SCCRC Deny Justice

Michael Bromby Glasgow Caledonian University

2011-04-24T01:22:00.004+01:00

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:

CONTENTS

• 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.)

DEFENCE PRECOGNITIONS ETC

• 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.

CROWN PRECOGNITIONS ETC

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.

WITNESS STATEMENTS

LOCUS:
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
Balaclavas
One Axe
“Paid no attention to car” yet wrote reg. No.
Thomas Callan
Balaclavas
Light Blue Jacket
Couldn’t ID robbers
ANN CALLAN
Corroborates above
DC SLEE
No fingerprints in car.
DAVID LIVINGSTONE
IDed robber as 40, Brown hair, moustache.
Unable to ID William Beck as robber
JOHN HENDERSON - VICTIM
“Claw hammer” – later IDed hammer at trial as being of “same length” as one used in robbery
Unable to ID William Beck
WILLIAM HORN – VICTIM
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 ?

Law Awards Scotland 2009

2009-09-18T02:06:00.003+01:00

Yesterday saw the Law Awards Scotland kick off at the Hilton Hotel Glasgow.

It also saw Big Wullie standing again handing out his leaflets with his wife.

There was no better chance to get someone interested in your case than this event which saw Aamer Anwar and the likes taking leaflets from Wullie's wife.

People were also heard saying: Is that that "Boy Beck Again" So at least they are starting to notice.

kenny MacAskill was supposed to be there but we arrived at 7pm as it advertised to start at 7.30pm, Needless to say we missed quite a number of people who were already in and seated.

Had I had the money then I would have without doubt paid the £135 or whatever the cost was just to be able to place a leaflet on every table when they were seated.

IOt advertised a Black Tie event so I turned up with a Black Tie just in case we were chased away from the doorway Like Edinburgh University did a few months ago.

Fortunately the doorman did not object (difference between Glasgow & Edinburgh, Glasgow allows freedom of Speech) to us handing out leaflets and even posed with Big Wullie for a photo.

The highlight must be seeing Bill Aitken's face when my Wife handed him a leaflet, They have abviously heard about my case and must realise I am not going away easily.

Wonder what some spoke about at the Awards Dinner.

I even got to stand on the red carpet.

Kenny MacAskill Refuses To Review SCCRC

2009-06-07T01:29:00.004+01:00

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has denied Bill Kidd a member of his own party a two minute interview and refused point blank to investigate the many issues raised by Bill Kidd and myself over the years about the conduct of SCCRC and their lack of consistency in their cases they refer and do not refer.

They can refer cases on the evidence of convicted criminals but reject others with Independent and Impartial witness's Ref to Neeson & The Fernieside three.

They can refuse to interview a single witness before coming to a conclusion in a case, Ref To: Milne.

They can refuse to commission independent experts reports in some case and not in others despite the same Expert later backing these cases, Ref To: Beck, Gage and Megrahi.

Mr MacAskill makes no mention of the many issues raised in my 11 page dossier hence the reason for handing it directly to him during the SCCRC conference.

His reply below and at the bottom of the page was before and after seeing my dossier respecfully.

Reply to MSP Bill Kidd's letter here:

Reply after reading 11 Page Dossier:

Not a single issue raised is answered by Kenny MacAskill's secretary above which shows his contempt and unwillingness to investigate matters of Justice.

Resign Mr MacAskill in disgrace, you are an affront to decent people and a shocking excuse for a Justice Secretary.

Your loyalty to the Law Society sticks out a mile

Bill Kidd Calls For Independent Review Of SCCRC

2009-06-06T02:19:00.004+01:00

The following was what my MSP Bill Kidd wrote to the Justice Secretary asking for a review of SCCRC on my Behalf:

Kenny MacAskill
Cabinet Secretary for Justice
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
St. Andrews House
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh
EH6 6QQ

Tuesday 3rd March 2009

Review of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

I am writing on behalf of a constituent, a Mr. William Beck, whose case I, along with Iain McKie and Alex Neil, prior to his recently becoming a minister, have been involved with since July 2007.

Mr. Beck was convicted of assault & robbery in 1982; subsequently serving four years of a six year prison sentence. Mr Beck has unremittingly contested this conviction, on the basis of a number of failures of legal-procedure and discrepancies relating to his case.

Having served his prison-term, Mr Beck applied to have his case referred for appeal by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). The SCCRC, however, came to the decision that Mr. Beck’s case would not be referred for appeal.

Mr Beck believes that SCCRC has been inconsistent in terms of which cases it will accept for appeal and which it will not; finding that evidence accepted as grounds for referral in some cases has not been accepted in others.

With regard to the above, I wish to enquire, on behalf of Mr. Beck, about the potential for an independent review of the SCCRC. The SCCRC was established with the expectation that it would, after five years, be subject to external review to evaluate its role, remit and the extent to which it has been achieving its aims. Thus far the SCCRC, since its establishment in 1999, has undergone no such review.

Having contacted the Scottish Pariliament Information Centre, I have been informed that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which operates in England and Wales and corresponds to the SCCRC, has underwent review of sorts on a number of occasions, having submitted evidence, when asked, to the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons.

As such, I would be interested to know if the SCCRC is to go through a review procedure in the near future, how comprehensive such a review would be and what form it would take.

I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue, in person, in the near future.

I look forward to hearing your response in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Bill Kidd MSP

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Despite this letter and Bill Kidd being of the same party as Mr MacAskill, MacAskill did not have the decency to give Bill a two minute meeting regarding the issues raised.

What chance does anyone have of Justice when the Justice Secretary refuses to look at matters of justice when called for from his own Party Members.

Surely he should be jumping at the chance to sort out the mess left behind when labour departed instead of inheriting and continuing to cover up the problems deeply seated at the roots of our Justice System.

I think it is time Kenny MacAskill hung his head in shame and does the decnt thing by hanging up his coat and giving the job to someone less bound by the Law Society, In other words someone not a Lawyer

Complaint To Justice Secretary Regarding SCCRC

2009-06-06T02:08:00.003+01:00

The following was what I handed to Kenny MacAskill at the SCCRC ten year Conference and to which I still await a reply.

I also handed this to my own MSP Bill Kidd who wrote to Kenny MacAskill which will be published shortly here.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission – A Critique

Introduction
It is now 10 years since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) was established under section 194 of Crime & Punishment Act 1997 and the question posed by this paper is should a review be carried out into its the powers, responsibilities, operation and funding.

In terms of the prevention of injustice within our justice system the SCCRC is the last port of call for those seeking to right such wrongs and as several high profile cases like that Al Megrahi
have shown it has an extremely important part to play.

Alongside its undoubted success comes the criticism that it is guilty of wielding power without responsibility, is unaccountable and in a number of important respects has failed to mature and develop satisfactorily.

Such criticisms are not lodged against the individual commissioners but against the organisations as a whole.

I have highlighted what I consider to be some of the major issues that should be examined in any review of the SCCRC.

It seems an appropriate time to carry out an independent review of the SCCRC and examine questions like has the commission’s independence been compromised by its becoming legally dominated and is it too closely bound to the culture of the Scottish legal establishment?

Basically just how effective is it as an organisation in delivering its brief?

All I have been able to do in this short paper is suggest areas for examination and refer to a number of cases where I believe their work has fallen below the high standards we have come to expect.

Independence of SCCRC

When the SCCRC was established it was anticipated that only one third of the commissioners would be from the legal professions –Judiciary, lawyers etc.

‘(5) At least one third of the members of the Commission shall be persons who are legally qualified; and for this purpose a person is legally qualified if he is an advocate or solicitor of at least ten years' standing.
(6) At least two thirds of the members of the Commission shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have knowledge or experience of any aspect of the criminal justice system; and for the purposes of this subsection the criminal justice system includes, in particular, the investigation of offences and the treatment of offenders.’

Despite this 95% of the current commission could be said to come from the ‘legal establishment’ and inevitably the SCCRC independence is called into question.

The Chief Executive Gerard Sinclair is a lawyer and not only controls the day to day running of the SCCRC but he sits as a Temporary Sheriff and on Law Society Committees. Effectively Mr Sinclair holds four positions within the legal establishment and I believe this has serious implications for the culture of the organisation.

Gerald Gordon QC as well as sitting as a Commissioner sits as a judge in High Court Trials and Appeals and while I can see the value of this in certain cases I would also argue that it could be seen to compromise the SCCRC’s independence from the Judiciary.

While the integrity of the commissioners is not being called into question there must be legitimate questions asked as to whether the balance of interests being represented as envisaged when the SCCRC was established has been kept. This also raises cultural issues and claims that the organisation holds the same principles and values of the justice system it is seeking to monitor.

