Archive for shirleymckie.myfastforum.org To allow readers to post comments on current issues related to the Shirley McKie case
 


       shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Test Forum 1
Big Wullie

Patrick Docherty Appeal Refused

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/sear...5a5a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

I am sure this will now proceed to the UKSC like Nat Frasers did.

Having attended this appeal I am appalled it has been rejected.
Karen

I do not know what planet these Judges come from.  I am so angry about this and how it has been dealt with.

Two seconds to tell a decision on someone's life?

They are wrong on so many levels with this case as in others.  Its time we got a new set of Judges and got the older ones out. This really is shocking!
Quote:

In my view, the evidence of Mr Keers would not have carried much weight on the question of the time of death.  The timing of the death was established by a number of other sources of evidence that were not challenged by the appellant and were not open to realistic challenge.  The undisclosed evidence was of little weight in the context of the evidence against the appellant.  Mr Keers’ statements gave conflicting accounts of the time of death.  Even if they had been disclosed before the trial, the disclosure would not have affected the outcome.
Karen

Quote:
Looking at the case overall,


Its crystal clear they did not look at the case overall.
nugnug

i cant belive they refused that one i thought it was more or less a forgone conclusion he would win.
Karen

I know what you mean nugnug.  

They might as well have just reprinted the first appeal decision because they did not look at anything in my opinion.

It is shocking that they are continuing to get away with this.

The fight is not over but right now I am wondering what the point is in having the SCCRC and appeal courts.
nugnug

well the sccrc are there to say new evidence has been fully investigated when it hasn't im not sure what the appeal courts for.
Karen

nugnug wrote:
well the sccrc are there to say new evidence has been fully investigated when it hasn't im not sure what the appeal courts for.


Thanks for making me smile Smile

The SCCRC refers the cases, they do this because the government said this was needed to help sort out miscarriage of justices.
The appeal court appears to resent this, and so they keep refusing people.

The only successes of the SCCRC this past while appear to be traffic offences, Sexual offence cases and sentence reductions.
Surely the SCCRC was made for more than this?

I am just disheartened at present but not giving up either.
Karen

Have had a message from Pat.

He is doing okay. He is of course disappointed but he knows what this judicial system is like.
He is not giving up and says the fight continues.

He sent his thanks to Wullie, Frank and I for being there for him and his wife today. He really appreciates it a lot.
david

Corrupt justice system.

They wouldn't know justice if it bit them on the arse


I honestly don't know how these human beings can sleep at night.
Big Wullie

Like Karen I am disturbed that such a strong reference from SCCRC is rejected in this fashion.

I sat throughout the appeal and am also disturbed that the challenges against the time of death do not feature in this appeal.

According to the crown the time of death was established through a serious of events (Feedback) told to the experts by the police.

One of these things concerned the last thing she ate.

As the crown would have everyone believe this was a roll with butter.

Only problem was the expert forensic report established the last thing Mrs Irvine ate was Bread and JAM.

According to my notes at the actual appeal the time of death was also not supported by Professor Marjory Black.

Put simply:

If the time of death is wrong then the case should fall.

Add to this that Patrick Docherty was inside Bowhouse Prison when the chief witness Mr Keers said he saw him the first time his aunts house was burgled and he could not be mistaken that this was the same person he saw the day before (YES DAY BEFORE) his aunt was murdered.

What planet are these judges on relying upon an identification not only called into question by imprisonment of Docherty but was an identification of someone not the day the person was murdered but the previous day.

Mr Docherty's defence team relied upon devolution issues on all matters if memory serves me correctly but this is not reflected in this opinion either.

Our government should be giving the SCCRC the power to overturn convictions they think are disturbing because at the end of the day they are the ones carrying out the investigations and previously the Secretary Of State For Scotland alone had the power to grant the Royal Prerogative Of Mercy again alone if new evidence came to light.

Surely the investigations and hard work the SCCRC put into appeals is more in depth that the Secretary Of State Ever Carried out.
Karen

Home raid OAP murderer Patrick Docherty loses appeal
Margaret Irvine Margaret Irvine was a widow who lived alone

A man who murdered a 91-year-old woman during a failed robbery at her home in East Ayrshire has lost a second legal bid to overturn his conviction.

Patrick Docherty, 49, and another man, Brendan Dixon, 45, were sentenced to at least 25 years for killing Margaret Irvine in Galston, Ayrshire, in 2003.

Docherty's legal team claimed the Crown did not disclose evidence, he was interviewed without a lawyer and the judge did not properly direct the jury.

Appeal judges rejected these claims.

Docherty's appeal argued these three issues contributed to him being wrongly convicted of murder.

His case was referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission - which looks at possible miscarriages of justice - decided that he may have been wrongfully convicted.

The commission believed the prosecution case was circumstantial and "thin" in terms of incriminating evidence against Docherty.

The first appeal ground claimed that because the Crown had failed to disclose statements that prosecution witness Charles Keers made to the police, Docherty's legal team were unable to properly defend their client.

The second appeal ground also referred to the Cadder Ruling - where the UK Supreme Court said a man's human rights had been infringed as he was interviewed by police without a solicitor present.
Jury direction

In the days running up to his arrest, Docherty was interviewed by the police but was not allowed to consult a solicitor during questioning.

The final appeal ground focussed on a claim that trial judge Lord Hardie did not properly direct the jury when he was instructing them about the law prior to their decision.

On Friday, Scotland's most senior judge, the Lord Justice General Lord Gill, Lady Smith and Lady Clark of Calton, refused Docherty's appeal to succeed.

The judges believed that there was still enough legitimate evidence available to prove Docherty's guilt.

In a judgement issued at the Court of Criminal Appeal, Lord Gill wrote: "In my opinion, the Crown case has wrongly been described by the appellant and the commission as having been thin.

"I have the impression that the commission has related the alleged thinness of the case to the fact that it was a largely circumstantial.

"In the experience of this court, circumstantial cases often have particular strength. This, I think is such a case."

Docherty Dixon broke into Mrs Irvine's home and beat her, tied her up and stuffed a duster into her mouth as a gag.

The pensioner suffocated and was found lying on her bed by a home help.

Both men had a previous appeal against their convictions rejected in 2010.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-28987409
Big Wullie

Once again going by my notes and recollection at the end of the appeal on 22nd May Lord Gill our top judge in Scotland told crown he wanted to know their position in regards to the experts evidence about the jam and time of death.

