‘Fairer regime’ will give accused broader right to know evidence
A fairer regime in Scotland's courts, with the accused given a broader right to know all the evidence against them, is to be introduced.
The move follows controversy in a series of high-profile cases, including the Lockerbie bombing, and follows a review by former High Court judge Lord Coulsfield who recommended changes.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said yesterday: "Disclosure is now a vital part of our procedures following changes within the law in 2005.
"It is essential that the defence have all the necessary information available to ensure a fair trial. Effective disclosure also contributes to a more effective criminal justice system and to earlier resolution of cases."
Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini said: "We have been making strenuous efforts to ensure that our disclosure practice meets the needs of a modern criminal justice system. Legislation will underpin and consolidate these efforts and will assist us in continuing to improve our practices.
"Early disclosure of evidence is not only beneficial to the defence and to the pursuit of a fair trial but also to victims and witnesses, as it can bring about earlier guilty pleas, saving victims and witnesses from the stress and strain of having to give evidence in court."
Yesterday's proposals set out plans to:
l Set in statute a clear definition of the legal requirements for disclosure.
l Provide a statutory code
of practice for disclosure procedures.
l Introduce a system of Public Interest Immunity hearings to achieve a balance between protecting sensitive or confidential information and the requirement to disclose.
l Codify a system for notifying defence agents in jury trials about the existence of non-sensitive material that has not been disclosed.
Ministers plan to go beyond Coulsfield by providing that: material previous convictions of Crown witnesses should be disclosed in all cases, not only on application by the defence; where disclosure has been made by the Crown and the defence request further consideration be given to disclosure of other information, it should then be mandatory for a standard defence statement to be submitted.
Niall McCluskey, an advocate specialising in criminal law, feared that the idea of mandatory defence statements was an assault on the fundamental right to silence, calling this a "totally unwelcome innovation".
He also feared that the right to revisit witness statements could cut across the defence right to ensure that statements were based on actual memory and not prompted.
Disclosure of prosecution evidence has had no statutory footing in the past, but this is now to be set out in a statutory code.
However, the planned legislation will also introduce to Scotland the system of Public Interest Immunity hearings which have been widely criticised in England for giving the government of the day a way of stifling public coverage of trials which are politically embarrassing.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO, Zurich / Switzerland on 4:07am Wed 30 Apr 08
FOR A FAIR END IN THE LOCKERBIE-AFFAIR
MEBO Proposal for a partial disclosure of the document "under national security"
In order that the content of the document "under national security" and the country involved are not publicly disclosed there is the possibility that
1 member of the SCCRC and 2 personalities either/or of the EU or the UNO
would have access to view this important document under the condition of not making the country involved and the content of the document public.
But the content of the document "under national security" could be used for the benefit of Abdelbaset al Megrahi's appeal proceedings.
In the sense of the Arab League. Edwin Bollier
Pls. visit our webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
FOR A FAIR END IN THE LOCKERBIE-AFFAIR
MEBO Proposal for a partial disclosure of the document "under national security"
In order that the content of the document "under national security" and the country involved are not publicly disclosed there is the possibility that
1 member of the SCCRC and 2 personalities either/or of the EU or the UNO
would have access to view this important document under the condition of not making the country involved and the content of the document public.
But the content of the document "under national security" could be used for the benefit of Abdelbaset al Megrahi's appeal proceedings.
In the sense of the Arab League. Edwin Bollier
Pls. visit our webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
Posted by: Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO, Zurich / Switzerland on 4:12am Wed 30 Apr 08
After a meeting at the 24 April 2008 in Zurich/Switzerland,
Justice Hamidi Faraj Fannoush (Libya) and Edwin Bollier (MEBO Ltd.) can admits to be made, that before beginning of the Appeal at the High Court in Edinburgh three further hearings will take place,if possible before the court holidays.
The next hearing is to start at the beginning of May 2008; with the demand of Mr Megrahi' s lawers to reject the SCCRC-ruling about the limit for grounds in Megrahi's appeal. (SCCRC limit of 6 grounds)
Tony Kelly says in earlier time: "We don't have to limit our appeal on the grounds the Commission has identified. We have carte blanche to make it on as many grounds as we want."
This includes the claims about the most important MEBO MST-13 fragment of the bomb's timing mechanism that was allegedly found in the countyside near Lockerbie in the months after the atrocity.
Not forgotten, only the green MST-13 fragment entangles Libya with the Lockerbie Tragedy.
Thus at the beginning of the Appeals, earliest can be counted at the end of September/October 2008.
MEBO will start nex week a Criminal Complaint against persons of the Swiss Federal Police (ex BUPO), in the connection with the assistant shank with an important evidence-fraud of Scottish investigation officials.
(International law support against the Scottish Justice.) (Concerns the MST-13 timer fragment, regarding the Falsification Evidence In the Lockerbie Case
More information on: www.lockerbie.ch
After a meeting at the 24 April 2008 in Zurich/Switzerland,
Justice Hamidi Faraj Fannoush (Libya) and Edwin Bollier (MEBO Ltd.) can admits to be made, that before beginning of the Appeal at the High Court in Edinburgh three further hearings will take place,if possible before the court holidays.
The next hearing is to start at the beginning of May 2008; with the demand of Mr Megrahi' s lawers to reject the SCCRC-ruling about the limit for grounds in Megrahi's appeal. (SCCRC limit of 6 grounds)
Tony Kelly says in earlier time: "We don't have to limit our appeal on the grounds the Commission has identified. We have carte blanche to make it on as many grounds as we want."
This includes the claims about the most important MEBO MST-13 fragment of the bomb's timing mechanism that was allegedly found in the countyside near Lockerbie in the months after the atrocity.
Not forgotten, only the green MST-13 fragment entangles Libya with the Lockerbie Tragedy.
Thus at the beginning of the Appeals, earliest can be counted at the end of September/October 2008.
MEBO will start nex week a Criminal Complaint against persons of the Swiss Federal Police (ex BUPO), in the connection with the assistant shank with an important evidence-fraud of Scottish investigation officials.
(International law support against the Scottish Justice.) (Concerns the MST-13 timer fragment, regarding the Falsification Evidence In the Lockerbie Case
More information on: www.lockerbie.ch
Posted by: Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO, Zurich / Switzerland on 4:16am Wed 30 Apr 08
LOCKERBIE- the biggest fraud in the Scottish history!
Notabene:
WHY did the Scottish Police (Dumfries & Galloway Constabulary) on the Label DP137 (the new fabricated and registered green MST-13 timer fragment) write the date from the 15th of September 1990 back to the 10th of September 1989 ?!
Answer: Most probably because on this rebooked date, 10th of September 1989, the first brown MST-13 Fragment was photographed on the vanished FBI-Polaroidphoto.
The new green fragment, photographed on Sept.1990, slipped into the role of the first brown fragment, photgaphed on Sept.1989. Only with the green fragment Libya could be linked to the PanAm 103 bombing!
To the memory: The MST-13 Timer delivered to Libya was equipped with green circuit boards.
More information on: www.lockerbie.ch
LOCKERBIE- the biggest fraud in the Scottish history!
Notabene:
WHY did the Scottish Police (Dumfries & Galloway Constabulary) on the Label DP137 (the new fabricated and registered green MST-13 timer fragment) write the date from the 15th of September 1990 back to the 10th of September 1989 ?!
Answer: Most probably because on this rebooked date, 10th of September 1989, the first brown MST-13 Fragment was photographed on the vanished FBI-Polaroidphoto.
The new green fragment, photographed on Sept.1990, slipped into the role of the first brown fragment, photgaphed on Sept.1989. Only with the green fragment Libya could be linked to the PanAm 103 bombing!
To the memory: The MST-13 Timer delivered to Libya was equipped with green circuit boards.
More information on: www.lockerbie.ch
Posted by: Edwin & Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO, Zurich / Switzerland on 4:22am Wed 30 Apr 08
This Label DP137 and the back dated Polaroid-photo (12th of September 1989) was transmitted by Allen Feraday (RARDE) on the 15th of September 1990 together with a memorandum also dated back (15th of September 1989) to Chief Inspector William Williamson.
Feraday wrote in this memorandum: "Williy, enclosed are some Polaroid photographs of the green circuit board. Sorry about the quality, but it is the best I can do in such a shorte time".
"I feel that this fragment could be potentially most important. So any light your lads/lasses can shed upon the problem of identifying it would be most welcome.
Allen (Feraday)
MEBO comment:
Apparently Insp. Williamson was in hurry about his visit on the 20th of September 1990 to Switzerland. For the exchange of the brown into a green circuit board he needed a new Polaroid-photo from a green MST-13 fragment.
It is logic that the order for a new Polaroid-photo came from Inspector William Williamson and was transmitted to Allen Feraday.
More information on: www.lockerbie.ch
This Label DP137 and the back dated Polaroid-photo (12th of September 1989) was transmitted by Allen Feraday (RARDE) on the 15th of September 1990 together with a memorandum also dated back (15th of September 1989) to Chief Inspector William Williamson.
Feraday wrote in this memorandum: "Williy, enclosed are some Polaroid photographs of the green circuit board. Sorry about the quality, but it is the best I can do in such a shorte time".
"I feel that this fragment could be potentially most important. So any light your lads/lasses can shed upon the problem of identifying it would be most welcome.
Allen (Feraday)
MEBO comment:
Apparently Insp. Williamson was in hurry about his visit on the 20th of September 1990 to Switzerland. For the exchange of the brown into a green circuit board he needed a new Polaroid-photo from a green MST-13 fragment.
It is logic that the order for a new Polaroid-photo came from Inspector William Williamson and was transmitted to Allen Feraday.
More information on: www.lockerbie.ch
Posted by: JBlackley, Florida on 2:40pm Wed 30 Apr 08
Goodness! Not only do I get information on Scotland's disclosure laws but a pretty full update on the Lockerbie bomber case too! Thanks to the Bolliers for the added value.
I was a bit shocked to learn that full evidenciary disclosure to the defence isn't a matter of course in Scots law (or wasn't until recently). One of the basic tenets of any democracy's justice system is that the accused be allowed to know all details of the evidence against them in advance of the trial.
Now I know that the political classes - in desperate self-preservation mode - will always claim that there are some evidences that need to be withheld for 'state security' reasons but either a competent third-party review and ruling system needs to be introduced or the state must be compelled to withdraw any evidence it cannot disclose - otherwise accusations of Star Chamber trial methods will devalue the justice system.
Goodness! Not only do I get information on Scotland's disclosure laws but a pretty full update on the Lockerbie bomber case too! Thanks to the Bolliers for the added value.
I was a bit shocked to learn that full evidenciary disclosure to the defence isn't a matter of course in Scots law (or wasn't until recently). One of the basic tenets of any democracy's justice system is that the accused be allowed to know all details of the evidence against them in advance of the trial.
Now I know that the political classes - in desperate self-preservation mode - will always claim that there are some evidences that need to be withheld for 'state security' reasons but either a competent third-party review and ruling system needs to be introduced or the state must be compelled to withdraw any evidence it cannot disclose - otherwise accusations of Star Chamber trial methods will devalue the justice system.
Posted by: scotkaz, Glasgow on 7:20pm Wed 30 Apr 08
Absolute Disclosure is vital to truth, integrity and justice for the Scottish Judicial system.
there is a petition on this below.
http://gopetition.co
m/petitions/grant-di
sclosure-to-scottish
-defendants.html
Absolute Disclosure is vital to truth, integrity and justice for the Scottish Judicial system.
there is a petition on this below.
http://gopetition.co
m/petitions/grant-di
sclosure-to-scottish
-defendants.html
Posted by: scotkaz, Glasgow on 7:21pm Wed 30 Apr 08
[italic]http://gopetition.co
m/petitions/grant-di
sclosure-to-scottish
-defendants.html[/italic]
http://gopetition.co
m/petitions/grant-di
sclosure-to-scottish
-defendants.html Posted by: Big Wullie, Glasgow on 8:58pm Wed 30 Apr 08
Scotkaz
I am one of the mentioned on the petition and believe me the Crown Office are still trying to refuse me access to 26 year old documents saying they identify "Living People"
Clearly in recent case Law (Holland and Sinclair) All previous convictions need to be released but what is not happening (and one only need look at Dixon and McDonalds recent case for appeal) is simply Crown Office have always dictated what will be released, This practice must end.
All evidence Ingathered in the course of any investigation must be released to the defence teams, Not just what Crown intend to base their case upon.
99.9% of cases winning appeals today are on the ground of withheld evidence which had the jury heard could have influenced their decisions.
As well as the petition for disclosure we also have Elish Angiolini saying she would disclose all evidence to Accused and lawyers in 2006 when she spoke to Justice 1 yet Legal Aid is still being used in cases(with No National Security Issues) asking for disclosure and clogging up our Courts
Angiolini makes it to you tube:
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=-x11rHMJs
kY
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=ebOQ8jhw-
9g&feature=user
Taken from Justice 1 Video 2006
Scotkaz
I am one of the mentioned on the petition and believe me the Crown Office are still trying to refuse me access to 26 year old documents saying they identify "Living People"
Clearly in recent case Law (Holland and Sinclair) All previous convictions need to be released but what is not happening (and one only need look at Dixon and McDonalds recent case for appeal) is simply Crown Office have always dictated what will be released, This practice must end.
All evidence Ingathered in the course of any investigation must be released to the defence teams, Not just what Crown intend to base their case upon.
99.9% of cases winning appeals today are on the ground of withheld evidence which had the jury heard could have influenced their decisions.
As well as the petition for disclosure we also have Elish Angiolini saying she would disclose all evidence to Accused and lawyers in 2006 when she spoke to Justice 1 yet Legal Aid is still being used in cases(with No National Security Issues) asking for disclosure and clogging up our Courts
Angiolini makes it to you tube:
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=-x11rHMJs
kY
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=ebOQ8jhw-
9g&feature=user
Taken from Justice 1 Video 2006
Posted by: Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh on 10:29pm Wed 30 Apr 08
So I take it the Lord Advocate wont be trying to prevent disclosure in the Lockerbie Bomber's appeal now or limit the terms of his appeal to that only recommended by the SLCC in a further attempt to hinder disclosure & access to justice ?
Perhaps if the Justice Secretary is feeling generous, he could see to it that disclosure is implemented across a wide range of dealings between the Scots public and the legal system ...
So I take it the Lord Advocate wont be trying to prevent disclosure in the Lockerbie Bomber's appeal now or limit the terms of his appeal to that only recommended by the SLCC in a further attempt to hinder disclosure & access to justice ?
Perhaps if the Justice Secretary is feeling generous, he could see to it that disclosure is implemented across a wide range of dealings between the Scots public and the legal system ...
Posted by: Big Wullie, Glasgow on 2:41am Thu 1 May 08
Peter
That would be great and ideal but we both know that is not what happens with cases still going to Commission and Dilligence.
We also know in the Dixon and McDonald recent case the Courts agreed with Crown and Denied his NEW defence team access to documents saying they had done so at the original trial.
"Done So At The Original Trial"
Yet our courts make a ruling saying basically that because they done so at the original trial, There is no need to do so for a fresh Defence team for appeal.
What if the original (Now complained of defence team) defence team failed to make good use of the disclosure and missed vital documents at the original trial
APPALLING
Peter
That would be great and ideal but we both know that is not what happens with cases still going to Commission and Dilligence.
We also know in the Dixon and McDonald recent case the Courts agreed with Crown and Denied his NEW defence team access to documents saying they had done so at the original trial.
"Done So At The Original Trial"
Yet our courts make a ruling saying basically that because they done so at the original trial, There is no need to do so for a fresh Defence team for appeal.
What if the original (Now complained of defence team) defence team failed to make good use of the disclosure and missed vital documents at the original trial
APPALLING
Posted by: Big Wullie, Glasgow on 2:52am Thu 1 May 08
Does this mean Elish and Co at Crown Office will no longer deny my MSP access to my trial documents which has been denied for years quoting Data Protection and Public Interest tests for a Robbery Trial.
If National Security is not at stake then all documents under Holland and Sinclair must be revealed.
Perverts have been granted access to whether or not social workers have had previous convictions yet i am denied access to witness statements that gave evidence against me at trial and ID Parade Reports.
Our disclosure petition must be very alarming for Crown Office who know they are duty bound to reveal all documents now.
And even Elish concedes on the you tube videos Here:
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=-x11rHMJs
kY
she is duty to reveal these documents but our Courts are still allowing Crown to decide what to reveal and to whom should be revealed, Lockerbie being their biggest issue.
Please sign our Petition here for equal disclosure for all:
http://gopetition.co
m/petitions/grant-di
sclosure-to-scottish
-defendants/sign.htm
l
Does this mean Elish and Co at Crown Office will no longer deny my MSP access to my trial documents which has been denied for years quoting Data Protection and Public Interest tests for a Robbery Trial.
If National Security is not at stake then all documents under Holland and Sinclair must be revealed.
Perverts have been granted access to whether or not social workers have had previous convictions yet i am denied access to witness statements that gave evidence against me at trial and ID Parade Reports.
Our disclosure petition must be very alarming for Crown Office who know they are duty bound to reveal all documents now.
And even Elish concedes on the you tube videos Here:
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=-x11rHMJs
kY
she is duty to reveal these documents but our Courts are still allowing Crown to decide what to reveal and to whom should be revealed, Lockerbie being their biggest issue.
Please sign our Petition here for equal disclosure for all:
http://gopetition.co
m/petitions/grant-di
sclosure-to-scottish
-defendants/sign.htm
l
Posted by: allymax, yuk on 5:14pm Thu 1 May 08
"Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini said: "We have been making strenuous efforts to ensure that our disclosure practice meets the needs of a modern criminal justice system. Legislation will underpin and consolidate these efforts and will assist us in continuing to improve our practices." Bliarite statements of derision and lies. As 'Peter' and 'Big Wullie' have already pointed out, crass words from angiolini knowing she will not release anything the crown doesn't want to.
We need independence for Scotland, that way we won't have the engerlish crown lords dictating to our courts/society what and when will be released/prosecuted.
All the engerlish crown lords can you all please go back to westminster. And take the Culman commission with you.
"Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini said: "We have been making strenuous efforts to ensure that our disclosure practice meets the needs of a modern criminal justice system. Legislation will underpin and consolidate these efforts and will assist us in continuing to improve our practices." Bliarite statements of derision and lies. As 'Peter' and 'Big Wullie' have already pointed out, crass words from angiolini knowing she will not release anything the crown doesn't want to.
We need independence for Scotland, that way we won't have the engerlish crown lords dictating to our courts/society what and when will be released/prosecuted.
All the engerlish crown lords can you all please go back to westminster. And take the Culman commission with you.
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (12)
