The Crown Office is objecting to the appearance of, and trying to block from court, ALL of my witnesses and ALL of our proposed evidence for my defence at my trial for Contempt of Court. Today I have to complete the first draft of my own witness statement. We understand the Lord Advocate may object to the hearing of my own evidence also.
I shall write more on this tomorrow. Today is very busy.
1. Wolffe writes that “the question of whether other commentators have breached the order cannot be a defence to the Respondent” (sic). But I understand the point he is making, and he is WRONG. Perhaps he’s thinking of bible class. This is the law, not bible class. Wolffe is confusing a DEFENCE with EVIDENCE BROUGHT TO SUPPORT IT.
The respondent should be allowed to submit that the action by the “crown” is an ABUSE OF PROCESS. That’s a defence.
And if the authorities are aware of other parties that did the same thing that they are accusing Craig of doing BUT THE AUTHORITIES CHOSE NOT TO PROSECUTE THEM, then that is EVIDENCE of victimisation. It SUPPORTS the defence.
The respondent should be allowed to bring that evidence. If he is not allowed to, then he is being deprived of his right to offer the defence he wishes. Not every damned known offence by everyone is prosecuted. But the authorities are not allowed to pick and choose who to prosecute and who not to prosecute according to the people’s political beliefs, whether or not they are freemasons, etc. Wolffe should know that. For comparison, see the prosecution of Chris Randle and Pat Pottle (who helped free George Blake) in the English jurisdiction. Wolffe himself seems to be assisting with the abuse of process in Edinburgh.
2. Wolffe can’t think properly. He writes that the witnesses are “a limited number of individuals”, which I think is this pompous idiot’s way of saying they are only a few people. Well I have news for him. If some people witnessed an state of affairs, their evidence shouldn’t be refused solely on the grounds that they don’t constitute the entirety of everyone who was able to witness it. (Poor old Wolffey – was he too thick to get a law job in the private sector?)
His line here is an absolutely classic piece of bullsh*t: “You say you can produce 10 people who saw it. Well there were 17 people in the room. What about the other 7? I’m sticking my fingers in my ears when you mention those 10.”
Best of luck to you, Craig… With this kind of crap on the other side, you’re in with a good chance.
Essentially, point 4 of the Lord Advocate’s submission here is correct in principle. The presence of a bigger offence by someone else does not constrain prosecution of the smaller offence. However, there is surely such a thing as natural justice? Problem is that whereas a jury might be affected by such matters, a senior judge who has been peeved at the outcome of a trial might not be.
Points 5 and 6 are, in my view, on one level at least, garbage. The issue of whether your actions were ‘likely to identify the individual complainants’ is obviously addressable by any evidence which you bring on this subject – which does not, of course, mean that the evidence concerned will be given much weight by the court. Otherwise the judge’s consideration is going to be purely abstract (suiting the prosecution). My understanding is that the issue of identifying ‘victim witnesses’ in a sexual offence trial is a separately-defined criminal offence (ie beyond/outside ‘contempt’) but becomes contempt only when a judge has clearly warned you (or everybody involved) against the behaviour and you have behaved in a manner which is considered likely to make such an identification. But my other point, which I suggest might be worth a proper lawyer looking into, is this. Contempt, although dealt with under criminal burden of proof etc, is NOT a criminal offence. Acting in a manner which is likely to identify a witness in a sexual assault trial IS a criminal offence. It seems to me that the judge should not be allowed to proceed with a contempt trial based upon making an assessment of guilt in a criminal matter unless the criminal matter itself is tried first. This could, of course, be a two-edged sword!).
Not in Scotland, Tony. It is a specific criminal offence in England and Wales, but not here.
Scotland must be a land with zero concerns for them to be investing resources chasing you, a blogger, who, when all said and done, is only trying to make an honest crust by reporting what the state propagandists in our MSM can without any such fears of the law being used like ,this. Are there no other more pressing problems in Scotland? Post independence, how will this pursuit look. In hindsight, the people involved won’t exactly be heroes.
On the plus side, no one can accuse you of leading a dull life.
But the Scottish state has great concerns! It is concerned that the truth be suppressed. It will therefore attack the truthsayers, following the example of England in the case of Assange.
new poll
https://www.businessforscotland.com/55-yes-45-no-landmark-poll-reverses-2014-indyref-result/
It’s remarkable that the court has no difficulty bringing a case for criminal contempt, i.e disrespect for the legal system, which itself brings the legal system into disrepute. History, if there is any honest history left after the BBC gets through with it, will not be kind to Judge Jeffries. But then, Jeffries himself came to a sticky end. Best wishes, Craig.
So the Crown Office in their indictment saw fit to include a number of anonymous comments responding to Craig’s blog articles, with no apparent intention to track down and examine this so called ‘evidence’, some of which could easily have been deliberate lies supplied by Craig’s enemies. They also included the ‘Yes Minister’ parody as ‘evidence’. It seems the Crown Office’s definition of ‘irrelevant’ is different in these prosecution instances, from the evidence which Craig wishes to present in his defence, which at least involves REAL persons who could be cross examined.
There is such a thing as ‘natural justice’. I see no evidence of this basic human right coming from the Crown Office. If they intend to prosecute on the basis of such flimsy ‘evidence’, much of which is little more than hearsay, then Craig should be permitted to defend himself as best he can. Only the Judges should decide which defence evidence is relevant or not, having listened to the arguments and evidence presented. If Craig is to be denied the chance to defend himself under due process in a Scottish Court of Law, then I am inclined to agree both the verdict and punishment have already been pre ordained.
Court rules allow within a period of time to join additional parties to the lawsuit and have them served.
If someone does something and it was due to the actions, influence, interference, etc of another; then that party can be joined and has to answer why it should not be joined in the legal action.it is as much court rules as it is the law.
You can’t expect good faith from any of them over anything and they will break their own rules with impunity. You might consider treating the hearing as a means to prepare evidence for an appeal for abuse of process. This is a war of attrition to you might also consider doing it back to them, word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, rule by rule.
Their hypocrisy and dishonesty has complete impunity, so it has no bounds.
Maybe they plan to submit all court decisions to the whims of mathematical models and computer algorithms, that way Craig could get the verdict by post and not have to turn up to be examined.
Best move to an affluent postcode right now Mr. Murray.
Don’t education Scotland have a redundant computer to loan the court…_
The powers that be clearly hate the fact they don’t entirely control the narrative anymore, newspapers and state TV (BBC) still cling on as the most most powerful political influencers in these lands, but their power to hold younger demographics in their spell is clearly waning. Hence all the bogus claims of Russian interference, put forward without a shred of credible evidence, to justify some, as yet unspecified future social media crackdown. The real aim of which is regaining primacy for the MSM – who else is going to sell imperialism and its wars of aggression? I see you and your plight in this context ; an informed, credible source (ex-ambassador), hard to dismiss as a fringe individual.
The authoritarians will lose with the generational shift in power, but until they do don’t expect them to bow out gracefully.
The State’s objection to the “first category of evidence” is identical in principle to that it would have if you argued, when defending yourself against a charge of speeding, that every other car around you was also breaking the speed limit: that fact is irrelevant to your individual situation, no matter how potentially corrupt (on the grounds of “targeting”) that may seem/be.
The State’s objection to the “second category of evidence”, however, could potentially provide a defence similar to that now open against Section 38 of The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. As I posted on 6/7/20:
“One of the most common legal weapons that the working class come up against is breach of the peace. In Scotland, this area of common law was a corrupt mess that Smith v Donnelly (2001) drove a coach and horses through (whilst still, however, finding time to cite one of the most notorious BotP cases from the 1950s!). In 2010, the State’s response came in the form of Section 38 of The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. This codified (confirmed by the APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION BY EWAN PATERSON AND OTHERS AGAINST PF AIRDRIE – https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=6da6a1a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7) the principle of ex post facto “justice”.
The logic is simple:
1. Under Section 38 of this act, the determination of whether a crime has been committed in terms of its prescriptions, by word or by deed, can be withdrawn from the objective emotion(s) actually experienced by the victim(s) at the time of the incident and instead based on a subjective projection of what a ‘reasonable person’ could or would have experienced, ex post facto by a court.
2. Thus, while in every other kind of criminal activity, although guilt is always determined ex post facto by a court, criminality is inherent in and contemporaneous with the act, in cases brought under this act, both guilt and criminality can be determined ex post facto by a court: criminality is no longer contemporaneous with the act.
3. This precedent set, it then becomes logically impossible for a person involved in an incident which later leads to a charge being laid against them under this act to know, at the time of the incident, whether they are committing a crime or not.”
Since, at the time you authored the offending statement(s), it was logically impossible for you to know (since you did not mention any names and could not predict the analytical skills of the entire population of Scotland) if you were committing a crime or not, any ex post facto charge claiming that you did breaches both the “no crime without law” precept of natural justice and Article 7 (“No punishment without law”) of the ECHR, law in Scotland since 23rd May, 1999.
