shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

david · Joined: 01 Mar 2009 Posts: 52 Location: edinburgh

Dear Sir/Madam 26 January 2009

FOI Request for Information

I would ask that all statements taken by SCCRC during the course of their investigation into my case be released to me under FOI or subject data request.

I would ask that the following information be made available.

1. Exactly who was interviewed during the SCCRC's investigation.

2. Exactly what evidence did Crown provide to SCCRC.

3. Exactly what evidence did SCCRC ask Crown for, pertaining to my case.

4. How many complaints of defective representation have SCCRC received regarding my Solicitor Advocate at trial, Mr Jim Keegan since its inception.

5. Please provide copies of all correspondence between SCCRC and the Crown Office regarding my case.

I thank you for your anticipated assistance

David Pugh

Cc

THEIR RESPONSE

THE SCCRC CONCLUDE THAT I AM NOT PERMITTED TO ACCESS ANY OF THE ABOVE REQUESTS EVEN THOUGH MY CASE WILL HOPEFULLY BE RE-OPENED BY ONE OF THE INNOCENCE PROJECTS IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURES.

APPEALING THERE DECISION[/u]

Your Ref: MW/0883
FOI Officer
SSCRC
17 Renfield St
Glasgow
G2 5AH

Date : March 9th 2009

Dear Sir

FOI Request

I note the contents of your letter of 19th February 2009 and wish to appeal your decision.

I have letters from William Beck and Edward Milne which contradicts entirely your stance in your letter.

For Example:

· Mr Beck was given access to correspondence between SCCRC and Crown Office (Un-Redacted)

· Mr Beck was given copies of all documentation received by the Commission from NAS (Un-Redacted)

· Mr Beck was given copies of all witness statements he asked the Commission for relating to his case and who were interviewed by the Commission. (Un-Redacted)

· Mr Beck was given copies per his Solicitor and QC's statements made to the commission. (Un-Redacted)

This totally contradicts your stance with my application.

Mr Edward Milne

· Though the Commission only interviewed his Solicitor he was given a copy of Mr Hamilton's statement to the Commission. “All that the Commission interviewed”

Again this contradicts your stance to my application.

Your stance in refusing my request is contrary to section 6 (1) (3) of European right to a fair hearing and contrary to Crown Practice statements regarding Solemn Trials.

It also contradicts the decisions in Holland & Sinclair of Privy Council 2005 in which it was stated that not only are we allowed to see the statements made against us we are also allowed to know if there is any outstanding charges and previous convictions of any witness's.

Since I am unrepresented and intend further appeals it is imperative that I know exactly which witness's the Commission saw fit to examine to ascertain whether or not I got a fair hearing.

Your Legal Officers pointed out at pains that he did not represent me and this leaves me with the following question:

· If the Legal Officers appointed to our cases are not representing our interests at any meetings of the Board of the Commission then exactly who looks after our interests ?

· This must surely point to an unfair hearing.

· People appearing in front of tribunals at hearings for benefits are entitled to be legally represented by someone of their own choosing so why are the Commission denying people this same right to know what is presented to the board on their behalf.

I am not entirely convinced the Commission, when it met, had our interests at heart.

I have come to this conclusion with your referral of Graham Gordon which in effect was used against us as a reason for non referral.
Now it seems the Commission are saying Gordon may have suffered a Miscarriage of Justice.

In this respect I would ask the Board of the Commission to also release the minutes of any meetings which discussed my case.

I do not accept that I am not entitled to see any documents discussing my appeal to the Board.

I would also like to complain about the Commission in respect of them supplying our names on their website despite the High Court only referring to us by our Initials at our Judicial review breaching our “Data Protection” and right to anonymity.

I would also point out that at Appeal Hearings where people give evidence this becomes Public Knowledge and a matter of Public Record therefore this should not be covered by data protection and the commission should be governed by the same Laws as the High Court.

Any evidence the Commission use for non referral should be Public Knowledge and a matter of Public Record.

Section 194J

Section 194J Of Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Crime & Punishment act 1997.

I also note your use of section 194J and note this to be an offence for members of the commission to release any evidence they gather in the course of their investigations but this is not what Mr Beck was told:

· it was agreed that this information would be supplied to you given that it was a matter of public record. The Board was satisfied that their decision to agree to your request for a copy of these papers did not breach their non-disclosure requirements under s194J of the 1995 Act.

Then when Mr Beck complained again he was told the following on 26 September 2008 :

· Your previous email also referred to the Commission’s use of S194J of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and compliance with S20 of the Data Protection Act as reasons used for not disclosing information in the past. As you will appreciate, the Commission policy on disclosure has evolved, and continues to evolve, as relevant case law becomes more widely available. It is now the Commission’s view that S194J is no longer a defence to Data Protection legislation in its own right, which represents a change in approach since the date of the letter signed by Mr Mullan to which you refer.
I would now argue that by your own admissions section 194J is not the ban you seek in my application.

I also note it was your Chief Executive which released these documents to Mr Beck on 14th Dec 2004 and would continue by claiming that if it was a criminal offence for any members of the commission to release information, then why hasn't the Commission's Chief Executive been charged with such a crime ?

Should this not be reported to the Lord Advocte

Further refusal will result in my dossier on this matter being referred to the FOI Commissioner Mr Dunion and Secretary for Justice Mr MacAskill as well as the Law Commission.

I consider your refusal to release the data requested an obstruction of Justice.

I Remain

Yours Faithfully

David Pugh

SCCRC'S FINAL SUPPRESSIVE RESPONSE

Dear Mr Pugh

DATA PROTECTION ACT: SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION PUBLICATION SCHEME

I refer to your email of 9 March 2009 to the Commission’s Information Officer, Mr Michael Walker, regarding your subject access request of 26 January 2009 and your accompanying request for information to be made available to you under the Freedom of Information legislation. In accordance with the Commission’s Disclosure Policy, I have now undertaken a review of those decisions in which Mr Walker did not disclose to you the information you requested.

In your initial request of 26 January 2009 you requested that the following information be made available to you:

“… all statements taken by SCCRC during the course of their investigation into my case…

1. Exactly who was interviewed during the SCCRC’s investigation.

2. Exactly what evidence did Crown provide to SCCRC.

3. Exactly what evidence did SCCRC ask Crown for, pertaining to my case.

4. How many complaints of defective representation have SCCRC received regarding my Solicitor Advocate at trial, Mr Jim Keegan since its inception.

5. Copies of all correspondence between SCCRC and the Crown Office regarding my case.”

I have reviewed in detail Mr Walker’s response to you on 19 February 2009 in which he specifically cites the following legislation in formulating his response and decisions not to disclose all of the information you had requested.

Sections 1, 7 and 27(5) of the Data Protection Act (DPA)

Sections 1 and 26(a) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA)

Section 194J of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (CPSA)

Having reviewed each of the individual requests I concur with Mr Walker’s view that the statements you requested, the information you requested in respect of items 1, 3 and 4 and some of the information you requested in respect of item 5 (the Commission’s letters to Crown Office) do not constitute your personal data. Accordingly, you are not entitled to receive those statements or that information under section 7 of DPA. I concur with Mr Walker’s view that the information you requested in respect of item 2 and remaining information you requested in respect of item 5 (the letters Crown Office sent to the Commission) is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 29(1) and (2) of DPA.

In addition, I concur with Mr Walker’s view that the disclosure of such case-related information by the Commission under FOISA would constitute a breach of section 194J of CPSA and the information is therefore exempt from disclosure in terms of section 26(a) of FOISA.

I am therefore of the opinion that Mr Walker’s decision not to disclose the information that you requested was correct and in compliance with DPA, FOISA and the Commission’s current Disclosure Policy.

In your email of 9 March 2009, in which you seek an appeal of Mr Walker’s initial decision, you also make reference to a number of other cases. I am not at liberty to discuss those cases.

You also make reference to applicants’ interests with regard to investigations being undertaken by the Commission’s legal officers and under consideration by the Board. The Commission does not ‘represent’ applicants in the manner to which you refer, i.e. in a solicitor/client-type relationship. Once the Commission accepts an application for review, a fully independent review is undertaken specifically in relation to the grounds identified within the initial application and any additional matters that may arise as part of this investigation. The legal officers present cases to the Board in a totally independent manner based on the information gathered and examined as part of their investigations, making the process fair and without favour.

Mr Walker in his initial response also made reference to the statement of reasons that was produced in your case and issued on 2 March 2004, in line with the Commission’s obligations under section 194D(4) of CPSA. The statement of reasons clearly sets out the grounds of review, the basis on which these grounds were investigated and the Commission’s conclusions based on these investigations.

You also make reference to the disclosure of your name on the Commission’s website. The Commission will only detail names of referred cases and basic information relating to the grounds of referral, all of which are made public once the cases are referred to the High Court. In addition, there may also be reference to judicial review decisions which are in the public domain.

I am conscious that you have raised a number of matters in your email of 9 March 2009 which related to both your initial information request, dealt with by Mr Walker, and a number of supplementary matters and possible areas for complaint. If I have not specifically addressed any of these additional matters within my response and you wish to raise them for the basis of a formal complaint please write directly to the Commission’s Chairman.

As the Commission’s decision to disclose remains unchanged following my review of your case, you have the right to appeal my decision to the appropriate bodies. Where I have refused to disclose the information on the basis of DPA, you may ask the Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF (email: mail@ico.gsi.gov.uk), to review the Commission’s decision.

Where I have refused to disclose the information on the basis of FOISA, you may ask the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kinburn Castle, Doubledykes Road, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9DS (email: enquiries@itspublicknowledge.info), to review the Commission’s decision.

In addition, if you believe that you have been subject to a miscarriage of justice in relation to your conviction and sentence, and you have any new information or grounds to support this view, not considered by the Commission as part of its initial review of your case, you are entitled to submit a new application to the Commission to undertake a further review of your case.

Yours sincerely

Chris Reddick

Director of Corporate Services

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

17 Renfield Street

Glasgow

G2 5AH

Tel: 0141 270 7030

This email has been sent from the office of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ("the SCCRC"). The information contained in this email and any attachment is strictly confidential. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please notify the SCCRC immediately by telephone on +44 (0) 141 270 7030 and delete this email from the computer - you must not use, copy, disclose, distribute or take any other action in reliance on this email or its contents. The SCCRC does not accept any liability for any harm that may be caused to the recipient's system or data by this email or any attachment. The SCCRC may carry out random monitoring of its email system. If the content

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

David

You must apply to Kevin Dunion with your dossier of evidence against SCCRC.

You must also use your right to Equality of Arms.

One should not get access while another is denied.

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

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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