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:

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have quoted the cost being more than £600 and section 194J yet SCCRC themselves have now admitted that section 194J is no longer applicable nor effective due to them having evolved see extract copy from their e-mail to me here: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
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:

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.

Sunday, 21 September 2008

Lockerbie Bombers QC admits Incompetence and Negligence

Having complained to SCCRC Scottish Criminal cases Review Commission that Mr Taylor defectively represented me they failed to take account of his own words.
When i complained to The Dean Of Faculty about the conduct of Mr Taylor he said this:
At number 8 he claims not to have known about the evidence of Donald Shaw (The solicitor that conducted my ID Parade)

Page three of Taylors statement to Dean

Last page of Taylors statement to Dean of Faculty

If Mr Taylor is right then my defence was not fully put to the jury and the most crucial arguments about this evidence was never disputed in court.
Clearly this evidence was capable of casting doubt on the police evidence that i was the driver.

See The Evidence Of Shaw Here for yourself:

Shaws ID Parade Report
Shaws note on his ID Parade Report

Shaws Statement to SCCRC

Shaws Statement To Robin Johnston SCCRC

His impression was the witness knew prior to coming into the parade exactly what position i had adopted. This would have been why he wrote the above on his ID Parade report.

It also beggars the question...... Why didn't he know of this evidence if he had done his job properly then he would and should have made sure he had a statement from every witness.
This would be the actions of any competent QC doing his best to represent any accused

This witnesses evidence was crucial to my trial given i was convicted solely on Identification evidence, Why?
Because he wrote that the policeman that identified me had number two out his mouth before turning to view the parade.
Number two just happened to be an Off-Duty Poiceman, Nigel Muckle of Livingston.

Wednesday, 17 September 2008

Bill Taylor QC

Bill Taylor Middle

Bill Taylor QC Middle

Latest News on Lockerbie

Ezperts call for Public Enquiry into Lockerbie: ...

Mr Taylor QC admits to not knowing of evidence at my trial (Incompetence) see below at Number 8:

Page three of Taylors statement to Dean

Last page of Taylors statement to Dean of Faculty

If he never knew of Shaw evidence he never did his job right because Shaw was cited as a witness and his ID Parade report was available here:

Shaws note on his ID Parade Report

The above even has the Lawyer writing No 11 had number 2 out his mouth without turning to view the parade.
Mr Taylor was incompetent for not calling this evidence.

Mr Taylor also claims he would not call a witness without having a statement from him.
My Solicitor never interviewed 16 of 19 of my defence witnesses and Mr Taylor and Jim Keegan Solicitr has claimed the Crown Statements would not have been available to them at the time of my trial so what evidence did Taylor take to my trial from my witnesses.

Keegans statement to SCCRC

All the above and more incriminating evidence of Taylor's incompetence can be found at the following site:

There are even letters confirming Taylor wrote to the legal aid board saying I had no grounds after he was sacked

Monday, 25 August 2008

Names And Adresses For Postmen Assaulted & Robbed

Here are the names and addresses of the two postmen robbed in my case.

The details come from the Crown Precognitions that I am told I am not entitled to view and can be seen here:

Postman William Horn

Postman John Henderson

So there you have it folks The two postmen do not deserve to have their names and addresses hidden from an accused person

Saturday, 16 August 2008

SCCRC Say, It's OK To Reveal Jurors Names & Addresses

Having complained to Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) about their Chief Executive revealing Jurors Names and Addresses to me they have now claimed this was OK as it was in the public domain being held by National Archives of Scotland.

Their answer is here:

From a review of the case history I note papers were requested from the National Archive of Scotland initially by yourself and subsequently by Mr Hanlon upon your instruction. From the case history it would appear that these papers included the list of jurors which you refer to. This information has come directly from the National Archive of Scotland, and following consideration from the Board, it was agreed that this information would be supplied to you given that it was a matter of public record. The Board was satisfied that their decision to agree to your request for a copy of these papers did not breach their non-disclosure requirements under s194J of the 1995 Act.

I did not initially ask National Archives for documents, I did this after they refused to refer my case.

National Archives told me these documents were closed for 75 years from the date of creation and did not reveal the minutes of the trial to me.

I have this in writing from National Archives along with some details of what documents were sent to SCCRC regarding my case which will be revealed soon.

So do National Archives reveal Jurors Names and Addresses on a regular basis ?

I do not think so

Alarming if you ask me and very off-puting for potential Jurors.

Does this mean Jurors in murder trials details are available in National Archives for any member of the public to see ? (Only according to SCCRC)

Since they are in the public domain according to SCCRC then there is no problem with me publishing them on my blog and elsewhere.

Here they are reinstated with sanction from SCCRC:

Names and addresses of Jury

Names and addresses of Jury 2.

Monday, 26 May 2008

Edward Milne Two Bob Investigation By SCCRC

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:¤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

Questions And Answers Of SCCRC

Sent the following to SCCRC:

Sent: 27 March 2008 16:20:41

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

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

Reply From SCCRC here:

SCCRC Refuse FOI Stats 17th April 08

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

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.
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 ?

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.

Saturday, 3 May 2008

Support From MSP

After my arrest on 15th April 2008 for an alleged "Breach Of The Peace" my MSP wrote the following letter to Livingston Police:

MSP to Livingston Police

He is as far as i am aware still awaiting a reply.

My Solicitor though has managed to ascertain the following:

1. I was not charged.

2. There is no report being sent to the Fiscal.

3. I have nothing to worry about he wrote.

So exactly why did two CID officers from Livingston travel to my house in Glasgow ?

A: The same police i have complained of since my conviction in 1982, that they:

1. Showed Photos before my ID Parade, Which should never have been allowed even by 1982 standards.

2. Allowed the two arresting officers to participate in the ID Parade with one Assisting with Witnesses ,Which should never be allowed, even by 1982 standards.

3. The Lawyer conducting My ID Parade noticed Nigel Muckle had number 2 out his mouth before turning to view the parade and he wrote such at the following:

Shaws note on his ID Parade Report

Unheard of in those days for police to visit an ID Parade and give their "Name and Address" But Muckle does this and fails to mention he was stationed at Livingston Too, Clearly a conflict of Interest there.

Now because his name and address appears in my arguments for disclosure with Crown Office his Friends and Colleagues appear at my door and arrest me under section 14.

A wee tad out of their Jurisdiction if you ask me for a breach of the peace (Livingston must be crime free they now travel to Glasgow)

The following questions now arise:

1. Why were two Colleagues allowed to deal with such complaint ?

2. Why were they not accompanied by Glasgow Police ?

3. Will they ever be allowed to do this to anyone else ?

4. What was the nature of their visit Or Complaint ?

I was not at-all comfortable about two strangers (Claiming to be from Livingston) arresting me but had the back up of CCTV which clearly captures all movements at my front door.
Had it not been for the CCTV i might not have went to the police station, What would have happened then ?

Saturday, 26 April 2008

Lord Advocate On Disclosure, Scotland.

This is dedicated to all fighting for disclosure in Scotland

I do not think i need say anymore to those up against these three at Crown Office.The videos were taken before Elish was lord Advocate but quite clearly she is aware and has conceded that disclosure is a must for accused in Scotland under Bonomy and Holland and Sinclair (Privy Council) yet our courts are being clogged up daily with commission and diligence cases costing thousands of pounds.

The three Elish, Brisbane and Pattison have all been involved at some stage in refusing me disclosure to put to bed my claims i was fitted up for this Robbery yet here the three sit together and agree on disclosure.

Elish Is not fit for purpose and should resign

Friday, 25 April 2008

Disclosure Policy Crown Office Elish Angiolini

This is dedicated to those fighting for disclosure in Scottish Courts: Quite clearly when these three from Crown office Angiolini,Brisbane and Pattison all gave evidence to Justice one on 31/05/2006 they were well aware of the need for early disclosure in criminal trials. Despite them all being aware of it and at some stage being involved in the Crowns reluctance to release documents to me they all admit it should be done in early course with a copy of the original charge sheet.