Robin Johnston has been the Senior Legal Officer of the SCCRC since inception. Although the establishing Act clearly lays down that this post shall be filled by an advocate or solicitor of at least ten years standing it appears from the SCCRC website that Mr Robin Johnston only qualified as a Solicitor in 1996.
See http://www.sccrc.org.uk/management.aspx

Lack of consistency

Referral Policy

There appears to be growing evidence of a lack of consistency by the SCCRC in evaluating cases and passing them back to the appeal courts. I have examined the following cases referred to the SCCRC (see appendices) and have found that evidence accepted as grounds for referral in one case is not accepted in another.

Cases Not Referred for Appeal

William Beck
William Gage
John (Jocky) Robertson
Edward Milne
Robbie The Pict
The Edinburgh Three, (Brian Meighan, Kevin Kane and David Pugh) Also Judicial Reviewed SCCRC

Cases Referred for Appeal

Al Megrahi
Ronald Neeson
Stuart Kidd
Stewart Gair
Jamie Orr
James Kinsella
Raymond Gilmour

See Appendix.

Application of current law

The SCCRC have a policy agreed with our appeal courts that they will only refer cases on the law as it is today and not as it was at the time of conviction. In the case of Wullie Beck however despite an acceptance that the conduct of his identification parade did not comply with the law as it stands today the SCCRC refused to refer his case.
Lack of Investigation within SCCRC

On the face of it there appears to be a case for arguing that in some cases the SCCRC does not carry out a thorough or comprehensive enquiry.

This could of course be due to a lack of the proper expertise or be related to a lack of available resources or a mixture of the two.

It is clear for instance that the three year Megrahi enquiry was expensive in terms of time and money and probably involved the use of an inordinate amount of SCCRC resources. While given the serious issues at stake this is understandable we require to be assured that other cases did not suffer as a result of this concentration on the one case. There is a sound argument that no case should be seen as being more important than any other if there is a suspicion that injustice might be present.

Time and time again I have found evidence of:

Failures to Interview pertinent witness's.
Failures to seek and gain Forensic Evidence.
Failures to ask for independent expert opinions - Campbell & Steele, Gilmour, Johnston & Allison etc.

See Appendix.

Defective Representation (Anderson V HMA & Hemphill V HMA)

Analysis of the figures for defective representation as a ground for referral to the SCCRC make interesting reading.

For the eight year period to 2007 178 defective representation appeals were made. Of these only 2 were referred

Claims of defective representation constituted 18% of the appeals made to the SCCRC.

Effectively we have the biggest ground for appeal having the lowest success rate.

From a SCCRC perspective the conclusion must be clear that 98% of these Defective Representation referrals had no basis whatsoever. This in turn must mean that this ground for referral is being misused by applicants as a way of escaping justice or that the standard of proof required is not understood by those appealing.

There is however another possible conclusion and that is perhaps it points with startling clarity to cultural or other bias by the commission members/assessors who because of conscious/unconscious bias or assumptions about the efficiency of the law profession cannot, rather than will not, see the validity of the claims.

I believe that the cases of William Gage and my own provide ample evidence of failures by defence lawyers to effectively represent their clients in court.

In my referral to the SCCRC I submitted that my defence teams representation was defective on a number of grounds in that they failed:

To interview and call 16 defence witness's
To call crucial Forensic evidence.
To properly challenge identification evidence.
To call crucial Crown witness's capable of contradicting the Crowns case.
To ask crucial questions of defence witness's.
To call his solicitor who after viewing Mr Beck’s ID parade claimed that a police witness had selected Mr Beck before turning to view an ID parade.
To consult with the accused or his solicitor before closing the defence case.

SCCRC never saw fit to ask his defence team why they done this nor did they see fit to ask any of the witness's if the defence team interviewed them prior to trial.

See Appendix.

Perverse Powers Sought By SCCRC.

In a judicial review in the case of Mohammed Razza by Lord Emslie the respondents, the SCCRC, argued that when established by section 194 Crime & Punishment Act 1997 they had the power to decide cases only on the ‘Miscarriage’ test and even if ‘prima-Facie, arguable and statable grounds’ exist they can refuse to refer. They appeared to blame Parliament for not allowing them to refer cases on such grounds.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2007csoh152.html

While on the face of it this appears to place limits on the cases referred Lord Emslie did not see it that way.

‘[43] On a fair reading, therefore, the relevant section of the report seems to me to confirm, not only the respondents' laudable desire to see justice done in an individual case, making full use of the wide-ranging investigative powers conferred upon them for that purpose, but also their overriding commitment to applying the correct legal test in line with the relevant statutory provisions and case law. This broadly mirrors senior counsel's contention that the respondents' approach to what might constitute a miscarriage of justice for the purposes of section 194C(a) was frequently broader, but never narrower, than the view which the court might be expected to take on a reference or appeal. In my opinion there is nothing to prevent the respondents, in the course of exercising their statutory powers, from searching for what they conceive to be "truth", "fairness", "justice" or "equity", provided that in the end of the day their decision is reached on a correct legal basis’

From this opinion it appears that Lord Emslie is satisfied that even although the SCCRC had the power not to refer even when, ‘prima-facie, arguable and statable grounds’ exist in reality this did not happen and he accepted the SCCRC position that the SCCRC’s, ‘approach to what might constitute a miscarriage of justice for the purposes of section 194C(a) was frequently broader, but never narrower, than the view which the court might be expected to take on a reference or appeal.’ He did not see any need to alter their statutory powers provided that ‘their decision is reached on a correct legal basis’.

His Lordship’s opinion however gives the SCCRC Chief Executive Gerald Sinclair and the SCCRC a great deal of discretion and trusts them always to get it right. This is not my experience and I would wish that where ‘prima-Facie, arguable and statable grounds’ exist that referral is mandatory and that the statute be amended to take account. This should not take away from their overall powers and responsibilities re miscarriages of justice.

Non Disclosure Of Evidence By Crown

Despite a Crown Acceptance (See McLeod, Holland & Sinclair and Practice Notes) that they have a duty to disclose all material evidence to the defence I am told that failure to disclose is more likely to succeed in our appeal courts than any other ground of appeal at the moment.

Sadly this is a recurring theme in most miscarriages of Justice and recently has seen cases like Gair, Kidd and Allison & Johnston referred to appeal and successful.

In Holland for example the evidence in question was in the form of a Crown Precognition and his conviction was still quashed.

SCCRC told Beck that Crown Precognitions were not like police statements and not admissible as evidence, which would seem outdated if Holland is properly decided.
A great analysis of Holland & Sinclair can be found here:

http://www.eupjournals.com/doi/pdf/10.3366/elr.2006.10.1.102?cookieSet=1

However, the fact that the offending comment in Holland in relation to the identification parade was made in a Crown precognition and that its non-disclosure was still held to be in breach of the duty of disclosure suggests that even precognitions may not be immune from disclosure.

Conclusion

This paper while acknowledging the vital part played by the SCCRC in preventing miscarriages of justice in Scotland makes a case for a 10 year review of that organisation.

There is evidence of a reduction in the credibility of the organisation and it is critical to ascertain the accuracy of that statement and to assess what remedial action, if any, is required.

Wullie Beck
Date

Appendix

ALLEGED FAILURES BY THE SCCRC: STATED CASES

It is my belief that in the cases shown below there is evidence of the following failures by the SCCRC.

Lack of consistency.
Lack of investigation.
Lack of asking for experts opinions.
Failure to acknowledge Defective Representation.

William Lewis Gage

William Gage was convicted of murder on 9th February 2004 by a majority verdict. His appeal was turned down on 14th march 2006. The appeal court refused to allow late grounds from his QC Margaret Scott. Mr Gage then took his case to SCCRC who took three years to give him an interim statement of reasons not to refer his case. They are currently reviewing the case.

Alleged failures:

They failed to consult with known experts.

They failed to interview key material witnesses before coming to conclusions.

They failed to fully investigate the complaints by Gage about the conduct of his defence.

William Beck

Mr Beck was convicted of Assault & Robbery in 1982 of which he has strongly and consistently denied any involvement whatever. He was refused legal aid for an appeal and leave to appeal was rejected when he appeared before the high court on 07/10/1982. He claims he has never had an appeal.

Alleged failures:

They failed to adequately consider defective representation by his defence lawyers including a failure to interview 16 defence witnesses.

They failed to use Current Law Policy in considering the conduct of his identification parade.

They failed to ask Crown for all documents they hold in this case.

They have failed to admit the fact they received documents regarding second ID Parade.

They failed to take cognisance and recognise the fact witness's gave Crown Statements which Crown say no longer exist.

