shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

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

This story from the Scotsman yesterday is very alarming for a number of reasons:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26453069@N02/3462206001/sizes/l/

Firstly I cannot work out how one of our best known Names in our Scottish History cannot be in the Public Interest.

How many Films have been made about him and Poems written ?

Secondly Gerard Sinclair seems to be allowed to overrule and undermine our Parliament at will:

He claims that despite Parliament not placing a time bar (Statutory Provisions) on appeals, clearly some time limit has to be applied.

I will use their own words here in the Judicial review of Razza:

SCCRC sought and gained the powers not to refer a case even when Competent Arguable grounds exist, SCCRC used the words if Parliament had wanted them to be governed by the same rules as our courts, they would have used the words, Prima Facie, Arguable and Competent when they legislated under section 194 which created SCCRC.

If no time limit exists Mr Sinclair Under Stautory Legislation then you must abide by this and not interpret the Law your own way, This is very dangerous.

A bit like playing God

I agree though that because he was tried in England then CCRC would be the best placed ones to review this case but what Bias would they attach to such review which after all reminds us of Scotland V England, Proud Edwards Army and the likes.

On this note I would say because he is Scottish then the SCCRC can review his case and should be allowed to bend the Legislation like Sinclair likes to do anyway.

A man who gave his life to free our Country is not deemed in the Public Interest, Get Real Mr Sinclair, What Planet are you living on.

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

I do not know how Mr Sinclair can say this is not in the public interest.

William Wallace has a monument made and so many books, poems and then the Braveheart film who made Wallace's name worldwide.

There would be huge interest in this if it was looked at!

He is one of Scotland's sons and was executed in the vilest of manners.

He fought for freedom for Scots. True Freedom. Before he began his fight Scots brides spent the night not with their new husband but with one of the English gentry.

Where is our Scottish pride and fighting spirit? We need to get it back. We need to stand up and fight all injustice.

Quotes from Braveheart to make you feel patriotic Razz

I *am* William Wallace! And I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You've come to fight as free men... and free men you are. What will you do with that freedom? Will you fight?

Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

Below is a poem Kenny wrote while on death row about Wallace. He is not around right now to post on it himself but I know he would have a few words to say on this topic when he gets back online.

For Scotland, For Freedom

By Kenny Richey

When Bruce and Wallace fought, back in the days of old.
When our country wanted freedom, from cruel Lord Edwards hold.
From hill and glen we stood, against the English might
We fought against oppression and we fought for what was right.

From village, town and city, we cleared the English ranks.
And to the patriot Sir William Wallace, our country owed its thanks.
But traitors where amongst us and delivered Wallace into Edwards hands.
Where his vile execution, gave England the upper hand.

Then in thirteen hundred and six, Bruce finally took a stand.
Crowned at Scone, King of Scots, he raised levies throughout the land.
After eight long years of struggle, we met the English at the Bannockburn Battlefield.
We where there to fight for freedom and for only freedom would we yield.

The English did approach, almost twenty thousand strong
As their heavy cavalry charged into the Scottish throng.
Onto our pikes they fell, the chivalry of Englands pride
And there, their blood was spilled, it was the changing of the tide.

"For Scotland, For Scotland" "For Freedom, For Freedom"
Came the battle cry. As five thousands Scots pressed forward
Each one prepared to die.
The English were defeated, and Lord Edward fled the field.
His arrogance had cost him for we Scots had refused to yield.
With our victory came Freedom, Scottish Independence won.
Once again a nation, we shone brighter than the sun.
But that was long ago and we're now no longer free.
Stuck in some old union, in which TRUE SCOTS don't want to be.

Now if those TRUE SCOTS who fought for Freedom, could only see how we've been tamed.
They'd look upon us in disgust and hang their heads in shame!!!!!

Lydia · Joined: 06 Nov 2008 Posts: 82

A poem from a true Scot and a reaction wholly expected from people who would be terrified of the legal implications never mind the Scottish people's reaction to such a case. In particular, just before an election.

I would say the biggest problem is that we Scots are not seen as a country or even as an important part of the UK.

In any case, which is in the best interest of Scotland, England will do as it has always done and put its own interest first.

They are to say the least wee fearties send them some porridge.

Who originally referred this case?
_________________
We are the parents in Scotland denied justice for our children who had illegal post mortem's or had organs removed illegally at post mortem.

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

Lydia

I cannot find who started this but I am assuming it is either the historians in these articles or the guy from the William Wallace society.

William Wallace denied day in court
Published Date: 19 April 2009
By David Leask
HIS heart may have been brave but it would be sinking today.
Legal chiefs have ruled that the name of William Wallace – Scotland's medieval matinee idol – can never be cleared.

Scotland on Sunday can reveal that the body that examines potential miscarriages of justice in Scotland was asked to look into the
ADVERTISEMENT
700-year-old conviction of Wallace but refused to do so.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) decided it had no jurisdiction over the London court that found him guilty of treason.

And its English sister organisation has confirmed it will never pursue the Wallace case, which is regarded by historians as being based on trumped-up charges against the man who led the Scottish army in the wars of independence.

Most historians have long recognised that William Wallace was wrongly convicted of treason in London in 1305.

The knight – effectively the ruler of Scotland – had been accused of betraying an English crown that he did not recognise.

Gerry Sinclair, chief executive of the SCCRC, said last night that the organisation would not carry out such a review.

"I was asked whether we could consider the conviction of William Wallace," Sinclair said. "I had to point out that, as he had been tried and punished in London, it did not fall within our jurisdiction, but would be for the English Commission to consider."

The Criminal Case Review Commission, the equivalent of the SCCRC in England and Wales, said it would not review cases such as Wallace's because of tougher appeal court rules south of the border.

The SCCRC recently looked into the Appin murder, the notorious killing of Colin "the Red Fox" Campbell in 1752. The murder had been the inspiration for Robert Louis Stevenson's novel, Kidnapped.

However, Sinclair and his team decided not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, because they did not feel it would be in the public interest.

He said: "Our own statutory provisions place no time limit on the review of cases, but clearly some time limit has to be applied, as it cannot be in the interests of justice to spend public time and resources on historical miscarriages which can achieve no practical benefit today."

But many experts have been champing at the bit for the chance to review the Wallace case, which was a milestone in the history of European law as well as the troubled relations between England and Scotland.

Wallace's English nemesis, Edward I – 'Longshanks' – is regarded north of the border as a murderous, invading tyrant. In England, however, he was seen as a reformer who created much of the current legal system, including the introduction of solicitors and barristers.

The Wallace trial was designed to show that English law – as well as brute force – held sway north of the border.

"The treason charge was simply a concoction based on the assumption that Scotland was a province of England," said historian Tom Devine. "In that sense it was a mistrial.

"Scotland had been recognised as an independent nation by the papacy and, therefore, any treason charge was just a reflection of an arrogant English monarchy."

Wallace admitted a whole stream of charges other than treason. Lawyers argue that these might be made to stick, even 700 years on. Devine said: "Wallace was portrayed as a brigand. But one man's brigand is another man's national hero."

John Finlay, who teaches history of law at Glasgow University, said: "It was technically possible for a knight to be tried by someone other than his own sovereign for crimes against the code of chivalry."

Leading mediaevalist Hector MacQueen, a law professor at Edinburgh, stressed that any review of the case would effectively have to decide whether Scotland was independent or not and, therefore, whether Wallace owed any allegiance to Edward.

"Any review would be a mediaeval legal minefield," MacQueen said. "In fact, the whole issue has been a minefield for years. Perhaps it is better left to historical monologues than the Court of Appeal. I happen to think Wallace was innocent. But then, I am biased."

David Ross, the convener of the William Wallace Society, admitted some of his hero's followers may have committed atrocities.

Many had been brutalised by horrific excesses carried out by the English occupying army, including the massacre of thousands of civilians after the fall of Berwick. But he claimed Wallace himself was a pious man who was murdered by his enemies."This is a man," Ross argued, "who did not do anything wrong but fought to protect his country from incredibly aggressive invaders."

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/n...onviction_for_treason_in_1305.php

No review of William Wallace’s conviction for treason in 1305

Two miscarriages of justice watchdogs have formally ruled that the name of Scots hero William Wallace can never be cleared.

The body that examines potential miscarriages of justice in Scotland was asked to review Wallace's 700-year-old conviction, widely regarded as trumped-up charges against the man who led the Scottish army in the Wars of Independence.

However, the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission has decided it has no jurisdiction over the London court that found him guilty of treason.
advertisement

SCCRC chief executive Gerry Sinclair said: "I was asked whether we could consider the conviction of William Wallace. I had to point out that, as he had been tried and punished in London, it did not fall within our jurisdiction, but would be for the English Commission to consider."

Mr Sinclair said his team also decided not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest to do so.

He said: "Our own statutory provisions place no time limit on the review of cases, but clearly some time limit has to be applied, as it cannot be in the interests of justice to spend public time and resources on historical miscarriages which can achieve no practical benefit today."

The SCCRC's English counterpart yesterday confirmed it would never pursue the Wallace case.

The Criminal Case Review Commission said it would not review cases such as Wallace's because of tougher appeal court rules south of the border.

Scots historians have long claimed that William Wallace was wrongly convicted of treason in London in 1305, accused of betraying an English crown he did not recognise.

Many of these experts have been keen to see a review of the case, saying the trial was designed to show that English law held sway north of the border.

Professor Tom Devine, head of the school of history, classics and archaeology at Edinburgh University, said: "The treason charge was simply a concoction based on the assumption that Scotland was a province of England and in that sense it was a mistrial.

"Scotland had been recognised as an independent nation by the Papacy and, therefore, any treason charge was just a reflection of an arrogant English monarchy."

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

Scotland's other historic victims of miscarriages of justice include:

1 Mary, Queen of Scots. Marie Stuart was beheaded for treason in 1587; she was said to have been plotting to betray her cousin, Elizabeth I.

2 James Stewart. The Culloden veteran was convicted and hanged for the 1752 murder of Colin Campbell, the Red Fox, a hated land factor. Stewart was found guilty by a jury of 15, 11 of whom were Campbells. Few historians think he carried out the crime.

3 Thomas Muir. A radical inspired by revolutions in America and France, Muir was sentenced to 14 years' exile in Australia for sedition and calling for universal suffrage in 1793. Muir was the first foreigner ever to be made a citizen of France and was nominated as Scotland's first president by exiled republicans.

4 James Wilson. One of the leaders of Scotland's 1820 Rebellion, Wilson was sentenced to death by an English court convened in Glasgow after marching on the city under the banner "Scotland Free or a Desert". He was hanged and beheaded.

5 Helen Duncan. The Scot was one of the last people in Britain to ever be jailed for witchcraft in 1944 after she revealed that a Royal Navy warship had sunk during a seance. Her conviction eventually led to the repeal of the Witchcraft Act.

Lydia · Joined: 06 Nov 2008 Posts: 82

Thanks for that
_________________
We are the parents in Scotland denied justice for our children who had illegal post mortem's or had organs removed illegally at post mortem.

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

Pat A. Wertheim · Joined: 23 Apr 2007 Posts: 73 Location: USA

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

Yes Pat

Stevie Wonder (Who I Love) could see better the Miscarriages perpetrated by our Crown Office and Courts.

England though should not have any more rights than us Scots who after all they keep saying we are the UK.

They (England) are up in arms at Scotland wanting Independence.

I think the Scots fighting spirits died with Wallace too.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/

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

Doing my homework for an upcoming event, I came across an interesting article here with the Ex Chair of SCCRC describing being Scottish:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?i...;ct=result&resnum=8#PPA173,M1

Some others like David McLetchie also describe being Scottish.

Wonder if Sheila McLean would have allowed Wallace's appeal as chair of SCCRC

_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/