Like I say this is not reflected in the Judgement.

I am left wondering if Crown ever got round to telling the court their position and the court have ignored it in its entirety or Crown failed to let the court know their position.
Big Wullie

In regards to the Cadder Ground of appeal I thought this too was a strong argument and other appeals have been successful on less.

I do not accept as the court have said that contradictory statements would not have a bearing upon a juries assessment of evidence.

Had the jury been aware of contradictory statements their verdicts might have been different to suggest otherwise is perverse to the interest of justice test because no-one (Judges Included) can ever guess what a jury might have made of any evidence.

Evidence showing someone with a tattoo on their neck who was identified by the police, would have been powerful evidence pointing away from Docherty.

I believe the non disclosure in this case is as strong as the one in Nat Fraser's appeal and like I said to MOJO years ago if they are allowed to do this to Fraser they will do it to everyone.

Once again we are seeing strong non disclosure grounds rejected by the same courts that rejected Fraser and Cadder.

We really do need fresh young judges because the way the law is taught in our Universities is not the way it is being practised in our courts.

Wake up Press and listen to what is going on with these cases.

Patrick Docherty was dragged away today screaming at the court.
Big Wullie

Quote:
The police subsequently found a key to a wardrobe, which contained cash amounting to almost £9,000.  The DNA of an unidentified male was found on Mrs Irvine’s pinkie.  Unidentified footprints were found outside the house.  There was no forensic evidence linking the crime to either appellant …


So where did the money come from if she had been previously robbed ?

Who's DNA was found on the Pinkie ? if not that of any of the accused ?

Who's footprints were found outside the house if not that of any of the accused ?
Karen

You have to wonder if these Judges do this kind of thing on purpose?

The evidence is as clear as day to anyone who looks at this case with an open mind.

Charles Keers stated that he saw the exact same two men for the July burglary. He says he saw the exact same two men the day before the murder.

If he saw two men, then it could not have been Pat Docherty.  That is 100 per cent proven.  And Keers knew Brendan Dixon so if it was him he would have known this too.
So either Keers has made this up or he saw two totally different men on these occassions. It really is that simple.
.
Keers made 11 statments most of which had been withheld. Every single one tells a differnet story.

Keers was not seriously challenged and should have been said Lady Paton at the last appeal. Why has he not been challenged?


What is important was the fact that two men were seen at the gate and the front door of Mrs Irvine’s home that morning BEFORE her body was found.

Yet we have a resemblance of Docherty from the day before the murder yet he is convicted, not on a positive ID but on resemblance only and then in a dock ID, yet on the day of the murder there is 2 men, one positively ID as Fraser yet this was not investigated.


As for the bread roll. It has long been a worry to several of us.

Mrs Irivnes routine was that she had half a roll on butter for breakfast. You cannot buy a half roll.  So I often wondered where did the other half go?
The first home help gave the roll on butter. She left she says at 7.25am.
Mrs Irvine was still in bed. She had a zimmer frame and was very frail physically but not mentally. She had an electric stair lift.  
The zimmer was moved and the electricity was turned off. Mrs Irvine was found in her bedroom still with her nightie on, slumped on the bed at 4.50pm.

So who was meant to go in for lunchtime? I have a huge problem with the fact she was left for 9 hours before being found by the second home help.  The other half of the bread roll gone, and clearly eaten if it was bread and jam.  Who else was in that house? Because if Mrs Irvine went downstairs her usual routine was to be in the living room waiting on the other home help. So someone else could have given her the other half of the bread roll. It looks like she never got the chance to go downstairs.

The crown used Keers statements to get time of death. Not the expert who could not give a time of death.  The Crown's position (that the death occurred at about 8 am) was unchallenged at the trial, either by submission or by evidence.
Keers gave 11 Statements before the trial but it wasn’t till the 10th statement that he mentioned hearing any noise from his aunts house.


Crown admitted at the last appeal that if the time of death is established as later in the day then it would be a different story.

Dr Marjorie Black said death occurred within 2 hours of eating.

This was worked out at around 10am.

The advocate depute at trial decided on the time of death.

The trial proceeded saying the time of death was 8am

Yet, Dr Marjorie Black in her evidence gave a possible range for the time of death as between 7.30 am and 10 am.

This case stinks to the high heavens. This I have written is only a small part of what is wrong in this case.
Karen

Another problem for Pat is that the appeal court made it clear they did not want to "disturb" Brendan Dixon's conviction.

This is grossly unfair as Brendan has different grounds of appeal and has different issues against him in this case.

So because they don't want to disturb another related case, then Pat will be punished and his issues totally ignored. So much was ignored in the appeal.

I will go into more about this later
Big Wullie

Quote:
[10]      The Commission accepted that because of the non-disclosure of the statements the defence lost the opportunity to show that Mr Keers withheld information in his earlier statements.  The Crown relied on the importance of Mr Keers’ identification of the appellant as the smaller of the two men seen at the time of the break-in and in the weeks before the murder.  The Commission considered it significant that if the defence had known that in an earlier statement he had confirmed that these two men were present at the first break-in on 4 July 2003, the defence could have shown that the appellant had been a prisoner in HMP Bowhouse at that date.  The court’s consideration of the non-disclosure of Sheena Orr’s statements should also be reconsidered in light of the undisclosed statements of Mr Keers.


I do not know how the court does not agree with the SCCRC here, that if true then Keers evidence actually points away from Docherty.

He simply cannot be in prison and breaking into houses at the same time lol  

If the person he saw could not possibly have been Docherty then the defence were denied the opportunity of presenting the case in this fashion therefore denied a fair hearing.

No Ifs Or Buts About It.
Big Wullie

Quote:
Conclusions

Convertible/compatibility grounds

[28]      In my opinion, the appellant’s right to raise compatibility issues before this court has already been extinguished.  No devolution minutes were lodged before the appeal court in 2009.  Counsel for the appellant submitted that it does not matter whether devolution minutes were lodged.  All that is required is that the issue was capable of being a devolution issue before the commencement of the 2012 provisions (Carberry v HM Adv, supra, at para [53]).  As such, it is a convertible devolution issue regardless of whether the devolution minute was lodged.  Furthermore, counsel emphasised that in 2009 the appeal court did not provide a determination on the grounds of appeal.  It simply refused to receive them.  

[29]      I do not accept those arguments.  No devolution minutes were lodged in relation to grounds of appeal 1 and 2 when the court refused to receive them.  Therefore there were no devolution issues properly before the court.  Any right that the appellant might have had to raise them was lost when the Court refused to accept the proposed grounds of appeal.  If however there were live devolution issues, notwithstanding the lack of any devolution minutes, those issues were extinguished when the court refused the appeal and, in any event, when the Supreme Court refused special leave to appeal.  In my opinion, a determined devolution issue cannot be converted to a compatibility issue by virtue of a reference from the Commission (Carberry v HM Adv 2014 JC 56 at paras [52]-[53]).  In any case, the misdirection on dock identification could not have constituted a devolution issue.  Therefore it cannot now constitute a compatibility issue.


For me it is disturbing that because the court refused to allow late grounds in 2009 including devolution issues he cannot now raise devolution issues.

Surely this cannot be compatible with the right to a fair hearing.

A compatibility issue is just another name for a devolution issue so what is the problem ?
Big Wullie

Quote:
Misdirection

[33]      The Crown conceded that there had been a misdirection by omission.  In my view, that concession was rightly made.  I agree that the misdirection was material.  However, the misdirection must be seen in the whole context of the trial.  The appellant’s counsel emphasised the weakness of the dock identification in his speech to the jury.  It would have been clear to the jury that the identification, such as it was, was of little value.  Moreover, the strength of the Crown case was such that the misdirection was of no moment.  In the whole circumstances, I conclude that the misdirection did not lead to a miscarriage of justice.


I cannot believe the appeal court are suggesting the crown case was a strong one.

The SCCRC and even the trial judge disagree with this assertion.

What did the trial judge say Karen ?
Karen

Judge Hardy stated at TRIAL:
Sometimes ladies and gentlemen there is NO direct evidence at all in a case and this is a case, which if it doesn't come into that category is pretty close to it"
Karen

We have now re opened Pat's Campaign Facebook also.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JusticeforPatDocherty/
Big Wullie

Karen wrote:
Judge Hardy stated at TRIAL:
Sometimes ladies and gentlemen there is NO direct evidence at all in a case and this is a case, which if it doesn't come into that category is pretty close to it"


It shows how out of touch with reality these judges are.

It also shows perhaps they have not read all the documents relating to this appeal when they can make comments like the one I showed above:

Quote:
Moreover, the strength of the Crown case was such that the misdirection was of no moment.


A judge cannot be excused from properly directing a jury because either the defence or crown mentions anything in their address to the jury.

The Judge, and indeed every judge in every trial, has an overarching duty to direct the jury in regards to matters of law, despite what anyone else may have said.
Big Wullie

Perhaps the leading judge did not like his defence team.

Just wondering how much this type of thing features in Scottish Appeals.

I have heard of some judges who hated a certain QC and wonder how this impacts on decisions.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/judge-l...awyer-for-harry-potter-appearance
Big Wullie

I am still angry with this decision yesterday because it demonstrates how out of touch with reality our Judges are.

It also demonstrates their unwillingness to accept they might be wrong.

The courts since Lord Gill & Carloway took over the top positions are rejecting must SCCRC referrals and indeed if one looks the types of appeals most likely to be successful are sex offences and minor traffic offences

I have read all the documents in this case including the SCCRC referral which for me was very strong indeed.

The appeal court in my opinion should be stripped of their appellate powers and perhaps Lord Carloway is correct when he said our court system is Archaic.

Perhaps the original jurors should be asked if they had heard of the material not disclosed would it have affected their decisions.

Judges cannot say what jurors might have made of any evidence.
david

How can appeal court judges conclude there was a compelling Crown case against the appellant when the SCCRC and trial judge say the opposite.

Surely the trial judge's opinion carries most weight when determining the strength of the Crown case. He did sit and listen to the case after all.

It is glaringly obvious that they are covering this case up.

Equally disturbing is the strength of evidence being used to convict people of murder in this country.
nugnug

it begs the quistion what does it take to win an appeal.
Karen

I wonder that myself nugnug.

Its just beyond belief that these judges can sit there and not see what is going on. In fact I think they do see what is happening but they do not want to admit that the judicial system or police are wrong.

In doing what they are doing on a regular basis they are making our judicial system a joke.

There is no justice in our courts when this happens.

How they sleep at night I will never know
Karen

The Crown presented the case on the basis that the time of death was about 8 am on Sunday 28 September 2003.

That timing depended upon several pieces of evidence.

1.) The carer had left Mrs Irvine at about 7.25 am.

2.) Mrs Irvine's nephew Charles Keers heard noises coming from her home between 7.30 am and 8 am. He described the noises as a roar lasting a few minutes, and then someone running down the stairs.

3.)  When Mrs Irvine was later found, she was still wearing her night-clothes and her bedside light came on when the electricity was restored (suggesting that the attack had occurred before Mrs Irvine got up, dressed herself, and went downstairs to the living-room as was her normal practice).

4.) Finally and significantly, when the deceased's stomach contents were examined, the open-textured bread of the half-roll which she had eaten for breakfast had not broken down to any great extent.

5.)  The evidence of Dr Jennifer Miller of Glasgow University was to the effect that such open-textured bread was very quick to break down.

6.)  The Advocate depute advised this court that the pathologist Dr Marjorie Black in her evidence gave a possible range for the time of death as between 7.30 am and 10 am.

The Crown's position (that the death occurred at about 8 am) was unchallenged at the trial, either by submission or by evidence.


Not one piece of this evidence was questioned at trial. It was simply accepted as fact. No one seemed to realise that the time of death was crucial.
Karen

The home help arrived at Mrs Irvine's home that morning at 7am.
She used a key to get into the house. She went upstairs and spoke to Mrs Irvine and asked what she wanted for breakfast.

She gave Mrs Irvine her breakfast in bed and said she turned on a lamp next to the bed.

Mrs Irvine seemed fine that morning and Mrs Irvine had told her that she intended to, “have a lie in”.

Mrs Irvine’s instructions to Mrs McQuarrie were to leave the house unlocked to allow others to come in.

The home help left at approx 7.25am as was the routine.

Keers gave 11 Statements before the trial but it wasn’t till the 10th statement that he mentioned hearing any noise from his aunts house.