They refused to answer material parts of Becks grounds of appeal to them.

They failed to ask any expert opinions particular identification experts despite being aware of their existence.

They failed to be consistent given that they had previously referred for issues they were now refusing.

They failed to answer Beck's claims his defence should have called crucial forensic evidence.

Edward Milne

Edward was convicted in of clocking cars while working as a Managing Director of Maxwell Motors Forfar He was fined £2000 which unknown to him the garage paid without his consent. He was told he had no grounds for appeal and subsequently failed to lodge any appeal. He has consistently denied his involvement and claimed that the Fiscal that prosecuted him was Biased and Prejudice towards him and ought not to have been allowed to prosecute.

Alleged failures:

They failed to Interview a single witness despite there being a number available.

They only interviewed his Solicitor.

They failed to recognise grounds of appeal under section 92 (1) that part of his trial took place outwith his presence. NB: The competency hearing referred to in his Lawyers letter to SCCRC.

John (Jocky) Robertson

Mr Robertson was convicted of murdering his ex wife on 18th October 1988 and sentenced to life in prison. He is now subject to a Mental Health order at Edinburgh Royal. He applied to SCCRC and they rejected his appeal in 2005. They took three to four years to investigate Mr Robertson's case.

Alleged failures:

SCCRC accepted Lothian & Borders police's word without question.

They failed to find DNA still in existence.

They failed to recognise the police showed photos before an ID Parade.

They failed to notice he was denied a fair hearing because either the police or Crown withheld ID Parade reports from Crown Productions denying Robertson any chance of challenging this crucial key material evidence.

The Edinburgh, Three Kane Pugh & Meighan

These three men were convicted of Rape in 200 at Edinburgh. They appealed and lost their case. They have served their sentence and throughout refused to consider parole. They appealed to SCCRC in 2003 which was subsequently refused in 2004. They took a Judicial review against SCCRC and lost this in front of a single Judge and they were told this was basically the end of the road for appeals. Though there seems to be an opinion from Chris Shead in their favour dated 2006 defence agents have not appealed the decision from One Judge.

Alleged failures:

SCCRC failed to comprehend that a jury member taking evidence into the jury room outwith the knowledge of the accused and the court denied them a fair hearing.

They failed to recognise the similarity of cases they had referred on the same type of evidence.

They failed to investigate and interview pertinent witnesses.

They failed to ask for any expert opinions on the material changes of evidence from the chief witness.

Cases For Comparison

Reference should also be made to the following cases:

Ronald Neeson Referred by SCCRC.
Stuart Gair Referred by SCCRC.
Stewart Kidd Referred by SCCRC.
James Kinsella referred by SCCRC.
Raymond Gilmour Referred by SCCRC.
Mohammed Al Megrahi Referred by SCCRC.
Jamie Orr Referred by SCCRC.

John Hemphill Defective Representation seen here:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/82_67.html

and here:

http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/johnhemphill/index.html

Clearly Anderson (Defective Representation) appeals are covered by Failure of the defence teams to call crucial witnesses and forensic evidence. which is evident in some of the cases mentioned but not referred by SCCRC

A final analysis:

It is clear from the many cases highlighted that SCCRC are referring cases under current law policies agreed with the high court and rejecting others with the Exact same grounds.

This is not what they were set up for nor will this practice enhance the public's confidence that SCCRC are competent enough to carry out their duties.

The same investigator Stephen Lynn is involved in three of the above mentioned cases where there is clear evidence he has not investigated thoroughly enough showing that the investigating officers are not truly representing the appellants interests when these cases call before a committee.
Should representatives of appellants (or in some cases appellants) be present to represent their clients interest and ensure all relevant points are debated at committee level, this would be a sure way of ensuring equality of arms

Mr Beck points out that SCCRC did not answer most of his issues so therefore the board could not have been made aware of them by his legal officer who went to great pains to tell Mr Beck he did not represent him.

If the legal officer is not representing the interest of applicants then exactly who does at these meetings ?

Lord Advocte Does Not Investigate Crimes

2009-06-06T01:09:00.004+01:00

According to the following letter from Allison Wood of the Criminal Law & Licensing Division of the Scottish Government, The Lord Advocate does not investigate Crimes and particularly under section 194J.

Though I have serious concerns over exactly why she is answering for the Lord Advocate in the first place, She also acts as PA to kenny MacAskill and has also answered the following letter on behalf of Thomas Hastie:

Exactly where she got the information that I had telephoned Mr MacAskill's office saying I did not require an answer to my e-mail is very disturbing, No such call was ever made.

It is equally disturbing that I wrote to Mr Hastie or E-Mailed him on 7th November 2008 and this is only replied to on 31st march 2009.

My concerns raised actually started with an E-Mail to Kenny MacAskill concerning why the SCCRC would commission a report from Tim Valentine in the case of Megrahi but not in my case when the only evidence against me at trial was 2 Positive Identifications.

I was concerned double standards were being employed with SCCRC and equality of arms was being ignored.

Needless to say this has never been answered by the letter above, Mr MacAskill ignores all these issues concerning SCCRC despite them falling within his remit of power as Justice Secretary.

I still await an answer to the letter and indeed 11 page dossier I handed to Mr MacAskill at the SCCRC conference and as soon as it arrives it will be online here.

This dossier raised concerns in a number of cases rejected by SCCRC.

Access To Lawyers A Must

2009-05-22T15:04:00.003+01:00

Crown Office Corruption, High Court Relents On Disclosure

2009-04-02T01:57:00.005+01:00

In an E-Mail to Lord Advocate I asked for disclosure of witness statements and ID Parade Reports see below:

Disclosure Of Evidence‏

From: wullie beck (wulliebeck@hotmail.co.uk)
Sent: 10 March 2009 18:17:28
To: ps/copfs@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

FAO Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini

Dear Mrs Angiolini

An Open Letter On Disclosure

I write to you regarding Crown's reluctance over the years to disclose Pertinent and key material to allow me to appeal both to our Courts and SCCRC.

I Note Crown's practice statement along with the decisions of the Privy Council 2005 of Holland & Sinclair are contrary to what I have been told in the past.

I am seeking the release of in Particular Crown Witness's statements and ID Parade reports relating to my trial of 1982.

I also note with great interest that Holland was decided upon a "Crown Precognition" whereas I have been continually told that these were exempt from disclosure.

I consider this reluctance to be a breach of section 6 EcHR of my right to a fair hearing and wish you to act accordingly and order that these Crown documents be handed over to me to afford equality of arms.

The reluctance to reveal these documents is an obstruction of justice.

My MSP Bill Kidd has also been denied access to this information by Frank Mulholland and I trust you will deal with this matter with a view to releasing such documentation without further delay.

Lastly I have no objection to Crown Redacting the witness's details like address's but would point out I have had these since 1982 in the form of attachment to my original Indictment which can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/2355885881/

Yours Faithfully

William Beck

The reply I got is Oppressive considering Crown Office Concede they have a duty of disclosure see here:

What makes it even more Oppressive is the fact our High Court granted access to their documents in the National Archives here years ago:

So in effect Crown Office can still refuse to hand over relevant material evidence which the Privy Council say they must disclose and the Lord Advocate Angiolini refuses to act upon it.

Scott Pattison has for years refused to release these documents saying they No Longer Exist or he has not retained any Copies of what he sent to SCCRC which is utter and pure lies but that will be another story for later

To view the above letters in larger form please use this link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26453069@N02/3405967138/sizes/l/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26453069@N02/3405968752/sizes/l/

I will now take this matter to the High Court then Europe if need be, watch this space

William Beck Still Fighting For Justice

2009-02-22T03:06:00.006Z

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3298441373_4344e901ae.jpg

SCCRC Liars

2009-02-15T04:26:00.006Z

Gerard Sinclair Chief Executive of SCCRC has lied at the following board Meeting:

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/viewfile.aspx?id=378

He claimed the following:

The Commission advised Mr Beck of the outcome of its investigation in June 2008,
confirming that an administrative error had resulted in him receiving the papers
containing the jury details. The Commission also advised Mr Beck at this point that
he should remove any copy of these papers from his website immediately.

Liars, They did not ask me to remove any documents from my website.

They tried to claim it was OK to release the documents as they were National Archive Documents which where in the Public domain.
Despite them knowing this was a criminal offence under section 194J of criminal procedure act (Scotland) 1995 and crime and punishemnt act (Scotland) 1997.

Despite them also knowing it might be a contempt of court to release such documents.

