Privy Council raises appeal hopes

Decision on Crown disclosure could impact on appeals of notorious criminals

News, 12 May 2005

The Privy Council has quashed the convictions of two Scots who claimed the Crown failed to disclose vital documents and information about witnesses before and during the trials.

The judges ruled that the trials of James Holland, who was convicted of two charges of assault and robbery, and Alvin Lee Sinclair, convicted of assault to severe injury, were in breach of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair trial.

Holland had appealed on the ground that the Crown had used a witness to identify him in the dock, despite having failed to do so in a police parade. In addition, outstanding criminal charges aganist witnesses had not been disclosed. Sinclair complained that the Crown had failed to disclose a police statement that was inconsistent with evidence the witness gave in court.

To date the disclosure of Crown evidence or information has rested on the practice of the Lord Advocate and Crown Office. In future however, unless there are national security implications, all statements will have to be made available "as a matter of course".

The ruling could have implications for the appeals of some of Scotland's most notorious murderers. The appeals of William Beggs, the limbs in the loch murderer, Nat Fraser who was convicted of his murdering his wife Arlene and Luke Mitchell, convicted of killing Jodi Jones, could all be affected by the judgment because of lack of disclosure and/or reliance on dock identification. Even Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, may found on the ruling.

The judgments can be accessed through the links under the Devolution Cases heading at http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page495.asp .