The Mission

In brief.I met an age appropriate single woman on a dating website in 2017 , met her for coffee and after that first date went well, I invited her to stay over at my home the following weekend. She accepted the invite, drove to my home, arrived with 2 bottles of wine, opened up 1 bottle of wine and before you know it we're kissing in the bedroom around 75 minutes after she arrived. She left around 15 minutes later . Her first police statement ( I do not have a copy) as best I recall stated I made her  have sexual intercourse once  but no physical force was used except for me using the weight of a leg across her body. Afterwards I fell asleep and she drove to her daughters house. It was her daughter who phoned  the Police and they arrested me the next day. She also said I was so drunk that I could not speak and that I could not work the remote control for the TV.I would remind you I am just trying as best I can to quote the original accusation. The real evidence and the truth will come shortly. However in Court she claimed she felt trapped from the moment she arrived, that I dragged her through the house, ripped her clothes off, threw her on the bed and brutally and repeatedly raped her, in obvious contradiction of her original police statement and that of her own daughters'. 

When the police arrested me they held me for around five hours at the end of which they conducted a formal interview. They offered me a lawyer but as I knew I had done nothing wrong I foolishly declined the offer. Had I been guilty I wouldn t have dreamed of proceeding without a lawyer present. I told the truth throughout the entirety of the interview but did guess at the end. Having tried to recall everything that happened I was very confused because having been accused of rape, I didn't think that intercourse had taken place, and I was aware that pre-interview both parties were subjected to an intense physical and DNA based examination. Earlier on the same day as I had met my accuser,I had actually had a sexual encounter with a very old friend. However I was really looking for a long-term relationship and we both knew that that would not work and so I was pursuing long-term commitment on the internet. Now my old friend was very similar physically to my accuser and it is also a fact that I woke up at about 3am in the morning (my accuser left my home around 2045 the night before), before the police arrived, and drank a bottle of wine to get myself back to sleep. These facts are evidenced in my original police statement.So due to the alcohol,  the confusion caused by having sexual relations with two similar women on the same day, and being in a state of complete shock and distress,I wasn't 100% confident to tell the police that intercourse did not take place  with my accuser. Therefore I said that very brief partial penetration took place in case my memory was wrong and the DNA evidence supported that. I have been a safety manager for the entirety of my career and I thought if I said 100% that penetration did not take place and I was wrong due to the alcohol and confusion between my memories of the two women ,that I would immediately appear to be a guilty liar.  My logic was that if she has accused me of rape she must know that DNA would be taken and my logic was surely she wouldn't make that accusation if she knew the DNA evidence would disprove it, so I had to query my own memory in the stress of the situation. That actually concludes the credible evidence against me in it's entirety. 

The first time I met a lawyer I told them exactly what I just told you and asked them to get the DNA evidence as it would probably prove that no penetration took place and that therefore the crime of rape had not been committed. 

Right now I can't publish anything my accuser or her one witness (her daughter) wrote or said officially as the Crown Office will not release those documents to me. However what I can say is this. The accuser went straight to her daughters house from mine and when the police arrived they split them up to interview them separately. The daughters police statement that night was therefore exactly what her mother told her. The daughters police statement was identical to mine apart from her saying 'then he raped her' at the end. The accuser said the following lies in her police statement, and next to those statements you will see the evidence that exists, most of which that I can't publish because again the Crown Office won't allow me.

Accusation - 'I felt trapped from the moment I arrived, never intended to stay the night, have sex, or have a drink'.

Evidence - She admits I asked her if she wanted to stay in or go out and admits she chose to stay in. She also admitted she never asked or tried to leave. She drove for an hour to get to my house and arrived with two bottles of wine, opening one as soon as she arrived. She had been sexting me all day and at one point even suggested   that we go to a hotel for the night rather than stay at mine. She texted her daughter 40 minutes after arriving and sent this text 'I'm here and everything is ok.' All of these texts and facts are proven. 

Accusation - 'He was so drunk  he couldn't speak or work the TV remote control.'

Evidence - She admits we discussed going out or staying in. She also admits we discussed the availability of a condom.Her daughter said 'she said he had had a drink but that he was OK'.Again after 40 minutes she texted to say everything was OK.

Accusation - 'He dragged me to the bedroom, ripped my clothes off me and then threw me on the bed and raped me.'

Evidence - Her daughters police statement , given on the night less than two hours after the event, and  as told to her by the accuser at that time was  'They walked hand-in-hand to the bedroom, kissed and removed each other's clothes in the doorway and then got into bed naked and that was OK.' 

The truth is we engaged in consensual sexual foreplay, eventually prepared to commence intercourse when she said 'have you got a condom on that?' ' I said 'no' so we stopped. That is the simple truth.

The police clinician conducted a thorough examination of both of us  and did not find a mark on her or me. No clothes were damaged or buttons missing,etc. In short initially there was no evidence to support the accusation and the DNA evidence never became available (to me) until after the trial. I will deal with the DNA evidence in much more detail later but it basically supported my statement of consensual foreplay and provided absolutely no evidence of penetration and therefore rape, let alone repeated rape. 

After my accuser had been told by the police that there was no physical evidence to support her accusation she claimed to take a photo of a bruise on her arm which she claimed I had caused. She then proceeded to let nobody see the actual bruise, refusing the police access to it. Remember the police and their clinical expert all stated they did not see any sign of this injury at the time, and there was no accusation of physical restraint in her first witness statement given on the night. She presented the photo of the bruise to the police about 22 days later when there was no bruise to see. The photo was of an arm with no head or body attached that could be identified. My accuser was a clinical nurse by trade and therefore very familiar with bruises. So-

Accusation - I caused a bruise to her arm while forcing her to have sex.