He said he heard someone running down the stairs. Yet he never went to check on his aunt, knowing that it could not possibly be her.

Keers was not seriously challenged at trial and he should have been said Lady Paton at the Court of Appeal on November 4th 2009.

Yet the time of death is decided by the Crown on the say so of his TENTH statement giving the time as 8 am.

Crown admitted that if the time of death is established as later in the day then it would be a different story.

Dr Jennifer Moor said that bread would be digested quickly, however there is no statement from her on this, she was just asked this by the Procurator Fiscal.

Dr Marjorie Black said death occurred within 2 hours of eating.

This was worked out at around 10am.

The advocate depute at trial decided on the time of death.

The trial proceeded saying the time of death was 8am

Yet, Dr Marjorie Black in her evidence gave a possible range for the time of death as between 7.30 am and 10 am.


Colin Miller was the only person to say he saw Brendan Dixon and Patrick Docherty at the scene of the crime that morning.

It was proven in court that Colin Miller could not have seen the men from the location he claimed to have been at.

Which was the reason he went from being the chief witness to a suspect.
Karen

Sheena Orr gave 4 statements during the inquiry before trial.

In preparation for the trial they took a precognition from her. In that precognition, she described seeing two men at Mrs Irvine's house at 21 Barward Road at about 11 am on Sunday 28 September 2003. One man was standing in the driveway of the house at number 21. A second man was coming out of the house. Mrs Orr gave a description of the man in the driveway, but was unable to give any details in respect of the second man. The police had shown her sheets of photographs, and she had selected one whom she recognised as the man in the driveway.

She stated that she had seen the first man again at about 4.30 pm, walking on the pavement away from Mrs Irvine's house. In a second statement, she referred to a book of photographs shown to her by the police. She had selected one as the first man. She subsequently told the police that the man had a blue coloured tattoo in the shape of a cross on his neck, just below his right ear.

The police subsequently ascertained that the photograph selected by Mrs Orr was one of Peter Fraser, a Crown witness on the indictment.

However as Mrs Orr's police statements were not disclosed to the defence (following the practice at the time) the defence did not receive that information.

Peter Fraser had previous convictions for violence and dishonesty, and also suffered from mental health problems. He was an acquaintance of Colin Miller's.

During the trial, the Crown led Peter Fraser as a witness. Mrs Orr was not led as a witness by either the Crown or the defence.

In preparation for this appeal, agents for Patrick Docherty took a further precognition dated 19 September 2009 from Mrs Orr. The agents also ascertained that the murder appeared to coincide with a gap of some hours in Peter Fraser's alibi.

The Crown accepted that it had failed in its duty to disclose Sheena Orr's police statements to the defence,

The Officer was also a witness at the trial but failed to mention that he had shown Sheena any photos.

Sheena mentioned the tattoo on Fraser's neck. The crown denied that Fraser has a tattoo.

While the Crown had information that Peter Fraser had no tattoo, counsel referred to an affidavit from a solicitor Graham Cunningham confirming that Peter Fraser did indeed have a tattoo on his neck.

Peter Fraser had a history of serious offending and mental illness. He was an associate of Colin Miller. He had stated that he would be "pulled in" for the murder. Peter Fraser's girlfriend  Samantha Strachan, lived near Mrs Irvine's house. That same girlfriend gave Colin Miller an alibi.

Lady Paton said at the appeal, "Well it is clear she saw someone who was not the defendants"

Lady Paton said that Fraser should have been investigated and should have been given a hard time in the dock.

Where one had a crime with no direct identification, no forensic evidence, and no direct admission (a case entirely dependent upon circumstantial evidence) then the fact that Mrs Orr had identified someone who fitted the profile of someone who might be involved, whose alibi did not work, who was connected to Colin Miller, and who was seen in the garden area at some time between 11 am and midday, was very important for Patrick Docherty

The Crown had relied upon the fact that two men were seen in the vicinity of Mrs Irvine's house the day before the murder: this sighting on the day of the murder at the locus shortly after the crime was committed was just as significant, if not more so. Tactically, any defence counsel could have found that information of value. The time of death could be said to be unclear.

Had the defence been made aware that it was Peter Fraser who had been seen in Mrs Irvine's garden at about late morning or midday, the time of death would have been explored at a consultation with Dr Jennifer Miller, to ascertain the tolerances of the time-scale. The defence would want to know how late in the day the death could have occurred. The matter would have been further explored with their own pathologist expert. Thus the non-disclosure had a material effect.

"There has been a miscarriage of justice because none of this evidence was placed before the jury."
Karen

Sheena mentioned the tattoo on Fraser's neck.  One of the Kilmarnock lawyers signed an affidavit confirming that he had saw Fraser up close and noted that he did indeed have a tattoo.

The crown deny that Fraser has a tattoo and tried to say it was not Fraser she saw. Lady Paton said, "Well it is clear she saw someone who was not the defendants"

Lady Paton said that Fraser should have been investigated and should have been given a hard time in the dock.
Big Wullie

I am interested in setting up a Justice For Patrick Docherty working group.

If interested e-mail me @ wulliebeck@hotmail.co.uk
Big Wullie

Quote:
Dock identification

[15]      The dock identification in this case was particularly weak.  Mr Keers said that the appellant resembled one of the two men whom he had seen on various occasions walking past the deceased’s house.  Mr Keers had not attended an identification parade.  

[16]      The appellant submitted to the Commission that the trial judge did not give a sufficient warning to the jury in relation to the dangers of such an identification and that his failure to do so was a misdirection that resulted in a miscarriage of justice (cf Holland v HM Adv 2005 SCCR 417;  Brodie v HM Adv 2013 JC 142).  

[17]      The Commission concluded that Mr Keers’ identification of the appellant was an important part of the Crown case.  Although senior counsel made the defence position on resemblance identification clear to the jury, the absence of specific directions about the dock identification was a material misdirection when seen in the context of the whole evidence against the appellant (McInnes v HM Adv 2010 SCCR 286).  The case could be distinguished from Toal v HM Adv (2012 SCCR 735).  There was a real possibility that the jury would have returned a different verdict if such directions had been given, particularly where the Crown had failed to disclose the police statements of Mr Keers.  Those statements deprived the defence of material that could have undermined the dock identification.


I agree with SCCRC above 110%

The problem is our courts despite the Devlin report do not want to admit there is anything wrong with Dock identifications or partial identifications because ONLY in Scotland is this allowed and every prosecution starts with a Dock Identification.

Bring on the changes when corroboration is taken away were like England judge are duty bound to direct the jury along Turnbull Guidelines.

In Scotland they say Judges can say as little as they want to, and they often do.
Big Wullie

You really need to laugh at this howler:

Quote:
[18]      The Commission accepted that there was a body of evidence that, taken at its highest, entitled the jury to convict; namely, the evidence that the appellant invited an associate to go housebreaking with him two days before the murder


So does this mean anyone who spoke about housbreaking two days previous to this murder could have been prosecuted for the murder lol.

Wondering exactly how many housebreakers there was in that area............. lol

It is even more compounded with the fact the courts are relying on a partial identification from Keers (Not worth the paper it is written on) of Docherty the day prior to the murder, when other people not connected to Docherty were spotted in the victims garden near her door the day of the murder.

I really have no confidence in the present benches of our Appeal Courts and think it really is time for a big Shake-Up.

Lord Carloway is of course correct when he says the system id Antiquated.
Karen

The question could be "How many witnesses in this case were convicted housebreakers?  or Even "How many housebreakers were arrested and then said they had information about the murder?"

Seriously you could not make this stuff up if you tried.
Karen

Some of the witnesses.

http://justiceforpat.webs.com/haydenmcgonigle.htm

http://justiceforpat.webs.com/edwardobrien.htm

http://justiceforpat.webs.com/martinrobertson.htm

http://justiceforpat.webs.com/colinmiller3rdaccused.htm

http://justiceforpat.webs.com/andrewhay.htm

http://justiceforpat.webs.com/peterfraser.htm
Big Wullie

What really bothers me in this and other appeals is the courts are allowed to ignore entire issues raised at these hearings.

In this case Professor Marjory Black did not agree with the time of death yet the Crown relied upon her evidence.

The last thing Mrs Irvine ate was bread and butter said the crown and indeed presented this evidence at trial for the time of death.

The Expert Forensic Report says the last thing she ate was bread and Jam.

I can assure you these two issues were presented to the court by Claire Mitchell Advocate at the appeal I attended on 22nd of May and the opinion ignores them entirely.

If the time of death is not supported by the expert, then surely this is very concerning and totally undermines the conviction because everything centred on the time of death.

If the time of death is not correct then the sightings of other named people in the garden near the door is very significant.

We must remember lol Docherty was only sighted the previous day others were sighted on the day.
Karen

On 3rd and 4th November 2009, I attended the appeal along with my partner and the family of Patrick Docherty.

Crown (Alex Prentice)  admitted that if the time of death is established as later in the day then it would be a different story.

The evidence of Dr Jennifer Miller of Glasgow University was to the effect that such open-textured bread was very quick to break down. However there is no statement from her on this, she was just asked this by the PF at trial.  The Advocate depute advised the appeal court that the pathologist Dr Marjorie Black in her evidence gave a possible range for the time of death as between 7.30 am and 10 am. The Crown's position (that the death occurred at about 8 am) was unchallenged at the trial, either by submission or by evidence.

Crown admits that food digestion is an imprecise science.

During a break in the appeal Jackson and the Advocate Depute Prentice began a rather loud debate between themselves about Fraser.

Jackson asked him why he thought Fraser would be of no interest to him? Would he not investigate this evidence himself if he had it before him. Crown guy said yes he would, he does not understand why it didn’t happen.

Peter Fraser, had a history of violence and drug abuse. Jackson asked him why this was not fully investigated?

They then began discussing Fraser and the other guy who Sheena Orr had said in precognition that one man was at the gate and the other was at the front door.

Jackson again said “why did you think  this would not be of importance to me?”

The Crown said again he, himself would have investigated it.

Jackson said, “Let me ask you a hypothetical question”  “Why was Fraser not investigated?”  No reply came. Jackson said because you cannot answer that can you?

Advocate depute Alex Prentice QC, for the Crown, said the two men had been convicted on the basis of "a classic circumstantial case."

He claimed police had disclosed to the men's defence lawyers everything they were obliged to hand over, and he said the sighting of the tattooed man "did not amount to new evidence of any materiality".

The Crown began saying the time differences from Sheena Orr's statements clouded things. Jackson said no it didn’t. It was not important. What was important was the fact that two men were seen at the gate and the front door of Mrs Irvine’s home that morning BEFORE her body was found.

He said we have a resemblance of Docherty from the day before the murder yet he is convicted, not on a positive ID but on resemblance only and then in a dock ID, yet on the day of the murder there is 2 men, one positively ID as Fraser yet this was not investigated.

This comment is taken from the decision to the first appeal.

Quote:
On the basis of that material it was always open to the defence to consult with pathologists and other experts, and attempt to challenge the Crown presentation of the time of death in an endeavour to show that the death coincided more closely with the sighting of the two men. The defence could, if they so chose, have lodged a Special Defence of Incrimination referring to the two men (whose identities were to the defence unknown)
Big Wullie

Karen wrote:
On 3rd and 4th November 2009, I attended the appeal along with my partner and the family of Patrick Docherty.

Crown (Alex Prentice)  admitted that if the time of death is established as later in the day then it would be a different story.

The evidence of Dr Jennifer Miller of Glasgow University was to the effect that such open-textured bread was very quick to break down. However there is no statement from her on this, she was just asked this by the PF at trial.  The Advocate depute advised the appeal court that the pathologist Dr Marjorie Black in her evidence gave a possible range for the time of death as between 7.30 am and 10 am. The Crown's position (that the death occurred at about 8 am) was unchallenged at the trial, either by submission or by evidence.

Crown admits that food digestion is an imprecise science.

During a break in the appeal Jackson and the Advocate Depute Prentice began a rather loud debate between themselves about Fraser.

Jackson asked him why he thought Fraser would be of no interest to him? Would he not investigate this evidence himself if he had it before him. Crown guy said yes he would, he does not understand why it didn’t happen.

Peter Fraser, had a history of violence and drug abuse. Jackson asked him why this was not fully investigated?

They then began discussing Fraser and the other guy who Sheena Orr had said in precognition that one man was at the gate and the other was at the front door.

Jackson again said “why did you think  this would not be of importance to me?”

The Crown said again he, himself would have investigated it.

Jackson said, “Let me ask you a hypothetical question”  “Why was Fraser not investigated?”  No reply came. Jackson said because you cannot answer that can you?

Advocate depute Alex Prentice QC, for the Crown, said the two men had been convicted on the basis of "a classic circumstantial case."

He claimed police had disclosed to the men's defence lawyers everything they were obliged to hand over, and he said the sighting of the tattooed man "did not amount to new evidence of any materiality".

The Crown began saying the time differences from Sheena Orr's statements clouded things. Jackson said no it didn’t. It was not important. What was important was the fact that two men were seen at the gate and the front door of Mrs Irvine’s home that morning BEFORE her body was found.

He said we have a resemblance of Docherty from the day before the murder yet he is convicted, not on a positive ID but on resemblance only and then in a dock ID, yet on the day of the murder there is 2 men, one positively ID as Fraser yet this was not investigated.

This comment is taken from the decision to the first appeal.

Quote:
On the basis of that material it was always open to the defence to consult with pathologists and other experts, and attempt to challenge the Crown presentation of the time of death in an endeavour to show that the death coincided more closely with the sighting of the two men. The defence could, if they so chose, have lodged a Special Defence of Incrimination referring to the two men (whose identities were to the defence unknown)


So it begs the question about Defective Representation then Karen if the defence did not utilise evidence contradictory to the crown case.
Big Wullie

Another Howler:

Special Knowledge

Quote:
[15]      To Detective Sergeant Lorimer, who interviewed the first appellant on 31 October 2003, the first appellant claimed to have been told by Andrew Hay that the murder was committed by Colin Miller, Brendan Dixon and Chris Smith.  However, Andrew Hay denied giving him any details about the murder.  The first appellant claimed that Andrew Hay told him that-

“…Chris and the Colin, Chris and the Brendan wan is meant tae be in the hoose, daein the hoosebreakin and Colin Millar wan is meant tae be outside cop-watchin.  He’s heard aw the commotion, come intae the hoose an went like that, whit’s happening, and they’ve apparently went like that, she’s no telling us where the money is an whatever an Colin Miller’s supposed tae huv gone like that, well this is how ye fuckin dae it, [threw] her doon an tied her up.”

The Crown suggested to the jury that the statement demonstrated special knowledge.


So he had special knowledge that Collin Millar is supposed to have threw her doon and tied her up lol

You really couldn't make this up.

But then again we know what these same cops did to Shirley McKie.
Karen

“THIS ISN'T JUSTICE IT'S A  CONSPIRACY”

Those are the words I shouted to the judges after they had turned down my appeal.

For nine and a half years I have sat quietly and listened to how the crown lied and denied me a fair trial, and  withholding  statements that could have  made a difference.

Then I  have to listen the appeal court say they accept that things were withheld but it would not have made a difference to the trial.

So now not only do they condone what the crown did but in their so called wisdom they are now second guessing the jury.

Surely it's for a jury to decide in a retrial if it would have made a difference?

Anyway this is not the end of the fight. I’ll continue to fight to clear my name and get justice for myself and my family and also for Mrs Irvine.

As long as I remain wrongly convicted the real killer /killers are still at large.

Special thanks to my wife Liz who has stood by me,  Karen &Frank Torley and also Wullie Beck for all their support on the day of my appeal and especially for all the campaigning they and my wife do in my behalf I'm truly grateful.

None of Mrs Irvine's family were at court on the 29th, maybe that was because of the things they heard concerning C Keers’ 11 statements .  Now they know he heard someone  being slapped 6 or 7 times (HIS WORDS )  and yet still he did not go in and check on his auntie.

It's about time Keers started telling the truth like WHY HIS CCTV OUTSIDE THE HOUSE WASN’T ON THE SATURDAY NIGHT AND SUNDAY MORNING, WHEN BY HIS OWN ADMISSION IT WAS ALWAYS ON.

Why was he having talks with Colin Miller’s lawyer in a side room at the court? Why also was he also sitting with Colin Miller every time there was a break in court?

If someone murdered my auntie I certainly wouldn't be having hushed talks and whispers with him. Keer's has said all along that he saw 2 men in July when Mrs Irvine was burgled, then he never saw them again till the night before the murder, and he says that I looked like the smaller of the two men.

Well it's a now proven fact from appeal that he couldn't have seen me because at the time of first break in I was in Bow house prison.

C Keers as far as I'm concerned knows more than he's letting on, that's why he doesn't want the truth to come out.

He keeps saying the right people are in jail.  If that was the case then why did he go to a certain organisation and offer them a large lump sum of money to stop them campaigning for myself and my co accused. He offered that money because he knows if I overturn my conviction then the crime will be opened up again.

He know's he can't afford that to happen because he will be looked at again, after all he was the original suspect before he started to tell his lie's about seeing me .

It was not until his 10th or 11th statement he says he saw me or someone like me, by then I was already on remand.

I will never stop fighting.  I have been in nine and a half years now and   I will keep fighting even if it takes another nine and a half years.

If I appealed my sentence I could have got it down to 17 or 18 years, but i refuse to do that because  I AM INNOCENT

I won’t pretend otherwise just to get a reduction in sentence. I have my wife's backing on this.

The sentence is irrelevant wither it's 25 years or 25 days, i am not interested in the sentence it's only the wrongful conviction I am interested in and it's only the conviction I will continue to fight.

Well that's all to be going on with just now. I will be back next week with some more and every other week to be added to the web pages.

Once again a big thank you to my wife Elizabeth and also to Karen and Frank Torley and big Wullie for their continued support and their help in the fight to clear my name

Yours Truly

Patrick Docherty
david

Keep up the fight Mr Docherty

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Mahatma Gandhi
david

This doesn't come a surprise

Patrick Docherty refused leave to appeal to UKSC

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/sear...6b0a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
NanaKaren

While it is not a surprise that the appeal was rejected. We expected this.  What is a surprise is  as far as Pat was aware the appeal was not being heard until next week. He only had a visit from his legal team yesterday.  Pat was told he would not need to go as it would be a written submission.

So seems decisions are made on cases and the person they concern does not even get to know its happening.
Big Wullie

No part of criminal proceedings should take place outwith the accused.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/c681_00.html

Seems to me the lawyers are also acting in cahoots with the courts so others are not present to hear what is going on.

Appalling.
NanaKaren

aye its shocking Wullie.  

Pat Docherty will find out today his appeal has been heard and refused  when he calls his wife.

His wife knows because I had a quick look on here and David had posted the appeal link, then quickly called her.  If it had not been for David, they would not have known.  Thanks David, just as well someone is paying attention.

Pats legal team went to see him the other day telling him this was just a paper submission to be heard next week and he would not need to be there  

We all know that they were never going to say yes on you go to UK Supreme Court.  Why do they even bother with this sham of an appeal when after its done people can go to UK Supreme court anyway?

Its costing time, money and is a waste of time and resources.

What is worrying is they are doing this in secret and can say whatever the hell they want in their refusal without any argument.

Out of interest have they ever allowed one of these appeals?
david

Karen,

You find that these applications for leave to UKSC are resided over by the same judges who you are calling into question.

For them to grant leave to appeal would in other words be an admittance that their earlier judgement was wrong.

Good that the avenue of the UKSC is live and kicking for a wee while yet
NanaKaren

Quote:
You find that these applications for leave to UKSC are resided over by the same judges who you are calling into question.

For them to grant leave to appeal would in other words be an admittance that their earlier judgement was wrong.



There is something quite perverse about it all.

Why do they even waste time and tax payers money going through this charade?

No they won't admit they got something wrong.  So much for fairness, justice and impartiality.
nugnug

why do appeal courts take such a long time from hearing evedence to ruling on it. a jury jury would be discharged if they failed to reach a decisn in a quarter of the time.
Big Wullie

Quote:
[14]      In fairness to counsel, since the application relies on what are referred to as de facto breaches of art 6 and de facto determination of compatibility issues, it appears to be accepted that there were no compatibility issues actually before this court in either appeal.


I have never saw such oppression as this crap above.

I attended this appeal and heard counsel insist upon article 6 and compatibility issues.

It was not the fault of Docherty surely that his defence team previously failed to raise any devolution issue but this appeal seeks to blame Docherty for this.

The evidence withheld in this case is stronger in my view than the evidence which saw Nat Fraser's conviction overturned.

Docherty was in prison when Keers said he saw him.

Orr identified someone else by a tattoo.

What the appeal did not address is the experts evidence about the time of death and what was the last thing digested by the victim.

According to the crown case at trial the last thing digested was bread and butter.

The forensic report said the last thing digested was bread and jam.

This destroys the crown theory on the time of death.

It is disgusting that Docherty was identified wrongly by Keers and even more disgusting that he was never identified the day of the murder.

The person identified by Orr was identified at the time and day of death but this evidence was withheld.
david

process is subject to tight timescales whereby an application for leave to go to the UKSC must be asked of Scot Court but even if they refuse leave to go to London, the appellant has the right to go direct with or without permission.


information can be found on the UKSC here:

http://supremecourt.uk/about/role-of-the-supreme-court.html
Big Wullie

Application for leave to appeal to UKSC refused:

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/sea...6b0a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY

[2014] HCJAC 115

XC477/13



Lord Justice General

Lady Smith

Lady Clark of Calton



OPINION OF THE COURT

delivered by LADY SMITH

in

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

by

PATRICK DOCHERTY

Applicant;

against

HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE

Respondent:

For the Applicant:  C M Mitchell; John Pryde & Co, SSC, Edinburgh

For the Crown:  Prentice QC (Sol Adv), AD; Crown Agent

23 October 2014

Introduction

[1]        On 1 March 2005, the applicant was convicted, along with a co-accused, of the murder of a 91 year old woman, in her home in Galston.  His two appeals against conviction have both been refused by this court.



The applicant’s appeals
[2]        On 26 March 2010, this court refused the applicant’s appeal against conviction on grounds which included the failure of the Crown to disclose a police statement of Sheena Orr; we refer to the Opinion of the Court ([2010] HCJAC 31) for the evidential background, the submissions of parties, the conclusions of the court and reasons for refusing the appeal.

[3]        On 30 June 2010, the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court; leave was refused.  Permission was sought from the Supreme Court; it too was refused, on 18 November 2011.

[4]        The applicant then applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (“the Commission”) for review of his conviction.  The Commission referred his case to this court on three grounds: (i) the failure of the Crown to disclose police statements of Charles Keer; (ii) the reliance on a piece of evidence from one of the applicant’s police interviews which took place without his having had prior access to legal advice: Cadder v HM Adv [2010] UKSC 43; and (iii) the failure of the trial judge to direct the jury in relation to dock identification.

[5]        Regarding the failure of the Crown to disclose Sheena Orr’s police statement, the Commission, referring to the opinion of the court in the first appeal, said – at paragraph 32 of its reasons – that it saw “no reason to disagree with the conclusions of the High Court in this regard”.  The Commission noted an argument for the applicant which was, in effect, that the ground relating to the non-disclosure of Sheena Orr’s statement required to be revisited in the light of the non-disclosure of Charles Keers’ statements but was not persuaded that it had any merit (see: Commission’s reasons paras [50] and [51]).  The current application fails to acknowledge this.  It also suggests that this court concluded that disclosure of Mr Keers’ statements might have given greater emphasis to Sheena Orr’s evidence but that is not correct;  the passage referred to (at para [21] of the Opinion of the Lord Justice General) is a summary of counsel’s submissions.

[6]        The three grounds referred by the Commission were grounds which, as explained in paragraph 3 of the Opinion of the Lord Justice General of 29 August 2014, senior counsel had sought to lodge on the morning of the hearing of the applicant’s first appeal (3 November 2009).  The court refused to receive them for the reasons explained in its opinion: Patrick Doherty v HM Adv [2010] HCJAC 81 at para [6].

[7]        No devolution issue minutes were lodged in relation to any of the grounds either before or after 3 November 2009.

[8]        On 29 August 2014, this court refused the applicant’s further appeal against conviction. The grounds before the court were those referred by the Commission.  We refer to the Opinion of the Lord Justice General ([2014] HCJAC 94) in that second appeal for the details of the submissions of parties, the conclusions of the court and the reasons for refusing the appeal.



The present application

[9]        The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the refusal of his second appeal.  He advances four grounds of appeal based on: (i) the non-disclosure of a police statement by Sheena Orr; (ii) the non-disclosure of police statements by Charles Keers;  (iii) reliance on evidence of one of the applicant’s police interviews : Cadder v HM Adv; and (iv) misdirection by the trial judge, by omission, in relation to dock identification.

[10]      The first three grounds of appeal are presented as being convertible devolution issues.  It is not entirely clear but the argument seems to be that the fact of their having been referred by the Commission and considered by this court, renders them such, notwithstanding the clear authority to the effect that a determined devolution issue cannot be converted into a compatibility issue by virtue of a reference from the Commission: Cadder v HM Adv paras [11]–[12]; Carberry v HM Adv [2014] JC 56 at paras [52]–[53]).  There also appears to be a subsidiary argument to the effect that the non-disclosure and Cadder grounds in fact raised legal arguments under article 6, which was breached and, accordingly, when considering whether or not a miscarriage of justice has occurred the test relevant to a devolution or compatibility issue, as set out in McInnes v HM Adv 2010 SCCR 286, ought to have been applied, rather than that set out in Brodie v HM Adv 2013 JC 142.  That is an argument which was not presented to this court. To the contrary, counsel’s submissions were to the effect that either test was appropriate and no distinction needed to be drawn between them.

[11]      The fourth ground was not, it is accepted, a convertible devolution issue at the time of the appeal.  However, it is said, without reference to authority, that by the time this court was determining the matter in the second appeal, it was de facto determining a compatibility issue because it was deciding whether or not a public authority had acted contrary to article 6 of the convention.  So, a question arises, it is said, as to whether or not the McInnes test ought to have been applied.  Likewise, that is an argument which was not presented to this court.



Decision

[12]      In our opinion, this application fails because this court did not, in the second appeal, determine any compatibility issues and there can be no competent appeal to the Supreme Court in the absence of the determination by this court of a compatibility issue (Fallon v HM Adv 2001 SC(PC) 105;  Johnstone v HM Adv 2013 HCJAC 129).  Any rights that the applicant had to raise compatibility issues before this court were extinguished before 22 April 2013, as explained in the Opinion of the Lord Justice General of 29 August 2014 at paras [28]-[29].  None of the grounds argued in the appeals became devolution issues or compatibility issues by virtue of their subject matter also happening to have been apt for consideration as art 6 matters.

[13]      Insofar as the matters raised in the grounds of appeal might have become convertible devolution issues, they were determined when the court refused to entertain them at the start of the first appeal hearing: Patrick Docherty v HM Adv; Cadder v HM Adv at paras [11]–[13].  We do not read any of Lord Hope of Craighead’s observations in McDonald v HM Adv [2008] UKPC 46 - paragraphs 14 and 15 of which are relied on by the applicant as demonstrating that the present application is competent - as being to contrary effect.  His observation that the fact that the High Court had refused to entertain a ground of appeal did not prevent the Supreme Court considering whether or not to grant special leave is beside the point; he was not addressing the question of whether or not a devolution issue within such a ground was determined before 22 April 2013.  

[14]      In fairness to counsel, since the application relies on what are referred to as de facto breaches of art 6 and de facto determination of compatibility issues, it appears to be accepted that there were no compatibility issues actually before this court in either appeal.  That demonstrates, however, that nothing in the application can properly be viewed as a submission that this court erred in law on a compatibility issue.  The application, accordingly, fails to meet one of the essential requirements for the grant of leave as set out in Macklin v HM Adv [2013] HCJAC 41.  

[15]      In these circumstances, the second requirement - that the application raises an issue of general public importance - does not arise but we would, in any event, have concluded that it does not do so.  It is contended that there is such an issue because of “observed tension” between the application of the McInnes test and the Brodie test.  That is not, we consider, sufficient, particularly where counsel did not submit that there was any material distinction between the two tests, in the appeal before us.

[16]      We therefore refuse the application.

I would argue the non disclosure Of Keers evidence and Sheena Orr's evidence was similar if not worse than the case of Nat Fraser regarding the non disclosure of the two police officers regarding the rings.
Quote:

The present application

[9]        The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the refusal of his second appeal.  He advances four grounds of appeal based on: (i) the non-disclosure of a police statement by Sheena Orr; (ii) the non-disclosure of police statements by Charles Keers;  (iii) reliance on evidence of one of the applicant’s police interviews : Cadder v HM Adv; and (iv) misdirection by the trial judge, by omission, in relation to dock identification.


They are devolution issues whether the court likes it or not.

They were not as suggested by the court rejected before 2013.

What happened at the last appeal was this:

The court refused to accept late grounds for arguments therefore the details of the late grounds were not entertained by the court let alone debated.

Quote:
Any rights that the applicant had to raise compatibility issues before this court were extinguished before 22 April 2013,


This court also failed to mention that the Forensic Expert (Morjory Black) now refuses to adopt the crowns interpretation of the time of death, and disputes the last thing the victim ate.

Why have three of our top judges including the top judge refused to address these issues that were raised by defence counsel at this appeal.

I witnessed defence counsel insist upon compatibility issues therefore they were before the court.
Big Wullie

Why do these judge think the public are not concerned about Crown Office hiding evidence which would tend to undermine their case against any accused:

Quote:
 In these circumstances, the second requirement - that the application raises an issue of general public importance - does not arise but we would, in any event, have concluded that it does not do so.


I really can only conclude they are living on another planet.

Show all the evidence if they are that confident in their convictions.
Big Wullie

I really find it hard to believe that Docherty was identified as having been seen the day prior to this murder and the court are relying upon this for a conviction and people seen the day of the murder were hidden from the defence.

Couldn't make this shit up.

Regarding the Dock Identification.

According to what is said in all the guidance's I have read it is desirable to hold an ID Parade before asking witnesses to identify people in court.
The Devlin report of 1976 also recommended it as good practice yet Scotland keep up this practice on a daily basis.

If there has been no ID Parade then in England witnesses are not asked if they can identify an accused, only in Scotland is this oppressive action allowed by our courts.

From memory it was also mentioned at the appeal that when Charles Keers said he saw Docherty and recalled him from the previous break in at his aunts house next door Patrick Docherty was in Prison.

This actually tells us that the person Keers saw was not Patrick Docherty yet the courts are relying upon this to uphold this awful conviction.

Our System Of Justice Is Backwards In Scotland.

I genuinely think some of the decisions emanating from our appeal courts shows our judges must be suffering from Learning Difficulties

       shirleymckie.myfastforum.org 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.