I ask those who are leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so as quickly and quietly as possible.
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-09600, in the name of Russell Findlay, on the 50th anniversary of the murder of Margaret McLaughlin. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises that 6 July 2023 will mark the 50th anniversary of the murder of Margaret McLaughlin in Carluke, Lanarkshire; notes that Margaret McLaughlin was aged 23 when she was murdered while walking from her home to Carluke train station; further notes that the murder investigation was reportedly led by Detective Chief Superintendent William Muncie; recognises that the police investigation resulted in the arrest of the Carluke resident, George Beattie, who was a teenager at the time; notes that George Beattie was convicted of Margaret McLaughlin’s murder at the High Court in Glasgow in October 1973 and consequently spent around 15 years in prison; understands that George Beattie continues to deny his guilt and that his conviction has been the subject of a long-running campaign alleging it to be a miscarriage of justice; notes that the campaign was covered in the BBC documentary series, Rough Justice, which was produced by the journalist, Peter Hill; further notes campaigners’ concerns about the integrity of the police investigation; notes that those concerns were referenced in a speech made to the House of Commons in March 1993 by Jimmy Hood, who was then an MP; understands that the criminologist, Professor David Wilson, who is originally from Carluke, wrote a book about the murder of Margaret McLaughlin; notes that the book, Signs of Murder, which was published in July 2020, reportedly identifies a “more likely suspect”, who has since been named publicly as Les Jardine; understands that, in 2020, Margaret McLaughlin’s then fiance, Bob Alexander, spoke to the media for the first time since her murder; notes that Bob Alexander reportedly believes that George Beattie is innocent of Margaret McLaughlin’s murder and that he was “fitted up” by the police; understands that George Beattie believes that there is no available route to challenge his murder conviction, and notes the view that Police Scotland and the Crown Office should be encouraged to conduct a full review of the murder of Margaret McLaughlin.
17:22
George Beattie is innocent. Two years ago, those were the first words that I spoke in this chamber. I suspect that all MSPs remember their maiden speech and I am sure that we all carefully consider what we intend to say, so why did I begin my time as an MSP by saying that George Beattie is innocent of the murder of a young woman called Margaret McLaughlin? It is quite simply because I firmly believe that George Beattie is the victim of a miscarriage of justice—a miscarriage that casts a dark shadow across Scotland’s justice system and has done so for half a century.
Before I get much further, I would like to acknowledge the attendance of some guests this evening. George Beattie is in poor health and cannot be here, but his elder brother Robert Beattie and Robert’s wife, Anne, are in the public gallery. Robert and his family believe that George Beattie is innocent.
Also present is Peter Hill, the journalist who produced the BBC “Rough Justice” documentaries, which first shone a light on George Beattie’s conviction. Peter believes that George Beattie is innocent.
We are also joined by Bob Alexander and his wife, Elizabeth. In 1973, Bob was engaged to Margaret McLaughlin. Bob believes that George Beattie is innocent.
Let us go back to the summer evening of 6 July 1973. Margaret had left her family home in Carluke’s Glenburn Terrace to catch a train to Glasgow. During the short walk, beside a small, wooded area known as Colonel’s Glen, she was murdered. She was stabbed 19 times.
The police officer in charge of the investigation was Chief Superintendent William Muncie, who happened to come from Carluke. Muncie was a celebrated detective, who revelled in his 100 per cent conviction rate for the crime of murder. He made his name by catching 1950s serial killer Peter Manuel, who was hanged for the murder of seven people. Very quickly, George Beattie was in his sights, and less than three months later, Beattie was convicted of murder.
George was aged just 19 at the time. He was a cheerful, happy-go-lucky figure in Carluke. He loved trainspotting and model railways. His sister Ena tells me that he is a “big softie”. One of eight children, he was doted on by his mum, Jeanie, who passed away five years ago.
It is important to understand that George is of below-average intelligence, according to psychological assessments. Such tests found him to be a slow learner and with a tendency to provide elaborate descriptions of events. They also showed that he was prone to changing his answers when subjected to interrogative pressure. He was interviewed alone by the police, which would never happen today. He supposedly confessed, telling a strange story about seeing men with mirrored top hats.
