Author Topic: Mail Van Robber Wullie Beck loses appeal against conviction.  (Read 3939 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: Mail Van Robber Wullie Beck loses appeal against conviction.
« Reply #15 on: May 01, 2013, 04:03:38 AM »
Wullie Beck apparently instructed his lawyer to object to his appeal being heard by Lord Carloway on the basis that he had criticised his stance on the new Law reforms in Scotland but his lawyer ignored his instruction.  Sounds familiar to me all right!

Quote from: Wullie Beck on Shirley McKie forum
All I can say about todays Judgement is it was expected once I knew Lord Carloway was chairing it.

I had asked my defence team to object to Lord Carloway on the grounds I had made serious complaints to the Justice Minister and Justice Committee which I can now publish below.

My defence did not make this objection.

I have edited my Address and Phone Number from this letter sent to Paul Martin MSP on 20/08/2012 who made the complaint on my behalf:

William Beck


Tel No:


Dear Mr Martin

As one of your constituents and a justice campaigner I have concerns about the accuracy of the recent Scottish Government Consultation Paper which followed Lord Carloway’s report on reforming Scots Law in the wake of the ‘Cadder’ judgement. This judgement by the Supreme Court made it mandatory that accused persons were entitled to consult a lawyer before police interrogation.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Review/CarlowayReview

In their submission to the Justice Committee enquiry as part of the consultation process ‘Rape Crisis Scotland’ stated.

‘Since Cadder, defence lawyers seem to be routinely advising their clients to make no comment at all during police interviews, which is seriously hampering police efforts to put cases together and appears to be making prosecutions in rape cases even more difficult than they were previously’.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk...s_Scotland_written_submission.pdf   (Para 1.2)

This claim that, ‘defence lawyers seem to be routinely advising their clients to make no comment at all during police interviews’ was part of the Rape Crisis case for the removal of ‘corroboration’ now that accused were entitled to lawyers before interrogation by the police. Their claim  was taken up by Lord Carloway as part of his report  and in turn has been used in the Scottish Government’s consultation paper apparently as part of the case for doing away with corroboration.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0039/00396483.pdf  (Page 39 footnote 14)

I do not believe that any evidence has been adduced to support this claim and at a recent workshop at Strathclyde University on the likely consequences of the Carloway recommendations this was confirmed to me during discussions.

I feel there is a danger that Lord Carloway is misleading parliament in supporting his recommendation to do away with ‘corroboration’ with erroneous or unproven ‘facts’. The Scottish Government in repeating the claim in its consultation paper is giving credence to them.
I would appreciate it if you would consider making the following enquiry by way of a parliamentary question.

‘To ask the Scottish Government what evidence it has to support Rape Crisis Scotland’s  claim, made in their written submissions to the Justice Committee on the Carloway Report and repeated in  the Scottish Government consultation paper on ‘Reforming Scots Criminal Law and Practice: The Carloway Report’, that defence lawyers seem to be routinely advising their clients to make no comment at all during police interviews and that this has resulted in a significant drop in the number of rape prosecutions.’

Like a number of leading commentators on Scottish Legal matters, including Maggie Scott QC, I have severe reservations about the removal of corroboration and believe that unless safeguards are put in place it will lead to even more miscarriages of justice. My concern deepens when I discover that unsubstantiated information is being used to support changes.
Kindest Regards

Wullie Beck

http://shirleymckie.wonko.myfastforum.org/ftopic1212-80.php
« Last Edit: May 01, 2013, 04:05:37 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Mail Van Robber Wullie Beck loses appeal against conviction.
« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2020, 03:58:49 PM »
Michael O'Brien
@michael47478285
Sad to say that our good friend Wullie Beck who has been fighting to prove his innocence since 1981 has passed away suddenly my thoughts are with all his family and friends RIP.
1:28 PM · May 26, 2020·Twitter Web App

https://mobile.twitter.com/michael47478285/status/1265258629298618369
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes