The Luke Mitchell trial transcripts
In a recent Podcast with Bob Ruff (Truth and Justice Podcast), some information was provided by a Dr Sandra Lean in relation to the availability of Luke Mitchell’s trial transcripts. It was stated that the transcripts are not available, would cost too much, only specified individuals could apply to obtain them and only with a specified reason.
This information contradicts the facts provided to myself directly by the Edinburgh High court, during a phone call. A friend also recently put a request in for the transcripts via e-mail, below is the information that we received, in relation to the statements made in the Podcast.
I will break down the information given in the podcast with a response in relation to the facts provided from the court.
Said on the podcast - Dr Sandra Lean: (The availability of the transcripts in Scotland and the cost), I found just the other day the transcripts of criminal proceedings in Scotland order, which specifies the court will only allow the release of the transcripts if satisfied that the person requesting the transcripts is a person who follows within a specified class of person and intends to use it for a specified purpose only, it then goes on to list who are specified people and what are specified purposes, and we are not specified people and ours is not specified purposes.
Note – The information quoted here in the podcast looks to be from a 1993 act, which is an accompaniment to 1995 legislation - the 1995 legislation permits application for a transcript from any member of the public on payment of the appropriate fee.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/supreme-courts/about-the-court-of-session/high-court/criminal-proceedings-transcripts references the 1995 legislation:
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995
'This Act allows anyone who is not a person convicted at Trial to apply under this section of the Act to obtain a copy of a transcript for any part of the proceedings that has been held in open court. Open court is a court or trial to which members of the public can freely attend.'
Could this explain evident contradictions in the information?
What the court said:
(Via phone call) The court was asked: Can anyone apply for the transcripts, or does it have to be a specified individual in a specific position?
Edinburgh High court response: No, anyone can apply, with the exception of the convicted person, they cannot apply (they have since elaborated that a convicted person may apply under specific circumstance). The only information which cannot be obtained is anything considered 'closed court evidence'.
They then proceeded to advise further, should I wish to apply. It was also confirmed in an email, they are converting the old tapes to digital copies and would update on related developments thus a more accurate quote for transcription work could be given.
In a subsequent phone-call, I asked about legislation stating that only a specified class of person could obtain the documents and whether this legislation still stood. It was explained that it is an accompanying piece of legislation to the 1995 act but that ultimately, any member of the public can apply. I asked if there would be a point in the process where someone may be refused because they do not come under a specified class. I was told that although the court would ask a reason, they would still be able to, and could ultimately choose to give the transcripts to any member of the public who did not fit in to any specified class, because the transcripts are considered public information - Luke's trial was considered 'open court', which is public (with the exception of any 'closed court' evidence).
Said on the podcast (Dr Sandra Lean): Even if we had money we wouldn’t get through those hoops to qualify to get them, but in terms of money it costs about £110 pounds per hour for transcription to get transcripts, now there were well over 200 hours of evidence in Luke’s case, transcripts take about 3 hours to transcribe per hour of evidence, so way over the £60,000 pounds mark, and given how things are right now I would much rather that money was spent on getting samples tested than going after transcripts that we can't get anyway so I just thought I'd throw that one in to begin.
What the court said:
‘As a guideline, transcripts cost £91.23 per hour of court time, or £1.52 a minute, plus VAT, and this is for a 15 working day turnover.
The trial ran from 18/11/2004 – 19/01/2005 with 20/1/2005-21/1/2005 being a day of deliberation and verdict. Bar the last 2 days, I have worked out that it’s about 40 days of evidence, with about 5 hours of evidence per day. So a very rough estimate would be £21895.20 (incl. 20% VAT)’
*Side note, I also specifically mentioned to the court that it had been quoted at above £60,000 on a podcast – they were surprised by this and said no, that wasn’t correct - although there was a substantial amount of evidence, it would not cost that much.
Said on the podcast (Bob Ruff): So, my understanding, Luke's defence does not have the transcripts?
Dr Sandra Lean: No we have probably about 80% of the transcripts but we are bound, we've got this purpose we use them for.
*If it is the case that the defence have 80% of the transcripts, why would they need to purchase the entire amount - surely they would only need the remaining 20%? This would not cost £22,000 and certainly not £60,000. Either way, I'm not sure what this has to do with the fact that they are available for members of the public to obtain.
But - there's more to the cost side of things. If evidence has already been transcribed, all one has to pay is a copying fee, which is less than the cost of transcription work. If it is indeed the case that 80% of Luke's trial has already been transcribed, then this would be available at the cost of the copying fees (I can confirm that it is the case that many of the witness testimonies, but not all, have already been transcribed).
Bob Ruff: So regardless of costs we couldn't get them even if we had the money to get them?
Dr Sandra Lean: No, so to give you an idea specified persons, specified class of person; the prosecutor, any person convicted, any other person named in or immediately effected by any order made by the court or any person authorised to act on behalf of any person, so there's two of them we could use but even if we do, we don’t have specified purpose.
What the court actually said: Anyone can apply for the transcripts, but not a convicted person, unless under specific circumstances.
I hope this information is helpful.
UPDATE*
Comments
Post a Comment