shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 262 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

Wullie has never tried to avoid responsibility for what he has done and is doing in his life but unfortunately the system cannot or will not own up to the injustices it has inflicted on him, his wife Louise and his children.

Only last year the police had the temerity to take him from his home on some trumped up pretext - a reminder, if such is needed , what is coming to you if you dare stand up for the truth, yourself and your family.

As an ex police officer I will not join those who as a matter of course condemn the service and all it stands for but there is little doubt as I learn more of cases like Wullie’s and Willie Gage's I realise that the police and the justice system are either blind to their failures or so arrogant that they do not care.

Change is needed. Our justice system requires a radical overhaul culturally and structurally or injustice like Wullies will continue.

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

Mr McKie,

I grew up in a police family with my father a police officer of ACPOS rank and I share your view in that there are some who condemn the police and what they stand for and when i was a fiscal found myself frustrated many times with how some things are done. However, this corruption that is alleged to have gone on......did you ever experience this in your 30 years service and if so did you ever stop it. You held the rank of Superintendent so as an ASPS ranked officer you had some clout on how things were done I imagine.
_________________
Mr Fiscal

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

Wullie

Was the verdict against you unanimous?

Just curious as to how the jury voted.
_________________
Great Spirit, grant that I may not criticize my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his moccasins." - Old Native American Indian Prayer that my dad taught me.

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 146

Interesting point, Scotkaz.

I was incredulous to discover that a "majority" decision in Scotland is, in fact, a majority of only one.

To read all the press coverage that accompanies high profile cases these days, you'd imagine 10:2 might be reasonable (not saying I agree with the 10:2 "majority" - just that you can see how it could arguably be considered reasonable) but in Scotland, out of fifteen jurors, 7 can find for the defendant, and he's still "guilty" in the eyes of the law.

Talk about a thin line!

I have to point out here, I'm not for a minute suggesting that was the jury vote in Wullie's case - just hooking onto the jury vote system as an area worth discussion.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

Angeline

I have just been reading about this majority verdict in Scotland.

I am appalled at the quotes I have found on this.

The jury took just 35 minutes to find George Beattie guilty - and the rumour emanating from the room was that it was on a 7 - 8 majority.

Then I read this that one of my friends Niall McLuskey from the Faculty of Advoctates wrote in 2005 for the Scotsman,

IMAGINE you find yourself on trial in the High Court charged with murder. You assert your innocence, but the jury finds you guilty. Collectively, they appear to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of your guilt. You are sentenced to life imprisonment.

Later you discover that seven members of that 15-person jury voted to acquit you on the basis that they were not satisfied of your guilt. You ask your lawyers if you have grounds for an appeal on the basis that eight out of 15 members voting for guilty cannot surely provide a basis for a collective verdict beyond reasonable doubt. Your lawyers tell you that because it is the law in Scotland, nothing can be done.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has recently said that the Scottish Government is keen to look at the jury system which has not been reviewed, as he puts it "since almost time immemorial". The Scottish Government is to carry out a public consultation on the jury system this summer.

See http://business.scotsman.com/lega...e-jury39s-out-over-how.4049637.jp for the full article

I take it that nothing has been done by the justice secretary to rectify this ancient law on majority verdicts?

God help George Beattie and anyone who has been convicted on an 8-7 so called majority. That is just not fair.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Scotkaz & Angeline

Believe it or not the verdict in my case was a Majority of 8-7 against me.

Had the jury the opportunity of seeing or hearing the evidence that has been withheld from me for years I am sure their verdict would have been the other way around.

In effect only one person found me guilty.

Had they heard the following evidence their verdicts would have been different.

The article in the post is great but misses some details.

The witness that said in court:

He did not run into Raeburn Rigg
The car came past him
There was nothing suspicious about it
There was nothing to attract his attention to it
Yet he wrote down the Reg No and claimed to recognise the driver and said this was me.

I have since found many statements "Including His Own" which clearly state he ran into Raeburn Rigg and someone was shouting to stop the car.

If true then his evidence in court was a pack of lies and he could never have seen anyone let alone me in any car, because if he ran into Raeburn Rigg then the car would never have passed him by, and all he would have seen was the back of the car.

This evidence is available in what Crown are saying is Crown Precognitions that I have, which are also never recoverable say Crown ?

Had SCCRC investigated and spoke to this crucial witness they might have extarcted the truth from him but they only saw fit to interview the other witness that Identified me "The Policeman"

The policeman remember the Lawyer wrote had number two out his mouth before turning to view the Parade.

SCCRC failed their duty to fully explore my complaints and grounds of appeal to them as they have done with many many other cases.

Time they were held accountable for their actions or rather In-Actions.

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

Wullie

I had no idea that your guilty verdict was this horribly unfair 8-7 too.

Yes it is time that the SCCRC were held acountable for their inaction in your case and others too. They have failed you and so did the system all those years ago.

I would not trust a verdict of 8-7 as a verdict of guilt or innocence.

A majority should be something like 10-2 , which is more conclusive of what the majority say.

The Scottish majority law is so old and should be changed ASAP.

Another question for anyone who might have the answer.............. In these majority verdicts, does the accused/convicted always get to know what the figures are?

What about Willie Gage? Luke Mitchell and all the other high profile cases? I wonder what the majority was in their cases? How would I find out the answer to this?

Even Tommy Sheridan got a better majority verdict in his original trial. He was found not guilty as you all know but the majority was 7-4. Yet he is being taken back to court bythe crown on perjury charges.

I think there are a few more important cases like Wullies for starters were people should be held accountable and charged with perjury.

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 146

As far as I know (and I haven't found anything to the contrary yet, although I'm still looking), there is no automatic right to know what the numbers were - as long as the magic number 8 is reached the rest, in the eyes of the Crown, is irrelevant - all that is required is a "majority."

Because of the instructions given to jurors, they are led to believe that they must have a majority for either guilty or not guilty or not proven. What most people probably don't understand is that a jury which voted 6 innocent, 6 guilty and 3 not proven would result in an acquittal - it wouldn't be considered a "hung" jury because of the not proven element.

Regarding the 10-2 majority, there's an interesting little quirk in there too. In order to get a guilty verdict, 10 jurors must vote guilty. But turn it around - if nine vote innocent and only three vote guilty, the accused cannot be acquitted, and a new jury has to hear the case.

As far as the Luke Mitchell case is concerned, I believe the actual numbers have never been officially released, although there have been whispers that this, too, was an 8 - 7 verdict.

Can't help on Willie Gage, I'm afraid. Does make you think, though, doesn't it?
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

How can the same story materially differ from different versions

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

I have been looking online about this "majority" verdict and it troubles me a lot that someone can be found guilty and have their freedom taken for however long on this verdict.

I am even more appalled to find out that this law began in the 16th century and has never been updated since then.

Yes you read right! The SIXTEENTH century. We are now in the 21st Century for goodness sake.

There was certainly a prolonged debate on the acceptable size of that majority, but by the 16th century again it was accepted that a valid verdict could be reached on a majority of only 1 – and that even in capital cases. By the end of the 18th century simple majority was clearly accepted as being sufficient for a valid verdict.

Surely to God this outdated law should be looked at and changed to a proper majority at the very least?

To think people where hung on this verdict is terrifying.