Inverness Man Launching Fresh Appeal Against Murder Conviction

A killer who has twice been jailed for life after separate juries convicted him of committing the same murder has launched a bid to have the latest finding of guilt overturned.

Ian Geddes claims he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice at his latest trial last year when he was again found guilty of murdering his cousin in a smothering attack using a pillow at the victim's home.

Lawyers acting for Geddes maintain that the verdict returned at the High Court in Edinburgh was one no reasonable jury could have made on the basis of the evidence presented in the case.

Geddes (59) who was earlier freed on bail ahead of the hearing at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh is seeking to have the conviction quashed.

His solicitor advocate John Scott QC told judges: "I invite the court to accept this is one of those must unusual cases, rare cases, where this court can and should intervene and quash the verdict of the jury as unreasonable."

Geddes was jailed for life after he was found guilty of murdering offshore electrician Charles McKay (48) at his home in East MacKenzie Park, in Inverness, in March 2003. He has continued to deny the offence.

Following an initial trial in 2005 the fraudster was ordered to serve at least 15 years in prison. After a subsequent appeal he was re-tried last year.

Mr Scott was critical of pathology evidence led by the Crown in the prosecution of Geddes over the smothering attack. Other experts offered differing opinions over the cause of death.

He said the ultimate diagnosis of smothering was arrived at because of "flawed reliance and skewed viewing or assessment of the materials".

The defence lawyer said: "Two expert consultant forensic pathologists would have certified a different cause of death."

One pathologist told Geddes' second trial that in her opinion the likely cause of death was a head injury in keeping with a fall.

Mr Scott told the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord Brodie and Lord Drummond Young: "There is nothing that points to the use of a pillow."

He said: "None of the pathologists had a vast cupboard full of smothering cases."

Advocate depute Andrew Stewart QC invited the appeal judges to refuse the appeal. He said: "It is obviously a very significant step for the court to decide no reasonable jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt."

"The matters raised in the grounds of appeal were all perfectly valid points to be laid before the jury," he said.

"The Crown position is the matters are matters for the jury. It was a verdict which a reasonable jury could have come to," said the advocate depute.

Mr Stewart said the flaw in the appeal grounds advanced was that they focused solely on the medical evidence and did not take into account the wider evidence.

Emergency services were called to Mr McKay's home where they found him lying at the foot of a flight of stairs. Geddes, who stayed there from time to time, told them he had found his cousin there.

But suspicions were later aroused when a letter emerged seeking to alter Mr McKay's will so that Geddes would inherit pounds 25,000.

The appeal judges reserved their decision and Lord Carloway said they would give their decision as soon as they can.