It’s squeaky and less cut-and-dried than in the BotP case, but worth a punt.
That should, of course, be “…breaches Article 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950…”!
Trying to put someone in jail for up to a year for ‘jigsaw identification’, sounds positively Kafkaesque.
Were it happening in Russia or China, no doubt UK and Scottish ministers would be highlighting it in the HoC as proof or rampant authoritarianism, like total hypocrites.
craig
the zeebs on your blog actually think this has something to do with a contempt of court during alex’s trial.
you were a british ambassador, at the heart of the brit establishment. then you turned against them
they have a long memory and you have had a target on your back ever since.
this letter is their chance you get you and they wont miss it. there will be no justice for you.
run………. and teach yer wife and kids to run too, that way you wont have to come back and get them.
That’s exactly what I pointed out a couple of months ago when this whole affair started.
Do you know what would happen if he were to “run”? You sound like a halfwit.
Do you know what would happen if he were to “run”?
aye, he would avoid getting thrown in the clink and then being forgotton about.
if he runs, he keeps his freedom and can continue to write his blog
there will be no justice for craig
Craig wouldn’t be forgotten about. On the contrary.
Clark.
SC is a Sturgeon stalwart, he’s deeply in denial over Sturgeon’s we shall call them transgressions, around the Alex Salmond fit up and her lethargy on Scottish independence.
aye
same as assange hasnt been forgotton about.
how long has he been in jail?
when is his trial?
Schrodinger, I wouldn’t want to have an argument with your cat. But wouldn’t the current epidemic make it difficult for anyone to split and join Edward Snowden, even if they wanted to?
i dont think it would be, there are still planes flying and craig will have enough contacts to find a place to go.
i dont know why folk think this is a bad or dangerous option. if they accept that they could do to craig what they have done to assange, surely it is an option worth considering?
i think, with hindsight, if julian knew what was to befall him would he have taken a similar option? I think he would
would the commentators on here called me a half wit if i had suggested that julian did this before the shit hit the fan?
Seven years in some embassy, followed by solitary in Belmarsh… and the risk of losing the moral high ground. (“High ground”? More like the Himalaya. Or maybe the Moon).
Cat. Interesting that you’ve suddenly leapt on the Craig’s blog for some pretty intense trolling – how many times have you repeated ‘run’ now? A lot of times. All your comments are written as statements and not opinion: you know more than Craig about the agencies and forces he’s up against do you? I think not.
Your comments are threatening and inappropriate at a time of great stress for Craig – if your purpose is other than to threaten him you could explain yourself and apologise.
@MOD: Schrodingers Cat is posting comments I find highly offensive and consider threatening to Craig,
would you consider removing the comments?Hi Contrary,
Thank you for saying that.
With all the hassle Craig has on his plate the prospect of a halfwit uber-troll enticing Craig to break the law is stupidity personified.
Sir Roger Casement was a consul and a knight. Look what they did to him.
We used to scoff when this level of crookedness was apparent in courts in Eastern bloc states or banana republics, confident in our supposed superiority. But today, now that corruption seems to be rampant within the UK legal system, and the country sinks morally and politically towards oblivion, and there’s nothing we can feel the least bit smug about . . . . . .
I am a life long supporter if indepence: the most discouraging thing about this whole affair, is not the childish tantrums in the SNP, it is the banana republic style misuse of the police, the prosecution system and the courts by the Scottish government. It bodes very bad for an independent Scotland – unless the Scottish courts live up to their centuries long tradition of jurisprudence.
The problem really seems to be Alex Prentice and James Wolffe who seem not at all up to the standard judicial competence and independence required of their vital position.
I am a life long supporter of indepence: the most discouraging thing about this whole affair, is not the childish tantrums in the SNP, it is the banana republic style misuse of the police, the prosecution system and the courts by the Scottish government. It bodes very badly for an independent Scotland – unless the Scottish courts live up to their centuries long tradition of jurisprudence.
The problem really seems to be Alex Prentice and James Wolffe who seem not at all up to the standard of judicial competence and independence required of their vital positions.
” It bodes very badly for an independent Scotland…”
Exactly. Unless you nurse some racist belief that Scots (and random foreigners currently living in Scotland) are morally superior to other humans.
Para 6, last sentence sounds like nonsense on the part of the prosecutors – rather a desperate tactic to avoid having arguments fairly weighed in court, in fact, though I’m not a lawyer. So I wish you luck.
In a way, it is an admission that prosecutors have no case. If no “limited number of witnesses” can disprove their accusation, then it is flatly impossible to disprove it — any proof (of a preposition or its negation) must have a finite length. But the statement that “prima facie” cannot be disproved is not scientific — it is a belief. Kind of like “the respondent (?? my legalese stinks) should be punished because it is a fervent and sincere belief of the Crown that he is guilty”.
I have not read all the comments and I m sure it’s been said before but basically they are saying that you are not allowed to defend yourself because nothing you can provide could possibly help you? The three judges will decide based on what the have in front of them now, no counter position can be put forwards and supported. Geeze…
And then Kirsty Wark on the BBC gives out all you need to work out one of the women…
What a disgusting mess the alphabet sisters started, and they did start this, no matter who jumped on the bandwagon later on!
Exactly – Prentice wants a ‘Court of Star Chamber’ because he has already learnt that in court where he has to argue law and facts he has his ‘erse oot the windae’.
I can’t think what I can do to help. I don’t think it is helpful to tell Craig to run and take his family with him. They can’t just disappear him. There must be some lawyers with a sliver of integrity left. How can anyone accept this charade, and leave it unchallenged?
What will be will be. Firstly a guilty verdict isn’t inevitable. even if he’s found guilty, a custodial sentence isn’t inevitable and finally if a custodial sentence is imposed it’s unlikely to be a long one.
Prison isn’t a death sentence, and as hard as it may be to imagine, sometimes something positive can result from the experience.
i’ve been in jail fredi
nothing honourable or positive about it.
i say run for his own benefit and ours.
at least in russia he can continue his blog,
we need that
who will challange this?
nicola sturgeon?
if he stays, the best you can do is to crowd fund a cake with a file in it.
no, he should go now. and stu should join him.
we are approaching the end game. we need these blogs to speak for the people who arent unionists, 55% now, there are few pro indy bloggers and we cant afford to lose them.
@COPFS – Official channel of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service:
On Monday 17 August COPFS Tweeted, and apparently immediately Retweeted:
– “A reminder in the case of HMA vs Alexander Salmond; The court made an order preventing the publication of the names and identity, and any information likely to disclose the identity, of the complainers in this case.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/COPFS/status/1295333074503454721
Comments beneath highly critical of BBC, Wark and Garavalli, and supportive of Craig Murray and Mark Hirst.
Interesting, a bit of over-egging going on, by COPFS, considering it appears anyone they ‘like’ gets off scot-free – did you see the WoS article today on his FoI request to COPFS? It appears not even a letter was written to all those publications that DID allow identification – what a farce!
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-unseeing-eyes/
(P.s. I’ve requested that S.Cat be removed from the comments, but I’m not sure of the moderation procedure or if complaints can be made – can you help out at all?)
I cannot imagine what is going on in your mind. SCat might annoy you but his point of view is neither unique nor obviously affected. In any case both Craig and his readers are quite capable of making up their own minds without the assistance you proffer in the form of censorship.
After all the problem Craig is facing is that of a State which believes, as you appear to, that certain opinions need to be removed from the public sphere.
Not at all, anyone can have any opinion they like – if it is expressed as an opinion as you have done – but the repetition, and the use of statements seemed like an angry cat that needed to calm down a wee bit, and flinging insults back doesn’t help (as people were started to do). The moderator has decided and that’s good enough. Or do you believe posing a tiny threat back was despicable behaviour? It was for their own good. Good to hear you are quite capable of looking after yourself. But you are correct, you obviously couldn’t imagine what was on my mind.
you obviously couldn’t imagine what was on my mind
——————————
i can. it amazes me that something can exist in something that small.
Bevin,
It is NOT censorship when an idiot (or worse deliberate) troll is on what is virtually an eponymous thread INCITING the Defendant to commit a crime.
https://www.copfs.gov.uk/media-site/latest-news-from-copfs/926-crown-office-sets-out-social-media-prosecution-policy
Bevin, I very much agree with you about censorship risks. But the very core of this trial might b prejudiced by the retarded individual inciting a crime be committed.
Contrary, yes I’ve read The Unseeing Eyes.
Regarding schrodingers cat, I expect the site team are already paying attention, and I could only use the contact form or Blog Support Forums as you could yourself. But when reading such comments, do bear in mind Schrödinger’s original thought experiment – a cat in a box with a hair-trigger poison vial probably suffers anxiety, yet outcomes remain in superposition until observed!
Contact page, Blog Support Forums and moderation policy:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/contact/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/forum/site-technical-issues-feedback/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/moderation-rules-commenters/
Thank you Clark, I did find those pages, but they looked strange and unused – and I was really just to get the Cat to be a bit more rational (not actually to get it removed), and some of Al-Stuart’s reasoning too (though I doubt Craig has ran away from anything in his life,,, I’ve bought his books but still to read them, so I may be wrong about that!), I don’t normally find SCat that much of an irritant (but others quite often do). Dunno why Craig should suffer just because the Cat decided to neck a bottle of wine (or whatever).
Regarding the thought experiment, that is what I find the most irritating – Schrödinger’s cat was neither alive nor dead, and its status couldn’t be known until it was observed – and once observed it’s no longer Schrodingers cat – it’s just a cat (either alive or dead). So, how could someone call them self Schrodingers Cat, when they are patently alive, commenting, and being observed?! It doesn’t follow the thought experiment, or logic! I’ve had to accept that it’s one of those anomalous outliers that are all too common in quantum mechanics, but I feel better pretending it doesn’t exist 😉
Oh, I hadn’t read the moderation rules before, so I’ve done so now, so thanks for the link.
The fact that I have to pretend SCat doesn’t exist demonstrates how annoyed I was at his arsehole-ish comments though: that I was driven to reply to one of them, when they couldn’t exist,,,
Anyway, all is calm again. I’m really hoping that the case against Craig is dropped, and soon, with all the other things happening just now – and Mark Hirst I think might be appealing after that Wark production. Probably too optimistic there though.
Given that, in strict accordance with the law of evidence in Scotland;
whatever be the offence under investigation, the presumption in favour of innocence can only be displaced by evidence possessing the characteristics of unchallengeable sufficiency, greatest weight, and most cogent effect
and that;
HMA’s document appears to dismiss,or portray an (intentional) ignorance of, the appropriate use of Bayesian statistics to define the word “likely” when using it to modify S11 of the 1981 contempt of court act for the purposes of the Court’s order dated 10 March
it might be worth incorporating the supplementary written submissions for the petitioner as Defence Exhibit A .
I’m not a lawyer either though so, good luck either way.
Well there you have it Craig, you’ve been singled out by the COPFS (as if we didn’t already know that) unfairly we might add, whilst as Stu puts so eloquently the Garavelli Nine who jigsaw revealed at least one of the women will see no further action.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-unseeing-eyes/
You exposed the dark side of the COPFS, and the Scottish governments links to the Alex Salmond fit up, quite beautifully I might add, and now they want you locked up for it. The fact that you are not allowed a jury something that helped Salmond, is an absolute disgrace in itself.
It was Robin MacAlpine, who pointed out that Sturgeon, not Putin or Trump or Bolsanaro who effectively suspended freedom of information laws and float abandoning jury trials and the suspension of elections prior to Covid-19.
https://sourcenews.scot/robin-mcalpine-the-foundations-of-scotlands-democracy-have-crumbled-and-you-should-worry/
“Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught.”
Telling you to take care and be careful seems unnecessary and utterly inadequate . I would like to think that the law is not so much of an ass as it has appeared to be in past actions and your case will be dismissed and those who chose to stamp their wee feet to bring it to court are given a dressing down by an honest judge.
Kirsty and Danni, it appears, have outed a couple of The Girls in recent months and it also appears that Sturgeon’s Cat doesn’t like it.
This is because, when the ‘really reluctant conspirator’ is also outed by them, Nikki’s Empire of Dirt will crumble.
Natural Justice decrees persons should not be found guilty of contempt of court, unless they have DELIBERATELY, and with aforethought demonstrated such contempt. I cannot comment on Craig’s Blogs prior to his reporting of the Salmond Trial, but there’s no question Craig did his best to avoid naming or providing evidence which could lead to the identification of any of the women complainants. At the same time other mainstream and media sources, including the BBC were releasing far more information about these women, much of which could lead to ‘jigsaw identification’ of them.
The BBC Kirsty Wark show was an abomination. I could only watch 5 minutes of this rubbish, but this was REAL contempt of court.
Should this travesty of justice be upheld in the Scottish Courts – and I venture to hope the courts will tell Prentice precisely what they think of him – let the COPFS be aware that Craig’s community will provide him with all the financial means required to take this to the Supreme Court and further.
That is, if they think they are embarassed now – and they are – wait till the wider world of jurisprudence gets hold of it.
