Justice For Wullie Beck

The Fight for Justice Continues!!!

Blog

view:  full / summary

Wullie Beck Still fighting to clear his name

Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on February 21, 2009 at 10:11 PM Comments comments (1)

Wullie Beck Sent Jurors names and addresses Daily Mail 27 October 2008

Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on October 28, 2008 at 4:57 AM Comments comments (0)
Click on articles to enlarge them to read.

Daily Mail1

Daily Mail

Wullie Beck Case: Legal Blunder sparks Security Alert OutRage. The Sun, 27 October 2008

Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on October 28, 2008 at 4:42 AM Comments comments (0)
Click on the article to enlarge it

Sun article

Bill Taylor QC

Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on September 21, 2008 at 5:24 PM Comments comments (0)


Bill Taylor Middle



Bill Taylor QC Middle

Latest News on Lockerbie

Ezperts call for Public Enquiry into Lockerbie:

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Legal ... 4498100.jp

Mr Taylor QC admits to not knowing of evidence at my trial (Incompetence) see below at Number 8:

Page three of Taylors statement to Dean

Last page of Taylors statement to Dean of Faculty


If he never knew of Shaw evidence he never did his job right because Shaw was cited as a witness and his ID Parade report was available here:

Shaws note on his ID Parade Report

The above even has the Lawyer writing No 11 had number 2 out his mouth without turning to view the parade.
Mr Taylor was incompetent for not calling this evidence.

Mr Taylor also claims he would not call a witness without having a statement from him.
My Solicitor never interviewed 16 of 19 of my defence witnesses and Mr Taylor and Jim Keegan Solicitr has claimed the Crown Statements would not have been available to them at the time of my trial so what evidence did Taylor take to my trial from my witnesses.

Keegans statement to SCCRC

All the above and more incriminating evidence of Taylor's incompetence can be found at the following site:

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

There are even letters confirming Taylor wrote to the legal aid board saying I had no grounds after he was sacked

Lockerbie Bombers QC admits Incompetence and Negligence

Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on September 21, 2008 at 5:23 PM Comments comments (0)




Having complained to SCCRC Scottish Criminal cases Review Commission that Mr Taylor defectively represented me they failed to take account of his own words.
When i complained to The Dean Of Faculty about the conduct of Mr Taylor he said this:
At number 8 he claims not to have known about the evidence of Donald Shaw (The solicitor that conducted my ID Parade)

Page three of Taylors statement to Dean

Last page of Taylors statement to Dean of Faculty

If Mr Taylor is right then my defence was not fully put to the jury and the most crucial arguments about this evidence was never disputed in court.
Clearly this evidence was capable of casting doubt on the police evidence that i was the driver.

See The Evidence Of Shaw Here for yourself:

Shaws ID Parade Report
Shaws note on his ID Parade Report

Shaws Statement to SCCRC

Shaws Statement To Robin Johnston SCCRC

His impression was the witness knew prior to coming into the parade exactly what position i had adopted. This would have been why he wrote the above on his ID Parade report.




It also beggars the question...... Why didn't he know of this evidence if he had done his job properly then he would and should have made sure he had a statement from every witness.
This would be the actions of any competent QC doing his best to represent any accused

This witnesses evidence was crucial to my trial given i was convicted solely on Identification evidence, Why?
Because he wrote that the policeman that identified me had number two out his mouth before turning to view the parade.
Number two just happened to be an Off-Duty Poiceman, Nigel Muckle of Livingston.

Support From MSP

Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on September 21, 2008 at 5:22 PM Comments comments (0)


After my arrest on 15th April 2008 for an alleged "Breach Of The Peace" my MSP wrote the following letter to Livingston Police:



MSP to Livingston Police



He is as far as i am aware still awaiting a reply.



My Solicitor though has managed to ascertain the following:

1. I was not charged.

2. There is no report being sent to the Fiscal.

3. I have nothing to worry about he wrote.

So exactly why did two CID officers from Livingston travel to my house in Glasgow ?

A: The same police i have complained of since my conviction in 1982, that they:

1. Showed Photos before my ID Parade, Which should never have been allowed even by 1982 standards.

2. Allowed the two arresting officers to participate in the ID Parade with one Assisting with Witnesses ,Which should never be allowed, even by 1982 standards.

3. The Lawyer conducting My ID Parade noticed Nigel Muckle had number 2 out his mouth before turning to view the parade and he wrote such at the following:

Shaws note on his ID Parade Report

Unheard of in those days for police to visit an ID Parade and give their "Name and Address" But Muckle does this and fails to mention he was stationed at Livingston Too, Clearly a conflict of Interest there.

Now because his name and address appears in my arguments for disclosure with Crown Office his Friends and Colleagues appear at my door and arrest me under section 14.

A wee tad out of their Jurisdiction if you ask me for a breach of the peace (Livingston must be crime free they now travel to Glasgow)

The following questions now arise:

1. Why were two Colleagues allowed to deal with such complaint ?

2. Why were they not accompanied by Glasgow Police ?

3. Will they ever be allowed to do this to anyone else ?

4. What was the nature of their visit Or Complaint ?

I was not at-all comfortable about two strangers (Claiming to be from Livingston) arresting me but had the back up of CCTV which clearly captures all movements at my front door.
Had it not been for the CCTV i might not have went to the police station, What would have happened then ?

