Thursday 6 March 2014

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

Legal aid was perversely postponed the minute SCCRC referred my case back to the appeal court saying the following:
It was my contention that the Legal Aid Board had got this wrong because they were entirely separate issues and I wanted my Lawyer Kevin McCarron to take a judicial review of SLAB which he failed to do.

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

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

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

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

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

Wullie Beck Charges And Media Coverage


List Of Witnesses:

Newspaper Articles On The Robbery:

Video Footage:

Protest Outside SCCRC Office Glasgow
Michael Naughton From Bristol University

Lawyer that Defectively Represented me (Jim Keegan QC)
He did not interview at least 16 of my defence witnesses and did not call crucial Crown witnesses.
He also failed to call a crucial forensic report which found nothing of Significance.
Mr Keegan has blamed Bill Taylor for years for these failings.
His statements can be found here:

Bill Taylor QC Famous for getting Megrahi Found Guilty with little or no credible evidence:
I would advise anyone not wanting found guilty for something they haven't done, to avoid these two above like the plague.

Police To Be Told Not To Confer Before Writing Up Notes

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

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

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

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

The fight for Justice Continues

Sunday 24 April 2011

Michael Bromby Glasgow Caledonian University

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what he wrote originally:


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

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

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

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


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


Precognitions of:

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

Statement by Robert Hamilton.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

SCCRC have never fully investigated my case either.

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

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

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

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

Friday 18 September 2009

Law Awards Scotland 2009

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.

Sunday 7 June 2009

Kenny MacAskill Refuses To Review SCCRC

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:

Letter From MacAskill To Bill Kidd

Letter From MacAskill To Bill Kidd page 2

Reply after reading 11 Page Dossier:

Reply From Kenny MacAskill Re SCCRC Dossier

Reply From Kenny MacAskill SCCRC Dossier Page 2

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

Saturday 6 June 2009

Bill Kidd Calls For Independent Review Of SCCRC

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

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

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

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.

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.

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:

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.


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



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:

and here:

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

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.

Allison Wood Re, Lord Advocate Letter

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:

Allison Wood Re, Thomas Hastie Letter

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.

Thursday 2 April 2009

Crown Office Corruption, High Court Relents On Disclosure

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 (
Sent: 10 March 2009 18:17:28
To: ps/

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:

Yours Faithfully

William Beck

The reply I got is Oppressive considering Crown Office Concede they have a duty of disclosure see here:
Crown Reply Disclosure 20th March 09

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

High Court Grant Access to Documents

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:

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

Sunday 22 February 2009

William Beck Still Fighting For Justice

Sunday 15 February 2009


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

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

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

Gerard Sinclair Documents

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

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:

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:

Front page Sun 14 Aug 2007 Sinclair flashing

Sinclair Of SCCRC Flashing

Monday 15 December 2008

SCCRC Refuse FOI Request Against Solicitor James Keegan

My MSP has been denied access to information held by SCCRC.

He asked them how many complaints of Defective Representation they had received against James (Jim) Douglas Keegan of Keegan Smith Solicitors, Livingston.
They refused

He went to the FOI Commissioner who has also agreed to withhold this data, see here:

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

E-Mail dated 26th September 2008 from SCCRC
Your previous email also referred to the Commission’s use of S194J of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and compliance with S20 of the Data Protection Act as reasons used for not disclosing information in the past. As you will appreciate, the Commission policy on disclosure has evolved, and continues to evolve, as relevant case law becomes more widely available. It is now the Commission’s view that S194J is no longer a defence to Data Protection legislation in its own right, which represents a change in approach since the date of the letter signed by Mr Mullan to which you refer.

I just wonder exactly what the cost would have been and if the SCCRC had asked Bill Kidd if he was willing to foot the bill.

We all know what the SCCRC are hiding but perhaps things might have been different had the jurors names leak been done sooner then we would have had the September e-mail from SCCRC quoted above and the FOI Commissioner would not have been able to withold this info from Bill Kidd:

The Commissioner therefore agrees with the SCCRC that the disclosure of the information
under FOISA would constitute a breach of section 194J of the CPSA and that the disclosure of
the information is therefore exempt in terms of section 26(a) of FOISA.

We also know that at least 4 cases have been before SCCRC concerning the conduct of Mr Keegan and this should be ringing alarm bells.

It should also be ringing alarm bells that SCCRC want to keep this info secret.

It is about time our Courts accepted this Defective Representation is wider and more common than the general public have been led to believe.

Sunday 21 September 2008

Lockerbie Bombers QC admits Incompetence and Negligence

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

Page three of Taylors statement to Dean

Last page of Taylors statement to Dean of Faculty

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

See The Evidence Of Shaw Here for yourself:

Shaws ID Parade Report
Shaws note on his ID Parade Report

Shaws Statement to SCCRC

Shaws Statement To Robin Johnston SCCRC

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

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

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

Wednesday 17 September 2008

Bill Taylor QC

Bill Taylor Middle

Bill Taylor QC Middle

Latest News on Lockerbie

Ezperts call for Public Enquiry into Lockerbie: ...

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

Page three of Taylors statement to Dean

Last page of Taylors statement to Dean of Faculty

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

Shaws note on his ID Parade Report

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

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

Keegans statement to SCCRC

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

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

Monday 25 August 2008

Names And Adresses For Postmen Assaulted & Robbed

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

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

Postman William Horn

Postman John Henderson

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

Saturday 16 August 2008

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

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

Their answer is here:

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

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

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

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

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

I do not think so

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

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

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

Here they are reinstated with sanction from SCCRC:

Names and addresses of Jury

Names and addresses of Jury 2.

Monday 26 May 2008

Edward Milne Two Bob Investigation By SCCRC

Edward Milne Two Bob

It has come to my attention that in the case of Edward Milne V HMA SCCRC dismissed his appeal without interviewing "any" witnesses apart from his Solicitor.

Mr Milne claims they would never have contemplated attempting to try this with Megrahi whom they spent £1,108,536 investigating even travelling to other Countries.

Diplomatic relations would suffer severely if this was done in Megrahi's case.

There was plenty of witnesses claims Mr Milne to speak to his claims but SCCRC just didn't want to know.

For proof of this SCCRC have actually given Mr Milne this in writing here:¤t=SCCRCEdMilneNov07.jpg

Conclusive proof they never saw fit to interview any witnesses put forward by Mr Milne to speak of his claims.

SCCRC would also have been able to ascertain from Crown exactly who gave evidence at Mr Milne's trial.

SCCRC would also have been aware of Trading Standards involvement yet they never interviewed any of them.

Exactly what does one need to do to get a fair hearing in this country.

Justice cannot be said to be done while Foreigners are afforded more Justice than our own People.

It can certainly be suggested that Megarhi has had preferential treatment over others at SCCRC

Mr Milne claims that SCCRC also took 3 Years to investigate and give him a decision and that given they only interviewed his lawyer this is perverse.