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


The SCCRC are an organisation which are supposed to be the 'champions of MOJ's' or does your experiences equate to them being the 'chumpions of MOJ's?

It is clear from their Board minutes they are very interested in the % of cases which are referred back! when Sheriff Shead stated whats that got to do with the individual review of cases and if a person has suffered a MOJ? These stats could vary from year to year, subject to findings.

Another damming observation from the same former Board member is minuted in March 2009 whereby Sheriff Shead questions how come MOJ applications pertaining to sufficiency of evidence could be properly reviewed without the SCCRC looking at court transcripts?

Sinclair identifies a NEED to agree at next Policy meeting but mysteriously this has vanished into thin area and was neither discussed or agreed at the next Board meeting or Policy meeting. The SCCRC have continued to reject such cases at stage 1 of their review on logically absurd basis it is how the evidence "transpires" that matters - as Sheriff Shead identified how can this be the case without exercising their investigatory powers and validating facts cast in tablets of stone from court proceedings, which should not be a lengthy or costly task.

This follows on from revelations from another Board member, Graeme Bell QC that the Board did not properly discuss or agree Cadder policy.  It would appear that what the Board needs to agree as a matter of policy is not addressed as part of the SCCRC's corporate governance.

It is very clear from the way this body is run they are not enhancing public confidence in the criminal justice system to identify, consider and cure miscarriages of justice. They are not delivering value for money to the public purse, there are very few referrals against conviction and it is time for a Review of how this body runs roughshod over MOJ applicants. If you agree why not write to your local MSP and/ or MP identifying the above two serious acts and omissions. If you need assistance in this task, please provide your e mail details.
Iain McKie

This is an important issue given that the SCCRC is the last line of hope for anyone suffering a miscarriage of justice.

The English CCRC is subject to triennial reviews by the Justice Department but in Scotland - nothing.

There is clear evidence that, as an organisation, they are looking more to how the Appeal Court will react to a referral  rather than reporting on miscarriages without fear or favour.

This is undoubtedly an issue we will hear more about but it is good to see it being raised.

Certainly about time someone reviewed the SCCRC.

Does anyone know what the SCCRC'S interest of justice test is?


Got to agree with Iain that this is the last hope for many and the SCCRC have a knowledge that the only way certain cases can be properly reviewed is by way of looking at court transcripts, which in some cases is a quick and inexpensive exercise. They have wide ranging investigatory powers and cannot even use common sense despite the concerns of the now Sheriff Shead, so what hope is there of them using wider powers?

If you have concern at the way your case has been reviewed you have the option to e mail the SCCRC's line manager, Mr Neil Rennick, Director of the Justice Directorate at or

Remember, together we are stronger, so if you have a bona fide complaint and legitimate aim or concern about the operation of the SCCRC, the more people sharing this the better. My family and I are more than happy to sign any petition for the review of this state body.


Good point David.

The first judicial review of the CCRC in England appertained to this very subject matter. Now the legislation and such policy application by the CCRC is precisely defined, as required by the rule of law.

In Scotland, the Chamberlain-Davidson case and Gordon Judicial Review has exposed the SCCRC, who claim they look at things MORE BROADLY. I am unable to reconcile such logic as this case exposes them as looking at things MORE NARROWLY.

It is an unarguable fact the SCCRC did not refer the C-D case back in the interests of justice using Cadder, whereas the Court ruled it was in the interests of justice to do so. By my simple arithmetic, the SCCRC are applying less weight to such referral in the interests of justice. The alarming thing for MOJ applicants is that this C-D conviction was actually quashed on the Cadder point, albeit there is no way the court would have wished to argue 'distress', as they've got themselves into a right mess there with their ever changing position.  

Looking forward to the UKSC decision in Gordon after SLAB have delayed funding this application for 13 months. This is despite 4 counsels' opinions supporting the position that the SCCRC and Court have made several significant errors of fact and law and this case has an 'excellent' chance of success as clearly the final merit of Cadder submissions rests with the Court, not the SCCRC.

Here's hoping the 'interests of justice' arises and the SCCRC are exposed for not even knowing what this is, let alone apply this. The Scottish Government are implicated in this after funding and taking part in a workshop to establish what the 'interests of justice' was, but were unable to define this. Sir Gordon felt this should be the English 'public interest' test and the plot thickens - individual members of the SCCRC Board having contrasting views, what a FARCE!!!!

The floodgates could soon open for SCCRC fresh applications on the misapplication of the IOJ Test and Judicial Review challenges against the SCCRC, watch this space!!!!! 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.