Friday, 22 May 2009
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 (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
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
Sunday, 22 February 2009
William Beck Still Fighting For Justice
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3298441373_4344e901ae.jpg
Sunday, 15 February 2009
SCCRC Liars
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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)
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.
Wednesday, 17 September 2008
Bill Taylor QC
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
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
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:
So there you have it folks The two postmen do not deserve to have their names and addresses hidden from an accused person
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
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
Sunday, 25 May 2008
Questions And Answers Of SCCRC
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.
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.
Sunday, 11 May 2008
Saturday, 10 May 2008
Saturday, 3 May 2008
Support From MSP
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 ?
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 ?
Saturday, 26 April 2008
Lord Advocate On Disclosure, Scotland.
This is dedicated to all fighting for disclosure in Scotland
I do not think i need say anymore to those up against these three at Crown Office.The videos were taken before Elish was lord Advocate but quite clearly she is aware and has conceded that disclosure is a must for accused in Scotland under Bonomy and Holland and Sinclair (Privy Council) yet our courts are being clogged up daily with commission and diligence cases costing thousands of pounds.
The three Elish, Brisbane and Pattison have all been involved at some stage in refusing me disclosure to put to bed my claims i was fitted up for this Robbery yet here the three sit together and agree on disclosure.
Elish Is not fit for purpose and should resign
Friday, 25 April 2008
Disclosure Policy Crown Office Elish Angiolini
This is dedicated to those fighting for disclosure in Scottish Courts: Quite clearly when these three from Crown office Angiolini,Brisbane and Pattison all gave evidence to Justice one on 31/05/2006 they were well aware of the need for early disclosure in criminal trials. Despite them all being aware of it and at some stage being involved in the Crowns reluctance to release documents to me they all admit it should be done in early course with a copy of the original charge sheet.
Why then are cases clogging up our court service and being denied by the courts despite these videos showing Crown Concede on disclosure. For evidence of cases still asking for disclosure see the following link: 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?
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Nigel Muckle
Nigel Muckle
"Nigel Muckle" from Mid Calder Likes to fly-fish at Swanswater Fishery in stirling.
It can be seen here,
http://www.swanswater-fishery.co.uk/pages/pictures.htm
"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
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
Criminal prosecutors should be legally bound to provide full information to defence lawyers in advance of a trial, the Scottish Government was told yesterday.
The call came from a retired judge who said the information should include material favourable to the accused, even if it weakens the Crown case.
The call came from Lord Coulsfield in a report commissioned from him last year by the previous administration.
Lord Coulsfield, who retired in 2002, was one of three judges who presided at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands. He was asked by the previous administration to review the law in the light of a 2005 ruling by the Privy Council which overturned the convictions of two men, James Holland and Alvin Sinclair, on the grounds of "non-disclosure".
His findings include a recommendation for legislation requiring the prosecution to have regard to "the over-riding requirement of a fair trial".
The legislation should provide a definition of a duty of disclosure, and require prosecutors to disclose to the defence "all material evidence or information which would tend to exculpate the accused whether by weakening the Crown case or providing a defence to it," said the judge.
This already happens in England and Wales and Lord Coulsfield said: "I do not see that there is any practicable alternative in the short or medium term."
Non-disclosure by the Crown is a major issue in some of the most high-profile cases in Scotland, such as that of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi who earlier this year was granted leave to launch a second appeal against his conviction.
Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, said: "The government welcomes this positive and helpful report. Disclosure is vital because it is essential that the defence have all the necessary information available to ensure a fair trial.
"Effective disclosure also contributes to a more effective criminal justice system and to earlier resolution of cases. I am indebted to Lord Coulsfield for his careful analysis. We will shortly publish a consultation paper to invite further views."
Elish Angiolini, Lord Advocate, said: "The report marks a significant step towards achievement of the required degree of clarity in this complex area of law and practice."
12:01am Thursday 13th September 2007
Clearly Mr MacAskill is aware of the need for disclosure to ensure a fair hearing under Sections 6 (1) & 6 (3) of European Right to a fair hearing.
Why then are people like Gage, Megrahi, Dixon, McDonald and Beck etc etc having to ask our courts to grant full disclosure ????????????????
It is absolutely Ludicrous and Appalling that Disclosure is not automatically granted now as a matter of course
Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Past And Present Addresses For Crown Witnesses
Since Crown Office have sought to rely on Data protection and Public Interest tests to refuse to hand over important documents relevant to my appeal please find below the names and addresses of (past and present) of the two main witnesses at my trial:
Police Constable "Nigel Muckle" from Livingston Police Station:
Past Address. 35 Raeburn Rigg, Livingston, West Lothian.
Present Address. 148 Maryfield Park, Mid Calder, West Lothian. EH5 OSD
Second most important Witness "Kenneth Ashford", Chemist:
Past Address. 3 Sandilands Drive, Mid Calder, West Lothian.
Present Address. 32 Ochiltree Cres, Mid Calder, West Lothian. EH53 ORT
For the avoidance of any doubt these are available for anyone to view on the Voters Roll at your local library.
Is it possible i have the names and current addresses of all the witnesses in my case ?
Anything is possible Via a PC
Watch this space and see what else can be revealed about you
Police Constable "Nigel Muckle" from Livingston Police Station:
Past Address. 35 Raeburn Rigg, Livingston, West Lothian.
Present Address. 148 Maryfield Park, Mid Calder, West Lothian. EH5 OSD
Second most important Witness "Kenneth Ashford", Chemist:
Past Address. 3 Sandilands Drive, Mid Calder, West Lothian.
Present Address. 32 Ochiltree Cres, Mid Calder, West Lothian. EH53 ORT
For the avoidance of any doubt these are available for anyone to view on the Voters Roll at your local library.
Is it possible i have the names and current addresses of all the witnesses in my case ?
Anything is possible Via a PC
Watch this space and see what else can be revealed about you
Can SCCRC Defectively Represent Appellants
Can SCCRC Defectively Represent Appellants
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
