I am strongly advised to shut up and say nothing just before my trial. I will however point out three things:
1) These documents are all in the possession of the Lord Advocate. They are held in the Crown Office. That is why we are asking the Crown to disclose them. The Lord Advocate at no stage, in opposing their release, denied their existence. This is the Lord Advocate’s reply to the application. 20210114 Answers to Disclosure Request (3)
2) These are some of the same documents the Lord Advocate has refused to give the Holyrood Inquiry and which Alex Salmond has said prevent him appearing before the Inquiry until the Lord Advocate agrees he can reference them in his evidence.
3) The High Court has agreed with the Lord Advocate that these messages are irrelevant to my trial and do not go to my Article 10 rights of free speech. The High Court notably refrained from endorsing the Lord Advocate’s argument that they are “private messages” and that Murrell and Ruddick are protected from their disclosure under Article 8.
This is extremely important as it means the High Court has not endorsed the Lord Advocate’s arguments for keeping these messages from the Holyrood Inquiry. The grounds on which the High Court did find against me – relevance and Article 10 – relate to my trial but do not relate to the Holyrood Inquiry.
The High Court ruling notably does not endorse the argument here on Murrell and Ruddick’s privacy. The Lord Advocate’s refusal to provide these documents to the Holyrood Inquiry on the grounds of the privacy and data protection rights of Murrell and Ruddick is therefore unlikely to survive a court application by the Fabiani Committee. That would require a great deal more courage than the Committee have shown to date.
I am as advised not going to comment on the merits of the High Court ruling, or on what the messages show.
But, as a matter of simple fact, these messages have now been barred from:
1) The Salmond Trial
2) The Holyrood Inquiry
3) The Murray Trial
Move along please. Absolutely nothing to see here. Nothing at all. Everything in Scotland is perfectly normal and above board. Ignore Craig Murray, he is a conspiracy theorist.
And if you don’t ignore all this, if you publish anything, we may send you to prison.
—————————————————–
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Etherium/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
It seems to me that since there is a flat refusal for disclosure you should keep the decision as an ace up the sleeve.
Any adverse trial Judgment could be assisted by an appellate argument of being unfair for reason of the exclusion of necessary and relevant evidence.
I think it is difficult to acknowledge to extent to which our society has been degraded and the level of its corruption. It seems apparent that the bulk of the judiciary and police, the political class, trans-national corporations, intelligence agencies and straight-forward organised crime work as one on each others perceived behalf, on a nod and a wink, no names no pack-drill basis. and for basically two reasons. 1, to stay on the gravy train, and 2, personal survival, they don’t want to be targeted like Assange, Salmon, yourself, and god knows how many we’ll never know about. But we cannot give up. There is no choice but to keep going. You are a hero, Good luck
These three mentioned all have reasonable to superstar levels of media profile, and the accompanying helpful connections.
God knows what they can and will do to the rest of us.
I believe Machiavelli prescribed a beheading in town square to quell public irritability
Trial in the ‘public square’ is not a useless strategy – for exposure of a mighty and strong opponent at times serves well as ‘David’s little stone’ cast against Goliath.
Been there experienced that.
News that the “Fabiani Committee” are being denied access to the written submission by Geoff Aberdein (regards his Holyrood meeting with Sturgeon) really left me with a hollow feeling in the pit of my stomach. This really is outrageous. If the “Committee” had any guts, if they hope to retain any credibility, they should resign en mass with immediate effect.
I desperately want an independent Scotland but if that means perpetual rule by oor very ain ZANU PF, I’d rather hold off independence.
Murrell does dress like Mugabe as well as looking a lot like Himmler.
Vivian, you have fallen into one of the many the traps set by playing Westminster rules. Reason 1,001 why Scotland should not be independent, especially just now…that old chestnut.
We can now add to the list of being too wee, too poor and too stupid…too corrupt.
If only we could start a campaign to vote for independence. External influences that plague and potentially corrupt Scottish institutions can surely be revealed and those complicit removed, in a form of truth and reconciliation post independence. For that reason alone, if I were Westminster, would do all I can to delay that vote indefinitely.
Bob – what? Do you mean that Nicola Sturgeon is a Westminster plant? Are we going to discover that in reality she’s an English agent employed by MI6?
I get the impression that she’s a home-grown disaster. And yes – I do think she has taken lessons on governing from Idi Amin.
James, she doesn’t need to be a Mi6 plant here corruption in office and enjoyment of operating above the law means Vauxhall really don’t need to recruit her!
What amazes me is the lack of Mark-Anthonies behind her with knife ready to bury not praise.
That’s a tempting argument, but corruption is a part of any country’s politics, and this particular corruption is a foretaste of what can happen in small (and large) nations with inadequate constitutional safeguards. Without them, a banana skin republic comes to mind, it’s very easy for a country to slip up and fall flat on its constitutional face. Basically is it better or worse to have your own parochial national corruption, or be ruled by an equally corrupt and larger and deeply entrenched external corruption. I would have thought the former was better, as there’s more of a chance you might be able to do something about it.
It might also be true that SNP as it is now, with its huge majority from the Scottish electorate earned by its promise to seek Scottish independence will not survive as it is now when independence arrives. Once its very reason to exist no longer pertains, it will likely split up into more traditional political camps – left wing, centrist, right wing. Labour will become an independent Scottish Labour Party affiliated to Labour in England and Wales. . I am less sure that Scottish Conservatives will be able to do the same thing and may have to regroup under some differently named banner. Basically what I’m saying is that what’s happening in the SNP now is likely a reflection of unbridled political dominance and an all-too-comfortable conceit of this, that will wane after independence. Indeed a truly independent Scottish Labour party might give SNP a good run for its money.
As I am not very knowledgeable about all this, I live in NZ, what is the constitution proposed for Scotland? Does it include a second (revisory/expert) chamber. We don’t have a second chamber in NZ, it was abolished many years ago, but we do need one. MMP has helped a bit, but I think all legislatures should be amenable to scrutiny and revision, parliamentary committees are not in themselves sufficient. It also seems the position of “Lord Advocate” needs some serious revision as to its political independence, if the position is still required at all. Are you having any problems with the centralisation of the Scottish police? NZ though has had a national police force since the 1880s – there’s a bit of that heavy-handed police action on political convenience here too. (A number of serious episodes in the last few years)
The US/UK establishment(s) and their pathetic propagandists in the media no longer even pretend a person is entitled to a fair trial, or that what they do is ‘just not cricket’, or that they are ‘abiding by the rules in golf’, ‘justice is blind’, etc., etc.
The system was always bent and corrupt. Via non-establshment media, people can see the emperor has no clothes, even as the MSM are marvelling at his/her magnificent costume. How long before non-establishment media are censored and banned due to ‘domestic terrorism’? That can only be the next step.
Someone once said to me that “terrorists don’t deserve a fair trial”. They weren’t trying to make a joke and didn’t understand the absurdity of their statement. I doubt this was a one off.
I don’t think that position is exactly absurd. It’s coherent enough, but it denies the whole of our concept of “justice”.
It’s a return to the Hobbesian state of affairs long ago, before kings and other rulers set up judges and courts of law to keep the peace and do justice.
The assumption is that the speaker knows who is a “terrorist”, and wishes such persons to be punished immediately. It’s a common assumption in violent fiction, but one that any sheriff in the “Wild West” would repudiate.
He was a terrorist.
How do you know?
Because we shot him.
Yes, of course, J – thanks for making that clear. That takes it a long step beyond “terrorists don’t deserve a trial”.
And it’s a statement which, if not explicitly spoken, has been implicit behind the acts of Western governments for decades. Like calling people “insurgents” who fight back against an illegal unprovoked war of aggression against their country and people.
I used to think that Scotland should seek independence in order to escape from a corrupt Westminster. Now I’m wondering whether it’s the other way round . . .
Runner77, I believe that a proportion of people everywhere are susceptible to corruption. Of course it is good to have people who are honest, but that is a cultural issue which cannot be changed quickly – if at all. For decades now we have been witnessing the American tide coming in: a culture that values only money and celebrity. In such a culture, corruption is guaranteed.
The other approach is to have institutions that guard against corruption, or at least minimise it. Our “democratic” system seems to me positively designed to weed out honest people and concentrate the wickedest and most corrupt in the seats of power. It seems to have worked marvellously well in Edinburgh, London, Washington…
When Jefferson was President for two terms (eight years) he refused to accept any presents. He even declined birthday gifts from friends and family. That is how the radical integrity of one person can fight back against corruption. But today the very institutions that Jefferson and his colleagues thought the very best to prevent corruption have been completely penetrated and their purpose reversed.
My Peppa Pig jigsaw is identifying the real culprits in this case, both male. Have I got the wrong jigsaw?
That can only mean you got help from the wrong source, Whoever it was should watch their back!
Sadly the final assertion that the “Fabiani Committee” would be knocking on an open door, regards access to the Murrell / Ruddick correspondence now that the High Court has found that that correspondence is not covered by privacy, fails to account for the quantum justice that now prevalent in St Nicola’s Scotland.
After all, the Sturgeon / Salmond meeting at her Glasgow residence can be simultaneously Government business and “party business” (dependent on who asks).
Craig, be careful. Yoiur enemies have no conscience.
Am I correct in recalling that this ‘ Lord Advocate ‘ fellow is a direct placeman of the Murrell cabal?
Indeed and a member of Nicola’s cabinet.
Hence why other countries take separation of powers so seriously.
Far too much in the UK rests upon the personal honour and the ethical integrity of high office holders. A throwback to more civilised times. A system that’s ripe for undue influence and corruption in a generation of political believe-in-nothing careerist charlatans who see things purely in terms of ‘what can we get away with’. Few cabinet ministers resign of their own volition these days – the tabloid press have to force them out.
An independent Scotland will need a new modern constitution that properly separates powers and assumes zero trust among high office holders demanding total transparency.
Chief prosecutor and chief lawyer to the Scottish government.
Most people would wonder how can there not be a conflict of interest in cases like these.
England and Wales are no better, current Attorney General Suella Braverman has been hugely controversial; accused of playing fast and loose with elements of international law in relation to the Brexit withdrawal deal.
Another recent holder, Lord Goldsmith, famously changed his legal advice on the legality of the Iraq war without a second ‘authorising use of force’ UN resolution, after a trip to Washington.
The UK.
In April 2020 ,writing in The Scotsman, former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said:
“It’s something I’ve always felt was wrong, believing that the positions should be entirely separate. Justice has not only to be done but must be seen to be done.”
Few cabinet ministers resign of their own volition these days – the tabloid press have to force them out.
… but not if the tabloid press wants them in!
“And if you don’t ignore all this, if you publish anything, we may (WILL) send you to prison.”
At some point in time (and I have no idea when exactly that time is) it will be clear that continuing to fight a corrupt system WITHIN THIS corrupt system will just destroy you your friends and ultimately your cause. Those that make the rules can interpret and/or change them at will – you are powerless.
You and Julian know what is coming. Perhaps a time will come to remember Robert Gerard Sands if your cause is of greater value than your pride in knowing you are legally/morally right.
James Cook: you mention Robert Gerard Sands. Some readers may not know that you are referring to Bobby Sands, who was elected MP for the Westminster constituency of Fermanagh South Tyrone in a by-election in April 1981. During the whole period of nominations and campaign, from the death of the previous MP Frank Maguire on 5 March to the announcement of Sands’ election victory on 9 April, Sands was a prisoner on hunger strike in The Maze prison, having been sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for possession of a firearm. He was a member of the Provisional IRA but belonged to no political party and stood on the ticket ‘Anti-H Block Armagh Political Prisoner’. There was only one other candidate, a rarity in Westminster elections. Sands was not permitted to campaign or issue any statement, but used his sister’s name as a pseudonym in publications. He gained just under 30,500 votes to just over 29,000 votes for the Ulster Unionist Party candidate Harry West. On 5 May, 26 days after his election victory, Sands, still in prison, died as a result of starvation.
His death, and those of a series of other hunger strikers in The Maze, led to a revival of the fortunes of Sinn Fein (sometimes referred to as the political wing of the provisional IRA) and ultimately to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement on 10 April 1998.
Thank you Coldish for making the reference clear. I would have added Gandhi, but I thought it would be too much. Surprising to know people would not remember past hunger strikers?
When you are powerless and at the mercy of tyrants or oligarchs, playing by their rules ultimately becomes futile.
When incarcerated for political views, you can go crazy or you can stop cooperating and make them make a martyr of you.
As Scotland has yet to create a GITMO for political prisoners, non cooperation remains an option. Julian is less lucky as he is in a prison that can easily make him disappear from the public eye.
This is grotesque beyond belief.
The damage they are doing to Scotland’s legal and judicial reputation is staggering,absolutely staggering.
‘Crown counsel “must consider whether producing [the] documents sought would be contrary to the public interest”, a spokesperson said’
I am minded to think that charges will be dropped and an internal review will be undertaken as a matter of distinct urgency.
But then I always try to be optimistic, yet, what other course of action can avert an abject disaster for the SNP? Nobody i know is aware of this proceeding, even the article in the Guardian, perversely, doesn’t mention Mr Murray. Here’s hoping for the rise of just considerations within the ranks.
A good start in the setting up of a new Independent country Scotland
Every Lawyer and everyone associated with the legal profession in Scotland be removed from any current position or involvement with the general public .
The language these parasites use to keep the public at arms length and baffled by their pointless beyond belief decisions must stop they don’t serve democracy they stifle and poison it , as I have previously said removing them would be a good start.
A witness (eg AS or a knowing trained punter) under oath refuses to answer a defence lawyers question pleading he is unable for fear of being liable to jail by the Lord Advocate. Forcing a trial within the Murray trial, within which the good judge makes a ruling ORDERING the Lord Advocate to release the said INCRIMINATING CONSPIRACY documents. Case dropped by oppressors by then, and normal service can resume at this blog?
I am not permitted any witnesses.
Nor are you permitted any justice.
Let us just wait and see. I don’t think that Lady Dorian is corrupt (but am prepared to be proved wrong). Just wait and see before jumping to conclusions.
Craig Murray
English barrister Jude Bunting of Doughty Street Chambers has experience with courts regarding rights to report / online media and fair trials, so it’s possible he might be able to assist your counsel.
Today’s Times piece might be of interest on here.
Geoff Aberdein, who was Alex Salmond’s chief of staff when he was first minister, had a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood on March 29, 2018
Kieran Andrews
Thursday January 21 2021
Vital evidence about whether Nicola Sturgeon misled parliament will never be made public after it was withdrawn from a Holyrood inquiry.
The first minister has been accused of failing to tell the truth to parliament about when she became aware of a Scottish government investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-inquiry-committee-wont-get-nicola-sturgeon-key-evidence-t0r9frphz
Includes a photo of Aberdein.
The iron fist of the corrupted state is becoming ever more apparent.
Ultimately when the rule of law is abandoned, it all ends in tears.
1930s Germany showed that. And more recently in our doorstep NI showed again unfairness, division and corrupt governance once again created mayhem.
Stick with the legal Craig. The alternative is a, jungle to be avoided.
At least in 1930s Germany you could go round to your neighbour for a cup of tea and a chat. We are well beyond that point.
Germany 1930 to 1933 in particular.
Well, Mr Murray, your Scotnaz party has done a fine job buggering up the Scottish legal system. I understand that it has done much the same for the schools. What will be its next target?
Only true in part.
The other ‘party’ in the Scottish Government is Civil Service ‘Scotland’. Whitehall is free to appoint as moles as required. Hence the use of single quotes.
Do not for one minute think that they are not in post.
A third of a millennia of colonial rule heavily influences Scotland’s legal system, as it has for Scotland’s mostly unionist establishment more generally.
As Frantz Fanon said, the objective of the colonized “is to be an imitation of the coloniser”. That also means, more especially for elites, to adopt their culture and ‘values’.
‘Scotnaz’ folks do not control what Osborne called ‘the arms’ of the state, i.e. police/copfs, courts and civil service, for there is no Scottish state.
The previous century to the Act of Union, the Scottish legal system was enthusiastically sentencing witches to death, at the highest rate in Europe and higher than the current covid crisis. It did not need much influencing.
