A Travesty Of Justice

On the 29th April 2013, the occurrence of a travesty of justice was about to
befit two

Men who were just going about their day to day business, and ended up in
a

Cultivation of lies, maliciousness and conspiracy by witnesses who were

hell bent on

causing a massive disruption to the lives of two innocent me, who ended
up being

wrongly convicted and sent to prison for a crime that never took place,
both men

sent to prison for five years, based on perverted and perjured evidence by
three

witnesses who were all related to each other.

Through this case and the solicitors negligence came about a case that
resulted in a

wrongful conviction, lack of evidence, physical, DNA and other, and poor

representation by the solicitors concerned, resulted in a wrongful

conviction and a

miscarriage of justice.

Poor preparation and presentation of a defence resulted in two men being

sent to

prison for a crime that never took place.

The conviction resulted in the evidence of three-crown witnesses, all

related to each

other, who colluded with each other to give perverted evidence to the
police from

Page 1 of 30
the outset of this case, continued with their perverted evidence right up to
time of

trial, then came into court and gave perjured evidence, all which resulted
in a

wrongful conviction.

A house in the Southside of Glasgow was broken into and various items
were taken

from the property, one of the items taken was a broken I phone.

The owner of the I phone activated her find my I phone app which
suggested that

the stolen phone was within a block of tenement flats in the west end of
Glasgow.

Against the wishes of her father, the daughter, the daughters boyfriend,

and the fathers girlfriend, set off on the hunt of their stolen I phone in

the hope that they would recover the stolen items. They also went against

the advice of the police who were investigating the alleged

housebreaking, the officer concerned advised not to go looking for the

phone as that was the job for the police.

At 7pm that evening, all three witnesses travelled from the South side of

Glasgow, over to the Westend of the city, in the hope of retrieving an

IPhone.

Page 2 of 30
At about the 7.30pm that evening the three witnesses were sitting in their

car on a road about 100 meters away from where their I phone app

indicated that the phone was and all three were anxious, angry and hell

bent on getting their stuff back.

The IPhone app pinpointed on the roof a tenement block, consisting of

eight flats within that block of flats, connected to another block of flats,

though the indicator did not specifically state or show where the phone

signal was coming from.

Two men who were living in the area were going about their day to day

business when one of the men indicated to the other that he seen

someone from the car parked across the road taking pictures of them, the

young man who noticed this was my co-accused and he told me that he

seen someone taking a photo of us from within the car parked across the

road from the flat.

Once in the flat I took a pair of binoculars out of the bedroom to have a

look at the car and the occupants and seen that it was two persons in the

front, namely two females, though I did see another person was sitting in

the rear of the car, but could not identify if it was male or female. I asked

Duncan to have a look to see if he could identify anyone in the car as

maybe it might have been one of his girlfriends, as he had a few on the go

at the time. He explained that he did not know who they were or what

they wanted.

Page 3 of 30
Throughout the night, it was noticed that the car with the occupants had

been driving up and down streets taking photos of other cars and

generally taking pictures of other people coming and going.

I ended up taking coco, my chocolate Labrador out for her nightly walk

and noticed that the car was again sitting on the road, on the opposite

side where I was walking with her.

I went to cross the road and noticed that the third person in the rear seat

of the car was a male, though did not know who he was. I continued my

walk with my dog and about 10 minutes later coming back into my street,

I seen that the car was still there. The car sped away from me whilst I was

walking back to my flat. The car then done a u turn and came towards me

but I continued to walk to my flat. I told Duncan and my friend Alan of this

suspicious activity of these persons and what they were up to, both

laughed just thinking it was young people up to no good.

The rest of the night, the car was seen driving up and down street with no

lights on and it was getting dark.

At about 10 pm that night Duncan asked me to take him to the shops and

I borrowed my friends car and took him there and back.

Upon our return, we were coming back into our area and Duncan said

that the car was still there with the occupants in it. The car was sitting on

Haugh Road opposite the mosque and facing towards Blackie Street with

no lights on.

As we drove by, Duncan said thats the car thats been acting suspiciously

all night.

The Corsa then reversed onto the pavement on Haugh Road and turned

towards the traffic lights at Haugh at Argyle Street.

Page 4 of 30
The CCTV in this case clearly shows all of this, specifically shows our car,

the Saab coming out of Lymburn Street, turning left onto Haugh Road

towards Blackie Street.

At that same time, the same CCTV shows the Corsa reversing onto the

pavement and driving towards the traffic lights with no lights on.

