shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 471 Location: Glasgow

Less than 1% of claims against Solicitors ever go to court.

Hear this from the horse's mouth in the form of Douglas Mills from the Law Society here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_YZX2KyCJ4&feature=related

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 471 Location: Glasgow

More Stats From "SCCRC" Regarding Defective Representation.

From their Annual Report of 2006-2007 it is apparent they had only referred 2 cases from its inception in 1999.
This means in 8 years they had only referred 2 cases for the ground they recieve most complaint about.
A shocking statistic and proof something is wrong within the ranks of SCCRC indeed it points to a reluctance to investigate fully this issue.

Table 6 Main grounds of referral in conviction cases (for cases referred from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2007)

Ground of Referral
Number of Cases
%
New evidence
16
41%
Change in the law
3
8%
Defective representation
2
5%
Reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt
2
5%
Multiple referral grounds
7
18%

The remaining 23% of referral grounds comprised: change of witness testimony, disclosure of evidence, insufficiency of evidence, jury impropriety, misdirection by a trial judge, procedural irregularity and unfair trial.

I am very interested to know exactly how many appeals on defective Representation have been Successful at appeal.

I have found on their site recently the Brian kelly Case highlighted by nought justice and although ealier posts suggested he was defectively represented by Donald Findlay this is not what SCCRC say he won his appeal on see:

Brian Kelly – Appeal successful 6 August 2004. The
High Court found that the evidence on which the
Commission based its referral suggested a risk of cross
contamination of DNA samples which, in the
circumstances of the case, was of sufficient
significance to warrant quashing the appellant’s
conviction.

2005 Annual Report

Extract from Appeal:
[23] The remaining issue is whether there is a reasonable explanation why that evidence was not heard at the trial. At one time it appeared that this would be the subject of strong contention between the parties. In the end of the day, however, little was said about it. We have two reasons for considering that the appellant has shown that this test is met in the circumstances of the present case. First, it is clear that it was only in the late 1980s that concerns were being expressed that undetected cross-contamination could result in the incorrect conclusion in the comparison between samples. This appears to have been raised initially in the United States of America. Secondly, the advice which was obtained by the defence from Dr. Lincoln did nothing to alert them to the possibility that there could be anything amiss in the procedures which led to the conclusions reached by Dr. Debenham in comparing the DNA sample from the scene with that obtained from the appellant.

[24] In these circumstances the appeal will be allowed and the appellant's conviction quashed.

No mention of defective representation

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 471 Location: Glasgow

For the avoidance of Doubt

On page 8 of SCCRC Annual Report dated: 2006-07 at table 6 their data is wrong.
According to table 5 they recieved 161 grounds of Defective Representation yet at table 6 they have referred only 2

Found Here:

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/viewfile.aspx?id=295

They have 2 cases out of 161 referred and they have given this a 5% rating.

In my book 2 out of 100 would be 2% so 2 out of 161 and rated as 5% must be wrong and misleading.

2 out of 161 is not even 2%

SCCRC please get your info correct !

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 471 Location: Glasgow

An Interesting Article

Thanks to Peter Cherbi i found this article after he e-mailed it to me.
Little did he know that the person who voices his opinion here was the same person that investigated or rather never investigated my case at SCCRC:

Consistency needed on Defective Representation

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1002138.aspx

The above Robin Johnston holds senior status as a legal officer within SCCRC and clearly is well aware of defective representation yet he fails terribly to investigate my complaints of Defective Representation.

My complaints read like the following:

Defective Representation

Having provided SCCRC with evidence of Gross Incompetence and Defective Representation, I expected a fair hearing.

My complaints incorporated the following grounds:

1.Defence team never interviewed 16 of 19 defence witnesses before my trial

2.Defence team never called Crucial Forensic Evidence

3.Defence team never called Lawyer that conducted ID Parade despite him claiming: The police had number two out his mouth before turning to view parade.

4.Defence team failed to call my brother despite him claiming one of the hammers was not in my possession at the time of Robbery therefore could not have been used for Robbery

5.Defence team never called Crown Witness despite him describing someone twice my age with a different colour of hair and a moustache.

6.Defence team failed to challenge the police showing witnesses photos of me before my ID Parade. This should never have been allowed

7.Defence team failed to challenge the two arresting officers conduct at ID Parade, One assisted with Witnesses while the other was present in the parade room. This should never have been allowed.

8. Defence team failed to obtain a copy of a second ID Parade which I did not attend but Constable Muckle picked a stand in as the culprit. This would have severely undermined his Identification of me and should have been obtained.

9.Called witnesses without first having any statement from them.

10.Failed to challenge material changes in crucial Crown Witnesses evidence.

11.Defence Failed to challenge material Misdirection's by the Judge.

12.SCCRC told me one of my grounds of misdirection was indeed not a misdirection.

13.I argued with SCCRC that my case was very similar to a case which collapsed at the High Court in Glasgow in 2001 HMA V James Haggerty

14.I told SCCRC that my case should be referred to as in Muldoon

15.I told SCCRC that even the Judge referred to Ashfords evidence as “Discredited”

16.I told SCCRC that the Lawyer Shaw should be sent a copy of his ID Parade report to confirm his writing and what he wrote and why he wrote it on his report.
17. I told SCCRC that the police had intimidated a Mr Hamilton whom i had seen at his van on the day in question and provided them with a tape recording of telephone conversations with Mr Hamilton in which of all things Mr Hamilton Admits to telling the police he saw me at three O, Clock on 12 Dec 1981.
18. Mr Taylor QC Told Legal Aid Board “after I had Sacked Him” That I had no Grounds of Appeal and legal aid was refused for appeal, Ref To Cases of Granger, Maxwell And Boner In this respect i claimed i did not get a fair hearing as i was entitled to be Legally Represented.
19. I told SCCRC the names of the two Robbers, They told me it was unlikely they would admit to their guilt now and never interviewed them.
This is despite SCCRC having already referred the case of Neeson on the evidence of one of the two i named as the Robbers in my case.
Did this damage their credabiltiy (SCCRC) As this guy had a long list of previous convictions for Robbery yet they refer a case on his late evidence which was subsequently rejected at appeal

Watch later to see the reply and response i got from SCCRC's Robin Johnston.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 471 Location: Glasgow

What happened when SCCRC Investigated. "Sorry Never Investigated" see below:

They never fully explored.

1.Defence team where never asked why this happened
2.Defence team where never asked about this
3.SCCRC said his evidence was only a suspicion, Hear this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I
4.Defence team never asked about this.
5.Defence team have tried to claim they did not know of this Crown witnesses statement despite my Solicitor giving me this document. SCCRC tried to claim because it was in the form of a Precognition it was inadmissible as evidence and crown never had a duty to reveal this document without asking Crown if it was a police statement or Precognition.
6.My defence team where well aware of this but did nothing to challenge this
7.My Defence team where well aware of this and the same as above did nothing.
I was told by SCCRC that what happened at my ID Parade was not what one would expect today but was within Guidelines for its time. I disputed this and SCCRC never answered me the second time.
I also argued that they should have used their Current Law Policy to refer my case and not as the law was in 1982, This too was ignored.
8.Both ID Parade reports where sent to SCCRC by Crown Office Proof is in the letters under FOI request, SCCRC Deny Crown Sent Both and have sought to try to convince me that they only received one ID Parade which I Attended.
9.Mr Hamilton was called to be asked what the police said to him about his criminal injuries claim, My defence never asked him and allowed him to damage my case.
10.Allowed a crown witness to claim he saw me yet despite other crown witnesses evidence capable of casting doubt on this witnesses evidence it was never challenged. The other witnesses are capable of totally discrediting Ashfords Evidence that he did not run into Raeburn Rigg, Even his original statement claims he ran into Raeburn Rigg yet in court he claimed he wasn't in Raeburn Rigg.
SCCRC found no fault with this evidence and even tried to claim i had not challenged Ashfords evidence.
11.SCCRC agreed that the judge had misdirected my Jury but said It was immaterial as it would only take half an hour to travel from Livingston to Glasgow Cross.
This timing is wrong and not based on any expert opinion nor was it taken into consideration that the Robbers where chased from Livingston to Newbridge and the car was found in Kirkliston, Not anywhere near Glasgow.
12.In the Raymond Gilmour case (recently) our Appeal court and Crown Conceded that the same Word for Word Misdirection was indeed a Misdirection. ?
13.SCCR Never answered me on this argument. This case collapsed because a witness said in court she was shown a Photo before the ID Parade and the arresting officers became involved in running the Parade.
The very same happened in my case with the witness Ann Callan yet SCCRC ignore this ground In fact there was about five witnesses in my case said they were shown photos or knew photos were being shown all under “Cross Examination” Did my defence QC unwittingly draw the Juries attention to the fact i had previous police involvement. It should never be said in Court that someone was identified by Photo if an ID Parade is held.
Haggerty Case here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/425979875/sizes/l/
14.Muldoon was a case that dealt with the credibility of Identification evidence and was referred to by my defence team, seen at page 30 of Keegan's notes yet SCCRC ignore this claim and make no mention of Muldoon.
Keegans Notes here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/613255781/sizes/l/
15.Robin Johnston showed me a charge to the Jury with the word Discredited Blanked out with Black Permanent Marker He hadn't counted on Arnott McWhinnie still having the one i gave him 11 years previous, SCCRC thought i never had a copy, This soon changed though.
16.My case was concluded without this lawyer being sent his own report which you can see here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/613255781/sizes/l/
and indeed his own report was only sent to him after I produced a copy of a tape recording of Johnston Assuring me he had sent Shaw a copy of his own Report and Shaw saying he had never seen such report. Conclusive proof they had no intention of referring my case nor investigating it Robustly, Independently or Impartially as they profess. The tape recording is available on You-Tube.
17.SCCRC claimed to have gotten the tape enhanced when in truth all they did was take out the background noise but did not enhance the sound. Mr Hamilton is heard saying he told the police and it was quite clear i only asked him to tell the truth yet SCCRC allowed Mr Hamilton to say i asked him to change his story so I could get a Taxi Badge. He also said i went to his door with Louise Morris and told him he was to be witness for me Despite me being in prison.
SCCRC did not play the tape to Mr Hamilton yet claim they could not tell if it was his voice on
the tape or not. Certainly if they were to play the tape he would have had no option but to admit
What was said on it. Again no investigation of any credence from SCCRC.
18.SCCRC misdirected themselves on this issue, They claimed although my case was similar to EcHR In Granger etc they went on Wrongly to claim had my grounds of Appeal been argued would they have been successful
They should not have been concerned with my grounds of appeal on this issue, The issue was on Legal Aid Alone and whether or not i got a fair hearing. Not fully answered

Nought Justice · Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 32 Location: Edinburgh

Its fair comment then that SCCRC refuse to investigate defective representation when it is so damn blatant like the above case
even more blatantly when it concerns one of their colleagues and one who sat on their board!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
what really concerns me is the fact big willie was told by them they had sent the lawyer his own idparade report when clearly this wasnt the case
legal aid cannot be refused in criminal cases i dont understand how this coulda happened
defence teams have a duty to prepare a proper defence if they do not interview witnessses they ahve failed their duty!!!!! end of

Big Mac · Joined: 24 Aug 2007 Posts: 17 Location: Glasgow

I have been out of the Country recentely and have just tuned in to catch up with the recent "Happenings "on the site.
I was astounded to read Naught Justice on the Performance or lack of by one [b].......MODERATED. My Nephew has suffered at the hands of this man. and has been treated exactly as described in his postings. It is amazing how you think you are the only person that this is happening to ( and who has the guts to fight against him in Court ) We are further intriged by the reluctance of QCs to fight against their " Buddies "and choose to ignore the facts that evidence for appeals has only came to light after the trial.
However we will fight on to acheive justice, and beleive me we will acheive it .
I would be interested on any more reports on ......MODERATED Mr Findlay,s cock ups.
MATT [/b]

Nought Justice · Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 32 Location: Edinburgh

Big Mac

They make it appear as if the evidence has only recently surfaced to save face at appeals when in reality the evidence was right in front of their faces all along
mr findlay is not the only one to badly present cases it happens all the time some we hear of others we dont.

my advice mac is to watch the appeals through the courts pages on the intranet and i would be interested to hear in what way findlay made a coos ar$e of your nephews case

justice musta be seen an done

i sign the petition too for disclosure

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 471 Location: Glasgow

CCRC England

Although our own SCCRC keep records of exactly what grounds cases are being sent back to appeal, CCRC in Birmingham seem to have no idea of how many cases are being referred on defective representation and how many cases they receive.

After a FOI request it would seem CCRC are clueless as to what their most popular ground of appeal is, unlike their counterparts north of the border at SCCRC who know their most popular is "Defective Representation" yet it is their least referred.

See below for details of FOI request:

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: 11 March 2008 15:44
To: info@ccrc.gov.uk
Subject:

Hi

Having trawled through your site it is apparent that although you publish details of your great work, there is no mention of any statistics for instance:

1. How many cases are referred on any specific grounds.

2. How many cases you have received on specific grounds.

I am enquiring really to see if you would be in a position to provide such details for my analysis.
I would be much obliged if you could provide me with details of the following:

On what grounds do you receive the largest amount of complaints.

On what grounds do you refer most cases.

A breakdown of your cases would be very helpful in a way like SCCRC here:

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/viewfile.aspx?id=295

Page 8 Tables 5-6

Much Appreciated

Date 11 March 2008

And see reply here:

Subject: FW:
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:02:58 +0100
From: @ccrc.x.gsi.gov.uk

** UNRESTRICTED **
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Unfortunately we do not collate/analyse the information you are looking for. In our annual report (see p32 and p33, 2006/07) you’ll see that we list referrals and give details of the offence, but not the grounds on which we refer. There is some text on p26-28, and page 30 of the annual report about themes.
Similarly, we do not categorise applications in terms of the grounds/issues they raise.
If you look at press releases on our website, this gives a broad outline of the reasons for referral of each case, and may help you.

Sorry I cannot be of more help,

Kind regards

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

Head of Communication
Criminal Cases Review Commission
0121 633 1806
07947 355231

Alpha Tower
Suffolk Street Queensway
Birmingham B1 1TT
Web: HYPERLINK "http://www.ccrc.gov.uk"www.ccrc.gov.uk

Absolutely shocking that a body like this does not keep tabs on their grounds for referral