Monday, 29 October 2007

Arguments for SCCRC

Further Submissions Dated:
SCCRC's Statement Of Reasons November 2006
My Recent Application.
How we Review a case (SCCRC)
Our review and investigation process is very thorough, robust, impartial and independent.
We will obtain papers from the court, the police and crown. We will also write to all relevant parties and request that all documents and productions they hold in relation to the case be preserved for the duration of our review.
Copies of all communication between SCCRC and Crown Office in regards to my case has been copied to me and not once did SCCRC ask crown office for all documents held in relation to my trial or in the trial of Louise Morris Why?
Why has my case not been subject to a very thorough, robust, impartial and independent review ? as proclaimed in your advert the same as; About The SCCRC All cases accepted etc., etc. The same as; Role Of SCCRC; Of all cases we accept for review?
I am entitled to a fair and independent review, so far I have not had this review in that The Commission refuse to interview witnesses pertinent to my case. I do not feel the need to go into great detail but will do so at any subsequent Judicial Review of my case.
What was submitted was copy application to high court March 2006 which the commission have chosen to answer, by answering old grounds, which I have not re-submitted.
If one looks at my application to High Court dated March 2006 one will see that the misdirection complained of differs.
It was submitted that the charge served to Equiparate proof beyond reasonable doubt with the concept of being reasonably certain.
Why the commission have not answered this is beyond even me.
Para (6) According to the applicant (the commission has been unable to obtain any papers in respect of her case).
I would be most grateful if the commission would enlighten me here. I do not understand the reason for such comment.
I was informed by the commission that they were unable to obtain any documents in regards to the trial of Louise Morris, so why the comment above?
If the commission has been able to obtain any documents in regards this trial then why has it sought to convince me otherwise.? Also if such documents exist then I would be very grateful if they are made available to me.
Miscellaneous; I have been granted permission by high court to view documents held at NAS but crown office has denied me Access to documents pertinent to my appeal to you. I would now suggest that by doing so they have denied me under section 6 of human rights, my right to a fair hearing. In order to enable proper presentation of my grounds and for further investigations into my case I would argue that all documents held by Crown Office should be released to me.
Since the commission has sought to answer old grounds will it answer why it has not sought to answer me why my defence team never called the Forensic evidence at my trial.
I have submitted that by not doing this I can also add this to my Anderson ground along with the not calling of Allan Beck (going by Mr Keegans annotation on his Crown Statement) he brought one of the hammers to my house the night before I was arrested.
Since Crown used the hammers as productions, my defence team were at fault for not calling my brothers evidence which, would have proved, not only did the hammer not belong to me but it was not in my possession on the 12/12/1981 when this robbery was committed. Why have SCCRC never answered this?
Why have SCCRC refused to interview my witnesses claiming their evidence is hearsay yet refer other cases like Jamie Orr and Ronald Neeson.
Neesons case even being referred on a statement from the person (Alexander Hardie) whom I claim committed this robbery that I was convicted of.
My claim that Muckle identified someone at the second ID Parade went amiss as well, well at least the commission refused to interview David martin as he was once a co-accused of mine. (even though I have had no contact with him since 1980's)
But again the case of Neeson is referred even although Hardie and Gronan have numerous convictions. Is this not what one could say “Double Standards”
I will now start at number 12 page 2. of recent statement of reasons.
In Brackets() it is not clear to the commission precisely the meaning of this latter comment.
The meaning is that it contradicts the evidence of Muckle saying: the two men got into the car at the same time. The only person to claim that this happened was Muckle.
the evidence of Steven Clark, He stated that indeed he chased the car to Newbridge Roundabout but the commission has sought to omit the rest of his evidence and it went as follows, He could not identify any of the people in the car because they were still wearing Balaclava Helmets contradicting the evidence of Muckle and Ashford.
I find it now necessary to mention again about the evidence of Ashford. In court he said he did not run into Raeburn Rigg. The next thing he saw was the blue ford coming out of the Riggs. There was nothing suspicious about the car nor was there anything to attract his attention to it but he wrote down the registration number and remembered the driver of this car. (He identified me as the driver) Is this normal? I would suggest not. He also stated the person he was chasing was carrying a grey attaché case on which he could not be mistaken. He also stated he could not say if the person in the car was indeed the person he had been chasing.
I submitted that Ashford's evidence borders on Perjury indeed if I went into court and said what he did then I would have been charged with this. The most damning thing of Ashford's evidence is that in his own Statement he admits to running into Raeburn Rigg and this is supported by a number of the witnesses including the following, Tiffney, Wilson, Callan and Clark.
I would submit that the commission being a truth seeking organisation then in the interests of Justice Ashford should now be interviewed in regards to his change of position in his evidence. I would also submit that because of the number of inconsistencies in his evidence it Is Unsound and should have been Rejected at trial. (It could also be argued that by not seeing the number of inconsistencies in his evidence, my Defence was severely defective) Then again Mr Taylor argued the Muldoon V HMA which he has never been asked about. Could it be that this was his reason for Muldoon Argument, I don't know, Maybe the commission should seek an answer to this from Mr Taylor
14. Page three.
The Jury was warned by the trial Judge to treat Muckles evidence with with Great care Because he was an off-duty policeman. My Narration of this means that he preferred Muckles evidence and he was directing the Jury to find in his favour also.
16-18 Page three
I will re-iterate my misdirection here since the commission has again sought to mention old grounds.
My contention here was that in directing the Jury to only compare the evidence of Louise Morris and myself against the whole of the Crown evidence the judge misdirected the jury.
He told them that the only person to see me between 1and 6oClock that day was Louise Morris. This was not true the earliest spoken to seeing me at St Enoch Square Glasgow that day was 5.15 p.m.
Is it not a case of the Jury alone having to decide what evidence they accept and what they reject, they should consider all the evidence, and as a whole.
It was agreed that the Judge misdirected the Jury here but the commission sought to rely on a witness that does not know Glasgow (by his own admission) saying it would only take half an hour to travel from Livingston to Glasgow Cross. (in Keegans notes page 30)
I severely disputed this time and argued that there was no evidence of this stolen car coming from Livingston to Glasgow on the day, instead the evidence was that it was last seen heading to Edinburgh or at least at the Newbridge Roundabout and it was found in Kirkliston.
I would submit that no evidence was nor has been lead in court to the actual time it would take to travel from Livingston to Kirkliston then to Glasgow given that there was evidence of frost on the ground. No reasonable Jury properly directed as to the proper times would have been entitled to convict. At least most certainly if the judge had directed them properly and not Just to compare the evidence of only myself and Louise Morris against the crown. Please find enclosed copy E-mail from MOJO in regards to timings
I would suggest that the commission carry out a test or instruct someone to carry out such test as to what the actual time would have been to travel from Livingston (Scene of crime) to M8 Motorway from there to Newbridge Then to Kirkliston then onto Glasgow. Remember by this time the Police would have been looking on the M8 for the stolen car. Also remember that in his statements not once does Livingstone mention any second car or that the two robbers got into any other Vehicle (Maybe they Flew to Glasgow) But there is evidence of a Jacket being found in the Graveyard, Meaning their means of escape were via said graveyard.
It would seem to me to be impossible to do and be in St Enough Square at 5.15 which is the earliest sighting of me and Louise.
I would further now submit that the bus timings should have been able to shed some light on this but again it would seem that no-one is willing to look for this evidence.
Myself and Louise Morris where standing speaking to Geary etc. before the bus came into the terminus.
Terminus, what is a terminus? It is a place where bus drivers have a rest before setting off again. If the commission is so minded it can check on the times of the 31 bus to Carmunnock time tables for 1981.
20-21 Page 4.
I still maintain my defence team were negligent and defective in not calling Jean Clark, David Livingstone, Donald Shaw (Whom Mr Taylor has claimed he never knew About) and Hugh Wilson who claimed to my family at court that I never committed this robbery and contradicts Ashford's evidence of him not running into Raeburn Rigg.
The applicant was refused legal aid and had to conduct proceedings on his own behalf. The Appeal was eventually rejected, although the commission has been unable to obtain a copy of the High Courts opinion.
Correct I was refused legal aid only because Taylor put a note into legal aid saying I had no grounds of appeal (proper factum) after I had sacked him for his incompetence and negligence in handling my case.
Incorrect: My Appeal in 1982 was not refused.
What was refused in 1982 was an application for leave to Appeal. This should be borne in mind when deciding if I have received a fair hearing.
If I had a full Appeal hearing there would be an opinion, the shorthand notes would have been transcribed etc.
From the evidence available it is obvious, as you would say, that my case was disposed of in Summary fashion.
If my application was only for leave to appeal then this would mean I have never had an appeal and I should now be allowed to use section 111(2) to lodge grounds outwith time.
It would seem that no matter what grounds I raise with SCCRC their minds are already made up not to refer my case.
It would also seem that SCCRC are very selective in what witnesses to interview and what ones not to interview. It is plain that in my case the only witnesses to be interviewed are ones likely to be favourable to the crown case, Where is the independence spoke of in your web site.
Why for instance was Mr Keegan not asked why when preparing my case did he not interview 16 of 19 defence witnesses indeed these witnesses could also speak of this if the commission sought their opinions. As yet SCCRC have never sought to interview these witnesses
How can the commission justify spending the amount of money they have on the case of Megrahi yet not even try to interview my competent witnesses.
Again why have expert witnesses such as Tim Valentine not been asked for an opinion on the identifications of me and the conduct at my Id Parade.
The commission have never answered me when I said because of the descriptions of the stand-ins I did not get a fair Parade to which I was entitled. One had a Moustache, One had curly hair, the other had blonde hair. How is it the commission can just not answer whatever they do not want to.
Why was it that the commission only sent Shaw a copy of his own ID Parade report after I submitted a tape recording of Mr Johnston assuring me this had been done?
I submitted that my case was similar to one namely Haggerty in which he was defended by Donald Findlay QC at the High Court in Glasgow. I submitted evidence of this by way of press clipping. SCCRC have never mentioned it Why? Here I would suggest that the commission seek the opinion of Mr Donald Findlay QC who represented Haggerty
I will submit it again in case no-one saw it in my submissions, Please find enclosed copy of article. Please also find enclosed copy of argument in support of my own Haggerty argument.
I e-mailed Mr McShane in regards to your current law policy and argued that this should be applied to the conduct at my ID Parade Page 9. (51) interim statement of reasons dated 2003.
It would seem that although you agreed that my parade never met the standards which one would expect today, your opinion was that it was OK because it met the standards for its time. (This is not true) You can produce no evidence of this. Please see copy of Your Rights Book produced by SCCL dated 1982 1983. Why did the commission not apply its current law Policy here, as it advertises.
It would seem that I also disputed this and asked you to explain exactly when the ID Parade standards changed you never answered this.
I would be very grateful for your opinion on this.
Does the commission not seek to answer disputes in its truth finding capacity and impartial investigations.
Page (6)
All I can now say is that I will dispute the Statement of Livingstone being a crown precognition, in their letter to SCCRC Dated: 18th June 2002Crown office released to you a police statement of Mr Hamilton. This I would argue is in the exact same form of all the statements I have with the exception of a Crown Stamp on some. You have never asked Crown where the statements have come from nor have you ever asked for confirmation of whether they are precognition's or police statements so how can you assume what they are. In any event it can still be argued that crown was in possession of exculpatory evidence and going by the form of Livingstone's statement his evidence could have had a material bearing on my trial.
I have also been informed that some of my witnesses did not go to Linlithgow to give statements to the PF, this would mean also that their crown Statements I have are indeed police statements this again would back my claim of them being police statements. If you want confirmation of this then you should speak to Margaret White and Michelle White along with Gerahty etc. they will be able to confirm exactly who they gave statements to. Maybe though you should use a better private eye than R Johnston used when trying to find Hamilton ( who was in the phone book) yet if I had not found Hamilton then the commission would not have obtained a statement from him. R, J also informed me that he even asked the police to find Hamilton.
Mr Keegan has also confirmed that the statements are indeed crown ones which form the crown precognition and has now said that if he gave them to me then the witnesses must have refused to co-operate with the statement takers and crown must have released them to him because of this.
Mr Keegan also questions along with myself the methods employed by Mr Johnston in his statement taking. Mr Johnston admitted to both myself and my Wife that he only wrote what he thought was relevant when taking statements.
Does this mean he only writes what he wants to hear. This would seem the case in regards also to the statement of Mr Keegan, Why would Mr Keegan now claim the author of his statement is mistaken.
I would ask that the commission answer all my grounds raised at High Court and address all the issues, not just some.
Evidence in support of Anderson includes the following
Hugh Wilson
Jean Park
Allan Beck
David Livingstone
Calling Mr Hamilton without a statement from him.
Not interviewing 16 defence witnesses
Not calling Shaw (whom Taylor has denied knowing about) who Taylor admits would raise a large question mark over the evidence of Muckle.
Not seeking the second ID Parade Report.
Not following up on what David martin told Keegan.
Through going over and over my case documents I can now vaguely remember David Martin telling me that he had given the PF at Linlithgow a statement saying he had seen me on 12/12/1981. It would seem that if the commission are not prepared to interview David Martin then I am going to have to instruct my own Lawyer to take a statement from him and the other witnesses pertinent to my case or maybe someone like MOJO so that it would be seen to be independent, and that it could not be said that I was putting words into his mouth as was suggested with the tape recording of myself and Hamilton.
I am really finding this very difficult as I know most of what I am saying will not be answered so I will close my arguments now by again saying please answer all my grounds not just some.
I never wanted to ask for a further review of my case as I knew your answers beforehand. This was down to my defence team, I would rather have not wasted any more of my time arguing with you, instead I would rather have been asking for Judicial Review Of Your Reasons.
It was obvious from your last statements of reasons that your loyalty to Mr Taylor Took precedence over my right to a fair hearing
A speedy reply to this would be much appreciated to enable me to now proceed with a Judicial Review of my case.
Would it be possible to have the same legal officer as Kidd, Orr and Neeson to look at my case, as it seems to be similar only theirs were referred.
The case also of Stewart Anderson Kidd Referred by the commission at para, 17. Counsel submitted that there had been a wide range of discrepancies which had gone to the heart of the crown case. The High Court agreed in respect of Pamela Carlyle and quashed the conviction. I still maintain this is exactly the same as my case in respect of Livingstone. The fact that crown withheld the statement of Livingstone had the consequence that I did not receive a fair trial and there has been a miscarriage of Justice. I should now be allowed at least the chance to argue this in court.
Mr Taylor's Statement To Commission
Mr Taylor Gives reasons why he would have Possibly called Mr Livingstone's evidence.
1. Given that Mr Livingstone is referred to as being aged 56, he probably would have been more impressive to a Jury.
In trials such as this, Even the slightest difference between witnesses can be of great significance.
I would urge the commission to agree with Mr Taylor in this regard and refer my case on the ground of Crown withholding the evidence of Livingstone resulted in my not having the fair hearing I was entitled to.
It can now be proven that the evidence relied upon of Ashford is now so tainted it is unsafe and unsound and can not be relied upon reference should be made to Muldoon V HMA
It can be proven by comparing his statement with his evidence along with the evidence of Callan, Clark , Wilson and Tiffney that Ashford ran into Raeburn Rigg Whereas his evidence was that he never done this. If he ran into Raeburn Rigg then he would not have been in a position to see the car coming out of the Riggs and towards him, he would also not have been able to see the driver, as his evidence in court suggested.
As stated his own statement claims he ran into Raeburn Rigg and people were shouting to stop the car yet in evidence he claimed there was nothing to attract his attention to the car coming out of Raeburn Rigg.
The Commission to be able to say it is robust, should now interview witnesses mentioned above to maintain a high standard of probity.
Para, (18)
There appears to be no real dispute that the applicant was in Glasgow at around on the day of the robbery.
Maybe the Commission have misdirected itself on the above times.
There was no real dispute that I was in Glasgow from 5.15 and not as mentioned at Para (7)
Para (37)
It is impossible to speculate as to what his evidence (Livingstone) might have been had he been called to give evidence.
There are two statements taken from Mr Livingstone and available for the commission so how can it say it is impossible to speculate what his evidence might have been?
Para (38)
Defence counsel never failed to call “A Witness”
Defence Counsel failed to call “A Number Of Witnesses” that was capable of undermining the crown case including the following, Allan Beck, Donald Shaw,
Hugh Wilson, Tiffney, and Jean Clark, all capable of contradicting the Crown case.
Defence Counsel also failed to call the Forensic Evidence which was also capable of undermining the Crown Case.
Keegan Failed to interview Witnesses before citing them for my defence which resulted in Taylor Calling Mr Hamilton without any prior statement taken from him. Even Now Mr Taylor States: He would not have called Hamilton if he had Known he had given a contradictory statement.
Mr Keegan failed to interview 16 defence witnesses before trial giving credence to Anderson V HMA.
Mr Taylor Brought it to the Juries Attention that I was identified by Photos.
Keegan failed to follow up on what David martin said to him about second ID Parade.
Donald Shaw Failed to question conduct at ID Parade and let the two arresting officers become involved in the running of the Parade.
Taylor failed to question Hamilton about his criminal injuries claim thus going against my express wishes for him to do so. His excuse for not doing this along with not calling Shaw was; He did not want to be seen to be calling the police liars.
Keegan Failed to obtain copy of second ID Parade report which I still maintain is capable of showing that Nigel Muckle identified a stand in as one of the robbers, this clearly would have been capable of showing how he could have been mistaken in his identification of me.
Bearing in mind my Appeal in 1982 was only for leave, then I am now entitled to a full hearing or at least to be able to lodge grounds to go to sift.
Finish by going over strongest points:
ID Parade conduct. Showing photos, Arresting officers assisting witnesses, and police (Muckle) having No 2. out his mouth without turning round.
Anderson V HMA. Not only on Livingstone's Statement but whole serious of events including ID parade, Not knowing of Shaws evidence, not interviewing 16 witnesses before trial,and not calling crucial Forensic evidence etc.
Misdirection ie Equiparate.
New evidence on the evidence of Ashford. Contradictions even in his own statement.
Ask For Identification Expert opinion. Tim Valentine, Who the commission are well aware of as Robin Johnson attended one of his seminars.
Ask for expert opinion on timings ie From Livingston to Newbridge From Newbridge to Kirkliston and then from Kirkliston to Glasgow Cross or indeed St, Enoch Square. which was terminus for 31 bus.
Old misdirection: Judge had no right to imply or indeed direct Jury to only consider the evidence of myself and Louise Morris against the whole of the crown evidence.
SCCRC have already agreed on this but misdirected itself by referring to times,” not proven” on how long it would take to travel from Livingston to Glasgow. No expert times have been produced in 1982 nor now and times should be from Livingston to Newbridge to Kirkliston to Glasgow. See times estimated from MOJO.
Please ask SCCRC to ask Donald Findlay exactly how the case of James Haggerty collapsed in 2001. Since I referred to it in my submissions?
Ref should be made to the appeal of Granger dated: 11 April 2001 in which he tried to have the Nobile Officium of the high court and ref to Hoekstra as mentioned in my appeal ref no XC75/06 . In the case of granger the only argument put forward was that he had not been provided with free legal assistance to conduct his appeal.
In my own case there is no interlocutor to argue but there is proof that my application in 1982 was only for leave to this respect the appeal court should have exercised its Nobile Officium of the courts.
The premise upon which section 111 (2) operates is that there has not been an appeal, but that a convicted person desires that there should be, Page 7 of opinion. In our opinion section 111(2) was never intended by the legislators to afford to a person who has in fact appealed against conviction andhas had that appeal determined upon certain grounds the opportunity again to initiate appeal proceedings, either upon those grounds, or upon some other grounds.
I would ask that you find that I have never had a full appeal hearing and that the appeal court was wrong to deny me the right to lodge grounds of appeal out of time on the ground of me having had an appeal.
I would also challenge the court to produce an interlocutor with an opinion of why such an appeal (If it happened) was refused to allow further grounds to be lodged with SCCRC.
How can I be expected to challenge any opinion if it does not exist.
In the above respect please find also that I have been denied the fair hearing to which I am entitled.
Does the court expect us to just accept there being no interlocutor thus never allowing any redress.
I have been informed by NAS that every appeal in Scotland is kept so if crown cannot produce why mine was refused then it has never been argued.

