viernes, 27 de enero de 2012

Gun murder conviction appeal fails - The Press Association

A man who was jailed for life for the murder of a businessman over a drug debt has failed for the second time in a bid to have his conviction overturned.

William Gage, 40, was told at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh that his appeal had been refused.

He was ordered to serve at least 20 years in prison after he was convicted of shooting Justin McAlroy in Cambuslang in 2002.

Gage was previously unsuccessful in a 2006 attempt to have his conviction overturned. His latest appeal was referred to the court by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Mr McAlroy was shot repeatedly as he returned home to his pregnant wife in March 2002. The trial heard that Mr McAlroy was murdered over a £50,000 drug debt.

Glaswegian Gage has always claimed he is the victim of mistaken identity and that he may have suffered a miscarriage of justice. His appeal also sought to convince judges that he did not get a fair trial, and he challenged claims that a burned-out Saab car, which the trial heard acted as a getaway vehicle, had been used in the shooting.

Gage's appeal also criticised evidence in support of the identification of the clothing in the car as that worn by the killer and the identification by Mrs McAlroy of Gage as being the person leaving the scene of the murder.

On Friday judge Lord Hamilton, sitting with Lords Reed, Carloway, Mackay and Nimmo Smith, said in their written ruling: "Qualitative criticisms can undoubtedly be made of the evidence in each of these strands but, when the evidence is looked at as a whole, the case against the appellant was, in our view, compelling."

They added that they were not persuaded the trial was unfair. The decision concluded: "In all circumstances this appeal must be refused."

Speaking outside court, Gage's solicitor, Aamer Anwar, said: "For eight years William Gage has protested his innocence and we will continue to do so. He is deeply disappointed by the decision. Once we have an opportunity to read the judgment we will consider whether to seek an appeal to the Supreme Court."

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario