Counsel did not accuse Lord Marnoch of actual bias, but he submitted that there would be an appearance of bias.

[4] Lord Marnoch was an advocate depute in December 1982.He accepts that he must have appeared for the Crown at the advising; but he has assured the parties that he has no recollection whatever of the case.Counsel for the appellant accepts Lord Marnoch's word; but declines to waive his objection nonetheless.

[5] The advocate depute submitted that in view of Lord Marnoch's assurance to parties, no reasonable and fair-minded observer would have any cause to apprehend that there could be a possibility of bias on Lord Marnoch's part.

[6] On the face of it, when the judge in question has no recollection of the case and when the referral relates to a purely formal appearance at an advising held more than 24 years ago, there would seem to be no reasonable cause for concern as to that judge's participation in the present hearing.In this case, however, two matters cause us concern.The first is that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (Sched 2, para 18), by an amendment to section 254(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, provided that when allowing an appeal against conviction, the court, instead of quashing the conviction, was entitled to set aside the verdict of the trial court and to grant authority to the Crown, if so advised, to bring a new prosecution in accordance with section 255 of that Act.From this it follows that when the appeal in the present case was at avizandum, the Crown must have had to consider whether, if the appeal were to succeed, it should seek authority to bring a new prosecution.It is reasonable to suppose that the point was discussed within Crown Office and that Lord Marnoch, as the advocate depute who was to appear at the advising, may have been involved in that discussion.

[7] The second matter that concerns us is the possibility that, if Lord Marnoch took part in any discussion of the case in 1982 and if he were to take part in this referral, a detailed consideration of the evidence and of the Crown papers that have been produced might cause him to recall significant points that would make his continued participation inappropriate. [8] We therefore consider that a fair-minded and informed observer who took these considerations into account would be justified in thinking that Lord Marnoch's participation in this hearing lacked the necessary appearance of fairness.Lord Marnoch therefore recuses himself.

I therefore think it only right in the case of Beck V HMA the two judges ought to have recused themselves and the defence ought to have asked them to also do this as they would have been very well aware of the links by looking at the court papers

SCCRC Refuse FOI Request For Info Against Jim Keegan Solicitor

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.

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

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

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.

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.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------