Their E-Mail is copied here:

(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)

Another Lie is here :

(Mr Sinclair confirmed that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice had been fully briefed
on the matter by CJD of the matter and that the Commission’s internal procedures
had been updated following the discovery of the error in June 2008. He confirmed
that the staff member involved in the error was no longer employed by the
Commission)

It Was Gerard Sinclair that released the documents yet he is informing the commission the member no longer works for SCCRC, Brilliant stuff eh ? You really couldn't make this type of stuff up

Lastly we have Chris Reddick of SCCRC saying he asked me to remove something from my Internet site here:

(Mr Campbell asked if the jury details were still on Mr Beck’s website. Mr Reddick
confirmed that they were and that this matter had been raised directly with CJD. He
also confirmed that the Commission had also asked Mr Beck directly to remove the
information)

Here is what reddick Said in his E-Mail but only after my second complaint was copied to Kenny MacAskill and certainly not in June 2008:

CR/227/08
26 September 2008

September not June as suggested by Sinclair

(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)

(I am strongly of the view that it is therefore inappropriate for you to publicly disclose this information irrespective of whether the Commission has been at fault in the first instance)

Not once did anyone ask me to take any particular document down from any Website and again they try to dismiss Section 194J which makes it a criminal offence for any member of SCCRC to reveal any documents they obtain during their investigations.

Clearly SCCRC are clutching at straws and trying to keep the lid on the incompetence of their Chief Executive.

I have since taken the Jurors details down form my Flickr account out of common decency and because the articles in the press got my complaints across of the incompetence of SCCRC though they remain full of Liars.

I again reiterate : I have no issues or ill will towards any of the jury members in my case, I have more issues with the evidence the jury never heard and had they heard I am sure their 8-7 Majority verdict would have been in favour of me instaed of Crown.

Their Flashing Chief Execiutive should be sacked:

SCCRC Refuse FOI Request Against Solicitor James Keegan

2008-12-15T01:31:00.003Z

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:

http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/UploadedFiles/Decision134-2008.pdf

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
Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.

Lockerbie Bombers QC admits Incompetence and Negligence

2008-09-21T17:20:00.002+01:00

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)

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 Statement to 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.

Bill Taylor QC

2008-09-17T03:57:00.003+01:00

Bill Taylor Middle

Latest News on Lockerbie

Ezperts call for Public Enquiry into Lockerbie:

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Legal ... 4498100.jp

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

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:

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.

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

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/

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

Names And Adresses For Postmen Assaulted & Robbed

2008-08-25T03:25:00.004+01:00

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:

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

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

2008-08-16T13:09:00.002+01:00

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:

Edward Milne Two Bob Investigation By SCCRC

2008-05-26T03:35:00.001+01:00

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:

http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee311/ed-forfar/?action=view¤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.

Questions And Answers Of SCCRC

2008-05-25T01:45:00.003+01:00

Sent the following to SCCRC:

Sent: 27 March 2008 16:20:41
To: info@sccrc.org.uk

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
To: foi@sccrc.org.uk; enquiries@itspublicknowledge.info

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:

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
To: info@sccrc.org.uk

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.
Namely:
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.

Devils Advocate

2008-05-11T18:15:00.000+01:00

Justice 1

2008-05-10T19:15:00.006+01:00

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26453069@N02/show/with/2480367485/

Support From MSP

2008-05-03T02:21:00.003+01:00

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

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 ?

Lord Advocate On Disclosure, Scotland.

2008-04-26T01:37:00.007+01:00

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

Disclosure Policy Crown Office Elish Angiolini

2008-04-25T22:52:00.002+01:00

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: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2007HCJAC75.html 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?

Nigel Muckle

2008-04-17T04:03:00.001+01:00

Nigel Muckle

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

http://www.swanswater-fishery.co.uk/pages/pictures.htm

Kenny MacAskill Agree's On Disclosure

2008-04-17T01:55:00.002+01:00

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

Past And Present Addresses For Crown Witnesses

2008-04-08T17:23:00.002+01:00

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

2008-04-08T01:51:00.002+01:00

Can SCCRC Defectively Represent Appellants

shirleymckie.myfastforum.org 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

SCCRC Refuse To Name Insurance

2008-03-20T06:35:00.002Z

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

Robin Johnston Of SCCRC Misleads SCCRC Over Case

2008-02-03T21:36:00.000Z

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:

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.

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

Lockerbie Investigator Misleads SCCRC

2008-02-01T13:16:00.001Z

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I

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,

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:

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?

SCCRC Wrongly Interpret Grounds (Deliberately)

2008-01-30T21:04:00.000Z

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:

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

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:

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:

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.

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

2008-01-30T18:09:00.001Z

SCCRC Employ Double Standards
George McPhee 6 Dec 2005 Case No.2005HCJAC137
SCCRC
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.

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:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005hcjac137.html

What I was told by SCCRC can be found here:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=695853557&size=l

Iain McKie On Justice System

2008-01-02T15:02:00.000Z

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: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Alternative-take.3631585.jp

Unreliable Identification

2007-11-29T01:20:00.000Z

It is apparent that the Judge at my trial referred to one of the Identifications as unreliable and can be viewed here,

This would severely undermine the case against me given the only evidence i was convicted on was two positive Identifications, Yes "Two Positive Identifications". and one was Ashford

SCCRC cover-up merchants told me this was not borne out of the charge to Jury and when i met with their Robin Johnston (Senior legal Officer) he even had the word Unreliable scored out.
This was because he thought i never had a copy of the Charge to Jury.

Arguments for SCCRC

2007-10-29T03:08:00.000Z

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.
12.
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 6.pm 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 6.pm 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.
Muldoon
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 appeal.in 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)
Reasons.
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
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG
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
Edinburgh
EH1 3DL
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
Edinburgh
EH1 3DL
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
Glasgow
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.

Shocking SCCRC Findings

2007-10-24T01:58:00.000+01:00

I told SCCRC that i was arrested on another charge this is backed by the Arresting officers statements.
Because i was arrested for another charge with no Warrant for Assault & Robbery, I claimed: Any items taken from my house for the other charge Should and Could not be used to support any Robbery charge, Certainly at the time the Law Was Quite Clear on these issues: If it was not related to the warrant it could not be used as productions for other charges.

SCCRC refused to even check if the Warrant used to arrest me was a Search warrant or arrest Warrant.
The police when they entered my house at 31 Barlanark place Glasgow Never showed anyone in the house the Warrant.
When i asked to see it, The paper was flashed in front of me.

Regardless of all this, The Police statements "support what i was saying" I was arrested on a Warrant for another charge so Police had no warrant to search my house.
Maybe the SCCRC could have checked with Crown or the Arresting officers, Would this have been too much to ask them to do. (After All, It took them three years to give me an answer)

SCCRC are the biggest bunch of Cowboys i have ever come across in my entire life.
They are not investigating proper Legal Grounds of Appeal but looking at cases to see how they can Uphold the Convictions.

All documents will be linked later

Wullie Beck

Abuse By Police And SCCRC

2007-10-24T01:41:00.000+01:00

Having been arrested for another charge, I was placed on an ID Parade at livingston Police Station on 16th Dec 1981.
After being picked twice Positive i was charged with assaulting Two Postmen and Stealing thousands of Pounds in cash and some Cheque's.
Looking over old press articles i have found some very interesting items from the following:

My original charge read: Did strike them on the head and body with an Axe or Similar Instrument.
All of a sudden it read:

Did strike them with AXE'S What a Joke

Lockerbie Bombers QC Is A Liar

2007-10-12T15:58:00.000+01:00

Mr Taylor QC defended me in 1982 on a charge of Assault & Robbery.
The solicitor that conducted my ID Parade noted witness No 11 had Number 2 out his mouth without turning to view the parade which can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=425979884&size=l

His statement to SCCRC in this regard can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424609023&size=l

Mr taylor told me in 1982 that the reason he did not call Shaws Evidence was because he did not want to be seen to be calling the Police Liars.
I went ape and sacked him and Keegan, Though Mr Taylor now has no memory of ever being sacked now.

When my grounds were reviewed by SCCRC Mr Taylor sat on their Board.

He has now tried to convince SCCRC that he did not Know Of The Lawyers Evidence and he averred this to The Dean Of Faculty also, which can be found here: At No 8,

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424593705&size=l

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424593741&size=l

Mr Taylor is a Liar.

It should be noted here also that: SCCRC never asked Mr Keegan about this ID Parade Report from Shaw, nor why Taylor never called Shaws Evidence.
Though Mr Taylor has been quoted as saying:
It Would certainly Raise A Large Question Mark Of Muckles Evidence (The Police That Identified Me)
So Why did Taylor not call the Evidence of Solicitor Shaw?