Grounds For Review
Appeal to High Court Dated 14th March 2006
SCCRC: Made no mention of my Material Misdirection ( The Applicant complains of a misdirection in relation to the question of what constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt. The directions given served to equiparate proof beyond reasonable doubt with the concept of being “reasonably certain” of the applicants Guilt) How the SCCRC can miss this and refer to an earlier appeal is beyond even me?
SCCRC are wrong to not consider my ground that: Crown Had a duty to release the Crown precognition of Livingstone at the time of trial. When it was considered before it was on the basis that Mr Taylor had defectively represented me by not calling this evidence at trial. It can be proven that in referring some cases (Kidd, campbell and Steele, and Neeson) the SCCRC have relied upon defence witnesses statements as well as crown ones. What is the most important aspect is that Crown had evidence which could exculpate me and I should have been informed of this.
Are SCCRC Allowed To: Pick and choose which grounds they will answer and which they wont? I am still waiting on them to answer me on the following two points 1. My defence should have called my brother Allan Beck as according to Keegans Annotation on his Crown statement his evidence was capable of casting doubt on me having one of the hammers on the day in question. 2. My defence team were at fault (and defectively represented me) by not calling the Forensic evidence which was capable also of casting doubt on my conviction. (Cases now are won or lost alone on forensic evidence).
My position is and always has been that: Mr Taylor did not consult with me when he closed my defence case. It was him and him alone that took that decision, even Mr Keegan has said so. In closing my case I asked Mr Taylor why he hadn't called certain evidence and his words to me were: Don't worry I have got you covered. What he meant by this I cannot understand and never have, but it is clear that I made serious allegations against both them at the time of trial and continue to do so. The reason Mr Taylor gave for not calling Shaws evidence was as I have always said; He did not want to be seen to be calling the police liars, as with his reason for not asking Mr Hamilton about the police intimidating him nor did he ask him about his criminal injuries.
Can SCCRC Refer the case of Jamie Orr on the precognition of his sister saying she overheard someone saying: they had set up her brother, Yet in my case they refuse point blank to even interview the two brothers of Louise Morris who heard Mr Hamilton and saw Mr Hamilton give evidence against their sister, dismissing their evidence as “Hear-say” This is because they have referred to Hamiltons evidence as credible (even although when Mr Hamilton said I went to his door to tell him to be a witness for me “I Was In Prison” and the commission have never put this to Mr Hamilton).
My argument that I have never had an appeal is now strengthened by the Letters from Ross Harper and e-mail from Tom Higgins High Court. My application was merely for leave to appeal and only lasted a few minutes and resulted in me being dragged out of court Screaming abuse at the Judges, after which I should have been taken back in when I had calmed down to enable me to finish my arguments. This never happened.
See copy of what I feel are SCCRC's failings in my case.
7. Current Law. SCCRC has sought to only send cases back to appeals under their current law policy. I submitted that at: Page 9. of their interim decision in my case they conceded that the conduct at my ID Parade was not what would be acceptable today, in that the arresting officers should take no part in the running of the parade and should not be assisting with witnesses. Will the SCCRC not apply their Current Law Policy in this regard?

