Archive for To allow readers to post comments on current issues related to the Shirley McKie case
  Forum Index -> Test Forum 1

Crown applies to retry Francis Auld

Crown applies to retry man for murder of student Amanda Duffy in 1992

The Lord Advocate has applied for a man to be retried for the murder of a student in 1992.

Amanda Duffy's remains were discovered in waste ground in Hamilton, South Lanarkshire, almost 23 years ago.

She was found in the town's Miller Street in the early hours of Saturday, May 30, 1992, and a police investigation was subsequently launched..

The Crown Office has now applied to the High Court for permission to prosecute Francis Auld under double jeopardy legislation over the 19-year-old Motherwell College studentís death.
A statement said: "The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC has applied to the High Court for authority under the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 to set aside the acquittal of Francis Auld and prosecute him again for the murder of Amanda Duffy.

"This is the third application made by the Lord Advocate under the Double Jeopardy legislation.

"As proceedings are now live in terms of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, it would not be appropriate for the Crown to comment further."
Big Wullie

It cannot be right to try people after so much time has elapsed and on the other hand as happened in Carberry V HMA reject an appeal on the need for finality and certainty.

I have no doubt Lord Carloway will preside over this hearing and allow this motion yet he was the one that rejected Carberry and Toal.


[47] The direction to have regard to finality and certainty relates to the need, in any civilised criminal justice system, for there to be a recognised end to the criminal process, at least in all but the most exceptional of cases. As the Lord Justice General (Gill) said in Toal v HM Advocate 2012 SCCR 735 (at para [108]):

"...the need for finality and the interests of justice are not opposed concepts. The former is an aspect of the latter. There is a legitimate public interest in the maintenance of a jury verdict unless there is a substantial reason to doubt its integrity... Where there is a challenge to a jury's verdict, it is in the interests of justice that it should be brought to a final decision within a reasonable time. Expeditious disposal of appeals is in the interest of appellants, of victims, ... and of the public generally..." .

Our courts are very biased, but then again most judges were our previous Lord Advocates

Toal V HMA: Forum Index -> Test Forum 1
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Sincere thanks to all those who have supported Shirley and challenged miscarriages of justice on this forum.