Evidence - In her own first police statement she made no reference to force being used. The bruise photo was sent to a Professor Bussutil, who specialises in giving expert legal witness opinion on such matters. He stated that it was highly improbable that I could have caused the bruise. The Crown Office offered no expert witness to challenge this opinion. The accuser claimed she sent a copy of the bruise photo to her daughter but not the police, that sounds logical doesn t it? However the incredible part is this. Her daughters husband was a serving police officer who signed a police statement to say that he had never seen the picture of the bruise. So we are to believe that the daughters mother had been brutally raped, that she sent her daughter a picture of the only piece of physical evidence to support the claim, and in the following 15 months the daughter never once shows the picture to her husband. 

Accusation - Before the trial the accuser made an impact statement. In it she said that my bedroom was pitch black and as a result she is now scared of the dark and gets panic attacks when driving in the dark. 

Evidence - My bedroom was south-facing with no blackout curtains and so is in fact light all of the time.The date of the allegation was 17th July 2017. If you check the sunset records with the met office you will find that the sunset was around 2250 that night and therefore it wasn't even official night until 2320. I had an independent photgrapher come around at the same date and time (2040) a year later and he took a photo of the light with the curtains and doors all closed. He was told to make it as dark as possible (i.e. as truer indication of as dark as it would naturally look) whilst being prepared to state in Court that his photo was an accurate and true reflection of the light he was observing. He did this, his photo was accepted as evidence in Court and uncontested by the prosecution. The photo clearly demonstrated that everything in the bedroom was visible and that it could, in no way, be considered 'pitch black.'

Accusation - That I put all of my fingers together on one hand and forced them into her vagina repeatedly ( I think she said 7 or 8 times but I am not certain. ). In Court she said as a result she was sore for several weeks later. 

Evidence - She was subject to a thorough and expert clinical examination and no evidence was found to support this accusation , and I mean absolutely nothing, these clinicians are specialists and very thorough. I said I put one finger down there to make sure she was ready to engage in sex as I didn't want to hurt her. The police clinician took finger tip DNA from me. I have documented evidence from the police themselves that they destroyed the fingertip evidence pre-trial without ever having it analysed and assesssed, under instruction from the Crown office ( I did not become aware of this until after my conviction.) They still actually charged and convicted me of this accusation, when I can categorically state that this DNA evidence would have disproven the accusation, why would anybody do that to a woman? How is it fair to destroy this evidence and continue with the charge at trial?

I will cover the rest of the  DNA evidence in the time order that it became available to me a little later on within this site, but trust me it is mind-blowing stuff. The point of this evidence section is to demonstrate that there was no credible evidence at all and still isn't, to support a trial let alone a conviction. There is however an incredible amount of evidence to corroborate my position and completely contradict, to the point of ridicule, that of the accuser.

If you sit back and consider it objectively, before the DNA evidence comes into consideration, by virtue of her texts and her daughters own police statement ,the couple of hours she spent in Court claiming to feel trapped, dragged around, threatenend, etc are all already disproved long before the trial started, in fact about 2 hours after the accusation was made. Texting 'everythings Ok' and then telling her daughter we 'walked hand in hand to the bedroom, kissed in the doorway , undressed each other and got into bed naked and that was OK', clearly demonstrates in her own words that everything was proven to be  happy and consensual.

 It was what happened after that that I could not prove in Court, primarily because the DNA evidence had not been disclosed, so it was just a case of he said, she said, although the independent clinical evidence clearly supported my version of events compared to the accusers.  However I would say that given the level of dishonesty already shown by the accuser it is difficult to understand how she has any credibility at all even before we consider the DNA evidence, and how a competent and fair Crown office would actually proceed with a trial.

So consider this. In order for a trial to proceed the Crown Office (COPFS) is required to review the evidence and assure themselves that there is a sufficiency of corroborated evidence to justify the trial and achieve a conviction. Corroboration means that all of the evidence used should be verfied by a separate other piece of evidence/source. What they actually had was expert DNA evidence (unbeknown to me because the COPFS failed to disclose it and  my lawyer lied to me about it) that clearly indicated that no rape occurred, a full clinical report indicating no evidence whatsoever to support the allegation,  a picture of an unidentifiable arm with a bruise on it, and an unchallenged independent expert witness  prepared to testify that it was highly improbable that I could have caused the bruise. Lastly a police interview statement from me stating all interaction was friendly  and consensual, with partial penetration for a few seconds,which was, barring one sentence, corroborated by all of the DNA evidence, all of the expert independent clinical evidence, all of the text messages in real time, and the police statement of the accusers own daughter. 

There was never a case to answer, but the COPFS chose to hide the DNA evidence from the defence team, the judge and the jury, and proceeded to prosecute me for repeated rape. There is no smoking gun,I have not conveniently left anything out, the truth is the truth. 

As an aside, when the detectives released me on bail after interviewing me they actually said this to me ' we think you'll be OK just be careful who you invite round to your house in future'. Now these were the same detectives who had just interviewed my accuser. That should tell you exactly what they thought of the accuser and her allegations, and what they thought of me. . 

At the time of the event I'd only been back in Scotland for about six months and didn't know any lawyers, so I asked the police if they knew any they could recommend. I went to a local lawyer in Ayr that they recommended. Now I come from two industries, aviation and the NHS, where people involved in public safety are in the vast majority of cases extremely honest and extremely professional. By the time I went to see a lawyer, about five days later, my mental health was suffering badly and to varying degrees it has been ever since. I told them exactly what had happened, what I had told the police, and what I thought really happened. 

In other words that I told the police very brief(literally seconds) and partial penetration(1 inch) took place (only because I thought I needed to justify the DNA evidence were it to indicate that my memory was incorrect), that on reflection I was unsure that pentration took place at all, and that they should get the DNA evidence which would clarify what had happended. It is an accepted and established fact that my lawyer never saw or asked the see the DNA evidence at any point pretrial or after my conviction. It is also proven via documented evidence from the lawyers themselves that they told me pre-trial that the DNA would simply demonstrate that intercourse took place and was therefore not relevant to a trial  based on a defence position of consent. I kept asking and they kept telling me that, and so eventually I was rail-roaded into a court defence of consentual penetration when all along the lawyer had never seen the evidence and it in fact demonstrated that no intercourse took place. I felt I would have to be crazy to go to Court and say penetration did not take place when the DNA evidence, as portrayed to me by my lawyer, indicated that it did. I felt I had no option and still feel that. 

