'Justice for Megrahi' Petition calling for an independent inquiry into Lockerbie Bomber’s conviction has second hearing at Scottish Parliament

PETITION PE1370 by the Justice for Megrahi group, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988, has had its second hearing at the Petitions Committee today.

After a discussion on the petition, the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service seeking a response to specific points.

Written submissions on Petition PE1370 can be found HERE and our earlier coverage of the Petition can be found HERE

Justice for Megrahi Petition PE1370 Scottish Parliament 25 January 2011 (Click image below to view video)

The minutes of the Petitions Committee’s deliberations during its 25 January 2011 meeting follow :

Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee consideration of Petition PE1370 25 January 2011

Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)

The Convener: The next petition is by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie, on behalf of Justice for Megrahi. Christine Grahame is here. Christine, would you like to address the committee and then we can go to questions?

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): Thank you, convener. I commend the members of the committee for their stamina in these late sittings. I do not know if I have it.

I refer to point 2 of the Scottish Government's letter of 7 January, which states:

"A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Mr Al-Megrahi. The conduct of his defence during his trial and the appeals, including his decision not to give evidence at trial and the decision to abandon the second appeal, was entirely a matter for Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal advisors."

The letter goes on to say that the petitioners invite the Government to do something that falls properly within the criminal justice system and that there are routes available within that system, so that should be an end of the matter.

If I may say so—and I am quite ready to challenge my own Government—those are not the facts. First, we know why Mr Megrahi abandoned his appeal, because Maggie Scott QC told the court why he did so. I will paraphrase, but she said words to the effect that her client, Mr Megrahi, believed that doing so would assist with his applications—plural—meaning his applications for prisoner transfer and for compassionate release. Prisoner transfer, of course, required abandonment of appeal and compassionate release did not. We can struggle over why he abandoned it and who said what to whom, but that is a fact and what he believed, so these are extraordinary circumstances.

We must then challenge whether there is a route open to Mr Megrahi within the criminal justice system other than a public inquiry. If members will bear with me, I will refer, I hope in a rather lawyerly way, to the legislation that was brought in recently to deal with people who were not being represented when they were charged. I will get the name of it in a moment—bear with me. I will just make my submission, then I will tell you the name of the act. Here we are. It is the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010. If members recall, we dealt with the legislation all in one day, from stage 1 through to stage 3. There is a section in it that I tried to have deleted because it did something radical to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which you will know is an independent body that was set up in 1999 to deal with miscarriages of justice independently of the courts and independently of us, thankfully. Section 7(3)(2) of the act does something strange in relation to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. It states:

"In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made, the Commission must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings."

For the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is an independent body, to say that there might have been a miscarriage of justice is no longer good enough. It has to say, "We think there might have been a miscarriage of justice, but nevertheless, because of the need for finality and certainty, we are not going to refer it to the High Court."

However, say a case did pass the test and the commission referred it to the High Court. Previously, the High Court had to accept a referral with no ifs and no buts, but that also changed under the emergency legislation. The act states:

"In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice that any appeal arising from the reference should proceed, the High Court must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings."

So we have the first hurdle, and if the SCCRC says that the case passes the test of finality and certainty and passes it to the High Court, it sets the test again—the very High Court that heard the case in the first place. To me, that is not a just system.

Going to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is no shoe-in. Many people apply but few get to the stage of a referral. However, referrals can be very successful. If we look at the commission's success rate, we see that it made four referrals on sentencing in 2010, two of which were successful and two of which are still being determined. For sentencing alone—obviously, if someone's conviction has gone, they have no sentence—there were four referrals, two of which were successful, one of which failed and one of which is still being determined. The commission does not make referrals willy-nilly, and they are quite successful.

My concern is that that route will no longer be open, not just to Megrahi but to others. My understanding is that, in certain circumstances, the SCCRC can make a referral even though an appeal has been abandoned.

The circumstances of the case are very strange and there are so many unanswered questions, whether for people who believe he is guilty, people who believe he is innocent or the victims' families. No line has been drawn in the sand on the matter.

The route that I mentioned has now been blocked. To give the cabinet secretary his due, he said when I raised the matter that he would review it. A panel of judges is reviewing the legislation and he will review how it operates.

I have taken the time to say that because, first of all, the Government is saying that Megrahi closed the appeal himself—well, we know why.

Secondly, the Government is saying that the criminal justice system has a route, but I think that the SCCRC has been neutered in many respects.

I wish the committee to continue to pursue the inquiry route, and not to close the petition. Convener, I suggest that you confirm with the SCCRC whether it can re-open an abandoned appeal on its own and I would also like to know the SCCRC's views on that limiting of its powers—if any—and when the review panel will report on the functioning of the legislation.

The committee may feel that that is not pertinent to the petition, but I feel that it really is. If members do not know about that bit, they do not know why people are pressing so hard for a public inquiry; it is because they have concerns that everything else is being shut down.

The statement of reasons has not been published, because the subordinate legislation says that if any third party has given evidence—even indirectly—and they do not want it published, it will not be published, so we will pretty well not get anything. This is the final court.

On the mace, it says that we will have justice, integrity and compassion. No wonder the petitioners call themselves Justice for Megrahi—frankly, at the moment, there has not been justice for anybody in this particular case.

The Convener: Okay, thank you.

Bill Butler: I suggest to colleagues that we continue, and I will delimit the way in which we do so. I was going to say that this committee had no further locus, because we have been told that the Scottish Government has again stated that it has no plans to initiate an inquiry on the issue and has clarified why it does not consider an inquiry to be necessary. Christine Grahame referred to that statement in the letter from the Scottish Government that we received.

We have to realise that this is simply a public petitions committee, and we certainly cannot make a judgment in a formal way. However, it would be at least worth while—I am not sure how colleagues feel about this—if we did two things.

First, we could, as Christine Grahame suggests, write to the cabinet secretary to ask whether he will review the application of the emergency legislation as he has promised. If that is his intention—which I do not doubt, because he told Christine Grahame, a member of the Parliament, that that was his intention—when will his review take place, and when and how will his decision in that respect be made known? Secondly, on another point that Christine Grahame raised, can the SCCRC open an abandoned appeal?

Those are the two questions. On the first, we hope that we know the answer, or part of it. On the second, we really do not. We can continue on those two specific points.

I must say this, however. Once we ask those questions, unless someone is ingenious enough to come up with other ways in which we could legitimately continue the matter as a public petitions committee—because the arguments and the controversy will continue—we will have to close the petition. However, I suggest to colleagues that it is worth while for us to continue by asking the fairly narrow questions that Christine Grahame has suggested we ask.

17:30

Cathie Craigie: I support what Bill Butler has said, particularly in his final summary. We must go back and ask for a further couple of points to be clarified. If we do not get anywhere, it is difficult to see where the committee can go.

Point 3 of the Government's letter refers to the Inquiries Act 2005. The Government's reason for saying that it cannot conduct a public inquiry is weak—I will not use the same words as the petitioners used in their submission. The Government is hiding behind an excuse. Every time the Government touches the Megrahi case, it seems to do something wrong and to move the goalposts.

I support my colleague Bill Butler's suggestions. We should see whether we can get responses before the next session.

I note the length of time that the Government took to respond to our previous letter on a Megrahi inquiry. I know that the convener has written to the First Minister about that. I am sure that a whole load of civil servants are familiar with every detail of the Megrahi case and could put their hands quickly to writing the response that we will request.

I do not know whether the clerk or the convener will write the further letter to the Government, but I suggest that we ask for a quick response, because we want to deal with the petition in this session.

Nigel Don: Once we have a response from the Government, there is little prospect that another response will be different, but banging on the door will do no harm. It occurs to me that—as far as I can recall—we have not yet written to the Lord Advocate. As the senior independent law officer, does she have from somewhere in the mists of time residual powers to investigate this, that and the other? That might be clutching at straws, but it is one sack of straws that we need to consider. Do the law officers have a residual power to investigate or reconsider a case in such circumstances? I would not even define the circumstances; we should just ask the Lord Advocate to think about what she might be able to do.

Robin Harper: Considering that the petition is extremely limited—it asks us

"to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry"—

and that we have been told at least twice that the Government has no intention of so doing, we have every right to close the petition. However, I have listened to Christine Grahame's arguments and I feel that, for the petitioners' sake, it is worth writing to ask the SCCRC for its opinion, which can be forwarded to the Government for a response. As it is seven weeks to dissolution, that process is extremely unlikely to be completed before dissolution, so we must think of the matter as part of our legacy to the next session's Public Petitions Committee.

The Convener: Do we agree to continue the petition in those terms?

Members indicated agreement.

Lockerbie bomber appeal papers to remain secret as SCCRC ‘fail’ to reach agreement with parties over consent to publication

THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION has indicated today it has failed to reach agreement with all parties over their consent to the publication of the Statement of Reasons relating to the referral of the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in June 2007.

The SCCRC’s statement was followed by a statement from the Crown Office, alleging it had cooperated fully with the SCCRC “in its consideration of publication of the Statement of Reasons, within the constraints imposed on the SCCRC and COPFS by law”.

The Crown Office’s media statement fails to make clear whether it was one of the parties who resisted publication of the SCCRC’s Statement of Reasons. (Could be a jobin it for Wikileaks ? - Ed)

SCCRC Press Release :

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009. (link opens as a pdf)

The Commission announced today that it had been unsuccessful in its attempts to reach agreement with the relevant parties to obtain their consent to the publication of the Statement of Reasons relating to the referral of the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in June 2007.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, which came into force on 1 February 2010, only permits the Commission to disclose such information with the consent of those who have, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.

The Commission had agreed, in principle, that it would be prepared to consider the release and publication of the Statement of Reasons which were provided to the Appeal Court in Mr Megrahi`s case provided it could obtain the consent of the relevant parties.

Gerard Sinclair, the Commission’s Chief Executive, said: “As I indicated at the time the above Order came into force, in order to release our Statement of Reasons the Commission would require the consent of those who had,either directly or indirectly, provided the information.

Over the last nine months I have been in ongoing correspondence and, in some instances, discussion with a number of the main parties who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for providing information to the Commission. I asked them if they were prepared to provide their consent, in writing, to the disclosure of the information contained within our Statement of Reasons. This included Crown Office, the Foreign Office, the relevant police authorities, as well as Mr Al Megrahi and his legal representatives.

It has become obvious that there is no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required in terms of the 2009 Order, and consequently the Board decided at its last meeting to discontinue the discussions at this time.

The Commission will be happy to revisit this matter if the 2009 Order is varied and the requirement to obtain the consent of parties is removed.”

Crown Office media statement follows :

SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION - MEGRAHI STATEMENT OF REASONS

CROWN OFFICE AND PROCURATOR FISCAL SERVICE

NEWS RELEASE 9 DECEMBER 2010

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service confirmed today that it has co-operated fully with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in its consideration of publication of the Statement of Reasons, within the constraints imposed on the SCCRC and COPFS by law.

These legal constraints were recognised and accepted by the Scottish Parliament when it legislated earlier this year to allow publication, subject to the consent of all those who provided the information.

COPFS confirmed to the SCCRC in February 2010 that it would, in conjunction with Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, facilitate contact by the SCCRC with the individuals and foreign authorities who had provided the information referred to in the Statement of Reasons, in order to allow the SCCRC to obtain their consent.

This offer was not taken up by the SCCRC.

Ends

Lockerbie Trial : SCCRC criticised by FBI over Lockerbie case review

The FBI agent in charge of the Lockerbie case, Richard Marquise, is reported to have claimed the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission failed to carry out proper inquiries before recommending grounds for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to appeal his conviction.

Scotland on Sunday reports :

FBI agent slams review of Lockerbie conviction

Published Date: 10 May 2009
By Tom Peterkin
Scottish Political Editor

THE Scottish legal body which cast doubt on the safety of the Lockerbie bomber's conviction has been condemned for carrying out a "woefully inadequate" investigation by the American FBI agent in charge of the case.

Richard Marquise claimed that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission did not make thorough enough inquiries before it concluded that there were grounds for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to appeal his conviction.

Marquise criticised the three-year investigation conducted by the SCCRC, the body responsible for looking into potential miscarriages of justice, because they failed to speak to him or other key people involved in the case.

"Their 'investigation' was woefully inadequate because they never spoke with me or many others who could have shed some light on how we reached certain conclusions in the case," Marquise told Scotland on Sunday.

"As a 31-year investigator, I could never had gotten away with conducting such an incomplete inquiry."

His intervention will pile more pressure on Alex Salmond and his Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who face the dilemma of what to do with the man convicted of killing the 170 people who died when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.

Libya has called for Megrahi to come home under the terms of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement, but the ultimate decision lies with Scottish ministers.

Salmond has said the decision will be a "judicial one", not be influenced by international politics or economics.

Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal cancer, would have to drop his action at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh in order to go home.

If Salmond were to agree that he could go back, it would provoke a furious backlash in America, where many of the relatives of those who lost loved ones during the atrocity are convinced Megrahi was responsible.

Ever since Megrahi was found guilty in 2001, doubts have repeatedly surfaced about the safety of his conviction.

Lockerbie Appeal to see US expert brought in on ID parade fiasco

The Lockerbie Appeal currently in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, has seen a new development with a challenge from Abdelbasset al Megrahi’s defence team the way the identity parade was handed was unfair, citing the way photos were shown to potential witnesses.

BBC News reports :

Lockerbie appeal ID expert move

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has called in an American psychologist to help clear his name.

Abdelbasset al Megrahi, 56, claims an identity parade line-up was unfair and has challenged the way photos were shown to potential witnesses.

Prof Steve Clark, of the University of California, is said to be an expert on identification procedures.

At Edinburgh's Court of Criminal Appeal, Megrahi's defence team sought the right to show photos to Prof Clark.

Margaret Scott QC said it was "unprecedented" that she should have to ask judges to order the handover of the original photos.

Long-running row

Appeal judges are expected to hear further legal argument on the question next month.

Megrahi is currently serving life in jail for the 1988 atrocity, in which 270 people died.

He lost one appeal against conviction but the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice, told the courts to look at the case again.

Megrahi's second attempt to overturn his conviction has led to a number of legal wrangles - including a long-running row about whether defence lawyers should be allowed access to secret documents.

Crown Office seeking ruling to change Lockerbie defence team lawyers in secret hearing

Its hardly safe to go outside these days, and the Crown Office is intent on making sure you wont even be safe in court with a legal team with their forthcoming attempt to change the defence team of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi for "special security vetted advocates" they will vet themselves ...

After gaining this 'dream power' to use, no doubt the Lord Advocate will seek to apply it to any case which might just bring the Government or simply the Crown Office into disrepute .... tough times ahead for us all.

The Herald reports :

Bid to ban Lockerbie lawyers in secrets hearing

LUCY ADAMS, Chief Reporter

Prosecutors will next week attempt to throw an unprecedented veil of secrecy over the appeal of the Lockerbie bomber.

The Crown Office will ask judges to bypass the defence team of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and appoint special security-vetted advocates to represent him in a court hearing to decide whether a previously confidential document should be made public.

If the bid for a closed-door session is successful, it would be the first time in Scotland that such a step has been taken in a criminal case.

However, the tactic will fuel suspicions that the Crown is going to unusual lengths to preserve the UK's current diplomatic relations with other nations.

The paperwork, which originated in an unknown foreign country, is thought to contain vital information about the electronic timer which detonated the bomb that killed 270 people in the skies over Lockerbie.

It is not known if political pressure has been exercised directly on the Crown, but there have been previous instances in the Megrahi case where Britain's changed attitudes to foreign states since 1988 have played a key role in the legal process.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has already said the document should remain confidential.

It was uncovered during the three-year investigation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which resulted in the case being referred back to the courts for a new appeal last summer. The commission concluded the failure during the original trial to disclose the document could constitute a miscarriage of justice. Although the Crown allowed the commission to see the material, it has refused to disclose it to Megrahi's defence team.

The Crown's latest move is expected to anger further his lawyers, who believe the failure to disclose the document calls into question the ultimate right to a fair appeal.

The request will be made on Tuesday at the Court of Criminal Appeal when the decision on whether to grant the defence access to the document is to be debated.

The Crown is expected to ask for the hearing to be held behind closed doors in the absence of the defence, who would be represented by special advocates. Public Interest Immunity hearings of this kind in criminal cases have previously been held only south of the border, where there is a statutory system in place, and a list of special advocates.

Megrahi's defence team has made it clear that it needs to see the document in order to proceed with the appeal, and has accused the UK Government of "interference" in the appeal.

If the prosecution denies access to the paper, Megrahi's lawyers are expected to argue that the conviction should be quashed because, without it, their client's right to a fair trial would be breached.

One legal expert said: "This is entirely unprecedented in Scotland."

A spokesman for the Crown Office said the court hearing is to be from from May 27 to 29 in Edinburgh. "It is not possible to provide further comment," he said.

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to hear appeal over Jodi Jones murder conviction

Weekend newspapers report plans for an appeal to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission by Luke Mitchell over his conviction for the killing of his 14 year old girlfriend Jodi Jones in 2003 is being taken up by Mitchell's legal team after last week's appearance before Appeal judges who upheld Mitchell's conviction.

This was the second appeal in Scotland in recent weeks to be televised, and some are wondering if the effect of having cameras in the court has benefited the situation or detracted from it, particularly since both cases which have been recently filmed suffer from lack of disclosure and allegations of concealed evidence ...

Scotland on Sunday reports :

Jodi killer plans fresh appeal

By Marcello Mega

THE family of murdered Jodi Jones face new heartache this weekend as lawyers for teenage killer Luke Mitchell plan to seek a fresh appeal against his conviction.

Appeal judges last week upheld 19-year-old Mitchell's conviction for the killing of his 14-year-old girlfriend in Midlothian in 2003.

But his lawyers revealed yesterday that they will take his case to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to seek a fresh appeal hearing.

They are determined that the appeal court should examine fresh evidence that it has so far refused to consider relating to a potential alternative suspect for the brutal murder.

Mitchell's legal team expected that the appeal judges, led last week by the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, would uphold the conviction.

One of the team, Nigel Beaumont, said: "He's 19 years old with 16 years of a life sentence still to serve.

"No-one would expect him to give up now when there is still credible evidence that could help his case that has not been fully examined."

The new moves will come as a blow to Jodi's family, who expected last week's appeal hearing would end their post-trial ordeal. They were unavailable for comment yesterday but Jodi's mother, Judith, left court saying the rejection of the appeal was "brilliant" and she was "relieved it was all over".

Mitchell was convicted in January 2005 of a murder that shocked the world. The killer and his victim, both from Dalkeith, were just 14 at the time of June 30, 2003, when Jodi was killed in a ferocious knife attack. Her virtually naked body was found in a wooded area alongside a path that ran between their homes.

Police suspicions against Mitchell were first aroused by the fact that he discovered her body during a search conducted by her friends and relatives. Others who were present later told detectives that the body was not visible from the path, yet Mitchell appeared to have led them straight to it.

But Mitchell's legal team believe this is in part why the fresh evidence is crucial.

A source close to the team said: "The police said publicly that from the very start they kept an open mind, that they spent months examining every witness statement, every piece of information, and did not make their move until they had eliminated every other possibility.

"Yet many months after the trial and conviction, they receive a witness statement from someone who had told the police at the time of a potential suspect.

"Not only did the Crown not pass that information to the defence, as they should have done under disclosure rules, they did not consider the alternative suspect seriously because their mind was made up."

The alternative suspect was named in appeal papers submitted by Mitchell's legal team as Mark Kane. At the time of the murder, he was on a residential course at Newbattle Abbey College for people recovering from addiction problems.

But the appeal court was told that Kane had been cleared by DNA tests.

Advocate depute John Beckett QC, for the Crown, also told the judges that Kane had been questioned by police and had told them: "I know nothing else about the murder of Jodi Jones."

It was alleged by a friend of Kane's that he often took alcohol and cannabis into the woods, close to where Jodi was murdered, to avoid detection by course supervisors.

Like Mitchell, he was a devotee of the rock band Nirvana and the singer Marilyn Manson, whose pictures of the infamous Black Dahlia murder victim Elizabeth Short were believed to have influenced the killer when mutilating Jodi's body.

Kane also had a fascination with websites that displayed graphic images of violence and would show his favourite scenes, such as people being impaled on spikes, to his fellow-students.

He was suspected by college authorities of being responsible for defacing doors and walls with a heavy knife or chisel with the words 'kill' and 'die' and the Nazi swastika. Three weeks before Jodi's murder, he penned an essay entitled 'Killing a female in the woods'.

On the day after the murder, he had scratches to his face and arms, particularly under the eye, and claimed he could not remember how he got them, but when pressed later gave at least three different accounts.

The source said: "Here was someone who had an interest in graphic violence against women. He wasn't in Inverness or Aberdeen. He was right on the doorstep at the time of the murder.

"The standard for admitting fresh evidence at the appeal stage is that it could not have been made available at the time and is significant enough that it could have had a material impact on the jury's verdict.

"The defence could not make available what it had not been told. As for the second part, I think the jury would have been interested to know there was an alternative suspect to a 14-year-old boy."

SCCRC accused of closing ranks with lawyers in 'refusal' to investigate appeals over 'defective representation'

Something to hide as always for Scotland's legal establishment sees the curious revelations of "Defective Representation" being by far the most common ground for appeals against convictions, conversely though, seeing the lowest number of referrals for appeal ...

Some who have been before the SCCRC and those who study its operation now allege the Commission is unwilling to go against members of the legal profession who stand accused by their clients of "Defective Representation", and that the SCCRC itself is not sufficiently independent enough from the legal establishment to make proper rulings on such cases.

Well, given many within the SCCRC come from legal backgrounds themselves, and in the light of widespread public perception the Scots legal establishment almost always closes ranks to protect each other, there do appear to be sufficient grounds based on the released statistics and campaigns by those who have or are appealing to the SCCRC on such matters for a full independent inquiry into how the SCCRC has handled all cases, particularly those relating to "Defective Representation".

Rumour also has it the name a particular lawyer, identified in some cases currently before the SCCRC does crop up in several cases of "Defective Representation" .. the Commission being fully aware of this, but not sufficiently transparent or impartial enough to hold a proper investigation into matters ....

Quite clearly their most common ground is Defective Representation but their lowest number for referrals

Table 5 Main ground of review lodged by applicants (applications received from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2007)

Main Ground of Review :
Number of Cases, % OF Total

Defective Representation 161 (18.1%)

Excessive Sentence 130 (14.6%)

Credibility or Reliability of Evidence 92 (10.4%)

New Evidence 83 (9.4%)

Unfair Trial 78 (8.9%)

Misdirection by Trial Judge 37 (4.2%)

Police Misconduct/Wrong Procedure 27 (3.0%)

Perjury 24 (2.7%)

Lack of Corroboration 19 (2.1%)

Human Rights Issue 18 (2.0%)

Other 180 (20.3%)

Now, from their Annual Report of 2006-2007 it is apparent they had only referred 2 cases from its inception in 1999.This means in 8 years they had only referred 2 cases for the ground they receive most complaints about.

A shocking statistic and proof something is wrong within the ranks of SCCRC indeed it points to a reluctance to investigate fully this issue.
From Annual Report

Table 6 Main grounds of referral in conviction cases (for cases referred from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2007) see here : http://www.sccrc.org.uk/viewfile.aspx?id=295

Ground of Referral
Number of Cases. % of Total :

New evidence 16 (41%)

Change in the law 3 (8%)

Defective representation 2 (2.5%)

Reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt 2 (5%)

Multiple referral grounds 7 (18%)

The remaining 23% of referral grounds comprised: change of witness testimony, disclosure of evidence, insufficiency of evidence, jury impropriety, misdirection by a trial judge, procedural irregularity and unfair trial.