Being a concerned citizen and thinking the car had a drunk driver, I spun

my car around and came up behind the suspicious car and flashed my

lights to alert the car in front it had no lights on, normally someone would

react and put their lights on, I asked Duncan to get his phone out and try

and get a picture of the car in front with its registration number but Both

cars then left the traffic lights and we returned our car to the flat......what

was to happen next, changed our lives completely.

The following day, 30th April 2013, armed police stormed my house, with

guns pointing at me, putting me in a state of fear alarm and shock stating

that they had a warrant to search my house looking for stolen property

and a firearm as people had complained that two persons in a car had

pointed a firearm at them, some 18 hours previously.

Police searched to house, whilst at the same time, taking me from the

house, not being allowed to watch the search and as you can guess I was

anxious about what was happening, as I was shocked at police tactics. The

police then searched my house and no gun or any stolen property was

found in my house so the police knew at this point that this search was a

waste of time. Likewise, they then proceeded to search the car we had

been in but again they found no gun. Later forensic tests stated that they

could find no evidence of a gun being in a car, no gun shot residue or any
Page 5 of 30
other evidence to support that Duncan had been in possession of a gun.

Likewise, they did not find a balaclava as the witnesses had falsely stated

that Duncan had been wearing one during this alleged incident.

Duncan then had forensics take his clothes, samples from his hair hands

and finger nails, and again there was no evidence to support the witnesss

statements that Duncan had a fire arm and there was no forensics taken

from Duncan hairs to support/suggest he had been wearing a balaclava,

again the witnesses in this case had deliberately lied that Duncan had a

gun and a balaclava.

On being taken to the local police office, I was told that I was being

detained for a breach of the peace and a firearms charge to which I made

no reply. I was asked if I wanted a solicitor, which I duly accepted.

My named solicitor tried to be contacted but he was out the country on

holiday and I opted for a telephone conversation with a duty lawyer.

Upon being taken to the cells, I heard my co-accused shouting out and I

asked him what had been going on. He told me that soon after he left the

house that day he was surrounded by armed police, whilst walking with a

friend, and both person was put to the ground searched at gun point....

total shock overcame both Duncan and his friend. Both Duncans house,

his friends house and shop was searched and again no items that the

police were looking for were found, no gun or stolen items were found as

there was none in the first place.

I had a telephone conversation with a duty solicitor, from the Scottish

Legal Aid Board who advised me to make no comment in any interviews;

this, which I knew, was common to do.

Page 6 of 30
Throughout interview, I made no comment interviews as instructed by the

solicitor and this was done throughout the interrogation. As I knew I had

not done nothing wrong I did not think anything would come of the

interrogation and as I knew Duncan had done nothing either there was

nothing to worry about...How wrong was I.

The following day, both Duncan and I were taken to Glasgow Sheriff court

where we were formally charged with breach of the peace and firearm

offences.

We were both remanded in custody for 7 days for further enquiries, bail

being refused.

Both myself and Duncan were devastated at what had happened and

could not comprehend what had happened to us. We were both taken to

Barlinnie prison in Glasgow.

During the course of a week, we were taken for an identification parade

and the ID parade was a farce. The id parade consisted of a large number

of men from the homeless hostel along the road, all with scars, skinny,

and unwashsed and wearing clothing that you would normally associate

with a holes person..... you can guess the type Im talking about. Here was

me and Duncan dressed smart and casual so we stuck out in the parade

and this was echoed when a lawyer acting on Duncans behalf, overheard

a conversation in the reception area of the police station between the

witnesses who said it wines hard to pick out the guys in that line up it

was obvious that the police set up the id parade so it was easier for the

witnesses to pick us out.

I was identified as the person driving the car.

Duncan was not picked out on the ID parade.

Page 7 of 30
No positive identification was ever made of Duncan by the witnesses at

the I.D Parade, but one of the witnesses had identified him a week before

on an emulator sheet, a book of 12 photos on a laptop.

We went back to court the following week where I was remanded in

custody and Duncan was released on a pfs release, pending further

enquiries. I was remanded in custody because of my previous involvement

with the police, the last recorded time was in 1999 for a driving offence.

During my time on remand, I was introduced to a company of solicitors

who were to act for me and as my own named solicitor was away on an

extended holiday, I took up this firm introduced to me.