Justice 1

Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on September 21, 2008 at 5:20 PM Comments comments (0)

Devils Advocates

Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on September 21, 2008 at 5:17 PM Comments comments (0)

Questions And Answers Of SCCRC

Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on September 21, 2008 at 4:58 PM Comments comments (0)
Sent the following to SCCRC:

Sent: 27 March 2008 16:20:41
To: [email protected]

For Attention Of Mr Chris Reddick FOI Officer


With ref to recent Telephone call today i have been informed that my FOI request has not been received at your office which i sent by E-Mail on 16/03/2008 to [email protected]

For the avoidance of doubt please find copy pasted a copy of said request:

FOI Request‏
from: William Beck
Sent: 16 March 2008 22:50:28
To: [email protected]; [email protected]


FAO Mr Chris Reddick FOI Officer

Dear Mr Reddick

Can you please provide me with the following imformation.

1. Details of what is the most ever complaints levelled against any "one Solicitor" in a Defective Representation Ground.

2. Details of what is the most ever complaints levelled against any "one Counsel" in a Defective Representation Ground.

Yours Faithfully

William Beck


Reply From SCCRC here:

SCCRC Refuse FOI Stats 17th April 08




Reply from SCCRC saying it is not in the public interset to release such data and it was an offence to do so, led to me sending the following:

Sent: 21 April 2008 23:43:35
To: [email protected]

Dear Sirs

With ref to above letter dated 17th April 2008 ref No MW, and with all due respect.
Not only am I an Appellant but as a member of the public i consider myself a stakeholder of SCCRC and entitled to ask the questions tabled.

Setting aside the above and taking account of your views i consider that:

1. The information i asked for would not identify anyone in particular.

2. The material i am asking for should not be covered by case related information but merely statistics.

3. The material sought should be available on request to any stakeholder.

4. The material sought is of such importance to the public for instance, to show there does not exist a culture to protect Lawyers and QCs within SCCRC.

5. The material sought is to allay public fears that lawyers and QCs do not get preferential treatment when the subject of such appeals.

6. To allay public fears that when more than one appeal is received against one Lawyer or QC then it is investigated with the utmost importance.

7. Your assertion that this would be unduly burdensome on the commission is flawed when taken in conjunction with some material already published by the commission on their web, for example:

"Statistics published in 2006-2007 annual report" at pages 7and 8 you publish data and details of how many cases are referred and for what reasons etc etc yet you are trying to tell me you do not know how many cases are received against any particular Lawyer or QC.

Is it not true Mr Hanlon that Solcase handles all data or Lexis Nexis and that in a matter of seconds the evidence would be available to you at the touch of a button ? Therefore making your allegation of my request being unduly burdensome seem trivial.
It seems that Lexis Nexis etc can identify quite easily exactly which Lawyers are submitting the most applications and they are invited to tea or dinner so why not how many applications have been received against a particular Lawyer or QC

It is not as if i am asking you for any details about named Lawyers or QCs like Keegan or Taylor.
I am only asking what is the largest amount of complaints levelled against any one Lawyer or QC.

I thank you sincerely for the info in regards to Criminal behaviour ref to section 194 J

You have raised a matter of great concern in that the commission have already released documents to me which you are now suggesting may have been criminal.
Namely:
The minutes of my trial.

The commission also released documents to me of another case namely:
"John Iain King"
which the commission referred to appeal against sentence.

So are you saying it depends on who is asked for the material whether it is released or not ?
Is it ok for some members to release documents but not others ?

Have the commission acted criminally before by releasing such documents ?

To whom would i make such complaints of a criminal nature against the commission for releasing documents in a criminal way ?

I await your reply with great anticipation

Yours Sincerely


William Beck

For which their time to respond has expired, Take it then they have no intention of replying eh ?

Good job my MSP is to ask Justice Secretary then if SCCRC have committed an offence by releasing Jurors Names and Addresses.

Can SCCRC choose who to reply to and who to ignore ? Seems they can.

Edward Milne Two Bob Investigation By SCCRC

Posted by justiceforwulliebeck on September 21, 2008 at 4:57 PM Comments comments (0)
Edward Milne Two Bob

It has come to my attention that in the case of Edward Milne V HMA SCCRC dismissed his appeal without interviewing "any" witnesses apart from his Solicitor.

Mr Milne claims they would never have contemplated attempting to try this with Megrahi whom they spent ?1,108,536 investigating even travelling to other Countries.

Diplomatic relations would suffer severely if this was done in Megrahi's case.

There was plenty of witnesses claims Mr Milne to speak to his claims but SCCRC just didn't want to know.

For proof of this SCCRC have actually given Mr Milne this in writing here:

http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee311/ed-forfar/?action=view&current=SCCRCEdMilneNov07.jpg

Conclusive proof they never saw fit to interview any witnesses put forward by Mr Milne to speak of his claims.

SCCRC would also have been able to ascertain from Crown exactly who gave evidence at Mr Milne's trial.

SCCRC would also have been aware of Trading Standards involvement yet they never interviewed any of them.

Exactly what does one need to do to get a fair hearing in this country.

Justice cannot be said to be done while Foreigners are afforded more Justice than our own People.

It can certainly be suggested that Megarhi has had preferential treatment over others at SCCRC

Mr Milne claims that SCCRC also took 3 Years to investigate and give him a decision and that given they only interviewed his lawyer this is perverse.

Rss_feed