Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction:- On 12 October 2001 at Edinburgh High Court the appellant was convicted after trial of a charge of murder. After significant delay and protracted procedure a number of grounds of appeal were argued on behalf of the appellant:- (1) the appellant did not receive a fair trial as a consequence of prejudicial publicity both prior to and during his trial; (2) the trial judge erred in admitting, as hearsay evidence under section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, a purported 'statement' made by Kenneth Petrie (who died on 23 February 2001) to police officers on 21 March 2000 and the document should have been regarded as a precognition; (3) the advocate depute made frequent, deliberate, inappropriate and prejudicial comments both in the course of the evidence led before the jury and in his address to them at the conclusion of the trial to the effect that the appellant was able to give evidence about matters which were relevant to the issues to be considered by the jury and that his silence was to be interpreted as an inference to the proof of his guilt; (4) the search warrant upon which the Crown relied did not authorise a search of the appellant’s house but was instead a warrant for the search of the appellant's garage at 2 Dee Avenue, Kilmarnock; (5) the trial Judge erred in rejecting a submission on the sufficiency of the evidence in relation to:- (a) the allegation of assault by punching the deceased on the face; (b) the allegation of assault by penetrating the deceased's hinder parts; (c) the charge of murder; and (d) any alternative finding in terms of culpable homicide; (6) the admissibility of evidence of travel by the appellant to the Netherlands and the effect of leading that evidence before the Jury was that evidence was led of a crime with which the Appellant was not charged and for which his extradition was not sought, namely an attempt to pervert the course of justice by fleeing and absconding; (7) the specialty rule precluded the leading of any evidence of actings which, while yet relevant and habile to prove the extradition crime, constituted in themselves a separate crime or offence for which express authority had not been granted by the extraditing state; (8) in the particular circumstances and complexities of the present case the fact that the jury did not give reasons for its verdict was not sufficient to meet the fair trial guarantee; (9) the failure of the Crown to disclose a police statement of the witness Irene Callaghan which impeded counsel in his field of cross-examination on the basis of a prior inconsistent statement. Here the court considered the various grounds on their individual bases, but also cumulatively, to assess whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred.