Court criticises defence as drug verdict quashed

"Obvious conflict of interest" where solicitor acted for former accused

News, 8 February 2006

The criminal appeal court has criticised two defence lawyers involved in the trial of a man accused of supplying cocaine.

Cliffroy James had his 2002 conviction overturned yesterday. He had been sent to prison for six years and three months after the High Court in Stonehaven heard that a raid on an Aberdeen flat he was visiting found packages of cocaine with a street value of more than £1,500.

Mr James claimed the drugs had nothing to do with him. Two other men, Harvey and Ross, who had been in the flat at the time had been accused of trafficking the drugs, but not guilty pleas had been accepted from them several months before Mr James's trial. Ross and Harvey had incriminated Mr James as well as each other.

During his trial, Mr James had been represented by Dundee solicitor Ian Vaughan, who had also previously represented Ross.

Representing Mr James at the appeal court, Graham Bell QC told the judges this was clearly a conflict of interest. Mr Vaughan owed Ross a continuing professional duty to respect his confidence and could not properly advise Mr James whether Ross should be incriminated.

Lord Gill, sitting with Lords Osborne and MacLean, said there could be no doubt that there had been a conflict of interest. He also criticised Mr Vaughan for not disclosing the full circumstances to Mr James's counsel at trial, Graeme Robertson. Lord Gill added that Mr James had incriminated Harvey but not Ross, but should have been advised that to blame Ross was a clear line of defence to take on the evidence.

The court also criticised Mr Robertson for advising Mr Vaughan that he could properly represent Mr James when it should have been clear to Mr Robertson that he did not have the full picture.

The court concluded that the failure in representation went to a significant point in Mr James's defence and he had not received a fair trial.

The court's opinion can be read at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006HCJAC13.html .