Mr Taylor also said to the Dean of faculty: That he has never called a witness without the Accused persons Permission and any witness who were or were'nt called would have been done so with My and Keegans involvement, SCCRC Accepted this as Gospel without Asking Myself or Keegan.
As a result of my complaining to Law society Mr Keegan now says:
At the bottom paragraph That it was Mr taylor who decided which witnesses to call and not to call.

Clearly Counsel Exercised that approach in the Beck trial is his words.
SCCRC did not question this and again took Taylors word as Gospel.

Mr taylor has done nothing but try and cover his Rs for the mistakes he made in my case.
SCCRC has colluded with Taylor to do so by not sending Shaw a copy of his own ID Parade Report when assuring me they had listen to the following and decide yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I

Please leave your comments here after viewing and say if you think Taylor is a Liar..........

Should MPs and MSPs Be More Accountable

2007-10-12T15:36:00.000+01:00

I was shocked and Horrified to watch this pragram last night Thursday 11 October 2007 and find that MSPs And MPs cannot be charged with telling Lies.
Clearly they have a duty to the Electorate to express any concerns they have.
Clearly they are employees of the Electorate.
How come then people like Ed Milne etc are finding it extremely difficult to find MSPs to represent their interests.
How come people like Ed a 69 year old pensioner is being Ignored by his local MSP?
The sad case of Ed can be found here:
http://edmilne.blogspot.com/

I done some articles on MSPs on the BBC web a while back and they can be found at the following:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/F1601640?thread=3821538?s_returnto=c1669

Six years of my life taken by injustice in the Scottish Courts

2007-10-11T16:52:00.000+01:00

After 25 years of fighting the injustice of being framed by Lothian & Borders Police, for a crime I did not commit, I'm still battling against the lack of transparency & accountability in the Scots justice system to have a fair hearing.

Here is my story from the News of the World:

News of the World November 16 2003

I was robbed of 6 yrs of my life

FURY OF SCOT JAILED 'BY MISTAKE' OVER ARMED RAID ON POSTAL VAN

BY JAMES MULHOLLAND

A Scots dad claims he lost six years of his life after being wrongly jailed for a vicious armed robbery.

William beck has spent 21 years trying to clear his name after accusing his legal team of failing to spot he was being framed.

The dad-of-two maintains he was mistakenly convicted of a violent raid on a post van.

He's now handed his case dossier to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which probes miscarriages of justice.

And the 42-year-old from Glasgow, blasted: "I've been stitched up and now I want something done about it"

Jobless William claims cops investigating the original crime :

ONLY arrested him because he was a petty thief

TOLD vital witnesses to keep quiet

INFORMED the cast-iron alibi he gave them, and

HANDED round a snap of him before a crucial identity parade.

His nightmare began in December 1981 when raiders attacked two Post Office workers with hammers escaping with 21,000 pounds.

William was arrested four days later.

He told us "The cops needed to get somebody and I was an easy target as I had previous convictions for stealing motors.

"But I'm not a violent guy - I had no record for assault at all"

He said one witness told cops the robber was aged around 40 and had a moustache.

But in the ID parade, the man picked clean-shaven William, then 20.

He blasted : "The people who witnessed the raid were supposed to come along and point out the guy responsible.

"But before the parade, officers showed them a photograph of me and said , "This is the man we have in custody"

"How can you then rely upon their evidence ?".

William originally told officers he'd been talking to a mobile grocer called Robert Hamilton outside his Glasgow home at the time of the raid.

But cops said Hamilton refused to confirm it.

And when the case came to trial at the High Court in Edinburgh the following March, William's legal team did not query their claim.

He was then sentenced to six years in prison.

He told us "I was absolutely horrified"

"I can remember being dragged away kicking and screaming.

"I was really angry at my defence team, which had been led by QC Bill Taylor - he also represented Lockerbie bomber Aldelbaset Al-Megrahi.

"I had witnesses who would have put me in the clear but Taylor didn't call them"

In prison, William continued to maintain his innocence and even REFUSED parole - since he believed accepting it would be an admission of guilt.

And on his release in 1988, he began working to clear his name, swotting up on Scots Law and reviewing the evidence.

in 1993, he visited Hamilton and was shocked when the grocer told him he'd been warred by the cops to keep quiet.

William told us "I am really angry about it - this has ruined my life"

A SCCRC spokesman said last night "We are considering this case"

SCCRC In Conflict With Courts

2007-09-18T01:10:00.000+01:00

The decision Of Our Court Of Appeal in the Raymond Gilmour Case.

In a nutshell.

His Misdirection in the form of what constitutes proof beyond Doubt was accepted as a Misdirection even the Advocate depute conceded this and can be seen at :
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1392970087&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/1394240878/

With the Exact same Judge and comment in my appeal to SCCRC i was told by Gerard Sinclair Of SCCRC this was not a Misdirection.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1393862612&size=l

Quite Clearly SCCRC should have referred my case to Appeal courts on this Misdirection.

Their failure to do so adds credence to my claim that they have made Political decisions in my case because it reflects badly on William Taylor QC.

Remember he sat on the Board of SCCRC whilst they (Allegedly) investigated my Grounds of appeal which consisted of an Anderson ground against Mr Taylor.

Every aspect of my case reflects on his Bad practise and Misconduct, Certainly it can be said my whole Grounds were not before the Jury at the time of Trial.

It was also Taylor that told me he did not want to be seen to be Calling The Police Liars.

Gerard Sinclair Should resign Without delay.

Watch Flickr site for more complaints against SCCRC to Surface.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I

SCCRC Gerard Sinclair Flasher

2007-09-11T19:10:00.000+01:00

Apparently Our Justice Minister thinks it is alright for SCCRCs Chief Executive to lift his kilt and Flash his Private Parts:

His opinion is here:

S3W-3572 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged 21 August 2007) : To ask the Scottish Executive whether allegations about Gerard Sinclair, Chief Executive of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and temporary sheriff, that were published in The Sun on 14 August 2007 have been authenticated and, if so, whether it considers him to be a suitable person to continue to hold these posts.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (4 September 2007): The reported incident occurred in 2001 at a private function attended by Mr Sinclair in a personal capacity while he was in private employment. Mr Sinclair has been Chief Executive of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since 1 July 2003 and has held an appointment as a part time sheriff since 1 July 2006. I believe he is an entirely suitable person to hold both posts.

Although Mr MacAskill has said the above i will now be writing to Law Society and complaining about his conduct. Their response will also be posted here.

Not only is Sinclair the Chief Executive of SCCRC He is also a part time Sheriff and sits on the Law Societies Criminal Justice Committee.

I will also be raising the Conflict Of Interest here in this Instance

Bill Kidd should have been asking if SCCRC knew of Sinclairs Flashing Incident when he was appointed Chief Executive of SCCRC.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/1119457278/

SCCRCs Toughest Ever Task

2007-08-14T23:33:00.000+01:00

Gerard Sinclair Caught Flashing his Manhood.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1119457278&size=l

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1119704228&size=l

Their Biggest or shortest depending how one looks ha ha Task.

How do they deal with someone within their ranks caught flashing ...

Will they try and cover this up as they do with most cases or will they ask the pervert to resign?

We will have to wait and see how they try to play this one eh.

My opinion is this: His actions are appalling and crude, not what one would expect from a man in his position with two daughters.

I hope he is asked in no uncertain terms to resign his post in SCCRC, His credibility, If he had any is now diminished with his actions.

Lets hope Mr MacAskill will now ask him to resign with immediate effect, Don't pass go on your way out Sinclair.

I'm also sure the likes of Stephen Hendry will not be wanting his photo associated with this carry on either.

SCCRC Liars and Cover-Up Merchants.

2007-07-02T23:32:00.000+01:00

Shocking Lockerbie Facts

I find it Deeply Shocking, Disturbing and Offensive that in their short statement of reasons on referring the case of Megrahi (Lockerbie Bomber) They find no fault with his Defence Team, Crown Office and those that sought to deceive us by not gathering evidence and duplicating evidence.

Most alarmingly though is their unwillingness to accept the evidence of Ex Police like the Golfer referred to and evidence that he was defectively Represented by his defence not asking Pertinent Questions nor calling Key evidence to Clear him.

SCCRC instead of enhancing Public confidence in our Judicial system does nothing but totally discredit Itself.

They referred a case of Ronald Neeson on three key witnesses (after many years keeping quiet) saying they overheard, Yes Overheard ,someone say he was to change his story.

One of these witnesses Alex Hardie SCCRC knew to have a long list of convictions for Robberies yet they put him forward as a Credible and Reliable Witness. And in Megrahi's case they find nothing like this despite ex Police coming forward with new and key evidence and it is simply rejected.

To add even further insult to SCCRC they referred the case of Jamie Orr where his Sister claimed to have overheard a conversation on a bus of one of the witnesses that gave evidence against her brother.

SCCRC saw this as enough evidence to refer his case to High Court and the High Court overturned his conviction on this flimsy evidence of his sister.

SCCRC clearly show their Loyalty to Bill Taylor QC Who was once one of their Board Members not only in the Lockerbie Case but within their statement of reasons in my own case now available on my flickr site at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/page3/

Robin Johnston who also investigated Both cases can be heard at the following Telling Blatant Lies:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I

To be published later is my submissions to SCCRC where everyone will see that Shaws evidence was Highlighted to Robin Johnston yet SCCRC refuse my appeal without seeking and indeed sending Shaw a copy of his own ID Parade report.

Lockerbie Decision and Impact

2007-07-01T00:59:00.000+01:00

Lockerbie Decision and Impact.

Page 7 Paragraph 3, A substantial number of allegations were made to the commission regarding the manner in which the applicant was represented by the Legal Advisers who acted for him at his trial and his appeal against his conviction. the allegations were wide ranging and covered failures to prepare and present the applicants defence and to advance legal arguement on his behalf. "As part of its investigations" regarding these claims, The commission conducted lengthy interviews with several members of the applicants former defence team. However, Applying the tests which have been set down by the high court in previous cases dealing with such matters, the commission did not consider the allegations to be well founded.

The above really bothers me, To start with there is no mention of having interviewed any one else apart from his defence team in regards to this, They done the same with my own case . I told them my defence team never interviewed 16 of 19 of my defence witnesses and could provide addresses for most of them. SCCRC never even asked my defence team about this never mind failing to ask the witnesses themselves.

If they never interviewed them then how did they manage to prepare a proper defence then? SCCRC answer this one? My defence team also failed to call the following.

Vital Forensic: which did not match anything to me.

Vital Crown witness: who said driver was forty year old with brown hair and moustache

Vital ID Parade evidence: Which said police had number 2 out his mouth before turning to view parade. Taylors reason for not calling this was "He Did Not Want To Be Seen To Be Calling The Police LIARS" - Thats what he told me in 1982 and this was one of the foundations of my complaints against him then.

He failed to see the significance of the two arresting officers participating in the ID Parade when they should not have been near it At -All.

Failed to call my brother.

Failed to dispute vital ID Evidence although he applied "Muldoon"

I am curious to see exactly what cases the SCCRC are referring to here when they say previous cases Dealing with these issues. The case is clearly "Anderson" Oh and "Hemphill" I hope SCCRC have considered both very clearly. SCCRC recieve a large number of Anderson complaints and as yet have still to favour any.

This would suggest that they are not interested in Investigating such Grounds. Anyone wanting to submit a FOI request asking how many Anderson appeals they have recieved and refused can do so at this link.
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/accesstoinformation.aspx

The impact of their failure to investigate my grounds along with Megrahis will have on their credibility will be huge.

For instance,

Why did they not ask these questions

Why did they not interview the witnesses

Why did they not ask Crown office if they released the crown statements at the time of my trial, Instead they chose to accept Taylor saying they would not have been released at my trial.

Keegan Now Claims if they were amongst the documents he gave me then The witnesses must have refused to Co-Operate and crown released them, Therefore I was defectively represented.

I told SCCRC that this was a lie from Keegan and still they never asked him about my allegations . Was this because it reflected badly on their Friend and Co-Worker "Taylor"

SCCRC Liars And Cover-Up Merchants

2007-06-28T22:46:00.000+01:00

Megrahi Appeal Cover-up I have never read so much Bull in my life as what SCCRC have found.

No evidence Fabricated No evidence Missing No witnesses told lies No adverse findings at-all.

Not surprised it was Robin Johnston that found all these facts, The same Robin Johnston that is on my latest video (Voice Recording) You Tube.

The same man that lied to me after i repeatedly asked him if he had sent shaw a copy of his own ID Parade report, Which was only sent to shaw after i complained about Robin Johnston and WHICH was after they had concluded my case. Hear the tape now: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I

I am afraid to say I predicted such outcome at 4.15 am last night and posted such on the Scotsman below.

Lets face it we all knew SCCRC would not find any adverse findings against:

Crown Office: Lyndsey Anderson, whom they sit with and discuss policies etc.

High Court: Tom Higgins, Appeals Manager, Who They also sit with and discuss policies

Justice Department: Clark Pearson who also sits to discuss policies

And lest we not forget Strathclyde Police Jannette Joyce who also sits with SCCRC to discuss.......................... "Yes policies"

The SCCRC do not look independently at cases at-all they infact look with the blinkered view of how they can UPHOLD any and every conviction. Some cases are fully investigated whilst others are simply cast aside and not even answered.

Three Key parts of my own trial are

1. Forensic evidence not called at trial "Defective Representation" SCCRC have never answered me on this issue?

2. David Livingstone said the driver was forty with Brown Hair and a moustache. I was identified twice but was only twenty with black hair and no moustache. My defence i claimed had this evidence at the time of my trial and never called it. I of course did not find out about him until Keegan handed me all my case papers to conduct Appeal. SCCRC never seen this as new evidence and rejected this to cover Taylor's Defective representation of me

3. Like Gauci The other witness to identify me (Ashford)His evidence he contradicted Himself and Taylor at the time even tried to use Muldoon at trial. The trial Judge said his evidence was not reliable and Robin Johnston Blanked this out but i managed to get an old copy from Arnott McWhinnie (Reporter) Which i had given to him ten years or so earlier and Bobin Robin was not allowed to blank this out( If that was not suspect then nothing was ) This was why i taped phone calls with SCCRC. like Above.

Any way there are other crown witnesses who never gave evidence, and had they, their evidence would also have contradicted Ashfords but between his evidence and the charge to Jury and his statement are all contradictory, SCCRC found nothing adverse about this. He said in court he was round the corner and saw car coming towards him and pass him, Nothing suspicious and nothing to attract his attention to it but he wrote down the number. All the other witnesses said he ran into Raeburn Rigg, and his own statement now says he ran into Raeburn Rigg and someone was shouting to stop the car. Material changes from the evidence lead in court Yet SCCRC found nothing adverse in this either.

See prediction on Scotsman last night. 4:15am 28 Jun 2007 Allegations of Collusion and fabrication of evidence will not be found to be true. SCCRC recieve a large number of defective representation grounds of Appeal and as yet have still to find in favour of any of them.

Im Sure a FOI request will provide the exact amount?

I think if anything Megrahi will win his appeal on new evidence and this will allow our Courts to not even have to look at the Defective representations etc etc.

There is one drawback though: When the SCCRC refer a case back to appeal the Applicant can then.

1. Ask that old grounds be re-considered even though they were argued before.

2. Ask for any ground to be considered not only the ones upon which SCCRC has referred the Appeal.

3. Lodge any ground he feels SCCRC has omitted. Their only task is to consider if they think a Miscarriage has occurred and if so refer the case. They have no further part to play.

Some cases have waited up to 7 years once SCCRC have referred before actually being heard at appeal (Stuart Gair)

SCCRC Liars

2007-06-26T04:56:00.000+01:00

SCCRC Liars and Cover-Up Merchants

Please find enclosed link to latest you-tube video

This video is conclusive proof that SCCRC tried to cover up what my grounds were, They assured me they had sent Solicitor (Shaw) a copy of his own ID Parade report but from the video you can hear Shaw say he never saw it.

I was not afforded the same Enquiry by SCCRC that Megrahi Has. Quite the contrary It was because i was complaining about his QC that my case was covered up by SCCRC. This video exposes them for what they are "Cover-Up Merchants"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I

I firmly believe that my case was suppressed by SCCRC because like Shirley i have the Lockerbie link. Taylor QC they have tried to paint whiter than white.

Lockerbie Appeal To SCCRC

2007-06-24T19:00:00.000+01:00

Having appealed to these cowboys myself since 2001 & having produced more evidence than some cases they have referred, I have real fears that the Lockerbie appeal will be another whitewash to cover up all the collusion between Brittain and America to frame Libya, (Not Just Megrahi).

I really dont think the decision, is to be what everyone expects, in the face of the evidence produced.

SCCRC will i know for sure do everything in it's power to hide and Incompetence's within Scotlands Legal Justiciary.

They do not look at cases indepently, They look Politically. And what better case is there for them Politically than this one?

I fear though that the huge amount of pressure heaped upon them by our Justiciary and Government interventions will rob Megrahi of the fair hearing he Craves.

If Megrahi is set free it would seem that Scotland would have to pay back £1.4bn in compensation that Libya has already paid out

Clearly Megrahi's defence team Knew of evidence which would have cleared him yet they never called it and went to trial without contradictory evidence.

Clearly his defence team have many questions to answer, Though in this regard i doubt if SCCRC will have asked them Vital Questions, as they did with my own case, and SCCRC will not find any fault with Taylor QC who once was one of their own Members.

It would seem that in my own case it has now emerged that SCCRC can Interview witnesses and insert their own Interpretation of what these witnesses are in actual fact saying. see:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424574586&size=l

Mr Keegan and the Law Society agree that SCCRC when they took a statement from Keegan the Author was mistaken.

Keegan is now claiming his statement to SCCRC is at best, only one persons interpretation of what he said at:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424574582&size=l

Blatant Anderson Appeal

2007-06-24T18:39:00.000+01:00

The following i posted on our Forums today.

Re, Lockerbie Decision By SCCRC

As i have said for a long time SCCRC took three years to investigate my case which only lasted two days at trial.

They only interviewed a handful of witnesses and refused point blank to hear new witness evidence.

They refused to answer me when i claimed my defence team were negligent for the following Reasons:

1. They never interviewed 16 defence witnesses Before during or since my trial.

2. They never called Crucial Crown Evidence saying the driver was forty years old with brown hair and moustache.

3. They never called crucial key Forensic Evidence.

4. They never answered me in my Muldoon Argument in regards to Ashfords evidence.

5. They agreed the judge misdirected my Jury and still refused to refer my case.

6. They agreed what happened at my ID Parade was not acceptable by today's standards. But still refused to apply their Current Law Policy and refused still to refer my appeal.

7.They refused to interview my brother who told Keegan he had brought one of the hammers to my house only the night before i was arrested, My defence team failed to see the significance of this evidence and did not call it at trial.

8. They assured me they had sent Shaw a copy of his own ID Parade report which said the police had identified me without turning to view Parade. Shaw has said he never seen it and only after i produced a copy of the tape did they send this to Shaw. Which was after they had concluded my appeal and decided not to refer.

Mr Shaw has now told SCCRC that his big Impression was that the policeman knew prior to coming into the parade room exactly which position i had adopted.

Still the SCCRC refuse to refer my case.

What more do they need?

Cases like Kidd And Gair referred on only one statement being withheld by Crown and even in the Gair case it was agreed there was still sufficient evidence from two police to allow the conviction to stand The appeal was allowed. Shocking.

SCCRC had argued that there was a discrepancy given in the height by the two police
.
Yet in my case the evidence withheld states the driver was forty when i was only twenty and i had black hair and never had Moustache either. SCCRC do not agree this was an arguable point.

I firmly believe it's not what you know it's who you know in SCCRC and it depends on who you are complaining of.

I also firmly believed when i put my application into SCCRC that they were never going to allow my appeal as it Discredits the Competence of Taylor who went on to Get Megrahi Found Guilty too.

Taylor i feel SCCRC wanted to remain Whiter than white. I had no chance when Taylor still sat on the Board of SCCRC whilst my case was investigated yet resigned to allow them to remain Independent and Impartial in Investigating Megrahi's appeal.

There are supporting documents for all my claims on the following flickr site which i will link.

In all that i have said above makes me fear for Megrahi. His life is in the hands of Incompetent and negligent Imbeciles who can do and say what they want without redress.

There is absolutely no one to whom you can complain about their conduct.

I see on their web site that this Megrahi Decision is at the moment over 800 pages, my god there is usually only about four when referring a case.

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/viewfile.aspx?id=289
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/

Jim Keegan Solicitor Is A Liar

2007-06-02T20:15:00.001+01:00

Jim Keegan (Solicitor) told SCCRC that at the time of my trial Crown would not have released Crown Witness Precognitions infact Crown are still quite cagie about releasing such statements now.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424574582&size=l

Then when i complained to Law Society claiming Keegan had lied about this, as he gave the statements to me in 1982 after i sacked him.

There is the mention of the exact date in my letter to High Court Dated 24-06-1982 which SCCRC managed to obtain from National Archives, ref No JC34/34/225.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=526629510&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=526629504&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=526629500&size=l
This letter claims i recieved the documents from Keegan on 15-06-1982 and it was asking to submit further grounds after recieving these papers.

Of particular interest besides this date etc is the mention at page two and three of the witness Livingstone. Why would i be asking to have this evidence heard after recieving these papers from Keegan? Answer: Simple, this was the first time i had seen his Crown Witness Precognition. Handed over by Keegan.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=425979872&size=l
Clearly this is a crown Witness Statement.

Mr Keegan then Claimed to Law Society that if he handed me these documents then the witnesses must have refused to co-operate and Crown must have supplied some copies.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=424574586&size=l

I told the Law Society that this was not the case and called Keegan a Liar again, Claiming: That at the time of my trial Mr Keegan did not even try to interview 16 of 19 of my defence witnesses in effect Defectively Representing me. They said this was not Defective Representation and was not Misconduct but was a service issue that they (Law Society ) could not deal with. What a Joke eh? The Law Society took no further action against Keegan who has also been subject to the same allegation now by Wullie Gage.

The Law Society in effect cannot, nor will not, deal with complaints of Defective Representation levelled against Their Members.

A Shocking Insight Into Our Legal Establishment

2007-05-25T15:00:00.000+01:00

Please take some time to read some stuff from Peter Cherbi where you will find just how much they cover up for their Own.

Are SCCRC Independent Enough

2007-05-10T23:39:00.000+01:00

It is bad enough that SCCRC work hand in hand with J Clark Pearson of Justice department and the Police when they sit together and discuss policies etc, but to have the Justice Minister"Recommend" who should be appointed is Ludicrous and not compliant with section 6 of human Right to a fair hearing.
It is also worthwhile to note the people she is recommending are all from the Justice department side of Justiciary with Ex Judges and PFs etc being the norm.
Lets hope that with the SNP ousting Labour we will have a new Justice Minister who will investigate complaints against SCCRC and the likes.
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/news/19%20Mar%2007%20-%20Members%20appointed%20to%20SCCRC.pdf

See BBC.CO.UK Action Network Linked below for all names who sit with SCCRC to discuss their Policies

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/F1601472?thread=3872587?s_returnto=c1501

See SCCRC own annual reports suggesting they sit with High Couurt, Police and members of Justice Department, This is not compliant with section 6. of Human Right to a fair and independent hearing
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/493032396/
This is obtained from their annual report 2005

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/Freedom%20of%20Information%20Publication%20Scheme/Corporate%20Information/Press%20releases/-b-z%20July%20JUDICIAL%20REVIEW%20-%20CASE%20OUTCOME.pdf

Lastly i would suggest that at SCCRC their reasons for not investigating complaints of Anderson V HMA Defective representation are as follows.
Firstly the Chief Exec Of SCCRC is a Lawyer. Therefore is not willing to investigate Lawyers.
Secondly, if they are seen to be acting incompetently this will not enhance public confidence in Solicitors in Scotland. Couldn't have that, could we?
Their biggest ground of appeal to them is Defective representation, Yet they have never found in any of their favours. Surely there is questions to be answered here alone

Please take time to read the following Judicial Review of SCCRC in ref to Edinburgh Three

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006CSOH112.html

Protest Outside Office's Of SCCRC Glasgow

2007-05-08T14:41:00.000+01:00

After SCCRC refused to refer my case I chained myself to their doors in protest.

My claims that they have referred cases with less grounds than mine, have thus far went un-noticed.

Scottish Criminal Cases Review C= Cover-up as i now prefer to refer to them as, are getting away with murder and can do what they want.

I complained to In-Justice Minister Jamieson about their conduct and she passed my complaints to a J Clark Pearson (Justice Department) Who sits with SCCRC and reviews policies etc etc with them, This is not compliant with section 6 of Human rights act to a fair hearing.

My complaints should have been assessed independently. Jamieson also advised me to complain to Standards Commissioner which i did to be told he could not investigate my complaints.

It beggars belief that after setting up SCCRC our country never set up any form of complaints Ombudsman or the likes to investigate Malpractice or Misconduct complaints within SCCRC.

Are they to be allowed to do what they want without any Redress?

There has already been an Judicial Enquiry with the cases of Pugh and Kane etc and mine will be the second.

SCCRC can be assured of one thing here, I am not accepting their lack of investigation into my Grounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WhJUjhequ4

SCCRC and Current Law

2007-05-08T01:27:00.000+01:00

SCCRC agreed with me that the conduct at my ID Parade was not what one would expect today.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/424549189/
Why then did they not apply their current Law Policy then?
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/legislation/sccrc-current-law.htm
Do they not profess to give every case a Robust, Independent and Impartial Review?
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/applications/how-we-review-a-case.htm

SCCRC Cover Up Merchants

2007-05-07T01:42:00.000+01:00

I was wrongly convicted in 1982 of Assault & Robbery and sentenced to Six Years in prison.
In Prison,
I refused to go through their system which resulted in me being sent to Peterhead prison from Perth. (Only after an Incident)
I sent as many petitions to the Secretary of State (George Younger) as possible, sometimes the prison authorities refused to grant me these saying i had sent one the day before. I even sent letters to his house (Gargunock Estate Stirlingshire) but nothing was done. (I was forced to pay for letters to Lawyers etc etc from my wages) Any legal letters sent from prison should be free?
After my conviction i Sacked the Lawyer (Jim Keegan) and QC (Bill Taylor) Who also went on to Defend Megrahi (Lockerbie Bomber) and applied for legal aid for my appeal.
Mr Taylor QC produced a note (Even though he was no longer acting for me) Saying i had no grounds of Appeal and legal Aid was Refused. See Letter confirming note.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/425979891/
This resulted in me having to conduct my own Application for Leave to appeal.

At The Hearing

I had no chance from the beggining, After some arguements i started shouting and swearing at the Judges and was dragged out of court with my suit ripped of me and dragged back to Saughton Prison.

This was not what i expected

I expected to be taken back into Court and maybe even charged with Contempt but at the very least i should have been allowed to finish my Grounds of Appeal and hear what the advocate had to say.

This did not happen and breached my Human right to a fair hearing (Section 6,1. 3.)

SCCRC

When they were set up John Carroll Solicitor adivised me to write to them about my case and i expected them to afford me the Robust, Independent and Impartial enquiry they profess to give every case.

SCCRC dismissed my witnesses without even interviewing them, Saying their evidence was hearsay and i would not be allowed to rely on it at any Appeal yet they refer the Case of Ronnie Neeson on hearsay evidence from three witnesses who had long lists of previous convictions and one of whom was responsible for the crimes i was convicted of.

SCCRC were told of this person but did nothing to interview him saying it would be unlikely that he would admit to his involvement in my case.

They should have at least interviewed him. Robin Johnston of SCCRC said: that i had said, that this person had already denied his involvement to me which was not what i had said at-all.

Mr Johnston Senior Legal Officer with SCCRC wrote his own interpretation of what i had said in regards to this person.

Mr Keegan has also stated that Mr Johnston also done this with his statement, infact Mr Keegan said the Author of his Statement was Mistaken.

Forensic Evidence

I told SCCRC that my defence team should have called the Forensic evidence at my Trial SCCRC never answered this point and have to this day still refused to answer this point.

Anderson V HMA = Defective representation

SCCRC will not entertain any grounds like this and indeed have never referred a case on this yet.

I told them my Defence team had not interviewed 16 of 19 of my defence witnesses but SCCRC would not ask them about this.

I told them that Keegan gave me the Crown witness statements yet in their statement of reasons they say it is unclear where i got these from and its possible i got them during the process of my appeal (This is far from the truth and even Keegan has now conceded that these were given to me by him) He had to extract them from Crown as he had not bothered to interview so many of my defence witnesses yet SCCRC never put this to Keegan and it was only after i had complained to Law Society that Keegan admitted this.

Amongst these statements given to me by Keegan was the one of David Livingston (Crown Witness)http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/425979872/

who was not called to give evidence at my trial yet he descibes someone double the age of me with brown haid and a moustache (Exact Description) of the driver Who i have claimed committed this crime. (But SCCRC refused to interview him too)

Mr Taylor said he did not know of this witness and had he known of him given his age he would have called him as a witness as he might have impressed the Jury more.

Mr Taylor also sought to deny Knowing of the Solicitor That Conducted my ID Parade and said the police had Number Two out his mouth before turning to view the parade (See His Statements on Flickr site linked, Donald Shaw)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/425979884/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/424609023/

See also protest outside Office Of SCCRC in Glasgow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WhJUjhequ4

SCCRC assured me that Shaw was sent a copy of his own ID Parade report as that was the whole allegations i had put of course he was sent it was The Words of Robin Johnston Of SCCRC and when i phoned Shaw he said he had never seen it and SCCRC only sent this to him because i produced a copy of Johnston and Shaw, Which was after SCCRC had concluded my appeal to them. Is this the robust, Impartial and Independent investigations they profess. They are the biggest Joke in the Judicial System.

They do not look independently at cases, They look with the view of upholding these Convictions, Indeed in my case they interviewed the police but would not interview my witnesses and even when my wife was interviewed By Johnston He only wrote what he thought was pertinent and did not put fully to the commission what my wifes evidence was.

They are allowed to do this because there is no-one you can complain to about their conduct, I have written to First Minister and Justice Minister to no avail, None would investigate my serious concerns of Malpractice and Misconduct within the ranks of SCCRC so they can do what they want.

SCCRC refused to interview David Martin whom i had said claimed that: At his ID Parade someone was picked Positive.

Mr Keegan was told about this indeed his note mentions it to Check Positive David Martin but he never followed this up.http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/488992396/

I claimed to SCCRC that the Police Muckle Must have been the person that Identified someone positive as in their statements he was the only person to not mention this second ID Parade, All the other witnesses claimed they never picked anyone at the second Parade except Muckle.

SCCRC interviewed Muckle to allow him to claim he was 100 percent positive in his Identification of me but they refused to interview Martin saying he was once a Co-Accused of mine. What a Joke?

SCCRC asked Crown office for copies of both ID Parades and Indeed Crown sent Both to SCCRC see letters on Flickr site linked

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/sets/72157600003995228/

SCCRC have now said they only recieved the one that I Attended, After reading both letters linked you decide? for yourselves?

You will also notice that SCCRC were sent copies of Robert Hamiltons Police Statement yet SCCRC are saying to me that these were all destroyed.

Mr Hamilton has claimed to SCCRC that i went to his door and told him he was to be a witness for me and SCCRC have said his evidence is Credible DEPITE me being in prison at the time.

Mr Hamilton Claimed his daughter was driving his van YET she was only 15 at the time.

Mr Hamilton told SCCRC that he did not give evidence at the trial of my wife Two years after my conviction. I told SCCRC that not only my wife could say who gave evidence at her trial but her two brothers were at court with her and knew Mr Hamilton and heard him give evidence against their Sister. SCCRC dismissed their evidence as hearsay without taking any statements from them.

They have also claimed that crown cannot tell them who gave evidence at her trial as all documents are destroyed after 10 Years (Bull) Does this mean that anyone with convictions over 10 year old can deny ever being in court and it cannot be proven as the papers would be destroyed.

I find this very insulting to suggest that court records of witnesses are destroyed, even accused persons records are destroyed more so in solemn cases.

On the last link above you will see the Letter from Scott Pattison from Crown Office states that from the documents in front of him Louise was due to stand trial etc etc but now he is saying he does not know where this information came from. What a Joke SCCRC should never have accepted this as clearly he had some documents in front of him at early stages, and once SCCRC ask for any information this should be preserved at all costs, Yet this seems to not have bothered them.

Is this their Robust, Independent and impartial investigation they profess to give every case they accept?.

SCCRC should be closed and people allowed to appeal or at least lodge grounds of appeal and let the sift panel decide who has grounds.

Clearly in my case SCCRC have acted as Judge and Jury and let their own opinion cloud their Judgements indeed it can be claimed they Misdirected themselves on a few occassions.

See link below to cases of Gair, Kidd and Orr along with the case of Neeson

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006HCJAC52.html

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005HCJAC13.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4634309.stm

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/HCJAC68.html

Refusal Of Legal Aid for Appeal

I argued that this should never have happened and breached my human rights Section 6.1 6.3 to a fair hearing like Granger Maxwell and Boner. SCCRC Misdirected itself and took into account my Grounds of appeal and argued that had they been argued would they have been successful.

My grounds of appeal are not relevant to this Arguement.

See cases mentioned above

http://www.worldlii.org/cgi-worldlii/disp.pl/eu/cases/ECHR/1990/6.html?query=granger

http://www.worldlii.org/cgi-worldlii/disp.pl/eu/cases/ECHR/1994/38.html?query=granger

http://www.worldlii.org/cgi-worldlii/disp.pl/eu/cases/ECHR/1994/36.html?query=granger

Everyone charged with a serious charge and facing a lengthy sentence is entitled to be legally represented to ensure Equality of Arms. If they so wish and to be represented by someone of their own choice. This is minimum requirement.

2007-05-03T14:47:00.000+01:00

Test post

2007-05-03T02:41:00.000+01:00

Forthcoming attractions: