shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

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

I Have said for a long time SCCRC are an extension of the Judiciary and are there to uphold as many convictions as possible and they are not independent enough of Judiciary.

Proof at last:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2324_00.html

Gerald Gordon QC sat on this appeal in 2001 despite being a member of SCCRC from it's inception in 1999:

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/management.aspx

Very independent eh ?

Remember also Sinclair is a temporary Sheriff despite being their Chief Exec Rolling Eyes

the mind boggles.

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

Recent Questions asked in Parliament about SCCRC Conduct and FOI

Justice
S3W-12505 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many appeals against convictions have been referred to the high court in each year since 1999, broken down by grounds of appeal.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The information requested is provided in the following table.

Conviction Referrals from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2008

Year
Number of Referrals
Main Grounds

1999-2000
2
1 x New Evidence

1 x Change in Witness Testimony

2000-01
4
2 x Change in the Law

1 x New Evidence

1 x Unfair Trial

2001-02
9
6 x New Evidence

1 x Defective Representation

1 x Sentencing Issue

1 x Reasonable Doubt as to Applicant''s Guilt

2002-03
10
4 x New Evidence

2 x Jury Impropriety

1 x Reasonable Doubt as to Applicant''s Guilt

1 x Defective Representation

1 x Sentencing Issue

1 x Disclosure of Evidence

2003-04
2
2 x New Evidence

2004-05
6
5 x New Evidence

1 x Procedural Irregularity

2005-06
3
1 x Misdirection by Trial Judge

1 x Change in the Law

1 x Insufficiency of Evidence

2006-07
7
2 x Misdirection by Trial Judge

1 x Sentencing Issue

1 x Disclosure of Evidence

1 x Change in the Law

1 x New Evidence

1 x Abuse of Process

2007-08
3
1 x Multiple Referral Grounds

1 x New Evidence

1 x Unreasonable Verdict

Total
=SUM(ABOVE) 46

It should be noted that there may be other grounds of review. The commission''s system records only the main ground in the first instance.

The above is proof that of all the 168 cases reviewed by SCCRC for defective Representation they only ever have referred "2"

Absolutely shocking statistics

Recent Questions here:

Freedom of Information
S3W-12565 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force, referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner and ordered to be disclosed have been appealed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The Scottish Information Commissioner has never instructed the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to disclose information, therefore no such appeals have ever been made.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S3W-12564 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force and referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner have been disclosed.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The Scottish Information Commissioner has never instructed the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to disclose information in relation to any case referred to him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S3W-12563 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force have been referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): One such request had been referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner by 31 March 2008.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S3W-12562 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force have been (a) disclosed in the first instance, (b) refused in the first instance, (c) disclosed after review and (d) refused after review.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): Nineteen requests for information, made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, have resulted in information being released, while eight have been refused. Two requests resulted in partial disclosure. To date, four requests for review have been received and, in each case, the original decision to withhold information was found to have been correct.

In addition, in one case the SCCRC did not hold the information requested and, in another, the information requested was obtained from another source.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S3W-12561 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests have been received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had received a total of 32 such requests by 31 March 2008.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice
S3W-12510 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission holds records of the names of individual solicitors referred to the commission on grounds of defective representation.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): Individual applications from members of the public and/or their legal representatives will include the names of solicitors involved in a case, as will the Statement of Reasons that the Commission provides in relation to each application.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freedom of Information
S3W-12509 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that the disclosure of the names of solicitors referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for defective representation would contravene section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-12508 on 9 May 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice
S3W-12508 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers it to be in the public interest to disclose the names of solicitors referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for defective representation.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): Solicitors are not referred to the SCCRC. Once an application has been reviewed by the SCCRC it can be referred to the High Court.

When the court considers a case, the details of that case (including the names of any solicitors or other legal representatives involved) will be contained in any published opinion and will be a matter of public record.

Section 194J of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 makes it an offence for any member or employee of the SCCRC to disclose information obtained by the SCCRC in the exercise of any of its functions. The possibility of information provided by applicants, witnesses and/or victims subsequently being disclosed, other than in court, could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system, including the work of the SCCRC. Witnesses and/or people under investigation should not be inhibited or deterred from co-operating in investigations by the possibility that information provided may be disclosed or that their identity is revealed to the public, outwith the protection of the court. Accordingly, such information is not normally made available.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S3W-12507 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive what action can be taken against solicitors referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for defective representation.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): Solicitors are not referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Where the Commission refers a case to the High Court, and the court overturns a conviction on the grounds of defective representation, it may be possible for disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the legal representative concerned. The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates are responsible for investigating complaints against solicitors and advocates respectively.

The Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman (SLSO) looks into complaints about how the professional bodies handle complaints against legal practitioners. Under the terms of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, the SLSO will be replaced by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commissioner (SLCC). The SLCC will receive complaints about legal practitioners where local resolution between the practitioner and client has been attempted but has proven unsuccessful. The SLCC will investigate complaints about service while the professional bodies will continue to address concerns relating to conduct. We anticipate that the new body will become operational in late 2008.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S3W-12506 - Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP) (Date Lodged Wednesday, April 30, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive what constitutes defective representation by solicitors.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Friday, May 09, 2008): The approach to be taken by the courts in cases in which there is an allegation of defective representation is defined in Anderson vs H.M. Advocate (1996 SCCR 114). The then Lord Justice General stated that the conduct of the defence by the accused''s legal representative can only provide a ground for appeal if it deprives the accused of a fair trial. He further stated that this can only have occurred where the conduct was such that the accused''s defence was not presented to the court.

This may be because the accused was deprived of the opportunity to present his defence; or because his legal representative acted contrary to his instructions as to the defence he wished to be put forward; or because of other conduct which, because his defence had not been put, had the effect of denying him a fair trial.

In considering applications for review based on defective representation, the SCCRC applies the above approach.

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 263 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

The SCCRC is an important organisation of that there can be no doubt.

Effectively it is the last hope many accused have of justice and as such must deal impartially with the cases before it and be seen so to do.

However like every arbitration organisation it will never please everyone and to simply write it off as biased, prejudiced, incompetent or whatever is simply not good enough without reasoned debate in support.

Effectively many contributors on this and other forums are exhibiting the very failings they see in the SCCRC and readily jump to conclusions from very little evidence and enquiry that often lacks objectivity and balance. I am aware that lots of this is born of anger at the way the system has abused them and from a genuine feeling of injustice but it is ultimately futile.

That said there are a number of real issues to be resolved within organisations like the SCCRC.

One of them is the popular perception of cultural bias. Given that the majority of members have ‘legal’ experience this is going to be a hard one to tackle. The SCCRC is not unique in this of course and over 50% of our MP’s (lawmakers) are lawyers or legally qualified.

On the one hand there is little doubt that being legally qualified helps in finding your way round the justice system and makes enquiry, research and assessment easier. The question is however can the decisions made ever be said to be totally free of cultural bias and self-interest? Do the figures obtained by ‘Big Wullie’ that over 9 years only 2 claims of ‘defective representation’ have been referred back to the appeal court by the SCCRC point to cultural bias - given that we know ‘defective representation’ is one of the most frequent grounds of referral to the SCCRC?

I would be the first to admit that prior to Shirley’s case I would have been reluctant to accept that bias and prejudice on the scale exhibited by some senior police officers and others within the justice system was even possible. Sadly I have had to change that position and accept that such bureaucratic structures exert a powerful hold over individuals and contain within them a powerful bias in favour of system survival.

Aside from this there are other issues that I feel need to be addressed.

I believe that there is growing evidence of a strong potential for injustice in cases based heavily on circumstantial evidence. There is ample opportunity for contradictory evidence to be played down or for the wrong emphasis to be put on evidence that is part of the prosecution’s evidential chain or jigsaw.

Perhaps above everything despite undertakings given at the highest level of our justice system the full and frank disclosure of both prosecution and defence evidence does not take place. Without this the spectre of injustice will continue to haunt our system.

It is time for our justice system to grow up and embrace and face the challenge found on this forum and elsewhere. The defensive posture almost inevitably adopted in some quarters overwhelmingly proves we have a justice system that fears the principles of openness and accountability.

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

Iian

We have already agreed there is a need for an organisation like SCCRC, I cannot agree on the way it is staffed and run.

They are simply not independent of the Judicial System.

When set up it was anticipated (Stated section 194) they would be one third legal minded two thirds non legal, 99% are from the legal establishment with Judges, PFs and Police being the choice of our Justice Minister for the posts.

Quote:
given that we know ‘defective representation’ is one of the most frequent grounds of referral to the SCCRC?

For clarity: Defective Representation is their most submitted ground not one of their most. "thee"

Sadly the good that they have done will be undone with their cultural bias when it comes to investigating their own and their lack of accountability and openness.

one change i would also like to see is that an accused be allowed to attend their meetings when they make their final decisions.

My reasoning for this is simply: I am left feeling in my own case that the Board were not fully aware of exactly what my grounds where, Indeed they never answered all my issues or grounds therefore they were not fully aware of them.

For all i know it could have been the cleaner that decided my case.

The culture of one investigating officer alone to look at one case must change with at least one legal and two non legal sitting on this part of the investigations.

At present whatever the Legal Officer decides in your case is what happens, He is never challenged as far as i know.