Mrs Margaret Irvine lived in Galston, Ayrshire. She was 91 years old and had been a widow for over 30 years.

Mrs Irvine had lived alone for over 25 years and had been housebound for the last seven years of her life.

Physically Mrs Irvine was infirm and needed to use an electric stair life and a zimmer-frame. However, she was a very independent old lady.

She lived alone in her semi detached villa. Her kitchen and living room was downstairs and she had two bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs.

Her carers supplied her with meals but she was able to dress herself and move about with the aid of the zimmer-frame and her stair lift.

Around the 4th July 2003, someone broke into her house during the night and had taken purses and money totalling about £1000. Due to her age, this had been the subject of publicity and village gossip.

It would be fair to say that this break in had traumatised the old lady.

Carers would come to the house sometime between 7.30 am and 9.30 am.The carer had a key to the side door to gain access to the house. The carer would provide breakfast for Mrs Irvine.

Her normal breakfast was half a bread roll with butter and jam. The carer would spend between 20 minutes to half an hour with Mrs Irvine. After the carer left, Mrs Irvine would get up, dress herself and go downstairs.

Lunch was provided by the Social Work Department and another carer would call in, in the evening.

Different carers provided care at weekends from those who provided care during the week.

In 2003, Mrs Mary McQuarrie had been a care assistant for three years. She provided the early mornings for the weekend shifts.It was she who had provided care on 28 September 2003. Mrs McQuarrie arrived that morning at 7am. She used the key to get into the house.

She went upstairs and spoke to Mrs Irvine and asked what she wanted for breakfast.She gave Mrs Irvine her breakfast and said she put on a lamp next to the bed.She sat with her until Mrs Irvine ate her half of bread roll and a cup of tea.

Mrs McQuarrie said that Mrs Irvine seemed fine that morning and Mrs Irvine had told her that she intended to, “have a lie in”.

Mrs Irvine’s instructions to Mrs McQuarrie were to leave the house unlocked to allow others to come in.

Mrs Violet Connell had been a home help for 29 years. After her retirement she had continued at Mrs Irvine’s request to continue to provide care for her.Each Wednesday Mrs Connell provided one hour of care and she did the housework also.On Saturdays and Sundays, Mrs McConnell would go into see Mrs Irvine for half an hour and give her tea.

The rest of the week, Mrs Irvine received some assistance from Social Services.

Mrs McConnell said that Mrs Irvine was alert mentally and a strong willed woman, but was housebound.On September 28th 2003, Mrs Connell arrived at Mrs Irvine’s home at 4.50pm.

Normally Mrs Irvine would be sitting on a chair waiting on Mrs McQuarrie but this day she was not. Mrs McQuarrie shouted upstairs to alert Mrs Irvine that she was there but received no reply.She went upstairs and saw Mrs Irvine slumped on her bed on her front. She was lying across the bed with her feet still on the ground.She was wearing her nightdress and pants.Mrs McQuarrie saw something sticking up from her hands which were behind Mrs Irvine’s back and thought it was the strap from her watch. She thought Mrs Irvine had taken a heart attack or stroke and it appeared to her that Mrs Irvine was dead.

She did not touch her and went to get help.The police and ambulance arrived and confirmed that Mrs Irvine was dead and that her hands were bound behind her back with a leather belt.She had one plate of her dentures in one hand and the other plate was found on the bed beneath her. Her face was covered with a sheet and when that was removed it was noted that a household duster had been forced into her mouth. Mrs Irvine suffocated due to the duster.She had 23 external injuries, which indic

Attempt to overturn murder conviction as legal team casts doubt on evidence
..................................
 ..................................
 ..................................
 ..................................
 ................

legal move as UK’s highest appeal court prepares to hear case

By John Bynorth, Home Affairs Editor

A MAN will take his bid to overturn his murder conviction to the UK's highest appeal court after the High Court blocked his appeal bid.

Brendan Dixon's legal team has argued that crucial witness statements, which they claim could have cleared him, were not disclosed to the defence at his trial.

Now Dixon has been granted leave to appeal directly to the judicial committee of the Privy Council after statements were uncovered which his legal team suggests cast serious doubts about whether his conviction for the murder of Margaret Irvine, 91, in 2003, is safe.

It is a rare legal move, with only a handful of cases every year winning an appeal directly to the council's judicial committee which sits as the final court of appeal on devolved issues.

If Dixon, 38, is successful, legal experts believe it could spark a number of similar appeals to the council on the controversial issue of non-disclosure of evidence.

One legal source told the Sunday Herald: "If the decision of the appeal court is overturned, and quite comprehensively, the Lord Advocate will presumably have to re-investigate a large number of cases where there has been non-disclosure.

"It's difficult to overstate how important this case is in trying to get at the issue of historical non-disclosure of evidence. It has been a shameful stain on the justice system. It's pretty obvious that full disclosure has not taken place with Dixon."