Why then are cases clogging up our court service and being denied by the courts despite these videos showing Crown Concede on disclosure. For evidence of cases still asking for disclosure see the following link: McDonald and Dixon were refused when clearly below Crown Admit they should disclose all material. Why are our courts still being clogged with these commission and diligence cases ?

My god if Rebus is right and there are ulterior motives like Crown Upset at my disclosure stance then i am doomed now eh?

Thursday, 17 April 2008

Nigel Muckle

Nigel Muckle

"Nigel Muckle" from Mid Calder Likes to fly-fish at Swanswater Fishery in stirling.
It can be seen here,

Kenny MacAskill Agree's On Disclosure

Call for prosecutors to provide full details to defence lawyers
Criminal prosecutors should be legally bound to provide full information to defence lawyers in advance of a trial, the Scottish Government was told yesterday.

The call came from a retired judge who said the information should include material favourable to the accused, even if it weakens the Crown case.

The call came from Lord Coulsfield in a report commissioned from him last year by the previous administration.

Lord Coulsfield, who retired in 2002, was one of three judges who presided at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands. He was asked by the previous administration to review the law in the light of a 2005 ruling by the Privy Council which overturned the convictions of two men, James Holland and Alvin Sinclair, on the grounds of "non-disclosure".

His findings include a recommendation for legislation requiring the prosecution to have regard to "the over-riding requirement of a fair trial".

The legislation should provide a definition of a duty of disclosure, and require prosecutors to disclose to the defence "all material evidence or information which would tend to exculpate the accused whether by weakening the Crown case or providing a defence to it," said the judge.
This already happens in England and Wales and Lord Coulsfield said: "I do not see that there is any practicable alternative in the short or medium term."

Non-disclosure by the Crown is a major issue in some of the most high-profile cases in Scotland, such as that of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi who earlier this year was granted leave to launch a second appeal against his conviction.

Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, said: "The government welcomes this positive and helpful report. Disclosure is vital because it is essential that the defence have all the necessary information available to ensure a fair trial.

"Effective disclosure also contributes to a more effective criminal justice system and to earlier resolution of cases. I am indebted to Lord Coulsfield for his careful analysis. We will shortly publish a consultation paper to invite further views."

Elish Angiolini, Lord Advocate, said: "The report marks a significant step towards achievement of the required degree of clarity in this complex area of law and practice."
12:01am Thursday 13th September 2007

Clearly Mr MacAskill is aware of the need for disclosure to ensure a fair hearing under Sections 6 (1) & 6 (3) of European Right to a fair hearing.
Why then are people like Gage, Megrahi, Dixon, McDonald and Beck etc etc having to ask our courts to grant full disclosure ????????????????

It is absolutely Ludicrous and Appalling that Disclosure is not automatically granted now as a matter of course

Tuesday, 8 April 2008

Past And Present Addresses For Crown Witnesses

Since Crown Office have sought to rely on Data protection and Public Interest tests to refuse to hand over important documents relevant to my appeal please find below the names and addresses of (past and present) of the two main witnesses at my trial:

Police Constable "Nigel Muckle" from Livingston Police Station:

Past Address. 35 Raeburn Rigg, Livingston, West Lothian.

Present Address. 148 Maryfield Park, Mid Calder, West Lothian. EH5 OSD

Second most important Witness "Kenneth Ashford", Chemist:

Past Address. 3 Sandilands Drive, Mid Calder, West Lothian.

Present Address. 32 Ochiltree Cres, Mid Calder, West Lothian. EH53 ORT

For the avoidance of any doubt these are available for anyone to view on the Voters Roll at your local library.

Is it possible i have the names and current addresses of all the witnesses in my case ?

Anything is possible Via a PC

Watch this space and see what else can be revealed about you

Can SCCRC Defectively Represent Appellants

Can SCCRC Defectively Represent Appellants Forum Index -> Test Forum 1

Post subject: Can SCCRC Defectively Represent Appellants

It has come to my attention that in a couple of cases SCCRC have asked for expert opinions. Expert Identification Evidence. Until these cases are dealt with i will not mention them in name. They are cases in which Identification was the main issue and very high profile. Are SCCRC only asking for reports in high profile case and not others ? and if so does this not amount to defectice representation and selective Justice. For the avoidance of doubt i do have an opinion (In my favour) from the same expert that SCCRC have already used in another (at least one very high profile) Case Why then did SCCRC not ask this very same expert for an opinion in my case ? Are SCCRC being selective in order to save funds ? Are SCCRC being selective to save Colleagues ? ie Taylor QC who sat on their Commission ? Are SCCRC being allowed to pick and choose who gets access to justice ? These are serious questions which need answering so if you are watching Mr Sinclair from SCCRC perhaps you might wish to take me up on my offer and answer the above questions

Thursday, 20 March 2008

SCCRC Refuse To Name Insurance

Mr Kevin Dunion.Dear SirPlease find enclosed copies of two FOI requests to SCCRC which to date have been totally Ignored.I would ask that not only do you Order such Information to be released to me, but of particular interest to me is their Insurance from 2001 till 2006, when i had dealings with them.I will require their Policy Number and Group, along with their Broker.For the avoidance of doubt i do have an interest to complain.
Yours sincerelyWilliam Beck
Both requests Ignored:Mr Chris Reddick SCCRC Renfield St Glasgow
Date: 1st October 2007
Dear Mr ReddickPlease find enclosed copy of Request on 21 August 2007 of which you have yet to Address. I would advise that your reasonable timescale for answering such requests has elapsed. I must ask again, How far you have progressed my Request.

Request of 21 August 2007:

Mr Chris ReddickPlease find below my FOI request.
what insurance arrangements are in place for the SCCRC, including professional indemity for both the body and individual members and their decisions, their function.
Yours SincerelyWilliam Beck

Could you also advise of likely timescale now

Yours SincerelyWilliam Beck

Despite these requests SCCRC have never answered my FOI Request in regards to who they are insured by.

Can SCCRC get away with this?

Seems so

Sunday, 3 February 2008

Robin Johnston Of SCCRC Misleads SCCRC Over Case

Robin Johnston Of SCCRC

Lockerbie Investigator Liar Says Keegan
Mr Keegan Solicitor Advocate has confirmed my suspicion that SCCRC were not independently investigating my grounds of appeal.

He has said that the Author of his statement is “mistaken” and even suggests that the statement is only one persons interpretation of what he was trying to say.

This came from a complaint i made to Law Society claiming Mr Keegan had lied to SCCRC when he said the Crown Precognition's would not have been available to him at the time of my trial.

Allegedly this is what Robin Johnston has claimed Keegan said to him.
The crown Precognition's would not have been available to him at the time of my trial, infact crown are still quite cagey about releasing such documents now. See Here:

Keegans statement to SCCRC

Mr Keegan Now States to Law Society.
If Crown precognition's were revealed to him he can only assume that the witnesses refused to co-operate and Crown released them to him.

Keegans statement to Law Society

Should statements taken by members of SCCRC not be signed in future?

Did Robin Johnston above attempt to mislead SCCRC over this matter? so it could be said that his Colleague Mr Taylor did not look Incompetent and Negligent in his handling of my case.
He was taken off m case and Michael Hanlon put onto it after my complaints of him in my further submissions of Jan 2004.

Michael Hanlon.

I must say the impression i got from Michael Hanlon was that his hands were tied and he was being coerced by Sinclair what way to investigate my case, In other words his words were not his own.
When i mentioned political decisions being made in my case and that there was enough grounds to refer my case without the need to discredit Taylor, Hanlon got me an urgent meeting with him and Sinclair the next morning just days before christmas 2004 which i attended with my wife.
Sinclair said he would check with Crown to see if they released Crown statements to my defence, He Lied, This has never been done, How do i know? Because i have copies of ever letter between SCCRC and Crown Office under the FOI request i made, Most of which can be found on my flickr site

Certainly SCCRC came to a decision based solely upon what Mr Johnston and Sinclair laid before them.

Mr Sinclair and Johnston
Page 2edit

Friday, 1 February 2008

Lockerbie Investigator Misleads SCCRC

Robin Johnston Of SCCRC

Robin Johnston Of SCCRC above, Assured me he had sent Donald Shaw "Solicitor" a copy of his own ID Parade Report (Which was essential in refreshing his memory ofter 23 years)
When i phoned Donald Shaw and enquired if he had seen his own report he said quite clearly he hadn't.
Indeed SCCRC never actually sent Shaw his own report until i submitted a copy of the recorded telephone call, which i must add was well after they had concluded my appeal to them.

Mr Johnston and Shaws calls can be heard here:

Where quite clearly it was put to Mr Johnston a number of times asking was he shown his own ID Parade Report.
What Mr Johnston sent to Donald Shaw was documents that meant absolutely nothing to him ie: My charge sheet, Police ID Parade Report (Which was 100 pages, as apposed to his two page report) and the Judges Charge to the Jury.
All documents he had never seen as his only part in my case was to attend my ID Parade.

I am puzzled as to why the man that investigated Campbell and Steele's case was so misleading in my own .

I would at this stage also point out that after i submitted my further submissions in January 2004 Mr Johnston was taken off my case and i was allocated a new Legal officer, A rare event as once a legal officer is allocated to a case they must see it through to the end.

I did complain of him in my further submissions and even told SCCRC that he hadn't sent Shaw his own ID Parade, Gerard Sinclair,

Front page Sun 14 Aug 2007 Sinclair flashing

The Cheif Executive did not like being told this and refused further to send this to Shaw and like i said it was only sent after they had concluded my case.
I wonder if all members on the board were aware of this fact.

Proof that SCCRC where aware of the fact Shaw should have been sent a copy of his own ID Parade Report can be found in their statement of reason here at page 11:

Martin & Muckle Second ID Parade

So Why did they not send this to him until after they had concluded my case and only after i submitted a copy of the tape recording as proof that Johnston had assured me this had been done as heard above on you-tube?

Wednesday, 30 January 2008

SCCRC Wrongly Interpret Grounds (Deliberately)

Having told SCCRC that My lawyer should have obtained a copy of a second ID Parade report as: The Policeman that wrongly identified me had also wrongly identified someone at the second ID Parade.
Evidence Lawyer knew of second ID Parade is here in his own writing:

Every witness mentions attending the second Parade but they failed to identify anyone except that is Nigel Muckle, Policeman.

The suspect was an old freind of mine David Martin whose interpretation of what happened is:
At the parade someone was picked positive. (I informed SCCRC of this)
SCCRC refused to interview Mr Martin but did interview Nigel Muckle to allow him to say he was 100% positive of his ID of me, and that he was sure he never picked anyone at the second ID Parade.
I would suggest to allow them to remain independent and impartial it would be imperative that they should have interviewed Mr Martin, But they never.

From the Solicitor James Keegans Notes
It is confirmed by his notes that he knew of the second ID Parade and that it was possible there was a positive ID made at this second ID Parade Yet the Solicitor did not ask for a copy of this Parade Why?

See Notes Here:
Mention of Second ID Parade By J. Keegan.

SCCRC have interpreted this complaint as one of Muckle not being able to Identify the Accomplice which can be seen here: At (69)
Martin & Muckle Second ID Parade

Yet there is no evidence whatever to suggest that Muckle saw any of the robbers other than the driver for which he had already Idendtified me.

this totally undermines the SCCRC version that they have investigated fully my grounds.
They have taken the interpretation of their Legal Officer Johnston for fact of what the evidence was and who has put his own version of events and not the proper facts of my ground.

My complaint was simply this:

If he Identified someone at the second ID Parade he could only have identified him as the driver as according to his own statement the only person he saw was the driver and he had already identified me as the driver days before.

This would severely undermine his evidence if Mr Martin is right and Muckle Identified someone at his Parade.
This was the whole reason why SCCRC failed in their duty to investigate independently by only interviewing Muckle and not Mr Martin.

SCCRC Liars.

Quite clearly SCCRC asked Crown Office to furnish them with copies of all ID Parade Reports held in relation to my case and this can be seen by their letter here:

Letter from Crown to SCCRC dated 18th June 2002

Quite clearly at number 2 Crown Sent copies of all ID Parades yet here SCCRC state quite clearly they: Have not been able to obtain any documentation in relation to the second ID Parade:
SCCRC Statement of reasons dated 14 Dec 2004 page 11 at (67) Here:

Martin & Muckle Second ID Parade

If Further Proof is needed of cover ups here then one only has to look at what SCCRC asked Crown Office for in regards to ID Parades here at number 2.

Letter sent to Crown by SCCRC

Evidence that when they asked Crown they clearly asked for two ID Parade Report.
which going by the reply from Crown all copies were sent in relation to my case.

Quite clearly one of the two are lying or the other scenario is this:
They are now colluding with each other to cover up the fact i am right and Muckle Identified someone else other than me as the driver of the stolen car thus rendering his Identification of me totally unreliable and certainly enough to cast doubt on his evidence.

SCCRC Employ Double Standards

SCCRC Employ Double Standards
George McPhee 6 Dec 2005 Case No.2005HCJAC137
The SCCRC told me i had already had an appeal despite there being no opinion available, Despite me telling them that i was dragged out of the appeal court screaming at the judges and never got finishing my arguments.
Despite me also producing letters to verify that my application to the High Court was only for leave to appeal.
Their decision here makes a laughing stock of them.

Conclusive proof if ever it was needed that SCCRC employ double standards and it is not what you are complaining about but Who you are complaing about that decides your case.

Unfortunately for me i complained of one of their Colleagues who for the avoidance of doubt was still a memebr of their board and remained on their board while they investigated my complaints of his Misconduct and Defective Representation of me, Yet he resigned when Megrahi appealed to allow SCCRC to remain Independent and Impartial of both the defence and crown aspects of the case.
Taylor Resigns from SCCRC

Again conclusive proof of double standards within SCCRC.

With only there not being any decision, in this McPhee case they refer it saying: We infer from such records as there are that the appeal was refused in "Summary Fashion"

[23] There was an appeal on the grounds that the verdict was perverse and unreasonable and that the trial judge misdirected the jury. The appeal was heard on 24 June 1986 and refused. The case is not reported. There is no Opinion of the Court in the records of Justiciary Office. We infer from such records as there are that the appeal was refused in summary fashion.

McPhee's appeal can be found here:

What I was told by SCCRC can be found here:

Wednesday, 2 January 2008

Iain McKie On Justice System

Iain McKie on criminal justice
In The Scotsman today, Iain McKie (former police officer and father of Shirley) has an op-ed piece expressing grave concern about criminal justice in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to forensic scientific evidence. He writes:
“The Omagh bombing, the World's End Murders, the Templeton Woods murder and the SCRO fingerprint case have all shown that previously infallible evidence is indeed fallible and finally the prosecution system is being forced to review its whole forensic strategy.While this is bad enough, Lockerbie and other cases have also revealed evidence of police and Crown Office incompetence, political intrigue and a court and legal system struggling to cope.A system where justice takes forever and at a prohibitive cost. Slowly the realisation is dawning that we are faced with a justice system no longer fit for purpose. A system where there is very real danger of the innocent being found guilty and the guilty escaping punishment. Instead of the usual face saving 'first aid' aimed at preserving the power and privilege of those within the system, the time is long overdue for broad ranging public and political debate aimed at creating an open, accountable and accessible system.”

Comment here: