I refused to go through their system which resulted in me being sent to Peterhead prison from Perth. (Only after an Incident)
I sent as many petitions to the Secretary of State (George Younger) as possible, sometimes the prison authorities refused to grant me these saying i had sent one the day before. I even sent letters to his house (Gargunock Estate Stirlingshire) but nothing was done. (I was forced to pay for letters to Lawyers etc etc from my wages) Any legal letters sent from prison should be free?
After my conviction i Sacked the Lawyer (Jim Keegan) and QC (Bill Taylor) Who also went on to Defend Megrahi (Lockerbie Bomber) and applied for legal aid for my appeal.
Mr Taylor QC produced a note (Even though he was no longer acting for me) Saying i had no grounds of Appeal and legal Aid was Refused. See Letter confirming note.
This resulted in me having to conduct my own Application for Leave to appeal.
At The Hearing
I had no chance from the beggining, After some arguements i started shouting and swearing at the Judges and was dragged out of court with my suit ripped of me and dragged back to Saughton Prison.
This was not what i expected
I expected to be taken back into Court and maybe even charged with Contempt but at the very least i should have been allowed to finish my Grounds of Appeal and hear what the advocate had to say.
This did not happen and breached my Human right to a fair hearing (Section 6,1. 3.)
When they were set up John Carroll Solicitor adivised me to write to them about my case and i expected them to afford me the Robust, Independent and Impartial enquiry they profess to give every case.
SCCRC dismissed my witnesses without even interviewing them, Saying their evidence was hearsay and i would not be allowed to rely on it at any Appeal yet they refer the Case of Ronnie Neeson on hearsay evidence from three witnesses who had long lists of previous convictions and one of whom was responsible for the crimes i was convicted of.
SCCRC were told of this person but did nothing to interview him saying it would be unlikely that he would admit to his involvement in my case.
They should have at least interviewed him. Robin Johnston of SCCRC said: that i had said, that this person had already denied his involvement to me which was not what i had said at-all.
Mr Johnston Senior Legal Officer with SCCRC wrote his own interpretation of what i had said in regards to this person.
Mr Keegan has also stated that Mr Johnston also done this with his statement, infact Mr Keegan said the Author of his Statement was Mistaken.
I told SCCRC that my defence team should have called the Forensic evidence at my Trial SCCRC never answered this point and have to this day still refused to answer this point.
Anderson V HMA = Defective representation
SCCRC will not entertain any grounds like this and indeed have never referred a case on this yet.
I told them my Defence team had not interviewed 16 of 19 of my defence witnesses but SCCRC would not ask them about this.
I told them that Keegan gave me the Crown witness statements yet in their statement of reasons they say it is unclear where i got these from and its possible i got them during the process of my appeal (This is far from the truth and even Keegan has now conceded that these were given to me by him) He had to extract them from Crown as he had not bothered to interview so many of my defence witnesses yet SCCRC never put this to Keegan and it was only after i had complained to Law Society that Keegan admitted this.
Amongst these statements given to me by Keegan was the one of David Livingston (Crown Witness)http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/425979872/
who was not called to give evidence at my trial yet he descibes someone double the age of me with brown haid and a moustache (Exact Description) of the driver Who i have claimed committed this crime. (But SCCRC refused to interview him too)
Mr Taylor said he did not know of this witness and had he known of him given his age he would have called him as a witness as he might have impressed the Jury more.
Mr Taylor also sought to deny Knowing of the Solicitor That Conducted my ID Parade and said the police had Number Two out his mouth before turning to view the parade (See His Statements on Flickr site linked, Donald Shaw)
See also protest outside Office Of SCCRC in Glasgow
SCCRC assured me that Shaw was sent a copy of his own ID Parade report as that was the whole allegations i had put of course he was sent it was The Words of Robin Johnston Of SCCRC and when i phoned Shaw he said he had never seen it and SCCRC only sent this to him because i produced a copy of Johnston and Shaw, Which was after SCCRC had concluded my appeal to them. Is this the robust, Impartial and Independent investigations they profess. They are the biggest Joke in the Judicial System.
