Useful Stories

admin · Useful Stories

admin

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Is there two versions of Reasonable Doubt? Yes
Here is some "TNT" for SCCRC that Maybe give Them food for thought
If your are a convicted flasher Like:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1392970087&size=l
There is reasonable Doubt and it is a Misdirection according to the court and Advocate Depute in the above case.
But if you are not a convicted Flasher like:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1393862612&size=l
At 12 it is not deemed a Misdirection.
So indeed there seems to be two versions of Reasonable Doubt by the same Person Who Is:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1119704228&size=l
Yes it would seem a "Flasher" in the form of Gerard Sinclair Chief Executive At SCCRC
Anyone seeking Justice and a Flasher it would seem will be favoured by the Kilted Flasher at SCCRC

admin

Posted by: Mike, Edinburgh on 12:57am Thu 5 Jul 07
Latest News Bulletin: AM2 is actually a guy named Pete who originates from Northern Ireland. He is an Employee of the Unionist Rag the Scotsman. He is paid to agitate the forum...... For naming him I have all my posts on the Scotsman vetted......... The Scotsman does not allow free speach.............. The Scotsman censors comments for all subjects that are to do with terror attacks in Glasgow......... The Scotsman censors comments/discussions on the lawyer who made bigot speeches against Catholics...........

admin

Shocking Lockerbie Facts

I find it Deeply Shocking, Disturbing and Offensive that in their short statement of reasons on referring the case of Megrahi (Lockerbie Bomber) They find no fault with his Defence Team, Crown Office and those that sought to deceive us by not gathering evidence and duplicating evidence.
Most alarmingly though is their unwillingness to accept the evidence of Ex Police like the Golfer referred to and evidence that he was defectively Represented by his defence not asking Pertinent Questions nor calling Key evidence to Clear him.
SCCRC instead of enhancing Public confidence in our Judicial system does nothing but totally discredit Itself.
They referred a case of Ronald Neeson on three key witnesses (after many years keeping quiet) saying they overheard, Yes Overheard ,someone say he was to change his story.
One of these witnesses Alex Hardie SCCRC knew to have a long list of convictions for Robberies yet they put him forward as a Credible and Reliable Witness. And in Megrahi's case they find nothing like this despite ex Police coming forward with new and key evidence and it is simply rejected.
To add even further insult to SCCRC they referred the case of Jamie Orr.
His Sister claimed to have overheard a conversation on a bus of one of the witnesses that gave evidence against her brother.
SCCRC saw this as enough evidence to refer his case to High Court and the High Court overturned his conviction on this flimsy evidence of his sister.
SCCRC clearly show their Loyalty to Bill Taylor QC Who was once one of their Board Members not only in the Lockerbie Case but within their statement of reasons in my own case now available on my flickr site at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/page3/

Robin Johnston who also investigated Both cases can be heard at the following Telling Blatant Lies:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I

To be published later is my submissions to SCCRC where everyone will see that Shaws evidence was Highlighted to Robin Johnston yet SCCRC refuse my appeal without seeking and indeed sending Shaw a copy of his own ID Parade report.

admin

19. 2Right, On Location / 6:51pm 29 Jun 2007
Bill Taylor Prof Blacks says did not raise the inconsistencies of the evidence of Gauci at trial.
Read Taylors Statements in another case were he sought to convince SCCRC that he did not know of witnesses evidence Despite the witnesses being on the witness list and an ID Parade report being available at the following link.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/sets/721576001874...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/sets/721576001874...
SCCRC accepted Taylor saying this despite there also being an ID Parade report by the same witness see:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=425979884&size=l.
Report as unsuitable
20. 2Right, On Location / 7:06pm 29 Jun 2007
SCCRC are acting as Judge and Jury even employing Double standards and one must ask:
Are there laws for the rich and separate for the poor?
The case of Beck highlighted on these threads many times before clearly show SCCRC as Liars and cover-Up Merchants.
Megrahi's reasons for referral show this.
Beck claimed that witnesses were shown photos before he stood at an ID Parade and has produced supporting evidence of this yet SCCRC did not investigate this properly instead said evidence of this only came from a tentative statement.
Beck produce various witnesses that said photos were shown even the policeman said he identified him by photo first, The judges charge mentioned photos being shown and witnesses who were not called at trial also said photos were shown.
No adverse findinds by SCCRC in this case yet Gauci seeing a photo in the papers days before is an excuse for referral? See the following links for this shocking case.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=426006723&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=426006708&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-wullie/424549189/
As well as the above Beck also has various crown witnesses statements and Lawyers notes taken at court to substantiate these grounds and SCCRC refuse to listen.
Can SCCRC be allowed to get away with this double standards and blatant abuse?

admin

6. gerad, london / 11:45pm 24 Jun 2007
The Procurators Fiscal Office has material evidence that 2 Judges who were involved in the Lockerbie case are guilty of perverting the course of justice in 2000, and to date they still refuse to take action cases 0197/16/91........0226/16/91 There is nothing new in the fact that the Crown Office and the Scottish Court system is at the masters service
The above was found on Herald issue

admin

by WM on Thu 26 Apr 2007 22:57 BST
Rape case in 'miscarriage' probe

The case is being referred back to the courts amid concerns

The case of a former Aberdeen golf professional who was jailed for five years for rape is to be referred back to the High Court.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) has referred Graham Gordon's case amid concerns there could have been a miscarriage of justice.