During my remand, the junior solicitor came to see me to discuss the case

and highlighted what the witnesses were saying had happened, it was

pointed out to me that CCTV in the area was being looked at and through

time the defence would have access to the CCTV evidence. I knew of the

CCTV in my local area and because of this and I knew we had done

nothing wrong; the CCTV would prove my innocence and show that no

offence took place, as I knew nothing had happened as described by the

witnesses.

The case eventually came to trial and I was represented by a solicitor

advocate who once had been a prosecutor. This advocate wrote the

firearms book and other law books, so I was quite confident with him

taking this through trial and the junior solicitor told me that the crowns

case was weak and that I had nothing to worry about.

The three main witnesses in this case were all called to give evidence one

at a time. There were 73 witnesses in total, five civilian witnesses, the rest

were all police and forensic officers and their evidence was not crucial for
Page 8 of 30
the trial. Out of all the witnesses, only the civilian witnesses and two

police officers were called to the stand, the police officers were only called

to speak about the identification parade. No police officers were called in

relation to the alleged incident, nor were any called to discuss the taking

of the witnesss statements, which should have been crucial in this case.

The CCTV was made available to the defence on the morning of the trial

starting and it did not give the defence time to check the statements

against the CCTV as it would have shown that what the witnesses had said

in their statements were a pack of lies.

Both defence solicitors did not have enough time to view the full CCTV

against the witnesses statements, and had this been done, it would have

shown that the witnesses had lied, both in their statements to the police

and subsequently at the trial.

We had not been given access to the witnesss statements, nor what they

contained in relation to what they spoke to the police about in matter

relating to the run up to the alleged incident at the traffic lights.

If this information had been available to us at the time, we could have

clearly shown that was the witnesses had spoken about was indeed false

malicious and utter lies as we knew we had done nothing wrong.

Further to this, if the police had properly carried out the review of the

CCTV and reviewed the CCTV evidence, it would have clearly became

apparent to the police that the witnesses had made a malicious complaint,

fabricated evidence and perverted the course of justice by lying to the

police with their statements.

Page 9 of 30
Police Scotland did not cross check the witness statement against the

CCTV in this case and this should have been a crucial piece of work for the

police to investigate, as had they done so correctly, they would have seen

that no offence had taken place and clearly the witnesses had fabricated

evidence and lied in this matter.

Had Police Scotland properly checked the witnesses police witness

statements against the factual CCTV in this case, the police would have

found that the information/evidence given to them by the witnesses was

indeed false malicious and fabricated information/evidence.

Clearly, Police Scotland neglected in their duties to carry our proper

investigations into these matters before arresting and charging us.

The Crowns case in this matter solely relied on the information/evidence

given by the witnesses in this case and clearly the crown also failed to

carry our proper checks on the information and evidence provided to them

by the police, clearly both the police and the crown were incompetent in

their handling of this case from the outset.

Defence counsel should have asked for an adjournment for a day so that

they could go over the CCTV with us. We had no sight of the CCTV until it

was shown in court, and again, we had not been shown the full CCTV in

this case, only the part of the alleged incident at the traffic lights was

shown to the court and we have never been told about the full contents of

the witness statements, now we know that information contained within

their statements, does now show they perverted the course of justice.

The crown put its case forward and on a number of occasions, the crown

witnesses were caught out with their lies as their evidence did not match,
Page 10 of 30
in any way, the factual CCTV evidence in the case, which supported our

defence that no crime/offence took place. All the witnesses more or less

gave the same evidence and that led us to believe that they had colluded

with each other and got their stories the same.

Needless to say the perverted evidence and perjured evidence was

enough for the majority of the jury to return a guilty verdict, even though

there was no physical DNA, or material evidence to show that Duncan had

been in possession of a firearm, nor indeed was any firearm recovered

from searches of both houses, and car, even one of Duncans friends who

came to visit us at the house had his house and car searched all because

the male who was in the complainers car had taken down his registration

number and photos of his car, so indeed this same person disrupted a

total strangers house and car by having his property turned over just

because he seen the guy in Duncans company.

The jury did not get to know, hears or see the evidence in relation to the

witnesses police statements and had they done so, they would have

clearly seen that the witnesses evidence did in no way match the CCTV

evidence in this case as clearly the CCTV evidence contradicted the

evidence in relation to the witnesses police statements.

The police statements were not entered into evidence, nor were they

listed as productions and they were not used in evidence. Had they done

so, the jury would have come to a totally different verdict, had the sheriff

not thrown the case out of court sooner, likewise the crown would have

dropped the charges based on the fabricated evidence of the three

witnesses as after cross checking the statements against the factual CCTV

Page 11 of 30
in this case, the crown would have also seen that witnesses had fabricated

evidence in this case and in doing so, perverted the course of justice.

This case was built on hearsay evidence and nothing else.

The crown heavily relied on the witnesses POLICE STATEMENTS, those

statements can be shown to be fabricated, malicious and perverted

evidence and by doing this these witnesses wasted police time by

falsifying a report to the police, and continued falsifying evidence up until

the trial itself.

There was no physical, DNA or other evidence to support the charges and

only the word of the three witnesses was enough for a conviction, even

though it was shown to the court previously that what the witnesses had

spoken to was a pack of lies, this still allowed the jury to return a guilty, by

majority, verdict.

There was no recovery of any firearm after extensive searches of houses

and cars as there never was a firearm in the first place, so you cant

recover something that was never there.

The CCTV evidence in this case seriously contradicted the evidence given

by the three witnesses as the CCTV evidence did not support any of what

the witnesses spoke about, yet the jury still found us guilty.

The CCTV in this case does not show or support any incident take place

and shows no crime being committed, only the word of the witnesses

was enough to secure a conviction, by a majority verdict.

Both myself and Duncan were advised by our legal teams not to go into

the witness box, one, because they believed the crown had insufficient

evidence to get a conviction and two, if we had gone into the box, the
Page 12 of 30
crown could have lead our previous character which, in the eyes of the

defence team, could have swayed the jury to convict.

The jury were then sent out for a day and a half and came back with a

majority verdict.

During the deliberations by the jury, they came back with a very strange

question to the judge.

The question was:

Does a finger and fore thumb, in the position of a gun, constitute a

firearm?

After about 20 minutes of deliberation it was decided that, it did not

constitute a firearm, as a firearm has to be an object and not part of the

body.

We believe that the question related on holding a mobile phone as that

had been suggested to the witnesses and that indeed is what Duncan had

in his hand that night. Holding a mobile phone in your hand trying to get a

photo, would suggest that your fingers are in the position as described,

this has been verified.

The jury then went out and considered their deliberations.

Some of the jury had been crying, as it was obvious when they came back

into court, you could tell that something was wrong.

Upon hearing the guilty verdict, the public gallery with our friends and

family erupted and crying could be heard from the public gallery. Both me

and Duncan looked at each other and wondered what the hell just

happened.

The sheriff decided to sentence us that day without the asking for any

reports, which is normal after a trial and conviction.

Page 13 of 30
The sheriff had little to say as he passed sentence and he imposed a

three-year sentence on the breach of the peace charge and a further five

years on the firearms charge, both sentence to run concurrently. I got my

sentence back dated until my time of arrest.

When G4S staff were putting the cuffs on us to take us back down stairs, I

turned round to the jury and said to them I hope you s can all sleep

tonight knowing that you have wrongly convicted two men and sent them

t prison for a crime we didnt commit, this upset the jury as a few put

their head down and began to cry, this obviously had an effect on the jury

as some already had been upset, prior to the guilty verdict being

delivered.

Since the conviction, new evidence has come to light that was not

presented at trial. It would now seem, that the three witnesses in this case

gave more than one statement to the police at the outset of the case and

again the CCTV in this case seriously contradicts their evidence and does

not support in any way the lies that they told. None of the witness

statements had been lodged as productions and the witnesses were never

challenged on their full statements because if they had been it would

have been shown that they had perverted the course of justice by telling

lies.

The CCTV in this case, wholeheartedly blows out the window all the

evidence the witnesses gave in the run up to the alleged incident at the

traffic lights and this shows that the witnesses gave perverted evidence,

though this evidence never had the chance to be challenged as crown and

defence did not enter the statements as productions and never re-
Page 14 of 30
examined the witnesses on their statements, especially the parts where it

showed they gave perverted evidence to the police in the statements.

Further evidence has also came to light in relation to an image taken from

the Blackberry mobile phone that Duncan had in his hand.

This evidence, not known or used at the trial, does confirm that Duncan

had a phone in his hand and not a gun as lied to by the witnesses in this

case.

This image contained within the blackberry is date and time stamped and

clearly shows that Duncan was taking a photo on his phone, clearly this

information should have been available to the defence, though recent

written corroborated evidence now shows that the Crown withheld this

vital evidence/information from the defence and if this had been disclosed

at the time, the case would have collapsed and charges would have been

dropped, as again, this clearly would have shown that the crown witnesses

in this case, again fabricated evidence and committed perjury during a

criminal trial.

