Ross appeal day three – No miscarriage of justice say prosecutors

Prosecutors have maintained that Michael Ross was not a victim of a miscarriage of justice and called on judges to refuse his appeal against his conviction for a murder committed more than 17 years ago.

Following a trial in 2008, former soldier Ross, 33, was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum of 25 years after he was found guilty of shooting Shamsuddin Mahmood at the Mumutaz restaurant in Bridge Street, Kirkwall, in 1994.

He has appealed against the conviction arguing that his right to a fair trial was breached and his rights were “irretrievably prejudiced” by the reliance placed by the Crown on statements he made during police interviews, as a 16-year-old schoolboy, without legal representation.

Defence counsel Margaret Scott QC said his rights had been breached because he was given “inadequate protection” which should have been in the form of access to a lawyer.

His lawyers also challenged a decision by the trial judge, claiming he erred in refusing to allow the defence to lead evidence from psychologist Erica Robb, who it was said had detected no signs of defective personality traits in Ross.

But advocate depute Lesley Shand QC told judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh yesterday: “In my submission, no miscarriage of justice has been demonstrated.”

She also argued that the trial judge was correct to sustain the objection taking to the leading of evidence by the psychologist.

The appeal judges, the Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton, sitting with Lord Carloway and Lord Bonomy, reserved their decision in the case and will give a ruling at a later date, yet to be fixed.