Actually this trial is provoked by senior people who are panicing at the prospect of facing charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice…. which ironicaly should of course be brought by the COPFS.
That being Scotland, expenses of the readers and friends are moderate — lawyers have sensible rates, I guess.
BTW, did the journalist who was harassed on a related matter got his computers back from the custody of police?
Good luck Craig.
The correct way to approach this farce is to obtain MAXIMUM reference/push for indyref2 at all instances, in court, in the press and among the foot soldiers including stretching out the case to election time and beyond with all kinds of tactics, fair and foul. In that way the devils who seek to muzzle Scottish Nationalism will have ended up doing exactly the opposite and may then even seek to terminate proceedings.
The case, as I understand it, is that it would be possible for some at least to identity complainers in the Salmond trial.
I do not know what the conditions for proof are in law, but it seems perfectly reasonable to imagine that the claim would require a either
water-tight in-principle proof or else an empirical proof in the form of an actual person who did identy from the information in the blog alone. The first would, I suspect, be next to impossible. The second means having to show that the person had not read any of the other reports, because the evidence is that identification via other report is possible. Interstingly, the submission made appears to admit that the majority of readers could not identify from the blogs.
I think you might like to read Nelson Mandela’s famous statement at his trial in 1960, where he ‘asked for your Honour’s recusal from this case’.
You may need to make some kind of opening statement to the court, which you should disseminate as widely as feasible, that the whole legal framework for trying you has about as much ethical decency as a KKK rapist mutilating a 9 year old black victim.
1. Those trying you are trying to control the evidence you are allowed to present in your defence. I am 100% sure that you will not be allowed to block any evidence they choose to submit, no matter how cogent your legal arguments might be. So the first principle of a fair trial, that the prosecution cannot control the submissions of the Defence, is clearly no longer a part of legal practice in Scotland.
2. You are not likely to be tried by a jury of your peers, you are going to be tried by legal officers utterly beholden to Nicola Sturgeon for their financial livelihood. You do not have to be Lord Kelvin to surmise that no legal officer who calls Nicola Sturgeon a corrupt, vindictive, scheming two faced ‘c**t’ is going to be employed by the Procurator Fiscal’s office…..it is therefore entirely arguable that they are unfit to preside over any court decisions in this case, since they are not capable of exposing Nicola Sturgeon and her colleagues for what they truly are without putting their own careers and futures in peril.
I am sure that your legal representatives would be able to have an absolute whale of a time cross examining any legal officers they were actually allowed to cross-examine. Of course, if none deign to present themselves to the court, there may need to be some scenario modelling in the witness box whereby a third party (or six) shed(s) light on such matters.
3. You might like to ask the Prosecutors why it is that they are not pursuing with equal vigour those third party MSM journalists whose articles so clearly caused the identification of female complainants to become possible. It is absolutely central to your case that treating each and every person equally under the law must be the most central principle in Scottish Law and your representatives will have a fine time asking ascerbically for the Scottish law officers to state that under oath, with prior explanation to them as to just how long they will go to prison for if they have to be convicted of perjury…..not to be convicted of perjury, they must provide documentary evidence that cases have been prepared against named third parties, that writs have been issued and that equal time has been spent pursuing such third parties as has been spent pursuing you.
Failure to do that means that they are acting in arbitrary, unconstitutional ways wholly inconsistent with them retaining any credibility as legal officers of integrity, decency and even-handedness.
Dear me….
There should, if the general public be admitted into the court house, be what is euphemistically termed ‘laughter in court’ at that juncture….
This is going to be a war between you and the most senior legal officers of Scottish legal due process.
You should ensure that those legal officers are put under the most intense fire imaginable and neither their dignity, their probity, nor their honesty should be allowed to emerge unscathed.
If they even attempt to say that only they can say what the law is, they have lost their credibility.
In cases like this, interpreting the law is often based on detailed contentions and submissions from multiple parties, including your legal representatives and any witnesses they may wish to call on your behalf.
If you even begin to suspect that those law officers are metaphorically ‘lying over the ball in the ruck’ to ‘prevent quick ball being redistributed’, you should have absolutely no qualms about giving them a metaphorical ‘right good shoeing…’
“The Crown Office is objecting to the appearance of, and trying to block from court, ALL of my witnesses and ALL of our proposed evidence for my defence at my trial for Contempt of Court.”
Strewth.
Contempt of Court indeed.
Is it not perhaps the court that should be held in contempt?