shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Scots Against Injustice · Joined: 22 Jun 2009 Posts: 41

Post removed.

allan mcleod · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 157

Here Here, I support and agree 100 per cent with your Freedom of Information campaign.

As far as I am concerned if hidden information was released to my family and lawyer regarding the unsolved death of my nephew of Kevin Mcleod the perpetrators would have been in prison years ago.

Kenny MacAskill and other Scottish ministers have as much blood on their hands as the scumbags that murdered Kevin along with other cases of mis-justice on this website. - Shame on you Mr MacAskill. - Sleep well.

Again, the best of luck with your campaign.

Scots Against Injustice · Joined: 22 Jun 2009 Posts: 41

Post removed.

Scots Against Injustice · Joined: 22 Jun 2009 Posts: 41

Post removed.

Scots Against Injustice · Joined: 22 Jun 2009 Posts: 41

Post removed.

allan mcleod · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 157

How right you are regarding Macaskill's allegiance to his pals, the 8 Chief Constables, and his conflicts of intertest, all of who indeed conspire to defeat the ends of justice. (See Below). MacAskill like Northerns Chief Constable is fully aware, that for another force to conduct a cold case review would mean that the cover up regarding the true circumstances of Kevin Mcleod's death would probably then be exposed and all their corrupt heads would then roll. MacAskill Like the Chief Constable knows exactly how Kevin died and who was involved. - Shame on them
-------------------------------------
Subject: Re: KEVIN McLEOD - Question Tabled by MSP J.Stone

Justice

Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive whether consideration will be given to a cold case review, conducted by a Scottish police force other than Northern Constabulary, into the police investigation that followed the death of Kevin McLeod in Wick on 8 February 1997.

(S3W-16944)

Kenny MacAskill: The circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Kevin McLeod were the subject of two investigations conducted by Northern Constabulary in the months immediately following the incident. On 14 May 1998 an inquiry under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 was convened at Wick Sheriff Court. The outcome of that inquiry was an open verdict.

Cold case reviews are normally carried out when new evidence comes to light or when technological advances mean that existing evidence can be subjected to further analysis.

Any decision on whether a cold case review would be appropriate in the circumstances surrounding this case is a matter for Northern Constabulary and the Procurator Fiscal.

Scots Against Injustice · Joined: 22 Jun 2009 Posts: 41

Post removed.

Scots Against Injustice · Joined: 22 Jun 2009 Posts: 41

Post removed.

allan mcleod · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 157

We Kevin Mcleods family believe that the Justice Secretary along with all the authorities involved, have engaged in a widespread conspiracy to protect those involved with Kevins death, and to prevent the true position of this prisoner being exposed, which "WHEN" disclosed will undoubtedly open a very big can of worms, and many Senior officials heads will indeed roll.- Be assured Its only a matter of time. - We will never give up our fight to expose the Corruption and Conspiracy that has undoubtedly exsisted in this case from the very outset. - Shame on them all.

With regards to Mr MacAskill's response to MSP Jamie Stone, words fail me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
10 June 2009

Mr Kenneth MacAskill MSP
Cabinet Secretary for Justice

Dear Kenny
On the 9th of June you answered my Written Question, "To ask the Scottish Executive whether prisoner xxxxxx xxxxx, prison number xxxxx, was released on weekend home leave on 7 and 8 February 1997". In your answer you said, "I have asked Mike Ewart, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), to respond. His response is as follows: 'The SPS is unable to answer as to do so would involve the disclosure of sensitive data and be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998". I am writing to you to ask you think again about providing a full and proper answer to the question. Let me argue it this way. As you know the question is in relation to the death of Kevin McLeod in Wick. His family have been told, rightly or wrongly, that xxxxxx xxxxx was seen in Wick on the nights I mention above. Finding out whether he was on weekend leave, or was in prison on those nights, would establish whether or not anyone is correct in making the assumption that xxxxx could have been in any way involved in the events that took place in Wick on those nights.
In an age when freedom of information is very much part of the spirit of the time, I would suggest that giving an absolutely clear answer to my question would be in that same spirit. At the very least it would help get rid of the impression that, fair or deeply unfair though this may be, the system of justice in Scotland 'is hiding something'.
Public confidence in the fairness and openness of the law in Scotland, and its application in Scotland, is paramount. The same is true of your role as Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Please give the strongest consideration to giving a full and clear answer to my question.

With best wishes
Jamie Stone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr MacAskill to MSP Jamie Stone.

2nd July 2009

Dear Jamie

Thank you for your letter of 10 June 2009, in which you have asked me to provide you a fuller answer to the response I gave to your Written Question (S3W-24491) in the spirit of freedom of information. Your argue that the disclosure of this information is necessary to establish whether or not anyone is correct in making assumptions that Mr xxxxx could have been in any way involved in the death of Kevin Mcleod.

As you know the Freedom of Information (Scotland) ACT 2002 (FOISA) provides significant and important rights to access information. The Scottish Government fully supports the principles underpinning that legislation. Freedom om information law, however, works alongside other legislation designed to protect certain information from release. For example, information protected by the Data Protection Act can only be released in limited circumstances. I think we all understand the need to balance access to information and the privacy rights of individuals.

The Scottish Government tries to provide information whereever possible. However, having carefully considered your request for information under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 and FOISA, we take the view that the information requested is exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA. This is under condition detailed in section 38(2) (a) (i) and 38 (2)(b) of that act: specifically, that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle on fair and lawful processing, and that none of the requirements of schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998 ( that outline the circumstances in which release may be permitted) have been met.

We consider that any information showing that a named individual is or has been serving a sentence of imprisonment is "sensitive personnal data" for the purpose of the Data Protection Act 1998. Disclosure would therefore require compliance with a condition set out in Schedule 3 of the Data Protction Act before it could be released. In this case, we do not believe that any of the conditions in Schedule 3 have been met. A disclosure of the information you seek would therefore be unlawful. I have attached the relevant sections of the Freedom of Information(Scotland) Act 2002 and the Data Protection Act 1998 for your information.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) is a "data controller" in relation to personal data held about prisoners and have a legal duty to individual prisoners to protect their personal data.
Prisoners are entitled to the same privacy rights as others. In particular, SPS are legally obliged to "comply with the data principles in relation to all personal data with respect to which (SPS are) data controller" under section 4 (4) of the 1998 Act. However, the SPS is able to share personal data with the police for the detection of crime or administration of justice. If you suspect that an individual may have been involved in relation to a criminal incident, then you should bring this matter to the attention of the relevant police authority for them to make the appropriate enquiries and investigations.

I hope you find this explanation helpful. If you are dissatisfied with this response you have, of course, the right to make a formal complaint to the Scottish Information Commissioner.

KENNY MACASKILL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response from Scotlands new Chief Inspector of Prisons - Brigadier Hughie Monro

23 June 2009

Dear Mr & Mrs Mcleod

Thank you for your letter dated 15 June 2009.

Your letter describes an appalling situation for you and your family. I understand your attempts to find out the truth of your son's death and I am sorry you have not found this process easy.

The remit of the Chief Inspector of Prisons is to inspect the conditions that prisoners are held in and the treatment they receive. I regret, therefore, that I do not have the authority to conduct an investigation into whether or not Mr xxxxx was in or out of prison on the dates you refer to. I know this is not the response you had hoped for and my sincere sympathy is offered to you both in your tragic loss.

Yours sincerely
pp J.Reid

HUGH MONRO

allan mcleod · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 157

It was this Government that introduced both Freedom of Information and the Human Rights Act, yet they continue in the same way as all their predecessors in trying to hide anything and everything from the public even when there is no need to do so.
Why did the Prison Service and Scottish Ministers inform us that this prisoners records had been destroyed, when it later emerged through a Freedom of Information request that they had misinformed (lied) to the family. Why wont MacAskill disclose this prisoners movements on the weekend of Kevin Mcleod death.? All the evidence points to this prisoner being granted weekend home leave in preperation for his final release and being involved with Kevins death. The only reason the authorities would protect this prisoners movements from being disclosed can only be that one of their own was also involved, which would then expose why Kevin's case has been a massive cover up from the very outset.
Kevin's death was treated as a Murder Inquiry, if this prisoner was involved when on release, Freedom of Information and the Data Protection Act should therefore not be an issue.