Pilley Case: New grounds for appeal

This would normally be of little interest - however, the wonderwoof fan club are absolutely convinced that Gilroy was convicted due to the now-traditional yapping spaniel.

All attempts to explain to them that no, that was not the case, because said yapping spaniel found, as usual, nothing, have fallen on deaf ears.

Anyway, it looks like we are going to go through the whole thing again.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/suzanne-pilley-case-judge-allows-additional-ground-of-appeal-from-david-gilroy-s-lawyers-1-2564158

Suzanne Pilley case: Judge allows additional ground of appeal from David Gilroy’s lawyers

By JOHN ROBERTSON
Published on Friday 5 October 2012 12:23

DAVID Gilroy, the man jailed for life for murdering missing Edinburgh book-keeper Suzanne Pilley, has been given a boost in advance of an appeal against his conviction.

Mr Gilroy, 50, was told that one of the arguments his lawyers want to use to claim he suffered a miscarriage of justice will be entertained after all.

It had previously been ruled that the particular ground of appeal, relating to paperwork which had been given in error to jurors at his trial, should be rejected.

Members of Gilroy’s family, including his wife, Andrea, attended a brief hearing at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, where the full appeal will take place on a date yet to be fixed.

Earlier this year, Gilroy was found guilty of murdering Ms Pilley, 38, by unknown means, on 4 May, 2010, as she arrived at the office in Edinburgh city centre where they both worked and had become lovers.

Her body has never been found, but is believed to be buried somewhere in Argyll.

Gilroy, of Silverknowes Brae, Edinburgh, was jailed for life and ordered to serve at least 18 years before he could apply for parole.

The jury was told that Gilroy had confronted Ms Pilley over her decision to end their relationship, and he had lost his temper and killed her. He then put in place “an elaborate plan” to dispose of the body and saw it through with “chilling calmness and calculation,” said the trial judge , Lord Bracadale.

Appeals in Scotland are put through a sifting process, where a judge in private examines submitted grounds of appeal and allows only those deemed arguable to proceed to a full hearing in court.

Gilroy’s lawyers were successful in having one ground of appeal pass the sift. It related to the admissibility of certain evidence.

Following Ms Pilley’s disappearance, Gilroy was interviewed by the police and injuries to his hands were noted. He made no confession, but other evidence flowed from information he had given under questioning and was used against him by the prosecution which maintained he had been merely a witness, not a suspect.

“He was not cautioned before being questioned on these occasions,” stated the ground of appeal.

“By the stage of the first of these interviews, he was a suspect and should at least have been cautioned but, arguably, also offered legal assistance.

“The failure of the police to caution him before the relevant statements were taken has resulted in unfairness to him and a breach of article 6 (of the European Convention on Human Rights). The trial judge erred in admitting this evidence.”

At the trial, during the oral evidence of an expert witness about the possible cause of injuries to Gilroy, copies of a written report by the witness were given to the jurors. It had been intended that part of the report would be cut, literally, from the copies because the defence had complained that the witness had strayed from giving an opinion into speculation. However, some copies were missed and were among those distributed to the jury.

The defence asked for the trial to be aborted, but Lord Bracadale ruled that it could continue.

For the appeal, Gilroy’s lawyers maintained that the only safe course had been to stop the trial because the effect of the error was unknown and could have been significant.

The ground of appeal was rejected at the sift, but John Scott, QC, for Gilroy, submitted to the appeal judges that it should be reinstated.

Lord Carloway, the Lord Justice-Clerk, sitting with Lord Mackay and Lady Smith, said: “We are persuaded we should allow this additional ground of appeal to be argued.”

-------------

Also please note - Scots law is NOT the same as that of England and Wales, contrary to the beliefs of barrack-room lawyers.

At present, it does look as if the whole thing may be thrown out - whether the spaniel likes it or not.

MOM OF TWO ‏@GILLYSPOT
@WilliamsPat What about Suzanne #Pilley Case? Hinged on Cadaver dog Buster's alert evidence. #McCann apologist

Someone tell gillytroll that it DIDN'T - the dog, as usual, found nothing.

Oh, and it is rather looking like the verdict is going to be overturned.

Pat Williams ‏@WilliamsPat
Dogs evidence is inadmissible in court. You can't ask them if they make a mistake and they can't tell you zilch. #McCann


At last, someone gets it. Dogs can't talk and in the absence of forensic evidence, then whatever the handler says is the canine equivalent of hearsay.

Dantew28 ‏@Dantew28
@ModNrodder EVRD evidence IS admissable in UK courts used frequ, no source or forensics such as Pilley, conv for MURDER followed #mccann

Bad example.

'conv for MURDER' on course to be overturned.

Do try to keep up!

e: Mark Bridger Charged with Murder
tigger Today

Not Born Yesterday wrote:
Panda you must know that there have been various cases in recent years when there has been a conviction for murder without the body being found. The first one I remember was the Muriel McKay kidnapping case in late 1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conviction_without_a_body


There was a very recent case up in Scotland I believe, where the evidence from the cadaver dog was taken on board and a conviction resulted, without a body.
This year I believe.
----------

Yes. This one. The one where the woofing had NOTHING to do with the verdict.

The one where the woofing will STILL have NOTHING to do with anything if it is overturned because of some rather serious prosecution errors.

I don't think I know much about this case, and perhaps best that I don't. Tis always best to look at these things with an unfettered eye.

That Transcript is deeply disturbing. Not least for the need for it in the first place. Or that it should have been necessary.

I am beginning to despair.

MOM OF TWO ‏@GILLYSPOT
@JillyCL @TrueCrimeUK not forgetting Suzanne Pilley case where Buster (excellent EVRD/Cadaver) dog's evidence was KEY for conviction #McCann

*sigh*

No, it wasn't. It was irrelevant because yet again, there was no forensic evidence to back it up. Do learn to READ.

I don't think I know much about this case, and perhaps best that I don't

I followed it with great interest, Sabot. I *think* Gilroy was guilty, but it now transpires that the prosecution made a couple of enormous blunders which have nothing to do with the flaming dogs.

If the idiot forkers had bothered to READ ABOUT IT IN FULL, then they would know what happened in reality, as opposed to what happened in their addled 'minds'.

If Gilroy wins his appeal, then it might finally sink in with them that the dogs had nothing to do with the verdict.

One can, of course, argue that morally he should stay behind bars, but the prosecution foul-ups suggest he will be freed.