- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive how many appeals against convictions have been received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in each year since 1999, broken down by grounds for appeal.
Answer
The information requested is set out in the following table.
Number of applications received by the SCCRC, broken down by main grounds of review - 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2008
| Ground of Review | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | 2003-04 |
| 110 Day Rule | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Advanced Technology | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Change in the Law | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Change of Witness Testimony | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Commission''s Powers Required | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Comparative Justice | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Conspiracy | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Credibility/Reliability of Evidence | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 9 |
| Credibility/Reliability of Witness | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Defective Representation | 23 | 20 | 19 | 19 | 17 |
| Denies Acting in Concert | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Diminished Responsibility | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| Duress | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Excessive Sentence | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 5 |
| False Accusations | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| False Confession | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Human Rights Issue | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Illegal Search | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Improper Service of Indictment | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jury Misconduct | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lack of Corroboration | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Mental Health Issues | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Misdirection by Trial Judge | 1 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 4 |
| Mistaken Identity | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| New Evidence | 34 | 16 | 12 | 5 | 4 |
| New Witness | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Perjury | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Point of Law | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Police Misconduct | 4 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Procedural Irregularity | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Review of Art and Part | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Self Defence | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sufficiency | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Unfair Trial | 10 | 0 | 4 | 9 | 16 |
| Unreasonable Jury | 2 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Wrong Sentence Imposed | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wrongful Conviction | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| Not Stated | 12 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 7 |
| Totals | =SUM(ABOVE) 120 | =SUM(ABOVE) 69 | =SUM(ABOVE) 71 | =SUM(ABOVE) 79 | =SUM(ABOVE) 82 |
| Ground of Review | 2004-05 | 2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | Total |
| 110 Day Rule | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | =SUM(LEFT) 2 |
| Advanced Technology | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | =SUM(LEFT) 5 |
| Change in the Law | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | =SUM(LEFT) 4 |
| Change of Witness Testimony | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | =SUM(LEFT) 2 |
| Commission''s Powers Required | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | =SUM(LEFT) 1 |
| Comparative Justice | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | =SUM(LEFT) 4 |
| Conspiracy | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | =SUM(LEFT) 8 |
| Credibility/Reliability of Evidence | 27 | 24 | 18 | 13 | =SUM(LEFT) 101 |
| Credibility/Reliability of Witness | 2 | 5 | 3 | 6 | =SUM(LEFT) 20 |
| Defective Representation | 9 | 22 | 20 | 19 | =SUM(LEFT) 168 |
| Denies Acting in Concert | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | =SUM(LEFT) 1 |
| Diminished Responsibility | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | =SUM(LEFT) 7 |
| Duress | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | =SUM(LEFT) 3 |
| Excessive Sentence | 6 | 7 | 1 | 2 | =SUM(LEFT) 29 |
| False Accusations | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | =SUM(LEFT) 10 |
| False Confession | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | =SUM(LEFT) 2 |
| Human Rights Issue | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | =SUM(LEFT) 16 |
| Illegal Search | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | =SUM(LEFT) 1 |
| Improper Service of Indictment | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Jury Misconduct | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Lack of Corroboration | 1 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
| Mental Health Issues | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 10 |
| Misdirection by Trial Judge | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 33 |
| Mistaken Identity | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| New Evidence | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 83 |
| New Witness | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| Perjury | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 25 |
| Point of Law | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Police Misconduct | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 27 |
| Procedural Irregularity | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Review of Art and Part | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Self Defence | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 6 |
| Sufficiency | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Unfair Trial | 7 | 7 | 17 | 13 | =SUM(LEFT) 83 |
| Unreasonable Jury | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Wrong Sentence Imposed | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Wrongful Conviction | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | =SUM(LEFT) 17 |
| Not Stated | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | =SUM(LEFT) 40 |
| Totals | =SUM(ABOVE) 80 | =SUM(ABOVE) 122 | =SUM(ABOVE) 81 | =SUM(ABOVE) 73 | =SUM(LEFT) 777 |
It should be noted that other grounds of review may subsequently be identified. However the commission''s system records only the main ground in the first instance.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that the disclosure of the names of solicitors referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for defective representation would contravene section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
Answer
I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-12508 on 9 May 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force and referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner have been disclosed.
Answer
The Scottish Information Commissioner has never instructed the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to disclose information in relation to any case referred to him.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive how many appeals against convictions have been referred to the high court in each year since 1999, broken down by grounds of appeal.
Answer
The information requested is provided in the following table.
Conviction Referrals from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2008
| Year | Number of Referrals | Main Grounds |
| 1999-2000 | 2 | 1 x New Evidence 1 x Change in Witness Testimony |
| 2000-01 | 4 | 2 x Change in the Law 1 x New Evidence 1 x Unfair Trial |
| 2001-02 | 9 | 6 x New Evidence 1 x Defective Representation 1 x Sentencing Issue 1 x Reasonable Doubt as to Applicant''s Guilt |
| 2002-03 | 10 | 4 x New Evidence 2 x Jury Impropriety 1 x Reasonable Doubt as to Applicant''s Guilt 1 x Defective Representation 1 x Sentencing Issue 1 x Disclosure of Evidence |
| 2003-04 | 2 | 2 x New Evidence |
| 2004-05 | 6 | 5 x New Evidence 1 x Procedural Irregularity |
| 2005-06 | 3 | 1 x Misdirection by Trial Judge 1 x Change in the Law 1 x Insufficiency of Evidence |
| 2006-07 | 7 | 2 x Misdirection by Trial Judge 1 x Sentencing Issue 1 x Disclosure of Evidence 1 x Change in the Law 1 x New Evidence 1 x Abuse of Process |
| 2007-08 | 3 | 1 x Multiple Referral Grounds 1 x New Evidence 1 x Unreasonable Verdict |
| Total | =SUM(ABOVE) 46 | |
It should be noted that there may be other grounds of review. The commission''s system records only the main ground in the first instance.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force, referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner and ordered to be disclosed have been appealed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Answer
The Scottish Information Commissioner has never instructed the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to disclose information, therefore no such appeals have ever been made.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive what action can be taken against solicitors referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for defective representation.
Answer
Solicitors are not referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Where the Commission refers a case to the High Court, and the court overturns a conviction on the grounds of defective representation, it may be possible for disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the legal representative concerned. The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates are responsible for investigating complaints against solicitors and advocates respectively.
The Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman (SLSO) looks into complaints about how the professional bodies handle complaints against legal practitioners. Under the terms of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, the SLSO will be replaced by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commissioner (SLCC). The SLCC will receive complaints about legal practitioners where local resolution between the practitioner and client has been attempted but has proven unsuccessful. The SLCC will investigate complaints about service while the professional bodies will continue to address concerns relating to conduct. We anticipate that the new body will become operational in late 2008.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 29 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive what powers the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has to determine what is defined as an operational matter for Chief Constables.
Answer
I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-12400 on 8 May 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website; the search facility for which can be found at
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 29 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 8 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive who is responsible for determining what is an operational matter for Chief Constables.
Answer
Under the provisions of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, the operational deployment of individual officers is subject to the direction of the chief constable.
However, there are circumstances when chief constables are legitimately influenced in their deployment by parties external to the police service. These circumstances arise when officers are deployed in more general terms under the force''s operational priorities. The tripartite system of governance for police forces dictates that these priorities are arrived at following consultation between the chief constable, the relevant police board and Scottish ministers.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 18 March 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 8 April 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive whether Taser weapons are defined as firearms.
Answer
Taser weapons are defined as firearms under section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 18 March 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 8 April 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the deployment of Taser weapons is an operational matter for Chief Constables and, if so, what (a) legislation or guidelines define such deployment as an operational matter and (b) the scope is of the term “operational matter”.
Answer
The deployment of Taser weapons is an operational matter for Chief Constables.
Section 17(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 states that the performance by a constable of his functions under any enactment or under any rule of law shall be subject to the direction of the appropriate Chief Constable.