If you think that's not credible consider this. The recent postmaster debacle saw plenty of those innocent people pleading guilty in Court on the advice of their lawyers when they knew they had not stolen the money as it was not in their bank accounts. It is a fact that good honest people, when facing horrendous charges in the highest of Courts, follow their lawyers advice. It does not make them guilty even if they plead guilty. In my case, as much as my lawyer tried to have me plead guilty, it was never going to happen because I knew I was innocent. What the postmaster scenario does do is prove that it is possible for innocent people to plead guilty, and it also demonstrates that the SCCRC poisition in my case ( you will learn this shortly) is completely untenable. When new evidence came to light, the postmasters convictions were quashed. Exactly the same situation occurs in my case, deliberately caused by the Crown office, and yet the SCCRC would state that 'their is no possibility that a miscarriage of justice has occurred' based solely on the fact that  I told the police initially that partial penetration did take place in error. It's also interesting that the SCCRC thinks I cannot change my police statement without losing credibility even when the new evidence corroborates it, yet my accuser changed her version of events on multiple occasions without any corroboration whatsoever, in fact in direct contradiction to the evidence, and that's OK. 

Now just in case you think I didn't tell my lawyer pretrial that no intercourse took place I have at least two witnesses happy to testify that I did (one of whom is a very senior and independent GP), an investigation report from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) which clearly documents that fact twice, and also an email proven to have been sent to my lawyer many months before the trial that also demonstrates this fact. Add my own testament to that and you have 5 pieces of evidence and four pieces of corroboration clearly proving they were told. 

When it comes to the fake bruise I found a picture of it laying on my lawyers desk and he told me what it was. By now, over a year in, I was getting very unhappy with my lawyers. When I first  met my junior advocate  who was to represent me in Court they spent most of the consultation trying to get me to plead guilty! They never listened to me then and never have since.

Going back to the bruise I knew 100% that was fake and was completely losing faith with my lawyer so I called the Police to report the crime of faking evidence and therefore attempting to pervert the course of justice. I have a transcript of this call. They refused to accept my report and told me to raise it with my lawyer (since when did we not report crimes to the police? ). I reported this to my lawyer via email (which I still have) and asked them to robustly challenge the voracity of the photo. Now this is different to the evidence of Professor Bussitil who as strongly as he could stated it was highly improbable (in risk assessment world that means look he didn't do it) that I caused it due to the timelines involved and the presentation of the bruise. Challenging the voracity means challenging the fact that it ever existed and if it did how it was created. Here again my lawyer ignored me and did nothing and so the photo was allowed to be used in Court despite it being impossible to corroborate it . It is proven that my lawyer did nothing as after my conviction I actually wrote to the prosecuting advocate (i.e. the man who led the trial against me in Court and presumably the man who decided to withold the DNA evidence) and he documented in his response letter that to the best of his knowledge that 'the voracity of the bruise photo was never challenged in Court.' 

So in summary it is proven that my lawyers never saw the DNA evidence, lied to me about it's content, and then represented me with a defence of consensual intercourse, which I had no option but to run with because of their statement regarding the DNA evidence. 

Had they bothered to get the DNA evidence my defence would have been that no intercourse took place. The only other evidence the prosecution had was a bruise photo that should never have been admissable evidence because you cannot verify whose arm it is a picture of, let alone that the bruise depicted was either made by me ( the expert witness said no remember) or even real. 

Add in the fact that he Crown offered no contradicting expert opinion to say that I did cause it, the fact that it was allowed to be used in Court without even a challenge from my lawyer is laughable. 

My lawyers sent me into Court completely unprepared, and unaware of most of the nonsense that was going to be spoken in Court . Nevertheless I knew I was innocent and did not conceiveof the idea that the Crown office hides and destroys evidence, or that lawyers operating at the highest level could be negligent , dishonest and incompetent. Nor did I think that the Crown Office would deliberately and knowingly try and convict an innocent man. If you think that's bad what comes next is even worse. 

My trial took place at Glasgow' s High Court in late October 2018 and I was convicted by a majority decision (so even without the DNA evidence one or some of the jury were not happy to convict me) of one count each of rape, using force and digital penetration. There was not and still isn't a shred of credible corrobated evidence to support my conviction. 

The trial was very surreal . Fifteen strangers made up the jury of which 8 were women and 7 were man. My problem with jury selection in general is this. The jury aren't vetted to see if they,or any members of their families, have been the victim of a sexual crime. Whilst I am sure these were all good people, I have no doubt that were I on a jury,and I had direct or indirect experience of a rape, I 'm sure it would be entirely possible that I might be unwittingly prejudice against a man accused of rape. To demonstrate just exactly how poor the Scottish jury system is, 3 months after I was released on parole in 2022 I received a citation to appear for jury service! I kid you not!

As is proven by my case the systems in place at the centre of Scottish justice are either non-existent or fatally flawed.

Anyway my trial starts with my accuser giving evidence. She shouts screams, cries and carries on and the jury look deeply concerned, and on the face of it so they should. I'm sitting there listening to a description of what she alleged happened and her evidence bears absolutely no relation to her initial police statement, zero relation to what actually happened and is mostly easily disproven by a competent lawyer. The problem I had was that I was the only person, (along with the prosecution legal team) in the room who knew it was utter nonsense. So the prosecution get her to say everything twice to get better effect whilst knowing that the DNA evidence that they have seen (and I have not) renders her version of events completely impossible. 

