A FORMER air hostess convicted of a 16-month stalking campaign against a love rival had her conviction set aside yesterday after three appeal judges heard that two other women had now come forward to claim that they were harassed by the alleged victim.
Marsha Beveridge, 24, had been fined #350 at Hamilton Sheriff Court for breach of the peace.
She was alleged to have carried out a campaign of harassment against Miss Maree Murray, 29, between September 1993 and February 1995 which involved lying in wait at various locations, approaching her, and shouting and swearing at her.
Miss Beveridge had formed a relationship with double-glazing salesman Robert Sinclair. Years before, he had been involved in a relationship with Miss Murray.
Miss Beveridge, who now lives in Edinburgh, was alleged to have become obsessed and to have begun a stalking campaign against Miss Murray, of Ivy Place, Blantyre, who said she feared for her own safety and that of her young son.
Sheriff Ian Donaldson found her guilty, and she was ordered to seek psychiatric help.
But yesterday Mr Jamie Gilchrist, defence counsel, told Lord Sutherland, who heard the appeal with Lord Cameron and Lady Cosgrove, that Miss Beveridge was not the stalker but rather the victim of stalking by Miss Murray.
Two witnesses had come came forward and contacted Miss Beveridge or her solicitor. They had now provided sworn statements.
An affidavit provided by Joanne Maider was that she had associated with a former boyfriend of Miss Murray's. She alleged that, on a number of occasions, there had been contact between her and Miss Murray and that Miss Murray was in effect harassing her.
Lord Sutherland noted: ''At one stage, it appears Miss Murray made a complaint to the police about her conduct and no further action was taken on that complaint.''
An affidavit from the second woman, Mrs Lorraine Arrol, was similar. She said she had formed a relationship with a man who had also formerly been the boyfriend of Miss Murray, who had a child by him.
''She speaks to being harassed by Miss Murray on a number of occasions,'' said Lord Sutherland.
Mr Gilchrist had argued that, if this evidence had been available at the trial, it would have had a significant bearing on the crucial question of credibility between Miss Beveridge and Miss Murray. It would have been highly relevant to show that Miss Murray had behaved in a similar way towards others as Miss Beveridge complained she had behaved towards her. If it had been before the sheriff, he might well have formed an entirely different view of the case.
Lord Sutherland said it was not suggested that the sheriff had not been entitled to form the view that he did, but the appeal had been brought on the basis that significant new evidence had come to light.
''These two witnesses both came forward after the trial had taken place. It was reported in the newspapers and had been read by these two witnesses.''
Lord Sutherland added: ''We are satisfied that the evidence which has been placed before us on affidavit appears, prima facie, to be credible and reliable, although of course the evidence has ultimately to be determined.''
The appeal court decided to set aside Miss Beveridge's conviction and grant authority to the Crown to bring a fresh prosecution.
The Crown now has two months to investigate the fresh evidence and decide whether Miss Beveridge should be required to stand trial again.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article