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