This image only came to light in October 2016 after the phone was

returned to us.

It also transpires that the phone was the subject of a review in 2015 by

the Scottish criminal cases Review Commission, when they had

subsequently requested a review of a specific image of the rear of one

vehicle, taken from the inside of another vehicle at night time as we had

always maintained Duncan had a Blackberry phone in his hand and not a

gun.

Page 15 of 30
The SCCRC asked police Scotland to review this evidence and they

specifically asked DS john Stewart, one of the original officer involved in

this case to look at the phone and specifically look for this type of image.

On TWO occasions DS Stewart stated in a report to the SCCRC that he

revived the blackberry phone and could find no image that the SCCRC

were looking for and that the image did not exist, he stated this twice.

It is now apparent that DS Stewart DID NOT review the blackberry phone

or the contents of the phone as had he done so, he would have found the

image that the SCCRC were particularly looking for and this image is

crucial to our case.

If DS Stewart had reviewed this phone and found this image, all he had to

do was hit the delete button and the image would have gone and we

would have been none the wiser to the image, though Duncan did always

maintain he had taken a picture of the Corsa from the inside of the Saab

car.

DS Stewart suppressed and withheld vital evidence that would have

assisted a case where two persons were wrongly charged convicted and

sent to prison for five years for a No Crime, as no crime as spoke to was

committed on the 29th April 2013.

DS Stewart is now the subject of a full criminal complaint and an

investigation has also taken place by the Professional Standards Dept at

Police Scotland and as a result of the investigation a report has now been

sent to the COPFS that specifically deal with police corruption and

complaints about the police.

DS Stewart may be charged as a result of these matters as he has clearly

suppressed vital information/evidence and at the same time furthered that

Page 16 of 30
offence by making, signing and sending to the SCCRC a false report where

he stated he had reviewed the case fully, on two occasions, and found no

evidence that would have assisted the SCCRC.

There is also now real concern as to the running of the SCCRC and in their

handling of reviews whilst claiming to be impartial and independent of

those involved in the original case.

Our case clearly shows that the SCCRC are not impartial or independent in

carrying out reviews into cases as it clearly shows that the original senior

police officer in our case was tasked with carrying out the review at the

request of the SCCRC.

The SCCRC cannot be seen to be impartial or independent by asking the

same police officer to carry out reviews, this is clearly a conflicts of

interest and questions will not doubt arise with the SCCRC and others after

the full outcome of this case is known.

The SCCRC accepted the word of this police officer as truthful and then

closed the review down as they took this officers word as truthful and by

accepting as truthful his report into the review.

This is now the same police officer who is under investigation with

suppressing and withholding vital information into a case which could

have cleared two men of a crime that did not take place. This officer could

be charged with perverting the course of justice and the written evidence

that we have strongly supports that this officer wilfully neglected his

duties by withholding vital information and evidence in this case and in

particular provided to the SCCRC two reports which were false and

misleading, police Scotland corruption at its best.

Page 17 of 30
(The following extracts are taken from previous narrative

Witness (A) stated to police that she witnessed the Saab car at Blackie
Street with two occupants within the vehicle. This was lies as CCTV
proves that the car was not at Blackie Street, this then proves that
this witness lied on this point.
She then stated that one male in the back of the vehicle was wearing a
balaclava. Again this was lies as the CCTV proves that the Saab
was not at Blackie Street as described by this witness, again, this
proves that this witness lied on this point.
No person within the Saab was wearing a balaclava or a hood and there is
no evidence, other than the lies told by the witnesses of seeing a person
with a balaclava or a hood.
Witness (A) then stated that she was pursued along Haigh Road towards
the traffic lights at Argyle Street with the Saab car behind her the full way.
She states They followed me and they tried to get in front of me to cut
me off but I just kept driving. Again, this evidence shows and proves that
this witness lied on this point.
The factual CCTV evidence in this case does not support this
evidence of the Saab being at Blackie Street, nor indeed the
following the Corsa along Haugh Road towards the junction at
Argyle Street.
This CCTV evidence would then prove that witness (A) lied to the police in
her statements to the police in this respect of this and then also came to
court and committed perjury by lying to the court on this matter.