Dixon, 38, and his co-accused Patrick Docherty, 42, were found guilty at the High Court in Kilmarnock in May 2005 of Irvine's murder in Galston, Ayrshire, despite no forensic evidence linking them to the crime.

Their trial ended shortly before the practice of disclosure was tightened following the Privy Council's decision to quash the convictions of James Holland, who was convicted of assault and robbery, and Alvin Sinclair. In the case, the Crown's refusal to disclose documents at their trial was found to have breached their right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Docherty's appeal team has uncovered evidence which it claims was not presented to the defence, including a restaurant worker who wasn't called to give evidence, and non-disclosure is one of the grounds for his appeal. The witness also provided precognition testimony that she had seen two men outside the dead woman's house on the day her body was found. One of the men, who was picked out from a photo identification, gave evidence for the prosecution.

Dixon and Docherty's is one of a number of cases before the appeal courts which preceded the Holland and Sinclair case. Any decision in a Scottish case by the Privy Council's judicial committee, which sits in a courtroom in Downing Street, is binding on Scottish courts.

The development came after Lord Coulsfield, in a report commissioned by the previous administration, last year called on the government to introduce legislation to ensure that prosecutors are legally bound to hand over full information to defence lawyers before a trial. The government is consulting on the practice, which is already in force in England and Wales.

The legal source added: "It's a high risk strategy to go to the Privy Council as if it says no to the appeal on the grounds of disclosure that's it. It's ironic that given the nature of the legislation a court sitting outside Scotland has jurisdiction in criminal matters north of the border."

Dixon's lawyer Graham Cunningham said: "Had this evidence been available there might have been a different verdict and this decision is a big step forward. This information is beneficial to my client's appeal. The best scenar

The following press coverage shows conclusively that the DNA and Footprint found in this case does not match any of the Accused.
Strange how Crown want to rely on such evidence to convict but when the shoe is on the other foot the evidence of DNA and Footprints not matching is cast aside?

Kilmarnock Standard.........
---------------------------------------------------------------



Nephew of tragic Margaret angry at bid to free jail duo
Mar 9 2007

THE nephew of a murdered pensioner has slammed a campaign to free the men convicted of her killing.
Charles Keers was living next door to his 91-year-old aunt, Margaret Irvine, in Barward Road, Galston, when she was killed in September 2003 in what is thought to have been a botched robbery attempt.
And he was himself a witness in the High Court trial which led to two Ayrshire men being jailed for life.
Patrick Docherty, 43, of Dalmellington, and Brendan Dixon, 38, of Kilmarnock, were each ordered to serve a minimum of 25 years after a jury found them guilty of murder.
A murder charge against a third man — Colin Miller, 34, from Galston — was found not proven.
Now a campaign — backed by the Miscarriage of Justice Organisation — has been launched to have the two released.
But Mr Keers, 50, said that he was convinced that they were guilty.
“I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever,” he said. “I am 100 per cent certain.”
Mr Keers, who still lives in Galston, said that a leaflet produced by the campaigners, titled ‘Free the Kilmarnock 2’, had left him “annoyed and upset”.
“They even sent one to my local pub,” he said. “People were afraid to tell me because they knew I would be upset.”
Mr Keers was himself extensively questioned after the murder.
“I have no problem with that,” he said, “they had to cover every angle.”
The leaflet issued by campaigners for Dixon and Docherty claims the case against them was “based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence”.
Much of the key prosecution evidence during the five-week trial at the High Court in Kilmarnock consisted of admissions Dixon and Docherty were alleged to have made to third parties.
No forensic evidence was found which could be linked to any of the accused.
The co-founder of the Miscarriage of Justice Organisation, John McManus, said: “I have serious doubts about this case. I normally wouldn’t be so quick to jump in, but I do think these guys are innocent.”
And Kevin Donald claimed that there was fresh evidence in the case, which is expected to go to appeal in May or June.

The above appeal has been postponed because of the lack of and refusal of Crown to disclose Key evidence not heard at original trial.
There is a time set for a hearing for disclosure which again delays the Appeal date somewhat and in the meantime two Innocent men languish in Prison
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threats made to murder accused-------

Kilmarnock Standard............




A MAN cleared of the murder of a Galston pensioner was threatened as he helped a friend move a washing machine.

Colin Miller, who was found not guilty of the 2003 killing of 91-year-old Margaret Irvine, was branded a ‘murderer’ and a ‘paedophile’ during the row in a close in Galston’s Clinchyard Place in February last year.

At Kilmarnock Sheriff Court last week 36-year-old Kevin Gilmour was jailed for a total of 10 months after he was found guilty of threatening violence as well as committing a breach of the peace by shouting and swearing.

But the jury found an allegation that he had a knife on the same occasion not proven.

The majority verdicts came after a three-day trial during which evidence was led that Gilmour had chased Miller with a knife.

Brian Little, 25, of Clinchyard Place, told the court that Miller was helping him move a washing machine when Gilmour appeared and launched a tirad