The evidence of William McLeod

[6] It is convenient to take first the evidence of McLeod. Following the circulation of an e-fit picture, prepared with the assistance of one of the police officers who had been in Gordon Street, he was asked on 6 May 1989 by a police officer to attend at Stewart Street Police Office. Thereafter he was detained and interviewed by police officers. At the end of a taped interview he was charged with the murder of the deceased. His reply was: "I never murdered him. I ran away when I saw the knife being produced". On 8 May 1989 he appeared in the Sheriff Court and made a declaration under section 20 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act). Before the commencement of the trial the Crown decided to accept his plea of not guilty. He was discharged from the dock. Thereafter he was precognosced on behalf of the Crown and the defence. For reasons which will become obvious we will require to set out his evidence at the trial in some detail.

[7] When he was called as a Crown witness to give evidence on the morning of the first day of the trial (23 August 1989), he indicated to the court that he wanted to change his "statement". He then gave an account of having been in St Vincent Place on the night of the incident, after being in the area of the Buchanan Street bus station. He went to the toilets. No one was with him or caught his attention. He walked round the block perhaps five or six times, once through the lane (page 46). He saw nothing unusual happening. He did not see an ambulance or police officers at the toilets. This was about 11 p.m. He passed along Gordon Street some time between 11 p.m. and midnight. He was in Gordon Street two or three times, always on his own (pages 52-54). He had been in that area quite a few times, maybe once or twice a week. When he was interviewed the police mentioned the name Gair and said that he knew him and had been with him. However, he knew no one of that name. The police told him that Gair had murdered the deceased. The police asked if he (the witness) was gay. McLeod claimed that he ended up making up a story "so they would leave me alone" (page 51). He was saying the first things that came into his head (page 56). In explanation of this he said: "They were sort of getting nippy... sort of angry, agitated...and this was putting me under stress, I was getting more and more panicky". The police asked him who had the knife. He replied that he did not know anything about it (page 63). "The next thing I just started... I had made up this story that I knew Stuart Mitchell Gair as that's what was on the sheet.... that I knew Stuart Mitchell Gair and I was there when it happened and there was other people there, and then I says I had saw Gair with the knife and that I ran away when I saw the knife. I never saw the guy being stabbed and I never saw him after that. That's when they took me in and put me on the tape" (page 64). McLeod also said that he made up two names. They had been planning to mug someone for money. There was a struggle with the guy and a squeal (page 66). McLeod said that he did not even know what made him make up the story. He wasn't thinking at all (page 71). He told them about the squeal before he told them that he knew Gair (page 73). The police had already mentioned his name (pages 74). The detectives had already asked who had the knife (pages 75-76). He mentioned a commotion and seeing a knife before he mentioned Gair (pages 78-79). He honestly couldn't say what made him say that Gair had the knife (page 80). The police told him that he was being charged with murder, but that, if he co-operated, everything would be okay. He would be called as a witness. Then he made up the story. This was after he had been refused a lawyer. Then they told him that he was being detained and charged. He accepted that in the taped interview he had agreed that he was not being forced or coerced (page 68).

[8] Prior to the lunch break McLeod was warned by the Advocate depute about the seriousness of perjury. When he returned to the witness box after lunch McLeod stated that he had not told the truth. He then gave evidence that he met the appellant and the deceased (who said his name was "Peter") at the bus station at the back of nine o'clock. They went down to St Vincent Street and stood there. Then the appellant and the deceased went through the lane. He did not think that anyone else was there (page 97). "The next thing a scuffle broke out and I saw the knife and I ran" (page 88). The knife was in the appellant's hand. He pointed out by reference to a photograph and a plan where the scuffle had taken place in the lane, and where he (the witness) was standing. He described the blade of the knife as about 9 inches long, from what he could remember of it. He heard a sort of moan. He went out into St Vincent Place and George Square. He saw the appellant and asked him what had happened to the deceased. The appellant told him not to worry about it and that nothing had happened to him, and just walked away. "He told me to say I didn't know him and he would say he didn't know me, and that was it. I left him at Gordon Street" (page 95). That night the appellant was wearing a black jacket or sweatshirt, jeans and training shoes. The shoes were white and scruffy (page 97).

[9] However, when McLeod came to be cross-examined and was asked whether what he said at the police interview was true, he said: "Most if it was true; I was trying to make up a story so they wouldn't connect me to the case" (page 99). He did not know the appellant, and was not with him that night. He did not see him that night. Therefore he did not see him with the knife in his hand. Asked what had happened at lunchtime to change his position he replied: "Because I thought about it while I was outside" (pages 104-105)

[10] After he left the witness box McLeod was detained and thereafter charged with perjury. He obtained legal advice. On the following morning, at the request of his solicitor he was recalled under section 148(4) of the 1975 Act. On entering the witness box again he confirmed that he wanted to be recalled, adding: "I am scared, that's all, really scared". He said that a detective had said to him on the way to the court that he was just to tell the truth. That was all that he said (page 181). He gave an account of going into the lane at the back of 11p.m. He ran away because he saw a knife in the appellant's hand, after which he heard a moan. He saw the appellant again in Queen Street. Then they walked together, including in Gordon Street. The appellant was wearing a black jacket or jumper, jeans and white training shoes.

[11] It may be noted that in the course of his evidence McLeod was referred to the terms of his declaration before the sheriff (Prod 46), in which he said: "On the night I was arrested, when I was taken in, I was taken in, I went in voluntary and I was asked a few questions about where I was. I have no, I have no proof of where I was that night and the police were firing this Stuart Gair's name at me. The police were asking me about this Stuart Gair, the chap that I knew nothing about. I didn't even know him, I had never met him before in my life and the night of this incident, I don't know where I was, I don't have anything to do with it, I was nowhere near there and I don't know a thing about it and I know it's on tape but I feel as if I was pressured into the things that I said on the tape. It was the tape at the police office". more...