They do not look independently at cases, They look with the view of upholding these Convictions, Indeed in my case they interviewed the police but would not interview my witnesses and even when my wife was interviewed By Johnston He only wrote what he thought was pertinent and did not put fully to the commission what my wifes evidence was.
They are allowed to do this because there is no-one you can complain to about their conduct, I have written to First Minister and Justice Minister to no avail, None would investigate my serious concerns of Malpractice and Misconduct within the ranks of SCCRC so they can do what they want.
SCCRC refused to interview David Martin whom i had said claimed that: At his ID Parade someone was picked Positive.
Mr Keegan was told about this indeed his note mentions it to Check Positive David Martin but he never followed this up.http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/488992396/
I claimed to SCCRC that the Police Muckle Must have been the person that Identified someone positive as in their statements he was the only person to not mention this second ID Parade, All the other witnesses claimed they never picked anyone at the second Parade except Muckle.
SCCRC interviewed Muckle to allow him to claim he was 100 percent positive in his Identification of me but they refused to interview Martin saying he was once a Co-Accused of mine. What a Joke?
SCCRC asked Crown office for copies of both ID Parades and Indeed Crown sent Both to SCCRC see letters on Flickr site linked
SCCRC have now said they only recieved the one that I Attended, After reading both letters linked you decide? for yourselves?
You will also notice that SCCRC were sent copies of Robert Hamiltons Police Statement yet SCCRC are saying to me that these were all destroyed.
Mr Hamilton has claimed to SCCRC that i went to his door and told him he was to be a witness for me and SCCRC have said his evidence is Credible DEPITE me being in prison at the time.
Mr Hamilton Claimed his daughter was driving his van YET she was only 15 at the time.
Mr Hamilton told SCCRC that he did not give evidence at the trial of my wife Two years after my conviction. I told SCCRC that not only my wife could say who gave evidence at her trial but her two brothers were at court with her and knew Mr Hamilton and heard him give evidence against their Sister. SCCRC dismissed their evidence as hearsay without taking any statements from them.
They have also claimed that crown cannot tell them who gave evidence at her trial as all documents are destroyed after 10 Years (Bull) Does this mean that anyone with convictions over 10 year old can deny ever being in court and it cannot be proven as the papers would be destroyed.
I find this very insulting to suggest that court records of witnesses are destroyed, even accused persons records are destroyed more so in solemn cases.
On the last link above you will see the Letter from Scott Pattison from Crown Office states that from the documents in front of him Louise was due to stand trial etc etc but now he is saying he does not know where this information came from. What a Joke SCCRC should never have accepted this as clearly he had some documents in front of him at early stages, and once SCCRC ask for any information this should be preserved at all costs, Yet this seems to not have bothered them.
Is this their Robust, Independent and impartial investigation they profess to give every case they accept?.
SCCRC should be closed and people allowed to appeal or at least lodge grounds of appeal and let the sift panel decide who has grounds.
Clearly in my case SCCRC have acted as Judge and Jury and let their own opinion cloud their Judgements indeed it can be claimed they Misdirected themselves on a few occassions.
See link below to cases of Gair, Kidd and Orr along with the case of Neeson
Refusal Of Legal Aid for Appeal
I argued that this should never have happened and breached my human rights Section 6.1 6.3 to a fair hearing like Granger Maxwell and Boner. SCCRC Misdirected itself and took into account my Grounds of appeal and argued that had they been argued would they have been successful.
My grounds of appeal are not relevant to this Arguement.
See cases mentioned above
Everyone charged with a serious charge and facing a lengthy sentence is entitled to be legally represented to ensure Equality of Arms. If they so wish and to be represented by someone of their own choice. This is minimum requirement.