I was granted legal aid to proceed to the Supreme Court with an action against the Lord Advocate who failed to appear at my Nobile Officium appeal to deny me the opportunity of raising a devolution issue.

Legal aid was perversely postponed the minute SCCRC referred my case back to the appeal court saying the following:

 

It was my contention that the Legal Aid Board had got this wrong because they were entirely separate issues and I wanted my Lawyer Kevin McCarron to take a judicial review of SLAB which he failed to do.

After the appeal court rejected my appeal I asked Kevin McCarron to resurrect this appeal to the Supreme Court and despite his opinion I would be able to do this after my appeal he turned round and told me he would not take this issue forward because I now have no remedy despite the opinion of counsel the lord advocate breached my right to a fair hearing.

Needless to say he (Kevin McCarron) is no longer involved with my case.

It is my opinion now Kevin McCarron was part of an attempt to destroy my chances of going to the Supreme Court with this issue because it shows the court and not the Lord Advocate breached my right to a fair hearing by telling the Crown not to appear which is evident from the first paragraph of the judgement where they admit:

The Lord Advocate is not, so far, a party to these proceedings and has not been invited to address the court on the issue of competency or on any other issue.

This proves the court was not Independent nor Impartial because they had no right to give advice to any party and certainly had no right to advise any party not to appear.

Wullie Beck Charges And Media Coverage

Charges:

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2159/2356720682_fe6000e6b4_b.jpg

List Of Witnesses:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/2355885881/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Newspaper Articles On The Robbery:

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2056/1718562210_ff65a4c846_b.jpg

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2060/1717712171_7698cae4a5_b.jpg

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2332/1717708283_867c727dc4_b.jpg

Video Footage:

Protest Outside SCCRC Office Glasgow

Michael Naughton From Bristol University

 

Lawyer that Defectively Represented me (Jim Keegan QC)

  

 

He did not interview at least 16 of my defence witnesses and did not call crucial Crown witnesses.

He also failed to call a crucial forensic report which found nothing of Significance.

 

Mr Keegan has blamed Bill Taylor for years for these failings.

 

His statements can be found here:

http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/

Bill Taylor QC Famous for getting Megrahi Found Guilty with little or no credible evidence:

 

I would advise anyone not wanting found guilty for something they haven't done, to avoid these two above like the plague.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police To Be Told Not To Confer Before Writing Up Notes

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26446913

Police to be told not to confer before writing up notes.

Police officers in England and Wales are to be instructed not to confer before writing up their notes of serious incidents they are involved in. Guidance will be issued to forces once it has been approved by the home secretary. At present, officers can pool their recollections before making individual statements. The draft guidance says conferring "has the potential to undermine public confidence". In January, the BBC learned that the Independent Police Complaints Commission was preparing the new guidance which will apply to incidents in which someone dies or is seriously injured. Now published in draft, it tells forces that police witnesses should be instructed not to speak, or otherwise communicate, about the incident in question. They should be kept separate until after their detailed individual factual accounts have been taken, it says. "Any conferring between witnesses has the potential to undermine the integrity of their evidence, and to damage public confidence in the investigation," it continues. "As a result, non-police witnesses are routinely warned not to discuss the incident in question either before or after they have given their accounts. "The same should apply to policing witnesses." The guidance adds that if it is necessary for policing witnesses to discuss an incident "to avert a real and immediate risk to life", then "the extent to which such discussion has taken place, the justification for doing so and the content of that conversation, must be recorded as soon as possible". BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said: "There's likely to be strong resistance from some officers, but concerns about public trust in policing are such that the IPCC may be pushing at an open door." Following the 2008 shooting by police of barrister Mark Saunders, a High Court judge declared that conferring was an institutionalised "opportunity for collusion". But he accepted that banning it could hinder investigations, and the practice continued. After the shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham in 2011, however, officers involved wrote up their accounts in the same room, leading to renewed calls for a ban. A public consultation on the new guidance will run until 27 May.

I had taken this blog down until after my appeal referred by SCCRC.

I have just realised I did not reinstate it along with some other sites which I shall be making public again.

I would say I am a bit disappointed to be forced into taking this road again as I had hoped to be able to bin them all. Many thanks to all who supported me and who still do. Wullie Beck

The fight for Justice Continues