Haggerty Trial
The trial of James Haggerty at Glasgow High Court on wednesday February 7th 2001, (See newspaper report dated Thursday Feb 8th 2001)
The case collapsed when Ann Millar (64) revealed Police had shown her mugshots of haggerty just before she was asked to look at an ID Parade.
Donald Findlay QC Defending said: The police tactics meant the case must be thrown out. Mr Findlay also said: A Policeman involved in probing the case helped organise the ID Parade. He said: this shouldn't happen.
Sean Murphy Prosecuting told the Judge: The Crown was dropping the case.
Two Points similar to my ID Parade
The two arresting officers were involved in the running of my ID Parade with one present in the parade room throughout my Parade.
The other assisted with witnesses throughout my Parade. See copy of ID Parade report.
Ann Sheridan or Callan said in court: she was shown a photo of me on the Sunday and first time around on the identification parade See page 16 of charge to Jury, at which the Judge highlighted the fact that she had been shown a photo of me. She also states in her statement dated 10th March 1982 that: She attended at Livingston Police Station where she picked out a photograph and also a person in the Identification Parade. It should be noted here that Mr Keegan even questioned why the police held an ID Parade after showing photos, he made this annotation on the statement of Ann Callan.
Nothing should be done to draw the Juries attention to previous police involvement. In this respect it should never be said in court that an accused had been identified from photos without revealing previous police involvement.
See Mr Keegans Notes taken at trial Page 13 Ann Callan, photos shown, page 21 Steven Clark States he looked at photos, and page 27 where James Dickson under cross states: I knew that photographs were being shown. According to the statement of arresting officer DS James Dickson (dated: 11th March 1982) Ann Callan was shown photos of me on Sunday 13th Dec 1981 and she identified me as similar. Enquiries to trace Beck at this time were negative. On Tuesday 16th december 1981 I learned that witness P.C, Muckle who had identified Beck from photographs as the driver. Hugh Wilson who's evidence was not called also said he was shown photos. Once a person is Identified by photos no other witness should be shown photos but instead should be asked to attend an ID Parade. Quite clearly this never happened in my case. Every rule in the book was broken in my case.

ID Parades Disappearing,2
It would also appear that there was no further requests from SCCRC for any further ID Parade reports after The letter from Scott Pattison Dated: 18th June 2002 (Which you would expect if they never got copies of all parades as they had asked)
This would suggest that SCCRC are acting in conjunction with crown office in their attempts now to cover up the fact that a second parade report existed. This would prove my Defective Representation Allegations.

Identification Evidence
Conviction relies on two positive identifications of me being the perpetrator of this robbery by Nigel Muckle and Kenneth Ashford.
Taking Muckle first: his evidence was that: he was at his car under the bonnet fixing something, his attention is drawn to two men running along the path and getting into the car. The driver took his hood down and he was not wearing a Balaclava helmet.
He identified me as the driver.
The two robbers were chased by Callan, Clark and Ashford.
Mr Keegans notes of evidence from Trial pages 17, 18, and 19 of Thomas Callan. On page 18 Mr Keegan notes Mr Callan as saying in Court: when the car drove away the two people in it were still wearing their helmets. This clearly contradicts Muckles evidence of the driver was not wearing a Balaclava helmet.
Page 19 Steven Clark states: They were wearing balaclavas & Snorkle jackets, again this clearly contradicts Muckles evidence.
Kenneth Ashfords Evidence was: his window was smashed by someone with an axe, he got out his car and chased this man, the person he was chasing was carrying an attache case (on this he could not be mistaken). The next thing he saw was the car coming out of the Riggs, He could not say if the person in the car was the person he had been chasing. The car wasn't going fast when it passed him.
His evidence that he did not run into Raeburn Rigg is clearly contradicted by Clark who states: on page 21 of Keegans notes, the guy that got his windscreen smashed ran into Raeburn Rigg. See charge to Jury pages 17, 18 and 19 at 19 the Judge has Ashford as: He then came down the road to the roundabout and along to the corner here the blue Granada is coming out of the Riggs.
One has to look very carefully at Ashfords statement, in it he states: he ran into Raeburn Rigg and several people who were standing around shouted to stop the car. If this is true and he ran into Raeburn Rigg with Clark and Wilson then the car would not have passed him and he would not have been in a position to say he saw the driver. This certainly raises a large question mark of his evidence.
The speed of the car. Ashford said there was nothing suspicious about the car and nothing to attract his attention but? He wrote down the registration number of the car
for no reason?
I would argue that people do not write down registration numbers of car for nothing, and again if one looks at the terms of his statement, he ran into Raeburn Rigg and people were shouting to stop the car, this would fit better with Clark and Wilsons accounts.
It would seem that defence counsel at trial did not seriously challenge Ashfords evidence on these issues.

J Clark Pearson
Justice Department
Criminal Law Division
St Andrew's House
Regent Rd
Dear Mr Pearson
Thank you for your letter dated 31 March, again there is no mention of my question, What are the Appeal Procedures and complaints procedures adopted by SCCRC.
I was informed to complain to Standards commissioner (which i did) who informed me he could not look at my complaints.
This information indeed came from you.
Again i am asking what are the complaints procedures adopted by SCCRC.
Again i am asking what are the Appeal Procedures adopted by SCCRC.
I do hope my questions are clear enough but in the event that you cannot understand my two questions then you can contact me by phone or get back to me and i will try again to make clear my questions.
Yours Sincerely
William Beck

Independent SCCRC
I was constantly reminded by Robin Johnston of SCCRC that they were an independent organisation.
So independent that: when anyone submits evidence against Police it is not investigated.
So independent that if you complain about any of its members then: your grounds will not be fully explored.
So independent: It is accountable to Scottish Executive.
So independent: there is no-one to whom you can complain about their conduct.
So independent: you cannot appeal their decisions.
J Clark Pearson of Justice department St Andrews House, in answer to my complaints to Justice Minister States: there are appeal procedures as well as complaints procedures adopted by SCCRC but when asked to explain their appeal and complaints procedures I can get no answer.
I did complain to SCCRC but my complaints were passed to the person who I was complaining about. Is this what they mean by independent.
I also wrote to the Standards Commissioner whom the Justice Department informed me could deal with my complaints only to be told by them that they could not deal with complaints about the way SCCRC investigated my appeal.
My Own Opinion Of SCCRC.
It would seem they employ double standards, in that: some cases they will refer and others with the same grounds are cast aside. This suggests it is like the lottery.
For instance the case of Jamie Orr;
His sister overheard someone on a bus say: he had lied at the trial of her brother.
SCCRC referred this case and Mr Orr won his appeal. Great.
I submitted to SCCRC that as well as Louise Morris telling them what happened at her trial in 1984 her two brothers were at court with her and heard the evidence of Mr Hamilton yet, (bearing in mind Jamie Orr) SCCRC told me they wanted something more independent.
They told me the evidence of Louise Morris and her two Brothers was hearsay evidence. (Bear in mind this conclusion was reached without even interviewing her two brothers). Is this what SCCRC call Impartial, Independent, and a High Standard of probity.

Date: 22nd August 2006
Ms Jane Irvine
The Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman
17 Waterloo Place
Dear Ms Irvine
Thank you for your decision dated: 19th July 2006.
I note with interest your opinion especially your recommendation that the Law Society should look again at my letter dated 29th April 2005.
I thought by now I would have heard from the Society as to their opinion of your Decision and whether or not they would look at my complaint.
I am also very disappointed at your view that the Law Society acted and investigated my complaint fairly and independently.
Surely to do this they would have to investigate the basis of my complaints and at least speak to the witnesses whose names I furnished them with.
I would ask you and the Law Society to confirm exactly what is the difference between Professional Misconduct and Professional Judgement.
In 1982 my complaints were investigated under Professional misconduct now they are telling me my complaints fall under professional Judgement.
It is quite clear to me that the Law Society have no intention of finding in my favour against Mr Keegan, no matter what evidence I have.
To me the evidence is plain and simple.
Mr Keegan defectively represented me at the time of my trial and as a result of this I was wrongly convicted and sent to prison for six years.
Mr Keegan had a duty to represent me to the best of his ability and never done so.
I am in the process of developing my own web site on my case and would ask if you have any difficulty with me publishing your views.
I will if possible now attempt to take Mr Keegan to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal on my own or maybe even raise a civil action against Mr Keegan.
Can you tell me if I have the right to ask for a Judicial review of the Law Societies decision.
Yours Sincerely
William Beck

Date: 22nd August 2006
Ms Jane Irvine
The Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman
17 Waterloo Place
Dear Ms Irvine
Thank you for your decision dated: 19th July 2006.
I note with interest your opinion especially your recommendation that the Law Society should look again at my letter dated 29th April 2005.
I thought by now I would have heard from the Society as to their opinion of your Decision and whether or not they would look at my complaint.
I am also very disappointed at your view that the Law Society acted and investigated my complaint fairly and independently.
Surely to do this they would have to investigate the basis of my complaints and at least speak to the witnesses whose names I furnished them with.
I would ask you and the Law Society to confirm exactly what is the difference between Professional Misconduct and Professional Judgement.
In 1982 my complaints were investigated under Professional misconduct now they are telling me my complaints fall under professional Judgement.
It is quite clear to me that the Law Society have no intention of finding in my favour against Mr Keegan, no matter what evidence I have.
To me the evidence is plain and simple.
Mr Keegan defectively represented me at the time of my trial and as a result of this I was wrongly convicted and sent to prison for six years.
Mr Keegan had a duty to represent me to the best of his ability and never done so.
I am in the process of developing my own web site on my case and would ask if you have any difficulty with me publishing your views.
I will if possible now attempt to take Mr Keegan to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal on my own or maybe even raise a civil action against Mr Keegan.
Can you tell me if I have the right to ask for a Judicial review of the Law Societies decision.
Yours Sincerely
William Beck

Dear Mr MacAskill
Having written to a few MSP's asking for their help, In Particular to my Plight With SCCRC.
I have claimed that i did not receive a fair hearing from them.
I can prove that they have referred cases with fractions of the grounds i have given them.
I can also prove that my complaint to them in respect of my defence not calling the Forensic Evidence at the time of my trial constitutes defective representation (Anderson V HMA) To this they have never answered.
I also claimed i did not get the fair hearing to which i am entitled in respect my Solicitor did not even bother to interview 16 of 19 defence witnesses before my trial. SCCRC have refused to ask my Solicitor about this.
Mr Taylor QC has mentioned that he did not know of Material evidence at the time of my trial (A Crown witness that states the driver of the car was forty years old with brown hair and moustache) I was identified by two witnesses as this person.
Mr Taylor has also tried to claim he did not know of the ID Parade report in which the Solicitor wrote (NB Witness No 11, ID Too Positive ID without even looking down Parade) Witness No 11 just happened to be an Off-Duty Policeman who had No 2 out of his mouth without even looking.
The Solicitor in question has now given SCCRC a statement saying he had the impression that the witness knew prior to coming into the parade exactly the position i had adopted.
Mr Taylor concedes his evidence is capable of casting a large question Mark over Constable Muckles Evidence. Mr Taylor has sought to convince SCCRC that he did not know of the solicitors evidence despite him also being on the defence list of witnesses and despite him having a copy of the Solicitors ID Report.
I can refer to cases like Kidd,Gair etc and claim my case is similar and should be referred but despite the evidence in my case SCCRC still refuse to refer.
After SCCRC refused to refer my case Counsel sought An Extension of time to lodge grounds which was heard in March 2006 Ref No XC75/06 High court. This was refused on the premise that i have had an appeal in 1982.
Hearing in 1982 was merely for leave to appeal which was refused and due to an outburst from me i was dragged away screaming and never got a chance to finish my arguments.
The outburst arose because i wads refused Legal Aid and had to conduct my own Appeal, Meaning i have not had the fair hearing i am entitled to and should again be allowed to lodge grounds of appeal outwith time, At the very least i feel i have an appeal to Nobile Officium. SCCRC will not answer me even though i have provided them with copy of opinion Dated: 31st March 2006 and copy of opinion of Counsel.
I would ask that you please help with my Plight i would aslo ask that you raise these issues in Parliament on my behalf.
SCCRC should not be allowed to refer cases then refuse others with the exact same grounds.
SCCRC should at least answer serious issues raised by Applicants At Least Arguable Grounds.
My Trial lasted two days and it took SCCRC four years to give me a decision, Which was wrong.
I have complained to Justice Minister and first Minister which to me has fell on deaf ears.
Please ask Justice Minister for assurances that SCCRC will investigate all case impartially and independently as they profess to do.
In my case they have rejected all my Grounds out of loyalty to Mr Taylor, He sat on the board of SCCRC while my case was investigated yet Resigned when the case of Al Megrahi was accepted for review as he wanted the SCCRC to remain independent in Megrahi's case. What does this say about my case which was accepted two year before the case of Megrahi, See their press release on their web in this regard.
Please sir help by doing what you think is right and not what Parliament wants you to do in my case.
I notice you were a Solicitor so you will be aware of what constitutes hearsay evidence.
SCCRC referred the case of Neeson Ref No:XM3/02 and which was concluded on 17th May 2005.
Allbeit this appeal was refused but what is to be noted from this is the fact that this was referred on three witnesses overhearing witnesses claim they overheard someone say they were going to retract their statements. This evidence was admissible according to SCCRC yet, When i tell them that my wife and her two brothers heard a witness giving evidence against my wife i am told that this would be hearsay and not admissible (This is not true and you will be aware of the laws governing hearsay so i will not need to go into this) and my wife and her two brothers evidence is not investigated.
In fact they never investigated much and have sought to cover evidence of my case up like the second ID Parade report that Crown Office sent to SCCRC which SCCRC are now saying they never saw and now crown are saying they have not retained copies of what was sent to SCCRC.
I have copies of all correspondence between crown and SCCRC and it is clear that evidence is there one minute and gone the next. Please ask what is happening in my case and where all this evidence is going to after being kept all these years in the Archives.
Neeson's case was also referred knowing that at least two of these witnesses had lengthy previous convictions. Add to this the fact that one Alexander Hardie was one of the people i had claimed committed the robbery for which i was convicted.
SCCRC were told of my claims in 2001 and their reply was it was unlikely that they would now admit their parts in this crime as they had denied it already to me.
I never claimed to have spoken to the two people about them having committed this crime.
At the very least SCCRC should have investigated my claims but i think by this time they had already referred the case of Neeson and could not dispute the evidence of Hardie in a case they had already referred.
Yours Sincerely

William Beck

Date: 12th April 2006
Mr Paul Martin
141 Charles Street
G21 2QA
Dear Mr Martin
Thank you for your letter dated: 27th March 2006 with letter from Justice Minister dated 23 March 2006.
I note the contents with great interest, in particular, the mention of Appeal and complaints procedures adopted by SCCRC.
I have certainly not been made aware of any complaints or appeals procedures by Justice Minister nor Justice Department.
When I did complain about certain members of SCCRC my complaints were answered by the persons I was complaining of.
I am aware of my right to Judicial Review, but see this as a last option and not my first. The SCCRC should have in place, complaints and appeals procedures.
As for my complaints of crown withholding and destroying evidence.
They are depriving me of my right to appeal to SCCRC by withholding the Crown Precognition's and the ID Parade Reports
They are now trying to claim that they no longer hold any copies of the ID Parade reports.
Similarly they are now claiming the evidence of Louise Morris's trial does not now exist.
I do not accept that it is in the public interest to withhold information from me, nor do I accept that the data protection prevents them from releasing these.
In the interests of Justice these documents should be released to me to enable proper presentation of my submissions to SCCRC in regards to my Appeal.
I have copies of all witnesses statements and indeed have the minutes of my trial (which contains the Jurors names and addresses) yet I cannot see statements of witnesses that gave evidence at my trial.
What are Crown scared of or indeed what are they hiding? By not giving me access to relevant documents to my case.
I am quite sure the public would be more horrified to learn that Jurors names and addresses are made available to accused people they have tried.
I have now written to Nicola Sturgeon and intend now to write to every MSP in Scotland to call for a full public enquiry into my case.
I do not accept that the Justice Minister cannot become involved in the running of SCCRC. They are appointed by the Executive and are accountable to them also.
The only requirement before SCCRC were set up was:- to produce evidence that was not heard at the original trial,and the Secretary Of State could refer a case back to Appeal.
I produced to SCCRC plenty of evidence to enable them to refer my case yet they opted not to.
If necessary it can be proved that SCCRC have referred cases with less points than mine. Leaving me in no doubt their reasons for not referring my case.(their connection with Mr Taylor QC and his subsequently defending the Lockerbie Bomber).
The SCCRC's reasons for not referring my case are not sustainable.
Please ask Justice Minister exactly what appeal and complaints procedures the SCCRC have adopted.
Please also ask Crown Office to Justify me having the minutes but not being allowed Crown statements of witnesses that gave evidence at my trial.
Yours Sincerely

William Beck

My ID Parade At Livingston
(what a joke)
Having been arrested on 16th December 1981 (on another matter) and taken to Livingston Police Station.
I was subsequently put on an ID Parade (at this time suspected of robbing two postmen) in which I was picked twice positive then charged.
The Solicitor that conducted my ID Parade (Donald Shaw) told Mr Keegan that one of the witnesses had picked me without even turning round to view the parade. (he said to me he had number two out of his mouth before he even turned round).
I told Mr Keegan to cite Mr Shaw as a witness, which he did.
At trial Mr Taylor was well aware of what Mr Shaw's evidence was, both myself and Mr Keegan spoke to him in this regard.
Mr Taylor was also well aware of Mr Shaw's ID Parade Report which was and is amongst the defence documents, produced for trial, in which Mr Shaw has written in his own handwriting: witness No 11 Too Positive ID No two without even looking down the parade.
Witness No 11 was Police Constable Nigel Muckle who had identified me as the driver of the stolen car.
At trial Mr Taylor closed my defence without first speaking to me or asking my permission to do so.
When I asked him why he did not call Donald Shaw, he stated that he did not want to be seen to be calling the police liars.
He also stated: “Do Not worry” I have got everything covered.
I trusted him with my life.
With hindsight: I was naïve and did not think I could be found guilty of something I had not done.
After I was convicted I sacked Keegan and Taylor and took my case to Ross Harper & Murphy, who eventually was refused legal aid for my appeal due to Taylor's note.
I received my case papers from Mr Keegan to conduct my own appeal and it was then that I noticed that at my parade the two arresting officers had been involved in the running of my parade with one Assisting With Witnesses, The Other Present in the Parade room at all times throughout my Parade.
I have complained about this ever since I saw in the Law Book, Your Rights, By SCCL, that the arresting officers should take no part in the parade whatsoever.
SCCRC sought to convince me that nothing untoward happened at my Parade, and it was in line with procedures for its time, but they accepted that it was not of the standard one would expect today.
I asked them to explain in more detail any changes since 1982 till now and never received an answer

Refusal Of Legal Aid For Appeal
Mr Taylor QC And His Note
After my trial because they did not call all my evidence I sacked Mr Keegan and Taylor. My reason for this was as I have said: Mr Taylor did not want to be seen to be calling the Police Liars.
I then instructed Ross Harper and Murphy to conduct my appeal.
Legal aid was refused because of a note from Mr Taylor (which I have never seen) and I had to conduct my own appeal. Which resulted in me being dragged out of the High Court screaming at the Judges. I did not even get the chance to argue all my grounds.
After being dragged out of court I expected to be taken back in when I calmed down but this did not happen. Leave to appeal was refused and my appeal never progressed any further
It is clear from the letters wrote to High Court from Mr OGrady of Ross Harper that I levelled serious allegations against my defence team. See letters dated:13th May, 28th May , and 14th June 1982.
It is also clear from the letter from W Howard. Deputy Principal Clerk Of Justiciary. dated: 16th August 1982 that I was complaining about my defence team, and that legal aid had been refused.
My contention is: Because I had made complaints against him Mr Taylor in turn did not fully look for grounds of appeal on my behalf. In spite for being sacked Mr Taylor told legal aid I had no grounds of appeal.
On Mr Taylors note Legal Aid was refused.
It now appears that the Judge misdirected the jury in that: The directions given served to equiporate proof beyond reasonable doubt with the concept of being “reasonably certain” of the applicants guilt. (Mr Taylor should have noticed this and legal aid should have been granted in 1982)
Clearly this breached article 6 (3) C which is in the form of:
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights.
(C)to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of Justice so require.
By Contemporary standards at least I was denied the fair hearing to which I was entitled.
See appeal note of Counsel for recent appeal to high court.

Robin Johnston Senior Legal Officer SCCRC
Mr Keegan has stated that the author of his statement (Mr Johnston) was mistaken, Mr Keegan has accused him of using his own words.
Mr Johnston done the same with me on a number of issues Like:- What Hamilton said at the trial of Louise (How was I expected to know what hamilton said at her trial) when I was in prison and wasn't even in contact with Louise. Yet Mr Johnston inserted that I said that Hamilton had been lying and did not put forward what Louise had said to him about Hamilton's evidence at her trial.
He also assumed that I had agreed that there was no misdirection in respect of the charge in relation to Ashford (Remember that his evidence is unreliable) I did not agree to this yet Mr Johnston wrote that I did
In relation to my allegations of who committed this Robbery. I did not tell Mr Johnston that I had spoken to the two named people and they refused to admit their guilt. Although I did tell him that whilst in the untried hall of Saughton Prison I spoke to the two named People (At this time I did not know they were responsible for the crimes I was convicted of) Although they had asked me about my charges I still at that time did not know who they were.
It was while I was in Peterhead prison I was told, who had committed this robbery.
In fact I was only told because McDonald had turned queens evidence against Hardie and Hardie I had heard had got a big sentence because of this.
Now that Hardie is dead and McDonald had Grassed him I see no reason why I should withhold their names any longer.
SCCRC should investigate By asking the Family of Hardie if there is any truth in my allegations, (They have his address in the case of Neeson, at least they took a statement from Hardie in relation to Neesons appeal)

The Showing Of Photos
See Page 16 of Commissions Interim Decision Dated: Oct 2003
Every rule in the book was broken in my case, with photos being shown,
Before the ID Parade.
During the Parade.
Again to witnesses that had already made a partial ID by photo. ( See Anne Callan) and charge to Jury.
No evidence this was done to obtain search warrant (arrested on other charges with warrant) see statement of arresting officers.
Whilst I was available for ID Parade.

No comments: