Letters
1 - Open letter to the Sheriff
2 - FOI request for the Sheriff's Notes
3 - Personal letter to the Sheriff
4 - Post to the ex-Procurator Fiscal

1 - Open letter to Sheriff McCulloch

(aka The Sheriff of Not Spotting Lies)

Dear Sheriff,

You may remember me as the defendant who was furiously scribbling while Witness 3, a woman called MacGregor, struggled to identify him.
It seemed an unusual failing in a place where the accused person is rather obvious.
I wasn't surprised at her difficulty: the 'witness' had never seen me before.
I wonder what you made of her inability - she had to be asked several times before her wavering finger pointed at me.
I suppose you just assumed she was nervous in court and believed her every word.
You asked two questions of the other two 'witnesses', whose answers must surely have created doubt in your mind. The first (referring to my car) was put to Witness 1 (Peter AG Carnegie, a car driver):
"how does it pass you again if it's already in front of you?"
The 'witness', thinking on his feet, said he'd been confused and: "a wee bit shocked". Yet he was sufficiently compos mentis to have remembered, until he wrote them down later, two registration numbers.
You should try it sometime - on a busy road, make a mental note of two number plates, then see if you can recall them both 5 minutes later - you will not find it so easy.
The reason for Carnegie's error was not confusion. No, as an imagined event, the 'incident' was not in his mind's eye, so could not be recalled when he was asked a question about it.
On reviewing my notes, I found another instance of a similar improbable manoeuvre - Witness 3 said I had overtaken her motorcycle despite having just stated that my car was in front of her.
If you spotted this piece of embroidery you made no remark.
But is it mentioned in the Notes I saw you writing?

Then, just before the lunch recess, you asked Witness 2 (Moir) what kind of motorcycle he rode.
On being told the make and model (Kawasaki ZX1100 D9), you commented, "quite a powerful machine", and seemed to raise a quizzical eyebrow.
This was after being told that he, the motorcyclist, obeyed speed limits and never passed on the inside, implying that he was an exemplary driver.

So we have a motorcyclist sticking to the 50mph limit being passed on the inside by a Citroen driver doing 60mph (according to the 'witnesses'). When the Citroen comes to a broken-down van blocking the lane it swerves into the path of another car.
Our pillion passenger (Witness 3) says: "I got quite a fright", as though it had happened right in front of her.
Yet it ought to have been obvious to you that the Citroen and the bike could not possibly have arrived at the scene at the same time.
Why not?
Well, they started together from the Myrekirk Road roundabout (or so Witnesses 2 and 3 claimed); on arriving at the broken-down van 400 metres up the road, the Citroen would have been around 65 metres ahead of the bike, given the claimed 10mph speed differential.
Do you think it likely that Witness 3 would have got a fright at such a distance? Would the riders have even seen the 'incident', given Witness 2's claim that he was in a queue of traffic in the outside lane?

Given the above, the odd doubt must surely have infiltrated your mind. Did you record anything in your Notes?
Since your verdict went against me, I presume that any doubts did not add up to 'Reasonable Doubt'.
Why not? Were your doubts swamped by the weight of numbers (three) against me (one)?
After all, a lie oft repeated by different sources is soon accepted as truth. Isn't it?

You weren't presented with any real evidence to corroborate the Crown's claims so did you, perhaps, resort to that lesser standard, the Balance of Probabilities test?
Given your remark that the two accounts were so disparate they might have taken place on different days, you would have had to assess the probabilities and decide which was the more likely.
No need! Your dilemma was resolved by my solicitor, who made me reveal that I had driven non-stop.
Eureka! You declared that I would have been tired, so might not have registered the obstructions on the road.
I don't expect you noticed that 5 hours or so for a 265 mile journey is an average speed of 53mph - quite reasonable on dual carriageways, not obviously reckless and rather less than a satnav would expect you to average.

Judges, like juries, are required to follow the evidence and not speculate.
So, was your convenient little theory based on anything that was said in court?
The only evidence concerning my driving behaviour came from the motorcyclist, Witness 2.
When asked about the manner of my driving he said: "he wasn't hanging about" and later: "I think he wanted to beat me".
A driver intent on racing other vehicles would likely be brimful of adrenaline, wide awake and fully aware of what he's doing.
Yet, according to you, that same driver was so dozy he didn't spot a van blocking the carriageway until the last minute, when he had to swerve to avoid it.
Perhaps you imagined, à la Schrödinger, that a wide awake driver and a sleepy driver can exist at the same time.

The prosecution case was full of such paradoxes, improbabilities and incongruent statements. There were so many that they could not reasonably be attributed to simple errors of recollection, so ought to have created doubt in your mind.
But did they? Are any of the following in your Notes:
* How was Witness 1 (the car driver) able to remember 2 registration numbers whilst being shocked and confused?
* Witness 1 said he recorded the motorcyclist's registration number. But why? How did he know the motorcyclist would be a willing witness?
* Witness 2 (the motorcyclist), claimed I nearly collided with him at the Swallow roundabout; later he 'witnessed' the near collision involving Witness 1; later he said I undertook him near the Strathmartine roundabout. So, why did he not, of his own volition, report these dangerous manoeuvres to the police?
* Witnesses 2 and 3 both said I'd been driving much faster than them. Yet they had me in view over the entire 3.3 mile length of the Kingsway and actually overtook me twice. In particular, they claimed to have observed that near collision with Witness 1 as though they were right there, on the spot.
A little improbable, wouldn't you think?

I hope, esteemed Sheriff, that you understand the problems here.
Apart from taking statements from the 'witnesses' (but not from me), the Police did not investigate any aspect of the case.
The Crown only disclosed its case to the defence at the very last moment, just before the trial.
Consequently, my solicitor was unprepared for a rigorous examination of what turned out to be rather a complex case.

There were some questions my solicitor could not ask, but you could.
You could have asked the Fiscal Depute if she'd looked for any corroborating evidence that the Police might hold.
After all, there was a fair chance that I, a supposedly reckless driver, might have triggered a speed camera on the A90.
A good chance, too, that I might have previous convictions.
Any conscientious prosecutor would have checked, wouldn't they?

After your verdict, I learned that convicted people are denied the right of appeal on the evidence; in addition, the official records of the proceedings that would facilitate an appeal on a point of law do not exist.

This is why I would like to see your Notes - so that I can continue my campaign against your verdict.

I am, my bewigged lord,
your most sceptical victim

2 - FOI request for Sheriff McCulloch's Notes

In 2017 I submitted a Subject Access Request to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to gain access to your Notes.
I was informed that the Notes are your personal property, so are not available.
I appealed to the Information Commissioner, represented by the unfortunately named Joanna Hoof (because her response was ill-prepared - on the hoof, as it were).
She wrote (my emphasis): "it does not appear that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service have complied with the DPA (Data Protection Act)".
I got my hopes up but her next sentence dashed them. Ms Hoof said the Notes "would not be disclosable under subject access".
She'd made a simple mistake: the not, she wrote later, "is an error on my behalf and i [sic] am sorry this has caused you confusion".
A judge's notes, she explained, have to be on the court file to be disclosable and yours, being kept (I assume) in a drawer at home, are not.

3 - Personal letter to Sheriff McCulloch

In 2018 I sent you the following request:

Dear Sheriff,
Following a recent ruling by the ICO I applied to see your handwritten court notes but was denied access on the grounds that they are your personal property.
So I thought it appropriate to write to your home address to ask if you would kindly furnish me with a copy of those notes, written on 2 March 2005 in Court 5 at Dundee Sheriff Court.
As there was none of the corroborative, hard evidence* that would make the reasons for my conviction obvious, I would like to see if the notes cast any light on how you made your decision.
* The only such evidence, a Police Incident Log, was not disclosed to the court (the data it contains would not have supported the Crown's version of events).
Thank you.

The request ended up at the Judicial Office for Scotland. This body followed the standard COPFS practice of ignoring letters that ask questions.
Eventually, though, after filing a Complaint, I got the following response from Richard Gare, the Policy Manager:
"I can confirm that judicial office holder’s notebooks are their personal property and confidential and are not subject to a Subject Access Requests. This of course an important element of the principle of judicial independence and accords with the rule of law. Most notes taken by the judge in the course of proceedings are part of their private deliberations, which will set out their final decision or judgement which sets out the reasoning in the case. Deliberations are not the personal data of a party in a case. I can confirm that Sheriff McCulloch has been informed of your request and asked the Judicial Office to respond informing you that his notes are private and personal, as stated above." [sic]

4 - Post to ex-Procurator Fiscal Betty Bott

(via social media)

Dear Mrs Bott,

From time to time I run an internet check on the fantasists, narcissist and chancers¹ who were involved in my court case in Dundee on 2 March 2005.
I note you are no longer in public service and hope you may be willing to comment on the case, supposing you can recall the details.
In court, your Depute accused me of dangerous driving, claiming that around 17:30 near the BP garage on the Kingsway I swerved (to avoid a broken down van) into the path of another car.
The driver said his car was damaged when it hit the central reservation but a police officer who examined it found only a scuff mark on a tyre.
I wondered if the fact that your main witness may have lied in his very first statement to the police raised any suspicions in your mind.
Furthermore, since he alone supplied the police with his supporting witness's registration number I wondered if this raised any doubts about the independence of your witnesses². The story about the broken down van was sprung on the defence a few hours before the trial. As it was not mentioned in any of the statements shown to my solicitor, I wondered when you first got to hear of it.
You did not enlighten me - I am sorry to say you were not inclined to answer my post-trial questions about the case.
After the trial I asked Tayside Police if they knew about the broken down van. They told me that yes, they had attended such a breakdown at 18:11 at the Swallow Roundabout.
In my blogs about the case I have promoted my opinion that the prosecution was both casual and careless: you knew that having three people who claimed to be witnesses³ would automatically get you a conviction and so did not bother to ask for basic checks about their story and its inconsistencies.
I contend that you failed in your duty of care towards me.

That is how it appeared to me. Is it fair though?
Any reply you care to make may be taken down and used in my blogs.
Yours sincerely,

References:
1   fantasists - your witnesses;  narcissist - my solicitor;  chancers - you and your team
2   David Howdle wrote: "There is no evidence to suggest that the two witnesses in the first car [sic - it was actually a motorbike] knew the third witness. They do not live in the same part of the area. There is nothing to suggest that they might have colluded. Why would they?"
I replied telling him that they were born and brought up in Strathmartine, in neighbouring streets.
They were friends. This was how one witness was able to supply the other's registration number.
In court, they said they were strangers.
As for the motive, I have no idea.
3   There were actually just two witnesses - one was me, on the receiving end of a road rage event perpetrated by the other, your chief witness.
Of the other two 'witnesses' to the event, one was 200 - 300 metres away at the time while the other was almost certainly about 35000 metres away, in Perth - that is why she was nervous on the witness stand and had trouble identifying me.

.