(Witness (A) then stated that her Corsa sat at the traffic lights at Haugh
Road at Argyle Street.
She stated that she could not see within the car behind her as
both cars had tinted windows, not forgetting it was 10.00 pm, it was
dark and any chance of seeing any person or object within the Saab car
would have been impossible.
She stated The car was definitely behind me and because of the tinted
windows I could barely see inside. I couldnt see who was in the black car
because of the tinted windows.
I just remember my car (Corsa) and the black Saab behind me in my lane
and there was one car in the RIGHT HAND LANE (this would indicate the
Corsa was in the left lane and NOT the right lane as shown in previous
correspondence)
She stated that she did not see a man with a firearm.
She then states that both cars left the traffic lights, turned left onto Argyle
Street and the Saab went in another direction, down Clayslaps road. This
would then infer that they were not followed after the traffic lights.
It has to be considered that none of the other two witnesses,
(witness (B) ) or (Witness C) witnessed or spoke about the Saab
Page 18 of 30
at Blackie Street with a male in the rear of the Saab wearing a
balaclava or a hood. This is strange given the nature of the
alleged incident.

Witness (B) stated that the Saab pulled out of Blackie Street and followed
the Corsa along Haugh Road towards the traffic lights at Argyle Street.
This was proved to be lies as CCTV did not support this. (This would then
show that this witness lied on this point.)
She then stated that the Saab attempted to block the Corsa in at the
traffic lights by blocking them in.
(Again, this would show that this witness lied on this point)
Nothing in the CCTV evidence that covers the period from 7.30 pm -10.30
pm supports this evidence from this witness so therefore this shows that
this witness lied to both the police, in her initial statements to the police,
thus perverting the course of justice, and then by coming into court and
committing perjury, by telling lies to the jury and the court.
Witness (B) also lied about the alleged firearms incident at the traffic
lights as her position within the Corsa was front seat passenger.
She claimed that she could see the man in the rear of the Saab wearing a
balaclava and she could identify this man had a gun.
She stated She seen a man leaning through the middle of the Saab
wearing a balaclava and what she thought was a gun. (This is not a
positive identification)
She also stated this man had black beady eyes. This identification
would have been impossible to make, giving her position within the Corsa
as a front seat passenger.
Witness (B) lied about this as due to the conditions of street lighting,
distance of cars and night time conditions. It is impossible for any person
to see within a motor vehicle sitting behind them and in the conditions as
stated.
In her statement to the police and in her audio evidence she is heard
asking her boyfriend Witness (C) Is that a gun? To which he replies, I
think so.
This question and answer is not proof of seeing any gun and both
witnesses lied of seeing any man with a balaclava or a gun and both
witnesses lied to make their story to the police more credible and realistic,
to cover up their own suspicious activity during the course of the night.
Not forgetting that these witnesses had been acting suspiciously for hours
driving about street with no lights on and taking pictures of people and car
registration numbers.
Witness (B), colluded with her boyfriend, Witness (C), and Witness (A), to
pervert the course of justice by giving misleading statements to the
police, which is totally contradictory of factual CCTV evidence in this case.

Page 19 of 30
All three witnesses then colluded with each other to give perjured
evidence in court, again to make their story to the jury more reliable and
credible

Witness (C) stated in his statement to the police and in court that the
Saab car reversed aggressively out of Blackie Street and followed the
Corsa along Haugh Road towards the traffic lights at Argyle Street.
He then stated, in statement and at trial that the Saab pulled up in front of
the Corsa deliberately trying to block the Corsa in, this was prior to the
alleged incident at the traffic lights.
He Stated Witness (A) stopped her car at the junction. The Saab drove up
and tried to block Witness (A) in, by parking across the front of her, no one
got out of the Saab.
It is worth noting the summary of evidence sheet in this matter as it
states the following:

The taller male wearing the Black Super dry Jacket, (accused
Rodger) was driving the Saab, and the smaller male (accused
Stanulis), then left the rear of the Saab motor vehicle wearing a
balaclava and Black Gloves, approached the witnesses in their
vehicle and in his right hand was a black pistol handgun which
was pointed at the motor vehicle.
This was clearly observed by all witnesses and in particular Sam
Nesbit who has 4 years military service, all three were fearful of
their lives and drove of.

At this time and throughout this case we do not know where this piece of

information came from and from what witness. Obviously witnesses have
spoken to

the police about this version of events so there should be a statement

somewhere

detailing this issue and questions need to be asked why it was never
referred to

throughout the proceedings.

This piece of information was total fabrication on the part of the witness
who gave

the information and this information was never put to the jury.

Page 20 of 30
It was never entered into evidence so it was never challenged before a
jury, and if it

had been before the jury, the jury would have seen that it was total
fabrication and

lies told by the witness who gave the police this piece of information.

He then stated that the alleged incident at the traffic lights took place.

Witness (C) was in the back seat of the Corsa when both cars came to a
stop at the

lights.

He claimed that the Saab flashed it lights for quite a while, when indeed it
flashed

twice for 1-2 seconds.

He then claimed that he seen a man in the rear of the Saab wearing a
balaclava and

having a gun in his right hand.

Witness (B) is known to have asked Witness (C) the question Witness (C)
is

that a gun? to which he replies, I think so. This does not constitute a
positive or

accurate answer and both defence solicitors failed to pick up on this

matter during

trial.

Witness(C) then went onto lie throughout the remainder of his evidence
and lied

that he seen a man with a balaclava and a gun.

He stated he could identify the eyes of the man wearing the balaclava,
this is

Page 21 of 30
somewhat confusing as given the conditions of poor street lighting,
distance of cars,

his lying down position within the Corsa and tinted windows, it would
have been

impossible for any positive identification to be made of any object seen

within the

Saab and it would have been impossible to see the eyes of a man wearing
a

balaclava within a motor vehicle 10.30 pm at night.

All three witnesses colluded with each other to pervert the course of
justice by

giving misleading statements to the police at the outset of the

investigations and

further they lied at the trial by committing perjury as to the evidence that
they gave.

Witness (A), Witness (B) and Witness (C) , also committed perjury by
telling

the court that Pc Stuart Munro told the witnesses to carry out observations
of people

coming and going, take photos of people and other duties that should
have been

carried out by the police.

PC Munro had instructed the witnesses beforehand not to go over the

West end, as

had witness (B)s father,. Pc Munro had also told the witnesses during a

telephone conversation to move away from the area, to which the

witnesses refused

to do so.

Page 22 of 30
Pc Munro came into court and gave evidence and he stated that he did
not instruct

the witnesses to carry out observations on people, nor take pictures of

people or car

registration numbers and he told the court that he had instructed the
witnesses to

leave the area. He stated that he would never put witnesses in the
position to carry

out such observations as that was a job for the police.

If the witnesses had been cross examined by the defence after PC Munro
gave his

evidence, then this would have shown to the jury that the witnesses had
again lied

in their evidence and the jury would have noted that the witnesses had
lied about a

police officer as well.

These witnesses had blatantly lied throughout the proceedings and had
also told Ian

Bradley that the solicitors and the police were liars, when clearly it was
the

witnesses had been lying the whole time throughout the case.

PC Munros evidence showed that the witnesses gave perjured evidence

at trial and

it would have been interesting to see if their statements reflect the issues
rose with

the evidence of PC Munro.

This again proves that witnesses lied in court, then committing perjury by
telling lies

Page 23 of 30
of what the police officer supposedly told them to do. These witnesses
were not

challenged about their evidence relating to Pc Munro and none of the

above was

mentioned in closing speeches to the jury be defence parties and the

sheriff also

failed to relate to this in his charge to the jury.

This should have been crucial to relate to this as this would have shown
that the

witnesss evidence was incredible and unreliable as it was shown that the
witnesses

had lied to the court in relation to Pc Munro.

Witnesses have consistently lied throughout their evidence and this went
largely

unchallenged by poor defence practice.

In reference to all the witnesses stating that the Saab was at Blackie
Street, one

Person within the Saab allegedly wearing a balaclava, the Saab reversing

aggressively out of Blackie Street, and the car chasing/following the Corsa
along

Haugh Road to the traffic lights, is deeply concerning as the evidence

shows that the

Corsa was sitting on Haugh Road, near to the traffic lights, facing towards
Blackie

Street, therefore the witnesses gave false evidence that the Saab was at
the junction

of Blackie Street following the Corsa along Haugh Road towards the lights
at Argyle

Page 24 of 30
Street.

The CCTV evidence shows the Corsa in Haugh Road, near to the traffic
lights, so

therefore it is not at Blackie Street, in the situations described above by

the

witnesses so it shows that the witnesses colluded and lied about the
various aspects

as stated above. All THREE witnesses had stated that the car was at
Blackie Street

when clearly on the CCTV it shows the car at a different location, so this
then shows

that the witnesses had lied from the outset to the police, this being a
perverted

evidence.

It also should show that any further evidence from these witnesses could
not be

credible or reliable as their evidence had already blatantly shown to be

lies and any

further evidence from these witnesses could not be trusted.

Three witnesses at our trial deliberately misled the police from the outset
of this

case by giving perverted evidence and then came into court and gave
perjured
evidence.

Now after serving a five-year sentence (3 yr 1 month) we are still trying to

fight our

conviction as we know a miscarriage of justice has arisen in our case, both

by

defective representation of solicitors and also by witnesses perverting the

course of
Page 25 of 30
justice, wasting police time, by making a malicious allegation, and then
coming into

court and committing perjury.

We know that the crown witnesses in this case colluded with each other to
pervert

the course of justice and commit perjury.

The CCTV in this case does not show any crimes take place, yet the
word of

witnesses, who we can now show lied, was enough for a jury to return a
majority

verdict. The jury in our case did not get to know the full facts or all the
evidence in

this case and much of the evidence was kept from them, and in light of
that, they

wrongly convicted and sent two innocent men to prison for a crime that
never took

place, all because of a broken IPhone.

At this time, a complaint has been raised with the Crown and Procurator
Fiscals

office with evidence that we now have that supports our complaint that
crown

witnesses in our case committed perjury, perverted the course of justice

and wasted

police time. I have had a letter from the fiscals office stating that they
have the

complaint, but quite frankly I suspect that complaint will get lost.

A complaint has also been lodged with Police Scotland and at this time, no
action

Page 26 of 30
has been taken by them, not even an interview with me or asked me what

information I have to support OUR evidence that the crown witnesses in

this case

perverted the course of justice and committed perjury.

A letter of complaint on the handing of the complaint to the police has

also been

lodged with the local Divisional Commander at Stewart Street Police Office
in

Glasgow, and now after two weeks, I still have not had a reply to the
complaint nor

a chap at the door from the police to discuss the logged complaint. I did
however

get a receipt when I handed the complaint and the file into the police, so
the police

cannot say they didnt receive the complaint as I personally handed it into
the cop shop myself.

There are plenty of other prisoners within our prison system who would
have similar

stories to tell and no doubt there are many in the system, who want to
fight the

system and get justice for the harm that has been done to them.

Up here in Scotland, I am lucky as we have an organisation called

Miscarriages of

Justice (MOJO) who help and assist with people who fear and know they
have

suffered a miscarriage of justice, but unfortunately there are not enough

of these

Page 27 of 30
organisations within the UK to help people who have suffered a
miscarriage of

justice and this is torturous on its own, as people know that they are
innocent, yet

there are not many people out there willing to help and assist them with
their case.
Too many solicitors now a day, shy away from the responsibility for fair
justice, as

due to legal aid cuts, many solicitors hands are tied as a result and not
fully

represent their clients to the best of their ability, and as such incidents
like this

resulting in miscarriages of justice are a regular occurrence and are only

going to

get worse.

The judicial system within the UK needs a proper shake up, both in
relation to

investigations by the police and also court practises, which many bad
practises are

occurring within our legal system on a daily basis. More needs to be done
to ensure

that miscarriages of justice dont occur at the rate they are doing, but this
is purely

down to cost and poor representation by solicitors acting for their clients.

A complaint has also been lodged with the commission that deals with
solicitors as it

is clear that the solicitors in our case clearly did not do their job correctly.

It now shows that the solicitors deliberately withheld vital information

from us and

Page 28 of 30
this is in regards to the witness statements which should have been
produced and

used at trial, but they failed to do so. If they had alerted us to the full
statements

we would have been able to show, at that point, that the witnesses had
lied to the

police at the outset by making a malicious complaint, and then gave

statements to

the police that with vital CCTV would have shown that the witnesses had
deliberately

lied to the police from the beginning of this case.

Solicitors failed to cat in this regard and their failure to properly ac,
prepare and

present this case was incompetent, unprofessional and negligent and due
to these

failures the solicitors in question allowed a miscarriage of justice to take

place with

our case.

The system has to change to ensure that less miscarriages of justice

happen within

our legal establishments up and down this country, too many people are
banged up

in prison for a crime they didnt do, and no-one is there to fight their
corner, this is a

Travesty of Justice, and needs to be addressed at the higher end of our

judicial

systems, both in Scotland and in England, to ensure that only the rightly
convicted

are sent to our prisons.

Page 29 of 30
This is my story, which is true, and I will continue to fight this injustice
until I get

justice or until the day I die.

Stephen Rodger
October 2016

Page 30 of 30