| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
freethekillie2
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 309
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
freethekillie2
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 309
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
IT LOOKS LIKE ONLY 4 FOR DISCLOSURE HEARING!
ARE THE CROWN PLAYING UP?
STRANGE THERE WAS 9, AT THE LAST HEARING! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 548
Location: Glasgow
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 548
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Disclosure
Though i do not normally post whole articles i feel compelled to do so with this one, This way it is here forever, Sometimes articles have been know to just disappear, This way it Can't.
It is also to be noted here that there are no comments allowed on this item so maybe people can comment here.
Cocaine smuggler to appeal over non-disclosure of evidenceExclusive by LUCY ADAMS, Chief Reporter October 22 2007
ROUGH JUSTICE?: William Grant maintains his innocence
A man convicted of being one of Scotland's biggest cocaine smugglers is to appeal his case following the discovery of new evidence.
William Gavin Grant was arrested in 2002 and charged with trying to import one of Scotland's largest consignments of cocaine, worth an estimated £50m. He and three other men were caught by Customs and police officers in a complex sting operation.
The drugs, which the gang were transporting direct from South America, had already been seized at an English port and replaced with sand. When some of the group went to pick up what they thought was cocaine, they were arrested.
Grant, 42, from Bothwell in Lanarkshire, was accused of being a ringleader alongside James Mair, and they were jailed for 18 years each at the High Court in Edinburgh.
advertisementHowever, new evidence has come to light which suggests Grant had nothing to do with the smuggling, and Mair has written to him from Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow, apologising for the fact he was accidentally caught up in the operation.
The main evidence against Grant came from the testimony of Hannah Smith, Mair's secretary, and the analysis of a fax machine which officers claimed Grant used to organise the shipment.
The Herald has seen the transcript of a taped police interview with Ms Smith, which has only just been handed to the defence and highlights major discrepancies between her different statements.
In addition, lawyers and investigators have uncovered flaws in the expert claims that the fax organising the shipment came from Grant's machine and suggestions that evidence was improperly handled.
Evidence seals were broken on the evidence with no mention why, yet traditionally if officers need to remove something or open the evidence bag, they have to explain reasons and log the action.
Grant's appeal will be led on a number of grounds, including non-disclosure, insufficiency of evidence, and discrepancies in the statements of the key witness.
The case is likely to reignite the debate about non-disclosure. The Crown is still refusing to hand over the surveillance logs involved or allow access to the original fax machine.
Peter Ritchie, a retired detective superintendent from Lothian and Borders police who spent five years at Europol and worked as the head of the organised crime squad in NCIS (National Criminal Intelligence Service), has been working on the case for the past two years.
Grant, speaking to The Herald from Glenochil Prison, said: "The appeal was granted in January 2004 and I have been waiting since then to get a date set and to get the Crown Office to hand over the remaining documents that we need. The transcript of the police interview with Hannah Smith was only made available at the end of August this year and they are still not allowing us access to the original evidence to allow our forensic experts to look at it.
"It is just so incredibly frustrating. The strain it's putting on me and my family is incredible. My mum is really struggling to cover my mortgage payments and keep things going.
"I just want a date set so I can get the appeal heard. All I was doing was looking after someone's business while they were on holiday. This could happen to anyone - that's one of the scariest things about it. Mair wrote to me in Barlinnie saying don't worry about this, it's got nothing to do with you. But I'm still here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PeterCherbi
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 147
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good article from the Herald on disclosure.
i see there is a further piece to that story here :
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/focus/display.var.1775811.0.0.php
While there needs to be law enforcing complete disclosure, there needs to be an enforcement mechanism for it, and I'm not talking about just the Police, because if a situation arose where the Crown were found to be in violation of the law, who would do anything about it ?
Would the Police go in and charge those officials in the Crown Office for failing to disclose documents, then the matter get referred to the Fiscal's service, who, under the control of the Crown Office may boot the case out ?
Given the lack of disclosure on not only this but many cases, there almost seems enough work for a 'disclosure commissioner' although if such a post was created the remit would simply have to be enforcement of the law, ensuring full disclosure, not deciding on what does or what doesn't get disclosed ...
_________________
My blog on issues of injustice in Scotland A Diary of Injustice in Scotland by Peter Cherbi
Injustice Scotland Campaign website : Injustice Scotland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 548
Location: Glasgow
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Mac
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 18
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Wullie
It is amazing that just before the last hearing on disclosures was about to begin Elish Angelino asked Gavins Q C to step in to an adjacent room to the court and told him that Gavin would be getting the disclosures that he asked for (after 2 years of saying no ! ) It seems very coincidental that this was just after Lucy Adams article on Gavin . We now have some but not all, We wait with baited breath
MATT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethekillie2
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 309
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are lucky matt if some has been handed over it seems they do not want to hand any disclosure for brendan dixon!
IF NO DISCLOSURE IS HANDED OVER BY MARCH NEXT YEAR NAMES WILL BE MENTIONED IN THE KILLIE2 CASE.
It is good that you at least got some. but why not release all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 548
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Big Mac
There is a reason for everything Crown Office do.
The reason Gavins QC would have been taken aside is to remember him he has a duty to the court and not to bring it into disrepute.
Believe me they have it would seem more of a duty to the courts than to their clients it would seem from some recent literature sent to me.
They must disregard even the most specific insrtuctions of their clients if they conflict with his duty to the court.
See Here sent to me by Ed Milne:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2078907599&size=l
One must ask now of Solicitors Duties |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin donald
Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 87
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