He was convicted at the High Court in Stonehaven in 2002.

The SCCRC said it had uncovered new evidence not available at the time of the trial.

It also said there could have been a miscarriage due to a failure by the Crown to disclose information to the defence, a failure by the police to disclose information to the Crown, and police failing to carry out certain investigations.

The trial had heard how Gordon took the woman concerned to his Bridge of Don home after meeting her in a city nightclub.

admin

I know of a case where a person called a lawyer a Liar when he said he had been Personally threatened.
Did the Law society Investigate? NO
What chance do we have when they will not investigate genuine complaints?
I would advise anyone wishing to complain about lawyers to lodge their own Civil Actions.
Complaining to the Law Society is clearly a waste of time, very seldom will they find in favour of an accused person against a Solicitor.
They even pass Memorandums to each other, In the case of Stewart McKenzie their memorandum clearly expressed their concern that he was a credible witness with genuine complaints.
Mr McKenzie still awaits Justice years later despite MSP Swinney raising his concerns at the Justice 2 Committee Years ago.
His case was thrown out of court, No Lawyer would defend him, The Judge told him simply: Because he was not able to ammend the documents he would be denied Justice.
His story can be found here:
http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2007/09/justice-secretary...
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Stewart+McKenzie+Adversa...
Douglas Mill memorandum:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1539/2087/1600/Smoking...
http://williambeck.blogspot.com/2007/06/jim-keegan-solici...

Scott Law · Legal Aid Reforms

Printer friendly
Send to friend
Comments (10)
Job fear for hundreds as legal aid system heads for meltdown
MICHAEL HOWIE
(mhowie@scotsman.com)
HUNDREDS of criminal-law firms in Scotland face financial ruin due to a massive shake-up in the way solicitors are paid and crimes are prosecuted, it was claimed last night.

The Scotsman can reveal the country's leading court solicitors believe radical proposals to overhaul legal-aid fees will drive the profession to breaking point.

They claim the changes will force thousands of solicitors and support staff out of their jobs.

Lawyers also warn the squeeze will lead to more miscarriages of justice as they will be forced to spend less time preparing individual cases.

The Scottish Government proposals, announced last month and due to be introduced in the spring, have dismayed the legal establishment. One lawyer suggested the profession is now "in the death throes".

The Scottish Legal Aid Board believes the overhaul will result in some law firms losing as much as a quarter of their income - a scenario that solicitors say will drive hundreds out of business.

Small city-based firms operated by a single lawyer will be worst-hit and stand to lose between 20 and 26 per cent of their revenue.

Many bigger firms, whose business comes from representing people accused of crimes in court, are also facing hard times as a result of the moves.

However, a relatively small number of lawyers are expected to benefit financially.

Despite the warnings, opposition politicians last night welcomed the move to cut Scotland's £150 million annual legal-aid bill. A complex raft of proposed changes to legal-aid fees - the biggest in over a decade - are intended to reflect a drive to speed up the justice system.

Ministers are seeking quicker guilty pleas and the resolution of thousands of "low-level" cases, such as vandalism and breach of the peace, through fiscal fines and fixed-penalty notices, rather than ending up in court.

But solicitors claim the reforms will have a devastating impact, causing a "brain drain" that will seriously damage the quality and standing of Scotland's legal profession.

Lawyers working in district and sheriff courts say that fees they are paid for most cases will drop from £500 to £300.

John Scott, whose Edinburgh-based firm faces losing £63,000 a year as a result of the changes, said: "These proposals, if they are followed through, will put thousands of lawyers and legal staff out of work. Fewer lawyers will have to carry out more work and that is likely to result in more miscarriages of justice."

He said access to justice will also be affected by further proposed changes to the system, which he said will require thousands of people accused of crimes, including assault and housebreaking, to pay for their own legal representation.

Officials estimate the changes will slash approximately 7 per cent - or £4.5 million - from the bill for legal aid in district and sheriff-court cases.

But Mr Scott, president of the Edinburgh Bar Association - which represents more than 100 solicitors - said: "We have hit crisis point. These cuts will not just get rid of the flesh. They will strike at the bone. I cannot think of anything more damaging, short of scrapping the legal-aid system altogether.

"This will reduce the profession to a level beneath which it cannot properly operate. It will mean thousands of people will not be able to afford to be defended."

Another solicitor, Patrick McCann, who runs his own firm in Limekilns, Fife, said the criminal legal profession was "in the death throes".

He added: "I think privately instructed criminal defence will be finished in five years."

Oliver Adair, convener of the Law Society of Scotland's legal-aid solicitors committee, said: "The society is aware of the dissatisfaction among criminal legal-aid practitioners about the proposed reforms. We believe they will not work - for practitioners or the public - as they will restrict access to justice."

But Bill Aitken, the Tory justice spokesman, said: "Lawyers need to remember we are dealing with taxpayers' money. This is not a gravy train."

Paul Martin, for Scottish Labour, added: "We need value for money, but we also need a high-quality service."

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "This is a genuine consultation - we will consider carefully what the profession and others say before finalising our proposals. The system will be more efficient and we will ensure that there is confidence in the system for all users, and value for money."

He said only about 0.5 per cent of accused people would be disqualified from getting legal aid.

'If this goes through I'll have to shut'
DARK clouds are hovering above Andrew Gilbertson's office in Dalkeith main street.

"If these changes go through, I'll have to shut up shop. There's no doubt about it," says the experienced court solicitor. "I'm the only defence agent in town. But they won't be able to find me here much longer, by the looks of things."

The government's proposed changes, he says, will slash the amount he is paid for representing the bulk of his clients from £500 to £300.

"My income will fall by 40 per cent. That's completely unsustainable. The office will have to close and I'll have to make my two part-time secretaries redundant."

Last year, his firm was paid £155,000 from the legal-aid board. But he says his outlays, including a mortgage for the office and staff salaries, leave him "constantly in overdraft".

"I'll try to keep going from home, with just a mobile and a laptop," added Mr Gilbertson.

Q & A: WHAT'S PLANNED AND WHAT IT MEANS
What is legal aid?

Public money provided for people accused of crime, or those who seek recourse in the civil courts, to cover their legal costs. More than £150 million was spent on legal aid last year.

What are the proposed legal-aid reforms?

Cases that are quickly concluded with a guilty plea will attract a higher fee for solicitors of either £200 for district-court cases or £300 for more serious sheriff-court cases. The current fee is £70. Lawyers also receive £500 for a case that starts with a not- guilty plea, but does not go trial. These are expected to dry up, resulting in a net loss of income.

What will the changes mean for lawyers?

Some are expected to gain, but the vast majority will lose out. In the worst-case scenario, lawyers who work on their own will lose 26 per cent of their income. They warn that thousands of jobs, including solicitors and staff, will be shed.

Should we believe these claims?

It is unlikely that thousands of jobs will go, although many lawyers are now seriously worried about the future.

Why does this matter to the public?

Lawyers say they will have less time to spend on individual cases, raising the possibility that miscarriages of justice will occur. There will also be a "brain drain", they warn, with talented young lawyers moving into more lucrative jobs.

What other changes are proposed?

The government wants to change the eligibility rules for legal aid, so those with savings of as little as just over £1,500 will have to pay for a lawyer. Currently, the threshold is £6,879. Lawyers say thousands of people will be affected.

How many defence lawyers are there in Scotland?

There are about 600 firms, employing thousands of staff, and 1,500 solicitors, registered to carry out criminal legal-aid work.

Why do ministers want to introduce the changes?

To provide better value for money to the taxpayer and make the criminal-justice system more efficient. Officials estimate around £4.5 million will be saved from an annual summary-court legal-aid bill of about £65million

When will the changes be introduced?

The government says it intends to introduce reforms next spring, but insists it will listen to the concerns of lawyers.

Related topic

Legal Issues
http://business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=859
This article: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1840212007

Last updated: 23-Nov-07 01:02 GMT

Comments Add your comment1. .Haggis The Great., Dunfermline / 1:22am 23 Nov 2007 My Heart Bleeds for these poor sould who have bled the system dry for years. The cost of thier services are overinflated and its about time the system was reformed.

Another great policy win for the SNP.

Report as unsuitable 2. Gnasher / 1:31am 23 Nov 2007 Q & A: What is legal aid? - State welfare for lawyers.

What will the changes mean for lawyers? - Fewer of them, maybe. More contigngency fee work. Some will need to look for proper jobs. Others may turn to crime. Or politics.

Should we believe these claims? - No. Don't be silly.

Seriously - a look in the Yellow Pages for solicitors will show what a gravy train legal aid has been. These modest changes, which have been developed over the past few vears under Cathy Jamieson's oversight so don't try hijacking them for the SNP to claim false credit, might bring a bit of realism.

How many lawyers were there fifty years ago?

Report as unsuitable 3. Big Alan / 2:50am 23 Nov 2007 Lawyers are too used to milking the cash cow, if they claim jobs will go, its only to somewhere else with a less accountable cash supply.

Report as unsuitable 4. Jeff, Surrey / 2:54am 23 Nov 2007 Hundreds of millions is squandered on Family Law Legal Aid cases each year.

The vast majority of the time lawyers are paid large amounts of money to ensure one parent (usually mother) can stop the children from seeing the other parent or minimise that relationship.

It is obscene to pay Legal Aid to Family Law lawyers unless there are specific child protection issues where children are at risk of abuse from drug/alcohol etc addicted parents.

These really neglected children slip through the net as Legal Aid is instead thrown in bucketloads at mothers to stop children seeing their fathers, for the only reason it is inconvenient and/or for revenge purposes.

Family Law is perverse as are the solicitors and barristers who prostitute themselves in order to remove children from perfectly fit and loving parents because their own client wishes it.

Report as unsuitable 5. W Smith, Middle East / 2:56am 23 Nov 2007 At least two law firms in Dundee were making over £1 million a year on legal aid only - not counting the profit from other work.

A mate of mine who worked for one of those firms told me that one partner used to give the thugs £50 and tell them "the next time you get arrested remember and come back to us and we'll represent you".

Representing thugs in court is big business in Scotland and the sooner they're back on the streets and re-offending the sooner the lawyers can be filling out legal aid forms.

In business its called 'turnover' and could explain why so many lawyers are for soft sentencing.

Report as unsuitable 6. .Haggis The Great., Dunfermline / 3:01am 23 Nov 2007 #2
LOL

Its the SNP that is introducing these changes so that is where the credit goes. Typical of Labour supporters, grab the glory even when its not deserved. Losers!

Report as unsuitable 7. brian mcc, the arctic / 3:07am 23 Nov 2007 There is a small group of solicitors who will profit from this measure. Like Romulus and Remus, and the she-wolf that suckled them, when 1 nipple runs dry, the twins may fight each other for drinking rights. Suck on it, that's what the rest of us do when we need legal advice.

Report as unsuitable 8. Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh / 3:20am 23 Nov 2007 What a difference a couple of weeks make ... http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1751582007

.. but the Law Society was actually hoping for more than £1.8 million from the Justice Secretary .. only being limited it seems by Mr Swinney's budget resposibilities ...

Anyway, last year and a part of this year, the profession spent time boycotting family law cases and clogging up the courts to force their point on the previous Scottish Executive, and they gained a raise then, and have another raise now ... but that's not enough again, due to the fees the legal profession has got used to setting itself, and the lack of a free open access to justice market, forcing anyone who needs legal services to use a member of the Law Society of Scotland.

For those who may think the SNP are reformers, they should read up on last week's Scottish legal services debate, where Kenny MacAskill spent more time than was worth praising lawyers and calling on us Scots to pay homage to the legal profession for a 'great debt' we owe them - wild stuff from an SNP Justice Secretary but you all read about it on the Parliament's own website for yourselves here http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReport...

Also appearing in the Scotsman a couple of weeks ago, a similar lengthy story of admiration for lawyers, mixed in with legal aid reform, from Kenny MacAskill here ; http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1756462007

At some stage we will get the truth on the 'crisis' in legal aid, but I don't think it will come from the likes of the Law Society and their spin doctors, who I know have been very busy this week ...

At the end of the day, I do feel sorry for the small practitioner. They are being led up the garden path by the Law Society of Scotland, which has failed the Scots legal profession terribly over the last decade, strangely enough under the same leadership ....

Time for those small time practitioners to speak up and change the way their professional governing body does things - now that will bring some welcome changes for all, solicitors & clients alike.

Report as unsuitable 9. somerferg, oz / 3:21am 23 Nov 2007 Boo Hoo a few less bottles of Krug for the boys and girls in the silly wigs and gowns!

Report as unsuitable 10. 2Right, On Location / 4:44am 23 Nov 2007 Hear Hear Peter Cherbi.
Read your comments on the link above and yes i know of a case where the Solicitor Never Interviewed 16 defence witnesses before a criminal High court case resulting in the Guy being wrongly convicted
Could it be the solicitor wasn't paid enough Legal Aid and decided to re-coup it somehow by not interviewing the witnesses.
Is this what John Scott means by Creating Miscarriages Of Justice?

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/2...jim-keegan-solicitor-is-liar.html

Here is another for complaints.

http://lawsocietycomplaints.blogspot.com/

Report as unsuitable

Useful Stories

Legal Aid Reforms