shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 550 Location: Glasgow

It is my intention to compare investigations by SCCRC, Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission on a weekly basis.

I would ask anyone experiencing the same type of problems not only with SCCRC to please highlight your cases here.

Do not sit and take any more Oppression.

The following can be found on my blog:

Two Bob Investigations By SCCRC
Every week I intend to compare the investigations of SCCRC.
For example:

Megrahi had £1,108,536 spent on his appeal and did not have to find witnesses.

In my own case i was told by SCCRCs Robin Johnston:

Mr Beck the Police cannot find Robert Muir Hamilton from Barlanark formerly of 50 Garvel Rd

My answer to him was:
I would not expect the police to find Mr Hamilton given the nature of my complaint (That the police intimidated him).

I would accept that Mr Beck if the private investigator we sent out had found him said Robin Johnston but he couldn't find him either.

I had to go to 50 Garvel Rd and ask Neighbours if they knew where my Uncle Bob had moved to.

I went with my wife and only had to ask the bottom flat who lived next door to Mr Hamilton, Yes he said no problem he (Mr Hamilton, Uncle Bob)he has moved up to the Crescent, Millbeg Crescent, the close with the ramp for his wifes wheelchair.

We came home and then looked up Robert Hamilton in the phone book and heh presto you wouldn't beleive it, Yes his "Name Address and Phone Number" were there all the time without the need to leave my house.

I passed the information on to Robin Johnston.

The moral of the two bob in this case was it would have cost SCCRC two bob to find Mr Hamilton instead i had to find him.

How many other cases are SCCRC being told by the Police, They cannot find Witness's ?

How many more times will they employ police and Private Investigators when they need only look at the phone book ?

For the avoidance of doubt Conversations between myselve and SCCRC were all tape recorded and prove I did not get the fair hearing I was entitled to, with SCCRC not even bothering to interview my Witness's.

Hear Robin Johnston here assure me he had sent Donal Shaw a copy of his own ID Parade report, Which clearly wasn't done until i produced tape recording below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I

http://bigwulliebeck.blogspot.com/

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 550 Location: Glasgow

It has come to my attention that in the case of Edward Milne V HMA SCCRC dismissed his appeal without interviewing "any" witnesses apart from his Solicitor.

Mr Milne claims they would never have contemplated attempting to try this with Megrahi whom they spent £1,108,536 investigating even travelling to other Countries.

Diplomatic relations would suffer severely if this was done in Megrahi's case.

There was plenty of witnesses claims Mr Milne to speak to his claims but SCCRC just didn't want to know.

For proof of this SCCRC have actually given Mr Milne this in writing here:

http://s233.photobucket.com/album...amp;current=SCCRCEdMilneNov07.jpg

Conclusive proof they never saw fit to interview any witnesses put forward by Mr Milne to speak of his claims.

SCCRC would also have been able to ascertain from Crown exactly who gave evidence at Mr Milne's trial.

SCCRC would also have been aware of Trading Standards involvement yet they never interviewed any of them.

Exactly what does one need to do to get a fair hearing in this country.

Justice cannot be said to be done while Foreigners are afforded more Justice than our own People.

It can certainly be suggested that Megarhi has had preferential treatment over others at SCCRC.

Mr Milne claims that SCCRC also took 3 Years to investigate and give him a decision and that given they only interviewed his lawyer this is perverse

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 550 Location: Glasgow

The letter Robbie sent to SCCRC is very interesting.

He cites the fact that their Mr Lynn did not interview any of his witnesses of which there was 192

See Here:

http://s233.photobucket.com/album...ew&current=RobbieThePict1.jpg

192 witnesses that did not see his case called yet SCCRC do not interview one of them.

This was the very same actions of Mr Taylor QC not only in my own case but also the case of Megrahi Not calling crucial evidence.

Now the very organisation set up to "investigate" ignore all witnesses.

Like Ed Milne and myself, Robbie has been denied the fair hearings we are all entitled to

To rectify this would mean SCCRC interview witnesses put forward by applicants, Not just Crowns witnesses and Police as they have been doing so far except in the case of Megrahi.

Megrahi has seen them spend vast amounts of public money even travelling to foreign countries to interview witnesses yet they cannot spend Two Bob to phone witnesses in this country.

SCCRC should hang their heads in shame.

Coming soon will be Wullie Gage's case and william Peel etc etc.

Watch this space

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 550 Location: Glasgow

My Two Bob Investigation

This week highlights the case of William Peel from Edinburgh, He writes:

William Peel Edinburgh V SCCRC
This was found on the BBC.Co/Action network, web site

"I have just had my application to the SCCRC rejected.
I doubt that they are deliberately biased.
They probably have the blinkered view that many professionals have – they cannot believe there is anything wrong with the System that has nurtured them. The Commission gave every appearance of conducting a thorough, diligent review of my case.
However, I did lose confidence when it reported on a document I sent as evidence. The reviewer of the document made a significant misinterpretation of one of the facts that suggested he had given it no more than a cursory glance.
In my case, I believe the SCCRC were unable to see the wood of justice for the trees of legal minutiae.
They considered my case solely on the basis of its legal merits and seldom appeared to apply rational, logical thought and common sense to the process. Perhaps lawyers think that Justice is achieved through the application of legal procedures.
For myself, I suspect that Justice, if it happens, is often no more than a by-product, a sort of bonus, of the legal process.
There were 3 main problems with my case, which was to do with a motoring ‘incident’ manufactured by three civilian witnesses, one of whom knows a serving policeman (I was framed): First, the Crown withheld evidence from the Defence – I did not know until the trial that the Crown witnesses would claim that a van had broken down at the site of the ‘incident’.
The Commission dealt with this by referring to a number of legal precedents, including the recent case of the Libyan Al Megrahi.
It concluded, "The appeal court will therefore require to be persuaded that the additional evidence is (a) capable of being regarded as credible and reliable by a reasonable jury, and (b) likely to have had a material bearing on, or a material part to play in, the determination by such a jury of a critical issue at the trial.
" It did not think the information would have had a material bearing on the decision of the Sheriff (there was no jury).
Second, one of the witnesses was unable to identify me in the dock, until firmly instructed to do so by the prosecutor.
The Commission raised the case of Holland v HMA, saying that "in that case, the broad submission that evidence derived from a witness identifying the accused in the dock was, by its nature, so unfair as to be incompatible with the appellants right to a fair trial under article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights was rejected.
"All this legal obfuscation, and there were reams of it, meant little to me. However, it was when I presented the third plank of my argument that I saw how the SCCRC appeared to have had a common sense by-pass.
Long after the trial, I persuaded the police to release an Incident Log.
This showed that two of their officers had attended a broken down van near the scene of the alleged incident.
The Log placed the van at a distance of 1.5 kilometres from the site, and some 40 minutes later.
I wrongly supposed that these discrepancies would cast serious doubt on the reliability of the Crown witnesses.
I was in for a surprise: "It is not clear to the Commission why this would suggest that the witnesses were lying in describing the incident which they spoke to in evidence.
The information does not clearly undermine the witnesses' reliability…""
By william peel in Edinburgh, City of - on 28 Mar 2007 at 14:25

The above was posted on my BBC site last year.

Would SCCR have acted in this way in the case of Megrahi ?

I have never been able to contact William Peel so if anyone out there knows him, ask him to give us a call at the forum just to let us know how he is progressing with his case.

Nought Justice · Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 36 Location: Edinburgh

Hi Big Wullie

Been watching your two bob investigations

can I just ask one thing

How have these muppets at sccrc got away with this conduct for so long.

I am absolutely flabbergasted that no one has ever called this lot into question before you considering they claim to give every case a robust and thorough review.

Like if it wasn't true then when why dont they question what you are saying.

Let us pray people take notice now of what you are claiming

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 550 Location: Glasgow

As usual my Monday Two Bob Investigation continues.

I will just highlight some stuff from my own case today, Sort of a take a break from others and concentrate on my own.

Firstly, Thanks for your concern Nought Justice.

Just let me reply to you by saying, SCCRC are now being held to account for their actions or should I say Inactions, Not only in my own case but others too who have MSPs asking serious questions and raising eyebrows like the following:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk...ess/PQA/default.aspx?pq=S3W-11311

Part of the answer reads like this:
1. The Crown is obliged to disclose all material evidence for or against the accused. This relates to statements, but it also relates to all information of which the Crown is aware.

In my own case, A joiner visited my house on the 12th Dec 1981 to give me an estimate for wood panelling for my kitchen walls.

My Solicitor never bothered to interview this witness, He said he couldn't find him, though he was told he could contact him through my Father as his friend used to drive one of my dads Black Taxi's in Glasgow.

SCCRC managed to Interview this joiner, (24 years later) and ascertained the following.

Mr McFadyen was interviewed by the Police in 1982 and also went for interview at the Procurator fiscals Office in Glasgow after his police interview to give a statement to them too.

Two interviews regarding my case, and I am told the police tried to bribe him into changing his statement by offering him reward money and suggesting he would get a great holiday with this money.

Unfortunately for me Mr McFadyen is now an alcoholic and cannot remember the date he visited my house but, SCCRC never applied current Disclosure cases to my issue over Mr McFadyen.

Consider here is a man who gave two statements to the Crown & Police, Where are the statements ?

SCCRC have said Crown Office do not hold any statements from this witness.

Surely then the defence team where asked if they took any ? No

Surely if they were not revealed to my defence team, then this constitutes a Failure to Disclose by Crown Office ? "Not according to SCCRC" who Remember are supposed to be the best brains in Scots Legal Circles (What A Joke) and who have effectively taken over the Appeals process in Scotland from our Courts.

Question, Would SCCRC have gotten away with this type of non investigative and corrupt process in the case of Megrahi who they spent £1,108,536 investigating his case ? No

Why, Because the whole world is watching that case.

What has happened to the statements of Mr McFadyen.

Should SCCRC have asked my Defence team why they never found this witness ? Yet the Police clearly did.

Why they never asked for an Adjournment until they did find him ?

Some get full investigations while other don't

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 550 Location: Glasgow

Current Law Policy of SCCRC is:

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

Case used as test is :

JERZY BONCZA-TOMASZEWSKI (also known as GEORGE FRASER)

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/C158_00.html

I told SCCRC that what happened at my ID Parade should never have happened.
1. The Police Showed Photos of me.

2. The arresting officers had aprticipated in the running of the Parade with one assisting with witnesses the other present in the parade room.

3. 5 Witness spoke in court of being shown photos before the Jury, even the arresting officers admitted to showing photos.

4. The Solicitor cunducting the parade should have been called as a witness, He noted Policeman Muckle had number 2 out his mouth before turning to view the parade.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/425979884/sizes/l/

5. I made reference to a case which collapsed at the High Court on 8th February 2001 (James Haggerty) Because of the same things i was complaining of above.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/425979875/sizes/l/

SCCRC agreed that what happened at my ID Parade was not what one would expect today:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/424549189/sizes/l/

So why then did they not use their current Law Policy to refer my case ?

Again it seems "Foreigners" are entitled to more justice in our country.

For the avoidance of doubt,
In terms of the guidelines mentioned above by SCCRC which they claim came into effect after my conviction.
This statement is untrue, The rules then were the same regards arresting officers and SCCRC cannot and indeed did not answer me when I questioned this.

Double Standards again within SCCRC.

£1,108,536 spent on Megrahi's case, "Two Bob" on mine.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 550 Location: Glasgow

In referring the case of George McPhee the SCCRC concluded:

The appeal

[23] There was an appeal on the grounds that the verdict was perverse and unreasonable and that the trial judge misdirected the jury. The appeal was heard on 24 June 1986 and refused. The case is not reported. There is no Opinion of the Court in the records of Justiciary Office. We infer from such records as there are that the appeal was refused in summary fashion

The same has happened in my own case yet SCCRC find no fault on the Court for not being able to produce any opinion from my hearing of 7 October 1982 (Which i have always stated was an application for leave only, hence no opinion from the court can be found)

How can one case have been refused in Summary Fashion but others in the same circumstances are just simply rejected by SCCRC ?

The high Court in my appeal in 2006 stated the following:

It has not been made clear to us exactly what transpired when the appellant's appeal was heard by the Criminal Appeal Court, but, on 7 October 1982, the court refused the appellant's appeal against conviction. We are not aware whether any opinion was issued in association with that decision; suffice it to say that no opinion is available to us.

How can anyone appeal against a decision which does not exist

SCCRC once again afforded me a Two Bob Investigation while McPhee gets a proper appeal on the basis he has never had an appeal it being refused in Summary Fashion (At leave)