‘Limbs in the loch’ murderer loses Supreme Court legal aid bid

“Limbs in the loch’ killer William Beggs was seeking judicial review of decision by the Scottish Legal Aid Board to refuse his application for legal aid, but a judge in the Court of Session held that the board’s determination was neither “irrational nor unreasonable”.

Lord Woolman heard that Mr Beggs was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2001 for murdering Barry Wallace at a flat in Kilmarnock in 1999 and dismembering his body, discarding the limbs and torso of his victim in Loch Lomond and disposing of his head by throwing it into the sea off the Ayrshire coast.

CCTV footage

The petitioner had always maintained his innocence but the Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that there had been no miscarriage of justice.

However, Mr Beggs believes there is evidence that may assist his claim and he made a freedom of information request to recover CCTV footage from cameras located in Kilmarnock town centre on the night of the deceased’s disappearance.

Strathclyde Police initially refused his request, but following a complaint to the Scottish Information Commissioner the police undertook to release all except three items to Mr Beggs.

Following a further review, the police reported that they held no further information in respect of two of the outstanding items and refused to release the information held in regard to the third, which related to the steps it had taken to verify information about a man whom they had excluded from their investigation into the deceased’s death.

Mr Beggs also brought that decision under review, but the Information Commissioner held that the police were entitled to withhold the material in terms of sections 30 and 38 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Legal aid application

Mr Beggs appealed that decision to the Inner House, which upheld the commissioner’s decision (Beggs v Scottish Information Commissioner CSIH 10), and the petitioner sought legal aid to challenge that decision of the Inner House to the UK Supreme Court, but SLAB refused his application.

A sheriff decided that the petitioner had probable cause and that it was reasonable to grant legal aid to him for judicial review of the refusal on, but a judge refused his application for permission to proceed (Beggs v Scottish Legal Aid Board CSOH 90).

Rather than reclaiming that decision, Mr Beggs made a further application for legal aid which the board refused in a decision letter in late 2016, stating that while he had met the “probable cause test”, having considered senior counsel’s opinion it would be “unreasonable to grant legal aid”.

Mr Beggs sought judicial review of that decision, but the judge observed that the issue of reasonableness was a matter for the board and that any challenge made on the basis of unreasonableness must pass an “exacting” test.

‘Reasonable decision’

In a written opinion, Lord Woolman said: “I conclude that Mr Beggs’ challenge does not come close to satisfying the test. It is merely a disagreement with the Board’s decision. That is not sufficient.“The Board’s decision was not irrational, nor did it err in law. It looked at the advice of senior counsel and noted that he referred to the appeal as having arguable prospects of success.

“The Board also determined that a private client would make a further, more specific, freedom of information request, rather than hazard an uncertain, very expensive, appeal to the Supreme Court.

“Put short the Board was clearly entitled to reach the decision it did. It cannot be characterised in any way as irrational or unreasonable. I shall therefore dismiss the petition.”