shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index shirleymckie.myfastforum.org
To allow readers to post comments on current issues related to the Shirley McKie case
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

SCCRC Referrals
Page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Test Forum 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
david



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 502


Location: edinburgh

PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 6:48 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/ViewFile.aspx?id=615

NEWS RELEASE

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (‘the Commission’) has
referred the case of Craig Boath to the High Court of Justiciary.

In accordance with the Commission’s statutory obligations, a statement of
reasons for its decision has been sent to the High Court, the Lord Advocate and Crown Office. The Commission has no power under its founding statute to make copies of its statements of reasons available to the public.

The applicant was convicted after trial at Edinburgh High Court on 7 May 2009 of five contraventions of section 52 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 as amended (possession of indecent photographs of children, taking or permitting to be taken or made indecent photographs of children, distributing or showing indecent photographs of children, possession of a number of indecent photographs of a child or children with a view to them being distributed or shown by him to others, and distributing or showing indecent photographs of children to his co-accused). He was also convicted of conspiring with others to commit sexual offences against a child (Charge 54).

The Commission has decided to refer the case to the High Court because it considers that, in light of the decision in Strachan v HMA [2011] HCJAC 3, the libel in one of the charges against the applicant should have been restricted to one between him and one other of his co-accused. In these circumstances the jury returned a verdict in respect of the applicant in respect of the conspiracy charge which was not as restricted as the evidence against him suggested, and in these circumstances, this may have led to a miscarriage of justice.

This release is for information purposes only and the content of this news release should not be treated as forming part of the Commission’s statement of reasons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
david



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 502


Location: edinburgh

PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.heraldscotland.com/new...miscarriage-of-justice.1400086951

Convicted paedophile 'may have suffered miscarriage of justice.'
Wednesday 14 May 2014


A convicted sex offender jailed for being involved in a large paedophile ring is to have his case sent back to the Appeal Court.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) said Craig Boath may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.

Eight men were convicted of a string of child porn charges after a high-profile trial in Edinburgh five years ago.

They were said at the time to have been members of Scotland's biggest paedophile ring.

One of them, former insurance worker Boath, from Dundee, was jailed for more than nine years in June 2009 after a jury found him guilty of conspiring with others to sexually abuse a child.

Boath, now aged 29, was also convicted of five child porn charges, including possessing and distributing indecent photographs of children.

The SCCRC today confirmed it has decided to refer Boath's case back to High Court judges.

While a statement of their reasons for doing so has been sent to the court and prosecutors, it has not been made public.

Nevertheless, the Commission said its decision followed a 2011 appeal ruling in the case of another co-accused, Neil Strachan, now 46.

A statement issued by the SCCRC said: "The Commission has decided to refer the case to the High Court because it considers that, in light of the decision in Strachan v HMA, the libel in one of the charges against the applicant should have been restricted to one between him and one other of his co-accused.

"In these circumstances the jury returned a verdict in respect of the applicant in respect of the conspiracy charge which was not as restricted as the evidence against him suggested, and in these circumstances, this may have led to a miscarriage of justice."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
david



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 502


Location: edinburgh

PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is another case where the SCCRC seem to be referring guilty people

Did all these horrific images and videos  just miraculously appear on his computer. I don't think so.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8062177.stm

CRAIG BOATH

Insurance adjuster Craig Boath, 24, from Dundee, was convicted of six charges. He was found to have 31,385 indecent images.
They included 1,261 stills and 15 video clips graded at the most depraved end of the scale.
He was arrested on 27 March last year at his home after officers discovered e-mails between him and James Rennie sharing child pornography.
He was convicted of possessing, taking and distributing indecent photos of children, and of conspiring to meet Strachan, Rennie, Webber and Milligan to sexually abuse a child
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
david



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 502


Location: edinburgh

PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This SCCRC referral was heard last week in the Appeal Court

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7316542.stm



Guilty or was he a victim of flawed expert testimony?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NanaKaren



Joined: 26 Sep 2014
Posts: 59



PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011HCJAC48.html

Previous appeal above


Its an odd one.

Shaken Baby seems to be used a lot when it is not the cause of death.

Would he have run to the doctors with the baby if he had done something to her? I don't know.
Quote:


Quote:
During the trial, the jury heard how Alishba - who was born on 25 December, 2005 - died two days after her father burst into his local medical centre in Pollokshields and demanded that the GP treat her as she was having breathing difficulties.


But there was no trace of bruises on her body or face which would have been expected if someone had shaken her violently.

Much of the trial was taken up by complicated evidence from defence and prosecution medics who clashed over the cause of Alishba's injuries.

The prosecution relied heavily on a videoed interview conducted by Lord Hardie months earlier with a four-year-old boy which it was claimed was evidence of an assault on Alishba.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
david



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 502


Location: edinburgh

PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What strikes me with this case NanaKaren is the differing opinions from so many experts.  Whether he is guilty or innocent.


It certainly is an odd one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
david



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 502


Location: edinburgh

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SCCRC referral rejected by the Appeal Court

Faisal Younas

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/sear...6b0a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
frank



Joined: 09 Mar 2015
Posts: 72



PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

another example of a desktop review??


https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/sea...511a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7


Quote:
6) ... The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission were under the impression that no Opinion had been issued.  Unfortunately that was not correct.  An Opinion ([2014] HCJAC 101) had been issued.


Quote:
7)Again, the SCCRC were under the impression that there had been no Opinion issued.  That was correct, but there was an audio recording of the ex tempore judgment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iain McKie



Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 935


Location: Ayr, Scotland.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reading the Younas judgement I am struck by the inventive assertions of the Appeal Court in explaining the actions of the trial judge.

While I can understand the dangers of the judge ‘rehearsing’ the evidence and  including issues not raised by either side it seems to me that the faith judges place  in jury members to fully understand  what  they feel is routine straightforward medial/expert evidence is unfair on the jury member and is badly  misplaced.

I believe that in many cases juries reach their decisions based on specific ‘dramatic impact’ evidence rather than a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence. This is particularly relevant when expert evidence is introduced and the court accepts its infallibility.

For me the classic case was that of Willie Gage.

In this case the dramatic dock identification of Willie by his eyes clearly had a telling influence on the jury but was relegated by the Appeal  Court to an  inconsequential side issue which had no influence on the 'guilty' finding.

In the same  case the Appeal Court refused to allow ‘expert evidence’ pointing to the complexity involved in eye witness evidence because, they asserted,  such knowledge was of a nature which could be readily  understood by jury members without expert assistance.

Reading the Younas decision I was also reminded of several Appeal Court decisions where defective representation was explained away as legal tactics rather than the incompetence it surely was.

In short the Appeal Court  has devised default arguments to be used whenever judges or lawyers are criticised. These often complicated arguments fail to hide the shallowness of the logic.

It seems to me that at times the Appeal Court is more concerned with upholding the status of the judiciary and the justice system than actively acknowledging how flawed it can be at times.

We are faced with a system that is out of date and  no longer fit for modern purpose   and which requires in-depth and wholesale change.

Is change likely?

Not under the present regime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
frank



Joined: 09 Mar 2015
Posts: 72



PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i agree iain,

It seems the Lord President had other pressing things to bring up at the World bar Conference.
http://www.advocates.org.uk/media/2088/worldbarconfcarlospeech.pdf

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Test Forum 1 All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Sincere thanks to all those who have supported Shirley and challenged miscarriages of justice on this forum.