I met George three years ago, while working as a journalist with STV News. He was gentle and polite, and almost childlike in his manner. It was obvious that I was not face to face with some savage killer trying to play the system.
Accompanying George that day was Peter Hill. Peter was protective of George and passionate about his innocence. With an encyclopaedic knowledge of the case, Peter did most of the talking.
I refer members to speeches that were made in the House of Commons by the late Jimmy Hood MP. Alongside Peter Hill, Jimmy Hood campaigned for years to clear George’s name. He savaged William Muncie in the Commons, ripping apart the police investigation and its lack of integrity. In the seven minutes that are available to me today, it would be impossible to go into the necessary level of detail, but had today’s standards been used, George Beattie would have been quickly eliminated as a suspect. By today’s standards, there is absolutely no chance that he would have ended up in the dock of the High Court and, from there, a Barlinnie prison cell.
Put simply, there was no forensic evidence and no corroboration, and his legal defence was woeful. Damningly, it was later found that the police had suppressed evidence that supported George Beattie’s innocence.
For many years, the campaign dropped off the public radar. The world moved on.
Russell Findlay said that there was no forensic evidence at the time. Has any emerged since?
Forensic evidence that was relied on during the trial has actually since been discredited. There was a handkerchief with a spot of blood in George Beattie’s possession, which was discovered not to have been Margaret McLaughlin’s blood; however, during the trial it was suggested that it was.
For years, the campaign dropped off the radar. Then in 2020, the criminologist Professor David Wilson, who also happens to come from Carluke, published a book about Margaret’s murder. Having examined all the available evidence, Professor Wilson concluded that George Beattie is innocent. He also went further, alleging that George Beattie was “fitted up” by William Muncie.
Professor Wilson’s book, “Signs of Murder”, is not some rehash of old material. His investigations led him to the front door of a man called Les Jardine. He does not accuse Les Jardine of murder; Jardine is now dead and so cannot defend himself. However, for detailed reasons that are set out in his book, Wilson explains why Jardine is a more likely suspect than George Beattie ever was.
The book triggered another significant event. After 47 years of silence, Bob Alexander spoke out. He told the media that George Beattie—a man he has never met—could not possibly have killed Margaret. Bob thought that if he spoke out, this wrong would finally be righted. He remains perplexed by the inaction of the authorities.
People often ask me, “Did George Beattie appeal?” The answer is yes, he did, but such were the narrow legal parameters of the appeals process, the appeals felt tokenistic. They did not seem like a real quest for justice and for answers, but something almost performative.
I will end on a powerful and thought-provoking quote:
“I think in Scotland we have the view that we don’t have the same problem with miscarriages of justice as elsewhere, perhaps as in England.
But I think the reality from my experience is that we’re just not quite so good or open at dealing with them.”
Those are the words of John Scott KC, as spoken to STV in 2020. Last year, John Scott was appointed as a judge in Scotland’s supreme courts, where he now presides.
George Beattie is resigned to the fact that he will go to his grave as a convicted murderer. Time is running out. If Scotland’s criminal justice establishment will not listen to the rest of us, perhaps it will listen to Lord Scott, who is one of their own. I urge Police Scotland and the Crown Office to look at the case again, and not just as a tick-box exercise, knowing that the news cycle will move on and public interest will fade. They owe it to the people of Carluke, they owe it to George Beattie and they owe it to Margaret McLaughlin.
17:31
I thank Russell Findlay for his motion on the 50th anniversary of Margaret McLaughlin’s tragic murder.
In any debate or discussion of that tragedy, we should first and foremost be mindful that it is about a young lady aged just 23, who was engaged to be married and who should have had the majority of her life ahead of her. Instead, on 6 July 1973, Margaret left her family home in Glenburn Terrace in Carluke to catch a train to Glasgow to meet the sister of Bob, her fiancé at the time, to discuss their wedding arrangements. During that walk, Margaret was brutally stabbed and killed in what can only be described as a frenzied and savage murder.
Margaret’s family, friends and fiancé have had to live with that loss for 50 years. I was younger than one year old when the tragedy took place, and, unlike Mr Findlay, I do not have knowledge of the events and debate that took place then or that have taken place since, which prompted his motion. However, I do have the privilege of representing the South Scotland region, which includes the town of Carluke. In fact, I had the honour of being in Carluke recently to judge the gala’s annual parade. It is a proud, tight-knit community and, having spoken in recent days to those who remember Margaret McLaughlin’s murder, I know that it was a tight-knit community back then and it was left shocked by that tragedy.
