Sunday, 24 April 2011

Michael Bromby Glasgow Caledonian University

Glasgow Caledonia have been tossed off the Innocent program run by INUK for the way they dealt with my case.
They submitted grounds of appeal to SCCRC basically attacking all the issues I sought to raise.
Particularly they submitted my case did not meet the criteria for Defective Represntation (An Anderson Appeal) despite telling me they could not look inot this issue as it would take too long.
Michael Bromby admitted they only carried out a desktop review of my case and done no investigations into the issues I would have raised, Indeed he never even asked me what I thought were my grounds of appeal and did not once offer to go through any submissions.

I asked him to retract what he had submitted and to this day it was never done and SCCRC are making reference to this in their recent statement of reasons refusing to refer my case once again.

I blame Bromby for the way he actually submitted this document suggesting it had been written with my consent and on my behalf which clearly is not the position.

It took me months to see what he had written and I only saw this after making complaints to INUK and as soon as I saw it I realised why he had not shown it to me first.

You would have thought he was acting as a prosecutor against me.

Here is what he wrote originally:


• Letter from Mr Beck to SCCRC
• Amended Indictment 29/3/82 (Charge changed from axes to hammers)
• List of Crown & Defence Witnesses
• List of Crown Productions
• Refusal of Appeal 07/10/82
• Press Release & Newspaper articles
• Map of Locus

• SCCRC Correspondance (re Louise Morris' trial)
• SCCRC Obtained statements - Catherine Hamilton
- Robert Hamilton
• SCCRC copy of original Robert Hamilton precognition.
• High Court Letter offering transcript of appeal
• Mr Beck's Note of Appeal under Criminal Procedure (S) Act 1975
• Original Solicitor's (Keegan) holographic trial notes on cross examination of:
Ann Callan
Thomas Callan
Kenneth Ashford
Steven Clark
D.C. James Dixon

• Original Solicitors letter to SCCRC
• Original Solicitors statement to SCCRC
• Law Society of Scotland to letter to Mr Beck
• QC Taylor interview by SCCRC
• Letter to Law Society from QC Taylor
• Refusal of Legal Aid letter
• Ross Harper letters – Acknowledging Legal Aid refusal
-Various Letters of Correspondence

• Report of original I.D. Parade
• Letter from Allen & Shaw
• File Note from Allen & Shaw
• Victim statement made at I.D. Parade
• Judges direction to Jury (specifically re. Unreliable witness evidence.)


• Mr Beck's statement(s)
• Notice of Defence of Alibi
• Declaration of Police interview
• Louise Morris statement
• Statement of Alibi
• Mr Beck's precognition
• Precognitions of – Hugh Wilson 14
Nigel Muckle
Kenneth Ashford
James Dixon
Richard Peacock
Thomas Callan
Ann Callan
Dr Poubister
Ian Slee – DC Livingston
Robert McMillan – Acting DC Livingston
John Muir – PC South Queensferry
David Livingstone
Catherine York/Hutchinson
Winifred Clark
David Wilkinson
James Bell
John Muir
Sandra Winfindale/Carr-pollok
Alistair Campbell
• Forensic Science Report
• List of Called Witnesses
• Report on Note of Appeal
• Police Notebook Statements.


Precognitions of:

• Allan Beck (Brother)
• Edward Geraghty (Acquaintance)
• Steven Clerk (Eye Witness)
• Jean Clark (Eye Witness)(Not Called)
• Brian O'Neill (Eye Witness)(Not Called)
• Terence O'Neill (Eye Witness)(Not Called)
• Jacqueline Tiffney
• Michelle Tiffney (12 y.o.)(Not Called)
• Margaret White (Acquaintance)
• Sandra Rae (Cousin)
• Marion Geary (Acquaintance)
• Alana Harvey (Cousin)
• Ann Marie Mitchell (Acquaintance)
• Ann Marson (Acquaintance)
• William Rae (Father)
• Michelle White (Acquaintance)
• Mary Harley/Harvey/McAuley (Cousin)
• John Harvey
• James Hutcheson
• PC Gerd Elsweiler (Glasgow)
• David Livingstone (Eye Witness – abandonment of car)
• Nora Hartley (Deceased Aunt)
• John Henderson (Victim)
• William Horn (Victim)

Statement by Robert Hamilton.

