shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

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

The test case to find out if Scotland will comply with the ECHR ruling in the Turkey case has started.

This has taken 7 judges away from the normal appeals and God knows how long it will last.

Why should Scotland's people not have the same right as England who have been protected by this law for decades ?

Forget about Turkey and think UK and ask why should any part of the UK differ ?

Are they worried more about the level of appeals that would be submitted should this law take effect, and how far will they be prepared to backdate these new laws ?

Surely the right to a fair hearing must prevail in all parts of the UK and not just England ?

http://news.scotsman.com/legaliss...-case-opens-that-could.5750946.jp

Test case opens that could alter prosecution in Scotland

Published Date: 21 October 2009
By John Robertson
A BENCH of seven appeal court judges began hearing a test case in Edinburgh yesterday which could reshape the prosecution of crime in Scotland.
It is rare for so many judges to be called together to decide an issue, but the ruling on whether suspects should have a solicitor present during police interviews has huge implications.

The country's senior judge, Lord Hamilton, the Lord Justice General, who is presiding, has described the case as being "of the first importance, so far as the system of the administration of criminal justice in this country is concerned".

At present, the law does not compel the police to allow a solicitor to be present during an interview. The suspect has the right only to have a solicitor informed of his detention.

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

This is some good news for a change.

At least there will be a chance for this guy to get some proper justice at last.

Most countries have 7 judges in the second stages of appeals so its time that Scotland came into line with this too.

More eyes looking at a case can only be an improvement to justice. I hope)

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

Scotland is to remain in the dark ages.

While the rest of Europe are allowed legal representation while being questioned by the police in custody Scotland is not to be allowed this safety measure.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/13195...es-reject-human-rights-challenge/

Appeal judges have rejected a human rights challenge against police questioning of suspects without a lawyer's presence which could have affected thousands of prosecutions in Scotland.

However, lawyers acting for the accused man in the test case have said they will now seek to take the legal fight to Britain's new Supreme Court.

Had the legal challenge been accepted by judges, hundreds of criminal cases in courts up and down Scotland could have been affected, with many even being thrown out.

A specially convened bench of seven judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh ruled that it was not a violation of human rights to allow police to question suspects without a solicitor sitting in, because legal representation was not available from the moment of entry into police custody.

They also held that the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini QC, Scotland's senior law officer, would not be acting outside of her powers to rely on evidence, obtained at an interview conducted in the absence of a lawyer, to seek a conviction.

Following a two-day debate Scotland's senior judge, the Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton, said they would return to give a decision in the case because of the importance of the issue to the justice system and its potential urgency.

Duncan McLean, of Nebigging Cottages, Lethnot, Brechin, in Angus, will face trial at Forfar Sheriff Court accused of stealing a car and wilful fire-raising.

But lawyers acting for the 20-year-old argued that to proceed with the prosecution would be incompatible with his right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights, because the prosecution intend to rely on statements he made to police in Arbroath with no solicitor present.

The challenge comes on the back of a Turkish case against a teenager, Yusuf Salduz, who was jailed for two-and-a-half years for taking part in an illegal demonstration. He was held in custody and questioned, making statements he later claimed were extracted under duress. The case was later successfully taken to Europe.

Last year the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Article 6 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, required that access to a lawyer should be provided "from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police" unless compelling reasons could be shown for restricting it.

At present in Scotland the law does not compel police to allow a solicitor to be present during interview of a suspect, although he has the right to have a lawyer informed of his detention. Police must inform the person that there is no obligation to answer questions and the detention can last up to six hours, before release or charge.

Lawyers acting for McLean argued that due to legal representation not being available from the moment he was taken into police custody his human rights have been violated.

But the Crown contended that there were adequate safeguards provided for an accused in the Scottish legal system.

Lord Hamilton - sitting with the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, Lord Osborne, Lord Kingarth, Lord Eassie, Lord Wheatley and Lady Paton - will give full reasons for their ruling at a later date.

Last updated: 22 October 2009, 11:42

Yeah Yeah Yeah our rights are protected, just like in Campbell & Steele where it was later found the police had fabricated their statements and collaborated with each other in doing so with "Verbals"

Even when Joseph Granger retracted his statement claiming the police had beat it out of him he was jailed for 5 years for his troubles.

His unsafe conviction has yet to be quashed in the light of Campbell & Steel's appeals.

If it can now be said Campbell & Steele are Innocent, this surely corroborates Granger not being able to make a statement of their guilt.

What a great system we have ?

The fact remains that if this challenge was successful the system would have ground to a halt.

Who would have paid for this during this recession ?
_________________
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

The above opinion flies in the face of what Lord Gill said in his recent review Page 19-2

The European Convention on Human Rights
7. The Convention is an integral part of our constitution. The courts as public authorities
must comply with it. Awareness of that fact has as a matter of course underpinned all our
considerations. During the course of the Review we have examined a number of specific
questions relating to the Convention and considered whether current practice and
procedure are compatible with it. We have also always had in mind that any
recommendations we make must be capable of being implemented compatibly with the
Convention. We consider that all our recommendations meet that test.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/civi...sreview/theReport/Vol1Chap1_9.pdf
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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

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

The quicker there is a British Justice System the better.

Impartiality would be eradicated and human rights would be adhered to. Scotland is too small to have its own Justice system. It stinks of corruption.

david

reg126 · Joined: 23 Oct 2009 Posts: 1

The police can detain you at your own home amongst other places. When not at a police station there is no requirement for the police to allow you to notify a solicitor of your being detained. They can charge you without taking you to a police station. They can write whatever they like as evidence without even showing you what they have written and claim you refused to sign anything.As they are not at a police station they will not have writing material on hand for you to make notes and may prevent you from seeking some from inside your own home.

Yes you can be perfectly fitted up by corrupt officers if they so wish.
What safeguards are there to that? ...erm sherrif's or jury's views as to who is telling the truth or not. 2 Police officers versus 1 person in the dock.

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

Reg 126, totally agree with you.

When my two friends and I were questioned, the Officer in charge, Deas, made out that my co-accused had told them everything so this was my chance to put my side across. In other words he made out that my co-accused had admitted the crime.

I totally denied any wrongdoing as I was innocent and I knew my two friends were innocent too. When our statements arrived at the solicitors our statements were all the same. Total denial of any crime taking place.

I find it so frustrating that I even spoke to the police. They had no evidence against me. No DNA nothing. All they had was a girl stating she was robbed and assaulted. She then changed that statement to raped in a stairwell. Amazingly after CCTV proved she was once again lying she then changed that statement to she was raped in a flat. The police permitted this.

I was convicted on an Art& & Part basis because there was no evidence against me. If a lawyer had been present during our interviews we would not have spoken to the police. The lying statements would have emerged during the trial and the police and complainer would not have had the chance to revise what they were going to fabricate to get around the lying.

It should be mandatory for solicitors to be present at all interviews. It deters corruption by the police and is in all fairness the correct thing to do.

David