Once she has spent maybe 2 to 3 hours inventing the impossible she is then cross-examined by my lawyer . Their genius strategy is to get her to repeat all of the allegations again and then shoot her down at the end with a big finish .Clearly my lawyer knows little about human psychology as she effectively gave the accuser another hour in front of the jury to scream and cry some more. The prosecution however were highly skilled in the psychology. They had her give evidence from a separate room in a closed Court giving the impression she was heavily traumatised and in fear of me. By closing the Court it also meant that anybody who knew she was lying could not hear her evidence or repeat it.  

I would remind you that all of the commissioned experts in the clinical world and the DNA world will tell you there is no evidence to support the accusation, let alone the incredible events she described in Court.It is impossible to effectively beat up and repeatedly rape somebody whilst totally drunk and leave no evidence clinically or with regard to DNA, and that had become her allegation. In reality we never even had a cross word. When my lawyer did catch her out (if anyone tells that many lies even my lawyer will eventually catch you out) she screamed in panic and asked for a break. Everytime that happened at the restart my lawyer failed to pursue that line of questioning and moved on without challenge. 

Next lets talk about the bruise. The prosecution attempted to corroborate that evidence by using her daughter in Court (remember the daughters husband,a serving police officer, had already distanced himself from it by signing a police statement saying he'd never seen it.) She said in Court 'that's my mums arm because that 's her bracelet.' She corroborated a picture of a bracelet on a random arm and made no mention  of the bruise.  She didn't say 'that's the bruise I saw on my mums arm for three weeks that my husband never even saw a picture of.' As usual my lawyer did not pick up on this. 

At this juncture I will point out that I wanted my lawyer to call the son-in-law as a witness and they refused. The reason they gave was that in a police statement he said that he saw a red dot on his mother-in-laws wrist on the night of the event and my lawyer thought that added credence to the bruise accusation. I thought that was bloody ridiculous for four reasons.

Firstly the fake bruise had already been discredited by the only expert witness required to analyse it, and that evidence was not being contested. 

Secondly, the fake bruise on the photo was clearly half way up the forearm and nowhere near the wrist . 

Thirdly, the police clinicians examined the accuser after the son-in-law alleged her saw a red spot and found nothing. 

Lastly and most importantly, what the son-in-law said in his first police statement was this or something very similar 'she called and said some guy had tried to have sex with her'. Now I would contest that most people , had they just been brutally and repeatedly raped (although I accept in real cases the stress and shock may well result in irrational behaviour), simply would not say that.  Tried to have sex implies that sex did not actually occur does it not?

Nor would they delay the police access to the only piece of physical evidence they have for over 3 weeks before presenting a photo of a bruise that no longer existed, when the police could and would have gone to see the physical bruise in real time at anytime time had it existed. Indeed they did ask but she refused.

So at the trial the bruise picture comes out and the woman and her daughter both talk about it to the jury for about half an hour each. When it comes to the cross examination my lawyer calls our one expert witness to the stand to talk to his report, Professor Bussutil. Only problem is my lawyer has forgotten to cite him to appear and he is at his work in Edinburgh. 

So my legal team only intended to have one witness to support my defence and they forgot to send him the paperwork. That is the level of negligence and incompetence that I had been dealing with for over a year. My lawyer said it didn t matter as the prosecution accepted his report without contest and the jury was given a copy. But the point here is the psychology of it all again. They spend an hour lying about the bruise we hand the jury a piece of paper within one minute of real focus. Hardly the same impact, and incredibly I was convicted of using force when this was the only piece of evidence to support it and which the expert witness had effectively discredited.  

In the end my defence was conducted so badly that I was forced to give evidence when for the previous year I had been told I didn't need to because I had given a comprehensive police interview. As you can guess I was completely unprepared. What's more I am the world's worst and most nervous public speaker. I don t need to be guilty to look guilty when I'm public speaking as I get very nervous. 

The prosecutor when cross-examining me easily made me look stupid. Whilst I have serious concerns about his moral compass, ability-wise he was the polar opposite of my lawyer.

He just started a list of accusations and said so this didn 't happen and that didn't happen? as my accuser had said. I just kept saying no it didn't to every aspect as the evidence clearly proved that, he knew that and i knew that. 

The problem was he would not let me add on because while the evidence was accusation x, y, or z. , he just wanted me to say yes or no. So when he said 'so you didn't drag her to the bedroom, that didn 't happen?'  I had to reply 'no'. When he said 'so you didn't throw her on the bed, that didn't happen? I had to reply 'no'. And so it went on......What I wanted say was'  well you know I didn't because your own prosecution witness, the accusers daughter, has already stated 'they walked hand-in-hand to the bedroom, kissed and undressed each other in the doorway, and got into bed naked and that was OK'

My problem here is twofold. 

Firstly he is bullying an innocent man and he knows that because he's seen all of the evidence including the DNA evidence which I have not at this point. Pre-trial he has actually reached an agreement with my lawyer to have a trial based on consent when he already knows that it's a million to one that any intercourse took place, and pretty much impossible that a repeated rape took place. Yet that is how he framed the trial, and my lawyer ignorant of the DNA evidence agreed to it.

Secondly I fully expected that when he finished that my lawyer would get up and rubbish all of the points by virtue of the known evidence that disproved them. Instead she just sat there and looked at me. At that point I genuinely thought I either have the worst lawyer that ever lived or they are working with the prosecution to get me convicted. Based on all of the evidence I have, my opinion (and I'm entitled to one), is that either or both could actually be true.

The last thing that happens is the summing up . So the prosecution give a long speech on how they have proved I am guilty , not bad with no credible evidence and all of the expert individual evidence providing no corroboration of a crime taking place , let alone me being guilty of anything other than being stupid enough to invite a pathological liar to my home. 

In my lawyers' summing up, she gave a five minute lecture to a jury full of adults, on why people  tell lies, even then she forget to tell them that under Scottish law if you make a sexual allegation you are entitled to financial compensation, and the worse the accusation the higher the financial reward.  After that she just said I was innocent because my evidence was the same as the accusers daughter , but failed to break it down into all of the specific points and all of the evidence that demonstrated the whole accusation had been utter nonense. Later I asked her if there was a time limit set for her summing up speech because it was so short and lacking in detail. The answer was no.

Then the Judge gave his speech to the jury. He was fair but when he said evidence given with emotion could be given  more weight than evidence given with no emotion I was staggered. Pre-trial, and they admit this, my lawyer told me to show no emotion!

So it would appear that in Scotland if you scream and shout whilst blatantly lying in Court, that evidence has more weight than the evidence of someone who simply and quietly tells the obvious truth.

After three hours I was heading for Barlinnie, life in ruins and my partner was on a train home to live by herself and take three months off work with stress in disbelief at what had been allowed to take place. 

But it still gets worse, a lot worse.  

So I go to Barlinnie which is frankly a Victorian shit-hole. You share a very small space with a complete stranger who has a similar conviction for 23 hours a day. You share a 14inch TV and a toilet whose door doesn't shut properly  right next to your bunk bed. You are entititled to one phone call per day. The meals are pretty grim but the staff, to be fair, are generally pretty good and during my 3 years and 2 months in prison I would say generally the staff do a very difficult and dangerous job very well, and for a lot less money that I would do it for. If you want trouble they'll give you it, particularly in Barlinnie, but it's always worth remembering it's not their fault you're in there. 

Anyway, after being found guilty I'm held until sentencing which will be done upon completion of a social work report (but I didn't know that). I'm sure social work is a difficult job and due to this event I have worked closely with four of them. Three of them have been very helpful, sensible, professional and basically a credit to their profession. One has been an absolute disgrace and it staggers me that they are still in employment in that profession. The disgrace was the one who appeared in Barlinnie to conduct an interview that I didn't even know would take place until it did. 

So they turn up and you're dragged out of your cell. It transpires this interview will generate a report to be used by the judge to help him give me the appropriate sentence. Just think about that, two strangers are going to assess me , a complete stranger, for about an hour, using nothing but a pen and a bit of paper. Subsequently I have seen the guidance for how these reports are to be written and I can tell you the first report on me was audited and had over 100 non-compliances with the national guidelines. 

I would argue that at the time of this interview I was a vulnerable adult, completely bewildered by what was happening to me. The last thing I needed was a couple of social workers to write a non-evidenced and frankly ridiculious character assassination of me. 

They trotted out what I now realise is the stereotypical nonsense that is meant to reflect the attitudes and lifestyle of a typical man convicted of a sexual offence. They told me that it was impossible that I was innocent, and threw in such crackers as misogynistic, couldn't hold down a long term relationship, couldn't name anybody with whom I had a meaningful relationship, only used women for sex and money ,etc, etc. There was no evidence to support any of this, and they also failed to talk to anyone that knew me including my most recent employers or my live-in female partner. 

I had, 7 months earlier, been a nominated finalist for the practice manager of the year award nominated by a practice which was staffed by 98% women, the idea having been initiated by a female joint owner of the business. 

I had been married twice and been in 4 long-term relationships, my current Mrs, whom I was living with  at the time, was visting me 3 times a week ( we've now been together for over 7.5 years) etc,etc, you get the idea. It is also a fact that at the time of the accusation and conviction I was working for a highly reputable GP practice in Glasgow. I immediately told the GP partners of the accusation even though I was not required to do so. I offered my resignation to make it easy for them to get rid of me, instead of accepting it they unanimously agreed that I should stay on. Hardly indicative of the type of person the social work report had portrayed me as.

As a result of this report I got 6 years in prison, my appeal lawyer reckoned I would have got 5 without it. 

I sacked my court lawyer immediately after the trial and asked my friend and previous employer, a Senior GP, if he could recommend a new one for the appeal process. He came back with a well known firm who said they would take on my case and quoted me £20k-£30k for the work.

They also wanted £1000 to sort out my power of attourney documents so my Mrs could manage my money. They seemed far more interested in getting money out of me than empathising with an innocent man. We got another firm to do the power of attourney for £400 and they advised we'd be mad to pay £30k for an appeal when we qualified for legal aid. When this was relayed to my new lawyer they lost interest instantly. 

I was sentenced late December 2018 to 6 years in prison. On Christmas Eve a representative from my new lawyers turned up just to say hello ( whilst visiting other prisoners) and said he'd back in the first week of January to take instructions. Unbeknown to me an appeal has a time limit and if you miss it you're done. Turned out I think it was 8 weeks, not certain now. I called and I wrote to the new lawyer repeatedly but nobody appeared. I got frustrated as I was having to use my one call a day to call my lawyer and not my Mrs. When I complained, I kid you not , they said to me 'you've got six years what's the rush?' 

On the last day of my appeal timeline a woman arrived unannounced. It was her last day at work for the firm and she told me I had no grounds to appeal. Not bad when I hadn't even spoken to a qualified advocate or Counsel for the entire period. Later I complained and asked why they had not, as requested , got the DNA evidence as I had been requesting. Their genuine response was 'we won't be getting the DNA evidence, Mr Summers seems to think that an appeal is a re-run of the trial and it is not.'

Given the DNA was witheld from my trial getting it could hardly be considered a re-run, but new evidence that demonstrates a failure to comply with the laws of disclosure and a massive indication that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. A bit more went on with this firm and it is all evidenced but I'll save it for the book. Suffice to say , in my opinion, they are arrogant people who fit in well with the toxic culture that underpins Scottish justice. We parted company

So now I have no lawyer and no real hope of getting out of prison as the  appeal  timeline has passed. I offer my Mrs the chance to leave me amicably as she did not sign up for this. Being the legend that she is she prefers to get engaged - I couldn't have got through it without her. 

I now have no lawyer. 

I write to the COPFS 5 times in the next 18 months requesting they disclose the DNA evidence - you don't have to be a genius (lawyers take note) to realise that if they hid it there is a high probability it contains something they don't want me to see. Five times I get a letter back saying no. The sixth time I write a compassionate request and they reply dated 8th June 2020. They provide a cut and paste of a DNA report. 

Whilst it demonstrates the consensual foreplay as I expected all along, at least as accurately as I can remember it, the evidence regarding penetration is staggering. Before I quote it let me tell you the procedure for perspective. When the police, or a clinician working for the police, investigates a crime they are not necessarily looking for the truth. What they are actually looking for is evidence to support the accusation as their priority. So the clinicians' remit is not to find evidence that I am innocent but to explore everything meticulousy to find absolutely any evidence, however minute, that might deomonstrate my guilt. 

The report states this -

' The reference DNA sample from Elliott Summers was analysed and the DNA profile obtained used for comparison purposes. 

Swabs taken  from Elliott Summers

Frenulum wet and dry swab

Urethral Meatus dry swab

Penile shaft wet and dry swabs

The above swabs were separately analysed and on each occasion the DNA profile matched that of the donor of the swabs, Elliott Summers

In our opinion, our findings from the vaginal* and penile swabs do not assist us in addressing whether Elliott Summers had vaginal intercourse with AB** as alleged'

* The exact swabs taken from AB are not listed as that is not considered disclosable to me, even though I am representing my self.

** AB are not my accusers initials.

I would like to put on record my gratitude to the staff member at the COPFS who broke ranks to disclose this information. No doubt they have fathers, brothers, husbands or sons who are also at risk of these malicious failures to disclosure the most important evidence in allegations of sexual offences.

So what does this report actually mean? Well it means that after 40 years of DNA development we find ourselves in an era where the DNA techniques and technology are so good that men are being convicted of crimes from at least 40 years ago because the slighest trace of their DNA is being found on something like a bra strap. In my case the DNA was a few hours old and uncontaminated , this is indicated by good traces being found to support the consensual foreplay. But despite this incredible expertise and technology not a single trace of any kind was found on my accuser or me to support an allegation of rape. 

Considering I was accused and tried for 'repeated' rape in a consecutive timeline we all know this DNA result does a bit more than create reasonable doubt about my conviction and the fairness of my trial. 

Therefore one would think that this newly disclosed evidence would result in me being fast-tracked out of prison, with an apology and a compensation package to follow? Not a chance, the true level of secrecy, dishonesty, conspiracy , and corruption are just a twinkle in the distance so far. A big bastard blast of it is about to unfold.   

.

Before we go any further I want to share something very important with you and it is something I will remind you of again at the end of this section.  It is the definition of corruption as defined by the UK Parliament House of Lords library. 

It states 'corruption can be defined as dishonest and illegal behaviour by people in positions of power.'

Hold on to that thought.

In Scotland the only way to get out of prison before your sentence has ended is either by parole (not available until at least 50% of your sentence has been served so in my case 3 years) or by an application to the Scottish Criminal Case Review Committee (SCCRC).

This committee claims to exist to review applications where a mis

carriage of justice may have occurred and where sufficient evidence exists to meet the criteria to refer cases back to the appeal Court when the potential for miscarriage of justice exists. To date they have refused two applications of mine since the DNA evidence became available. 

So let's look at those applications and the reasons cited by the SCCRC to support their view that their is no potential that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. 

So clearly the first point of appeal is the failure to disclose the DNA evidence. 

The law in Scotland states that the prosecutor must

 disclose to the defence all information that would materially* weaken or undermine the evidence that is likely to be led by the prosecutor or  that would materially strengthen the accused's case. Where there is any doubt the materiality of the information it should be disclosed. This law remains in perpetuity (in other words it should be disclosed even if it becomes available say 10 years after the event)

* 'material' in this context is defined as information that has some bearing on any offence under investigation or any person being investigated.

The European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR), a convention that the Scottish legal system is obliged to follow makes things even simpler. It simply states that in order to receive a fair trial the accused should have disclosed all evidence gained via any investigations undertaken by the prosecution. We don't even have to argue about  materiality. 

So clearly any normal person of any intelligance level about that of a brussel sprout knows that DNA evidence that indicates that no penetration took place in case where a man is accused of repeated rape doesn' just weaken or undermine the prosecution case, it completely destroys it. It also destroys the credibility of the accuser.  We also need to remember here it wasn't just the DNA evidence itself that was not disclosed , it was also a report from an expert witness whose own testimony would have been witness number one for the defence. Because the evidence wasn't led in Court the prosecution are entitled to , and have, destroyed the DNA evidence so that it can never be analysed from a defence perspective. Evidence used in court has to be kept indefintely for sexual offence cases the same as a murder trial. To this day they (Crown office and the SCCRC) still refuse to disclose the full DNA expert report, one can only surmise that it contains further evidence that undermines my conviction, otherwise why not disclose it? The same logic applies to their position in it's entirety. If the DNA report would have made no difference to my trial why would you not disclose? We all know their position is utter bullshit. It wasn't disclosed because it renders their allegation completely untenable. FACT. End of.

Hands up anyone who thinks I had a fair trial! 

The truth is had the DNA been disclosed as it was legally required to be, my lawyer could not have rail roaded me into a defence of consent and my defence would in fact have been no penetration took place as I told my lawyer five days after the allegation, and I would have 2 DNA expert witnesses supporting my position.

So to the SCCRC response. Now you would think given their remit that this new evidence would have them convinced that their may have been the potential for a miscarriage of justice to have occurred. Not a chance. This is what they actually said ' the DNA evidence in this case was not material'.

At the time there was a similar case in England and there the CCRC paid for a DNA  expert to analyse the evidence from a defence perspective. Quite obviously the right thing to do. I asked the SCCRC if they had done this in my case and they said no and they wouldn't be doing it, the reason being my DNA was found on her breast! This is Scotland's  elite legal team for investigating miscarriages of justice and the only gateway back to Court for an innocent person who has been imprisoned. Since when does DNA found a breast demonstrate/prove that rape has occurred? More bullshit. 

Within this application to the SCCRC I also cited defective representation as a further cause for a miscarriage of justice. Now the criteria to be met there are these and they are straight off the SCCRC website.   

Defective reprepresentation is either;

*A failure to present the instructed defence,or

**Conducting the defence in a way that no competent lawyer could. 

So in my case I have demonstracted to the SCCRC the following;-

*I told my lawyer on first contact 14months before my trial that I was unsure that intercourse took place and instructed her to get the DNA evidence to clarify. I have two witnesses to this both of whom the SCCRC refuse to talk to.

* I have documented evidence from an independent source (the Scottish Legal Complaints Committee) that I documented twice well before the trial that no intercourse took place. 

* I have documented evidence , again from the SLCC, that my lawyer lied to me about the DNA evidence and that she never saw it or even requested to see it 

* It is now a documented fact that the DNA evidence supports the position strongly of zero intercourse taking place and therefore a defence of no intercourse taking place should have been the defence position. 

* It is a documented fact that I asked my lawyer to investigate the fake bruise and challenge its voracity in the strongest manner possible, after discussing the matter with the police.

*It is a fact the she did nothing at all regarding my instruction regarding the bruise, this is proven via documented evidence from the prosecuting advocate himself. 

The SCCRC response. The defective representation evidence is 'not stateable.' Stateable I understand to beleive to mean not credible! More bullshit. 

There are two asides here that deeply concern me. One is that a good friend of my lawyer in question works for the SCCRC although they state she 'played no part in the decision making'. 

The other is this . When I worked in aviation or the NHS every staff member and indeed customer took responsibility for safety. Therefore everytime a safety issue arised it was reported, investigated and resolved in a blame free way proving a just 'culture'. Here we have the lawmakers themselves breaking the law on disclosure ad infinitum, clear evidence of incompetence and negilgence  of lawyers, one of which is working in the highest Court in Scotland. All of this has been reported to all of the appropriate authrorities , and yet absolutely nothing has changed 7 years later. I'll tell you why that is at the end. 

In their response to my submission the SCCRC told me in writing that the required court recordings of my trial had been corrupted, and specifically the recordings relating to the prosecution evidence. These recordings are a legal requirement as they represent the only independent unbiased record of what was said and done during my trial. I asked how and why they were corrupted but nobody can/will tell me. They said they were checked before and after every session and an alarm would go off if they failed. So in this situation if one wanted to charge the accuser with perjury the evidence has effectively been destoyed. I'll come back to that shortly. 

Perturbed by the blatant lies being told to me by the SCCRC and recognising that corruption here is happening on a national scale, I decided to write to the Lord Advocate. The person occupying this role is basically responsible for the entire processes of the Crown prosecution service. Just like the SCCRC correspondence I have copies of all my corresponce with the Lord Advocate. I wrote in my first letter pretty much everything you've read so far that was relevant to them. I got a response from a minnion, presumably the Lord Advocate is too busy and important to read about corruption within her department. However, I was eager for them to be aware to give them an opportunity to sort it out, thereby making this website unnecessary. (I never wanted to put any of this in the public domain but I have exhausted every other avenue). So I explained my case and evidence to a local MP who agreed to write a short letter on my behalf. The Lord Advocate herself did respond so now she cannot claim to be unaware. She was asked why the DNA was not disclosed and was she satisfied that a suffiency of evidence existed to put me on trial in the first place. I found the response truly staggering for somebody operating at that level with a responsibility for public safety. 

For the record I spent a long time in Air Traffic Control eventually working as the ATC manager for 3 Uk Airports and therefore the legally accountable person' for safety. I ve also worked as an Airport Operations Director, and a regional ATC Inspector for the Civial Aviation Authority with joint accountability for the safety and regulatory oversight of 22 UK airports. Had anybody at all written to me with any safety concerns  while exercising the safety oversight required for such roles they would have got a lot more than a one line reply.

The Lord Advocates response was that the DNA was not material and that I was represented by a lawyer so it was up to them to challenge the sufficiency of evidence. For me both appalling reponses. So when it comes to the DNA evidence , the Lord Advocate herself, and the SCCRC would both publicly state that DNA expert evidence that indicates that no rape took place in a case where a man is accused of repeated rape has no relevance to the trial whatsoever

Yet I guarantee had the DNA evidence indicated penetration did take place it would have been the first piece of evidence used in the Court against me as that was the reason for undertaking the DNA examination in the first place. What they are saying with regard to the sufficiency of evidence reponse is this. They have no standards of their own, they rely on a competent defence lawyer to hold them to account rather than applying their own standards. Therefore if you have an incompetent and/or negligent lawyer you are fucked. Nobody should be convicted just because their lawyer is either. 

I hope if you are reading this for the first time you are truly shocked and disgusted. I was five years ago but the more I've looked into it the more I've realised there are 100s of people being convicted in exactly the same way. Next time it could be your father, husband, brother or son, so it's up to you if you do nothing. As a minimum I would suggest you have them read this website. How do they get away with it ? I'll come to that shortly but there's a little more to come before I get to that. 

When you know you're innocent and you've already proven it but nobody is listening , what the corrupt people want you to do is give up and go away quietly. Once rejected by the SCCRC there is the one  option left and that is  to ask for a judicial review.  The problems here are many. Firstly after six years of not working I have little money left as I don't even qualify for benefits. I qualify for legal aid but for the past 3 years I have been unable to hire a lawyer as they don't want to work for legal aid and I don't blame them. The biggest problem however is this. If you actually win your judicial review they just send it back to the SCCRC!! You couldn't make it up! One would have thought they'd already proved their incompetence by virtue of having to send it for a judicial review in the first place. Only in Scottish law would somebody think that is a good process.

Anyway I decided not to give up. I could not and still cannot understand how anybody can dsismiss the evidence of an expert witness without  first challenging it with an alternative independent expert witness. So here's another completely ridiculous situation. In the UK a private individual can only instruct a DNA expert if they go through a lawyer. For three years I've been unable to instruct a lawyer and even if I could why should I pay them a fee for something I'm perfectly capable of  doing myself. Undeterred I found a highly reputable DNA expert with a worldwide profile who was prepared to look at the evidence and provide a report. I instructed a firm called Linked Forensic Consultants Ltd, based in New Zealand ,and run by an expert called Sean Doyle. He returned a report that was not  a 100% conclusion because a) it's science so it is rarely 100% because of variables specific to each case, b) the original actual DNA evidence had been destroyed and C) he requested further information on how the original test and report were conducted. 

In line with the entirety of the COPFS and SCCRC strategy, as expected,they have thus far refused to disclose the information requested at point c). In fact I will go farther than that I will state that thus far the COPFS refuse to disclose evidence that was used in a public trial to me unless it was said by me. How am I supposed to defend myself if I do not have access to the evidence? I would also say that thus far the SCCRC have refused to accept the credibility of any evidence from expert witnesses, this includes DNA experts, clinical experts, the SLCC and the police.They also refuse to speak to two independent witnesses, one of whom is a Senior GP with impeccable credentials who is highly unlikely to ruin his distinguished career by committing perjury to help me. in short they refuse to talk to anybody or accept any evidence, even though it is absolutely everywhere, if it disproves their predetermined position that I am guilty and I had a fair trial. I even asked them to tell me how I could have committed the crime - no response. We all know it's impossible.

Anyway I digress. The new DNA report. It was limited for the reasons stated but basically said what we all know. That the most probable reason for the DNA result was that no penetration took place, and when it comes to a repeated rape accusation even more likely again that no penetration took place. So I submitted a new submission to the SCCRC including this new report. I also put forward the case that the loss of the Court recordings meant that I could not get a fair appeal as all of the lies told in Court were lost and therefore I was unable to challenge them with new  evidence. I cited a case in another country where a man was sentenced to 64 years for murder. In that case his trial records were corrupted and he was freed because he could not get a fair appeal. I also quoted the ECHR requirements on disclosure and asked them how my trial met those requirements. 

The SCCRC response was to basically ignore and discredit the new DNA report however not by virtue of an alternative DNA expert witness, just simply the lawyers and lay people on the SCCRC decided they knew more than two DNA experts. They also stated that they believed I only 'changed' my position to one of no penetration after I got the DNA results and that my counsel was fully competent and had challenged the bruise evidence because she said so. Lastly they stated they could see no connection between the loss of court records and a claim of an unfair appeal and refused to investigate why and how the recordings were lost as if they were a luxury not a requirement in the first place. No mention at all of the ECHR requirements. 

To reach this position they have ignored the laws of Scotland regardi

ng disclosure and the requirements of the ECHR regarding the same. 

They have ignored the evidence of two DNA experts without a single expert witness to counter this evidence.

The have ignored the expert clinical evidence of the police clinicians and a professor who specialises in bruises.

They have condoned the destruction of relevant DNA pre-trial. 

They have ignored the evidence of the prosecuting advocate himself.

They have ignored the evidence provided by email documentation clearly in advance of my trial telling the lawyer no penetration took place.

They have ignored the evidence of the SLCC that clearly documents me telling my lawyer the same, not once, but twice. 

They have ignored and in fact refused to talk to two highly credible witness on the same subject. 

They have ignored the clearly proven dishonesty and negligence of my lawyer.

They have ignored the fact that the court recordings have been corrupted rendering  it impossible to get a fair appeal Given these recordings were corrupted post-trial, and given the actions of the COPFS in this case, they have refused to establish whether these recordings were corrupted maliciously. 

And the evidence to suppo

rt their position?

A faked bruise discredited by the expert witness whose evidence was uncontested

Ten seconds of an hour long police interview where I wasn't sure so I guessed without legal advice in a state of shock and duress. These 10 seconds still bear zero resemblance to the charges led in court, and still the DNA evidence would be far more reflective of that than the impossible claims of the accuser.

The uncorroborated and clearly disproven rantings of a pathological liar.

So the last question is how do the SCCRC and the COPFS get away with this?

It's pretty simple really, in reality they answer to nobody. They can write to me and tell me it won't get dark tonight and nobody would challenge it. I believe, in theory, they report to the Government but it's quite obvious to me that the accountability has been delegated down to them and they do as they please. 

They have absolutely no safety management system, no quality management system, and no competence scheme. As a result systemically they are making it up as they go along. Look at the way they operate, they will use a historic case to legitamise practices in a new case.  So in 5 years time they'll put some poor sod on trial for repeated rape, fail to disclose DNA evidence and convict an innocent man. Come the appeal they'll just cite the case of the Crown v Summers in 2018 as a precedent to demonstrate acceptability of that tactic. Eventually overtime there are no standards and that's where we are. 

It needs a regulator to hold these people to account and stop the malpractice. Look at DNA evidence, there is no reason why that cannot be disclosed every single time. It costs no more, the prosecution have it so all they need to do is put it on the computer for the defence. No extra cost, complete transparency ( as required by the ECHR) and a massive reduction in the miscacarriages of justice. The SCCRC needs ripped up and started again. In my opinion they do not exist to right wrongs. In my opinion they exist to underpin and support a corrupt COPFS and incompetent and negligent lawyers

Lastly there needs to be a massive cultural change. There seems to be a level of arrogance that I have never experienced before. Putting a wig and a cloak on doesn't make you a better human being than the rest of us. There are far better people doing far better things in the world with much better attitudes. The arrogance generates fear. I spoke to an experienced lawyer about my case and showed him the evidence. I said to him the whole thing is simply corrupt. Do you want to know what his reply was? He said 'I know but what do you expect me to do about it?'

CORRUPTION CAN BE DEFINED AS DISHONEST AND ILLEGAL BEHAVIOUR BY PEOPLE IN POSITIONS OF POWER

Thank you for your time, be safe and look after yourselves.