William Beck was convicted in 1981 of car theft, assault and robbery at the High Court of Justiciary. Mr Beck has continually maintained innocence since his conviction despite having one appeal and three applications to the SCCRC refused.
We submit that, the above notwithstanding, Mr Beck is innocent of the crimes of which he has been convicted and that further, his original conviction was a miscarriage of justice on the grounds that:

The eyewitness evidence and testimony adduced at trail was of such an unreliable and contradictory nature that no reasonable Jury would have convicted.
• Two of the witnesses, including one victim, identified the weapon used as an “Axe” and one specifically identified it as a “Hatchet”. Others asserted there had been no weapons.
• Two witnesses identified the robbers as wearing balaclavas, one as wearing no balaclavas. Both victims were unable to identify Mr Beck as their assailant.
• Nigel Muckle, an off-duty Police Officer and eyewitness, identified Mr Beck. His evidence was later discredited by that of Thomas Callan and Steven Clark yet the Judge ambiguously advised the Jury to “take great care” with his evidence.
• David Livingstone, an eyewitness at the location where the car was abandoned, was unable to identify Mr Beck and in fact described the robber as “40 with a moustache”, clearly differing from the then 20 year old Mr Beck.
• The evidence of Mr Hamilton is questionable. It is alleged (by Mr Beck) that Mr Hamilton admitted in a subsequent trial (That of Mr Becks spouse for subornation of perjury) that he did in fact lie at first instance in order to prevent (it is alleged) his criminal injuries compensation claim being thwarted. No documents pertaining to Mrs Becks trial have ever come to light.

The ID parades undertaken were i) not reliable and ii) of such a nature no reasonable jury would have accepted their evidence.
• Mr Beck was not consistently identified and Nigel Muckle is alleged to have identified him (by ID parade number) before actually seeing the parade.
• An expert in the field, Mr Tim Valentine, has given a written opinion on the administration of the procedures which supports the allegation that they are flawed.

Mr Beck’s original representation was inadequate. While not meeting the threshold required for defective representation, there were nonetheless severe deficiencies in his representation.
• Witnesses substantial to Mr Becks defence, not least Mr David Livingstone, were not called at trial.

Mr Beck’s alibi(s), coupled with the issue of time in relation to his journey to and from the locus mean he could not have committed the crime.
• 5 Individuals can speak as to Mr Becks presence in Glasgow on the day in question: Louise Beck (nee Morris); Mr Becks father; Nora Harley; Marion Geary and Michelle White. All 5 can place Mr Beck in Glasgow at various times on the day in question. At trial, the Judge instructed the Jury that only Louise Becks evidence was credible.
• Mr Beck is alleged to have stolen the car from the Clyde Port Authority Car Park between 11.20am and 2.15pm. The Robbery occurred at 3.45pm and Mr Beck was placed in Glasgow at 6.05pm. The timing is such that it raises doubt as to whether Mr Beck could have committed the robbery and returned to Glasgow within the time frame alleged.

Contrary to the above, Mr Beck’s case is detracted from by the following:
Regards the allegation of Jury misdirection, Mr Beck has no ground of appeal.
• In Gilmour v Her Majesty’s Advocate The Lord Justice Clerk dealt with a similar (to the point of being almost identical) charge and, despite the crown conceding the point, found that such a direction did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. This position is further supported by the decision in Stillie v Her Majesty’s Advocate.
Mr Beck has no ground of appeal based on defective representation.
• The SCCRC and the Law Society of Scotland have investigated complaints into Mr Becks representation at trial on numerous occasions and found no fault.


Hugh Wilson - 14 Years old
14 years old.
Clearly states “One Hatchet” in evidence.
Nigel Muckle – Off duty P.C.
Evidence discredited by Steven Clark and Thomas Callan
No Balaclavas
Bulky Jackets
No weapons
Kenneth Ashford
One Axe
“Paid no attention to car” yet wrote reg. No.
Thomas Callan
Light Blue Jacket
Couldn’t ID robbers
Corroborates above
No fingerprints in car.
IDed robber as 40, Brown hair, moustache.
Unable to ID William Beck as robber
“Claw hammer” – later IDed hammer at trial as being of “same length” as one used in robbery
Unable to ID William Beck
Unable to ID William Beck.
“Certain” weapon was a “Handheld” “axe”.

Just for clarity The Law Society have not investigated my case indeed they refused the last time I complained to them.

SCCRC have never fully investigated my case either.

After 10 years of telling SCCRC that my defence failed to find crucial witnesses and failed to interview 16 of 19 of my defence witnesses SCCRC have failed to interview a single witness to ascertain if I am telling the truth.

SCCRC have recently said they do not know if Statements I handed to them 10 years ago are Crown Precognitions despite Jim Keegan Solicitor admitting to the Law Society that they are Crown Precogniotions.

But then again Jim Keegan also said the Author of his statement at SCCRC basically wrote what he wanted to write.

You would think a truth seeking body tasked with the job of looking into Miscarriages would want to find the truth wouldn't you ?