Christopher Stewart Kay
Dear Christopher
Thank you for contacting me regarding a petition for an inquiry into the Luke Mitchell case. I am aware of the recent attention surrounding his conviction. I am equally mindful of the effect that heightened interest in this case will have on the family of Jodi Jones.
First off, can I reiterate that judicial and sentencing decisions are matters for our independent courts. I have, however, written to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Police Scotland, and The Crown Office on the matters you raised.
If an individual has concerns about the approach taken by the police, then these should be brought to the direct attention of Police Scotland for investigation.
The Chief Constable of Police Scotland is responsible for the policing of Scotland and is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) for this. These arrangements are in place to ensure public confidence that the police act independently, free from undue political interference. More information about the complaints process, including how to raise a complaint, can be found on Police Scotland’s website: Complaints - Police Scotland
If you remain dissatisfied following receipt of a response from Police Scotland, it is open to you to refer the matter to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) who has responsibility to provide independent scrutiny of the way the police respond to complaints from the public.
The PIRC can be contacted via their website (Home | Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC), by telephone: 01698 542900, email: enquiries@pirc.gov.scot or by writing to PIRC, Hamilton House, Hamilton Business Park, Caird Park, Hamilton, ML3 0QA.
It is normally necessary to make any application to the PIRC within three months of receiving Police Scotland’s final response to your complaint. The PIRC will not be able to investigate any complaint that a police officer has acted in a manner that might amount to criminal conduct or will amount to an offence.
It is important to note that, in looking at complaints against policing bodies operating in Scotland, the PIRC's role is about looking at whether the policing body handled the complaint to a reasonable standard or not. It is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint or uphold allegations made.
The PIRC cannot currently carry out their own investigation of a complaint, though if they conclude in their review that a complaint should be reconsidered, they can direct the police to reconsider the complaint, and can also ask that the person who reconsiders the complaint is approved by the PIRC.
In my correspondence, Police Scotland confirmed it is investigating allegations surrounding the storage of evidence related to this case. I await these findings.
I can confirm that the Scottish Parliament received a petition on this case. But while it contained a list of supporting signatures, I believe there was no covering letter or new supporting evidence.
As for the request for an inquiry into the conviction of Luke Mitchell, it may be helpful to explain the process where someone believes they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. Anyone who considers they have been wrongfully convicted of a criminal offence can seek to appeal their conviction and/or sentence.
I understand that in the past, Mr Mitchell has lodged appeals in respect of both his conviction and sentence and those have been refused by the Appeal Court. If, having exhausted the appeals process, the person wishes to pursue the matter further, they can apply to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to seek to have their case reviewed.
Upon receipt of an application the SCCRC will consider whether it is in the interests of justice to accept the application for review.
If an application is accepted, the Commission will examine the issues raised in the case to determine whether a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, and if it is in the interests of justice to refer the case to the High Court.
The effect of referring a case is that a fresh appeal will then be considered by the High Court under normal appeals procedure. It is then for High Court to determine whether the appeal is upheld or refused.
In light of the operational independence of the SCCRC, it is entirely a matter for SCCRC to review and judge each case on its merits.
I understand that Mr Mitchell has previously applied to the SCCRC to have his case reviewed and his application was refused. It remains open to Mr Mitchell to submit a further application to the SCCRC if he believes there is new evidence or new grounds which supports his application for a further review.
If an applicant disagrees with the decision of the SCCRC not to refer the case back to the High Court, it is open to them to seek to have that decision judicially reviewed by the courts. This is a matter for the applicant in conjunction with independent legal advice on the options which remain open to them.
In light of this, I believe any consideration of the appropriateness or otherwise of an inquiry is premature.
If you have further information or evidence to bring forward then then this should be passed to Police Scotland
Yours sincerely
Colin
Colin Beattie MSP
Midlothian North and Musselburgh
Scottish Parliament
M3.05
Holyrood
Edinburgh
EH99 1SP
Tel: 0131 348 6374
Constituency Office
164 High Street
Dalkeith
EH22 1AY
Tel: 0131 454 0204
I received this today xx
Sandra Lean
James Hanratty Two points. Why did it need a covering letter? We wrote to every MP for justice asking them to receive the petition and pointing out why we wanted them to do so. Those are our parliamentary representatives. The petition is clear, in itself, about what was required. Secondly "new evidence"? What, so that they could destroy that as well? Why would we give them new evidence when the petition is asking for a review of all the EXISTING evidence? Treating us like we're idiots.
These are your projections Sandra Lean
It appears your innocence fraud has been seen through