As Russell Findlay’s motion highlights, many claims have been made that the subsequent conviction of George Beattie was a miscarriage of justice. As we have heard, the BBC’s “Rough Justice” programme highlighted serious concerns about the conviction, and, in a new edition of his book, Professor David Wilson went as far as to identify someone who he described as a more likely suspect. Margaret’s then fiancé, Bob Alexander, who I know has joined us today, has stated that he believes that George Beattie is innocent.
Russell Findlay has made the claim in the Parliament before today, but it was also made in the United Kingdom Parliament by my former colleague, Jimmy Hood. Jimmy represented Carluke for 28 years, first as the Labour member of Parliament for Clydesdale and then, following boundary changes, for Hamilton and Lanark East. Jimmy felt so strongly about the issue that he held not one but two adjournment debates in the House of Commons, the first in 1993 and the second in 1995.
During that first debate on 3 March 1993, he told the House of Commons:
“there is now evidence concerning police conduct in the case that points to George Beattie being a victim of a miscarriage of justice on several levels.
The aspect of Beattie’s case to which I refer concerns personalities, professional reputation, police bureaucracy and—yes—politics.”
Jimmy told MPs that he believed that the investigation was badly handled, and when George Beattie was charged in July 1973, the leading detective, William Muncie, was
“already four days into a botch-up of an investigation over which he had lost control.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 3 March 1993; Vol 220, c 426-427.]
Jimmy recounted a number of what he said were mistakes that had been made—uniformed police contaminating the crime scene before the leading detective had arrived, journalists publishing a photograph of where Margaret’s body had been found, and evidence that was missing or allegedly suppressed.
The treatment of George Beattie before he was charged with murder was another concern raised in Parliament by Jimmy Hood. George was initially charged at 1.30 am after a six-hour interrogation and was then brought before Detective Chief Superintendent Muncie at the crime scene at around 5.30. George was unwell and had been awake for more than 20 hours, but was denied a doctor and was subsequently charged again, without a solicitor being present.
Jimmy Hood returned to the House Of Commons in 1995 to further highlight various failings and mistakes that he believed
“cost George Beattie the best years of his life.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 29 March 1995; Vol 257, col 1156]
He told MPs that the police had never had to demonstrate the circumstances surrounding their interrogations of Beattie or the admission that they claimed that he made during that time, and pointed out that the procurator fiscal should have had the duty to make inquiries into those police processes.
I repeat Jimmy Hood’s points because they highlight the fact that many people from across the political spectrum had concerns about the case. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will point to the fact that this has been dealt with through the courts on more than one occasion, but the appeals process itself was not without criticism from Jimmy Hood and others.
I return to my opening point. Above all else, at the heart of this debate is the tragedy of the loss of a young woman’s life, which was brutally taken away from her. My thoughts at all times are with Bob Alexander and with Margaret’s family, who knew and loved her and who, I am sure, still feel her loss 50 years on.
17:36
I thank Russell Findlay for securing this debate. I remember his maiden speech well. I was not familiar with the case at that time, but I am more familiar with it now.
We are coming up to the 50th anniversary of the murder of Margaret McLaughlin, and it is Margaret whom we must think of. She was the victim, and we must think of her family on that anniversary. As someone who has had a relative murdered, I can tell you that that will never ever leave her family.
Russell Findlay is convinced that George Beattie is innocent. I do not know whether he is, but what I have heard and read shows that there is perhaps enough doubt to justify a retrial and certainly a refreshed look at the case. When my family got justice, it was my view that there is no justice in murder, but that justice must be served. In this case, there is no justice for Margaret McLaughlin, who was brutally murdered, but, for the sake of her family and for George Beattie and his family, justice must be served. It is not enough to convict: the result must be the right one and the right person must be convicted.
I again congratulate Russell Findlay and the various visitors in the gallery. It would be lovely to meet them afterwards.
17:38
As we approach this 50th anniversary, I begin by joining others in the chamber in paying tribute to Margaret McLaughlin. As we have already heard, at the time of her murder she was a young woman aged 23, was engaged to be married and had her whole life in front of her. It is hard to imagine the pain and suffering that her friends and family felt at the time of her murder and continue to feel all these years later. I have no doubt that the trauma and pain linger through the generations and have not abated with the passage of time.
Mr Findlay’s motion draws attention to concerns that George Beattie might have been wrongly convicted of Margaret McLaughlin’s murder and notes that there have been calls upon the police and the Crown to reopen the investigation into it. I trust that members will understand that it would be entirely inappropriate for me, as a Scottish minister, to make any comment on a specific case dealt with in the criminal courts. That, of course, includes this case, and I will not be doing so today. With the greatest of respect to the members who have expressed their views and beliefs, I give advance notice that I will not be taking any interventions.
However, I think that it is important to help Parliament to understand the independent checks and balances in Scotland’s justice system when a person claims that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. First, Police Scotland is, rightly, operationally independent of Scottish ministers. Secondly, the Lord Advocate is the head of the systems of prosecution and investigation of deaths. The independence of the Lord Advocate’s decision in that role is protected by the Scotland Act 1998.
The independence of both Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate ensures that there is no risk of political interference in the investigation and prosecution of crime, and any decision to reinvestigate Margaret McLaughlin’s murder is therefore not for Scottish ministers. Equally, the processes for investigating and determining alleged miscarriages of justice operate independently of Scottish ministers, and it is not my place to offer any view on this or any other case in which it is alleged that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred.
Ultimately, it is for the Appeal Court to determine, in any given case, whether to overturn a person’s conviction, because it concludes that it amounts to a miscarriage of justice. However, it might also be helpful if I outline the processes that exist for enabling a person who says that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice to seek to have their conviction overturned.
At one time, Government ministers—namely, UK Government ministers—had a role in deciding whether to refer criminal cases back to the Appeal Court for a fresh appeal once the time limit for lodging an appeal had elapsed. Indeed, in 1993, the then Secretary of State for Scotland—a member of the UK Government—referred Mr Beattie’s conviction back to the Appeal Court for a fresh appeal, and that appeal was not successful.
Since 1999, when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was established, ministers have had no role in deciding whether a Scottish case in which it is alleged that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred should be referred to the Appeal Court for a fresh appeal. That properly reflects the fact that such decisions should never be subject to any perception that they might be taken for political reasons. It is for the independent commission to review and investigate cases in which it is alleged that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred, either in relation to conviction or sentence.
The commission has extensive powers to obtain documents from any person or organisation, including the police and the Crown Office, and to request evidence on oath. Under a statutory test set by Parliament, the commission will refer a person’s conviction to the Appeal Court for a fresh appeal if, after considering the application, it thinks that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred and that it is in the interests of justice for the case to be referred back to the Appeal Court.
When a case is referred back to the Appeal Court for a fresh appeal, it will then be a matter for the court to determine, as with any other appeal. Since its establishment in 1999, the commission has, as at the end of 2022-23, reviewed 3,052 applications, of which 157 resulted in the case being referred back to the Appeal Court for a fresh appeal. Of those 157 cases, 137 have been determined by the Appeal Court. That is because some cases were abandoned by applicants.
Of the 137 cases that were determined, 88 were successful, with 47 having the sentences reduced and 41 having the conviction overturned. I am aware that the commission referred Mr Beattie’s conviction back to the Appeal Court on the grounds that there might have been a miscarriage of justice. In 2009, the Appeal Court considered that referral and upheld Mr Beattie’s conviction for murder.
The motion indicates that Mr Beattie does not believe that there is an
“available route to challenge his ... conviction”.
Noting that Mr Beattie has already had two opportunities in the Appeal Court to seek to have his conviction quashed, I would say that it remains open to Mr Beattie to submit a further application to the commission. That would be on the basis of additional evidence supporting a claim of a miscarriage of justice that had not been considered by the court when it heard a previous appeal.
I hope that the information that I have set out provides some reassurance to members that there are processes in place to investigate and review alleged miscarriages of justice in Scotland.
Once again, I offer my heartfelt sympathy to the family and friends of Margaret McLaughlin for a life taken far too soon.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate and I close this meeting.
Meeting closed at 17:45.Previous
Decision Time