Extract from Edinburgh University: ‘The Survey of Scottish Witchcraft’
Q. How does Scotland compare to England and the rest of Europe?
A. Comparisons are interesting but at the same time can tell us relatively little. They are also influenced by which part of Europe is used as a comparison. A gender division of 85% women and 15% men is seen in most other parts of Europe, but in areas like Estonia, Russia and Finland the percentage of men accused is as high and in some areas higher than of women. In Iceland the percentage of men executed was as high as 90%. It is possible therefore to say that Scotland is quite similar to the rest of mainland Europe, but France and many parts of Germany, where many of the European witch trials occurred, were politically, religiously and culturally quite different from Scotland. The Scandinavian comparison should not be ignored even if it demonstrates very different patterns.
https://www.shca.ed.ac.uk/Research/witches/introduction.html
A little reading of Scots history prior to 1605 would do a lot to disabuse anyone who thinks that all the evil and deceit in Scottish politics comes from South of the border.
According to Cesaire, colonialism adds further layers of oppression on a people over and above the oppression meted out by corrupt elites.
Even if a document is disclosed, reporting that someone says that she can find the kind of evidence that is needed to prosecute someone, how does that prove that the evidence is made up? It may be that she has access to several witnesses. Therefore the document does not prove conspiracy to make someone fake evidence.
taking all the documents together – and there is a lot – the situation is very plain indeed. Yes, one document in isolation does not constitute definitive proof – though “tell me what evidence you need, and I will get it” many might think to be a particularly rum statement from a functionary of a political party.
Craig Murray – very plain indeed to your average Joe like me, but it would seem to be somewhat obscure to the razor sharp legal mind of the Lord Advocate.
Scotland, get off your knees and remove these crooks if you want any hope of independence.
Best wishes for the trial Craig.
Please excuse my ignorance but..
Does the Advocate not have a conflict of interest been in the Sturgeon cabinet?
Do these guys not take an oath of office? are they in breach of this?
You are (apparently) entitled to a fair trial, no?
Does contempt not require an injured party?
Well that is clear – if you wish to organize a crime – let’s say conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – make sure you do it in private messages. If you do the COPFS will defend your right to privacy.
Tell me: how many criminals organize their crimes in *public* communications?
“Dear Bill, let’s rob a bank, and bring guns to deal with anyone who gets in our way. Please make sure to reply to this suggestion only in this private WhatsApp group chat.”
You make an important point, criminals can have their communications intercepted and that can be used as evidence against them, yet in this case what may be evidence of a criminal conspiracy cannot be used in Craig’s defence because that might breach a right to privacy by the alleged conspirators themselves.
And, to boot, the alleged conspirators are making and administering the rules of this farce. It is absurd.
Joe, I think you may just have inadvertently cracked the reason why commercial cartels continue to be organised and to thrive, in spite of laws purportedly outlawing them.
All else failing, these things can readily be arranged at Sir Humphrey’s club over a glass of decent port.
So this is means The Mets Cressida Dick is wrong and all these EncroChat messages are now non-admissible as evidence in the criminal trials to come (and any convictions obtained using this evidence makes them unsound)?
https://web.archive.org/web/20210121165216/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53263310
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick, whose force made 171 arrests and seized £13.3m in cash, described it as a “game changer”.
“The Mets Cressida Dick is wrong…”
Profoundly true, in so many different ways. Actually contrary to nature, some might say.
Craig Murray
See also: “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”: “Article 14: (e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
“Article 19: 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
“Article 25: Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly…
“Article 26: All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as…political or other opinion”.* * https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx
See also: “THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS; Definition of the Right to Participate in Public Affairs:
“In addition, in paragraph 5 of the same General Comment, the Committee defines the conduct of public affairs as “a broad concept that relates to the exercise of political power”.**
** https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/EqualParticipation/DraftGuidelines/CarterCenter.pdf
It appears to me there are legitimate questions to be asked and answered about whether the complaint made against you involves political discrimination because you are outspoken in your views that Scotland should be an independent country. Also, you have been an outspoken in alleging abuses of political power by the Sturgeon SNP Scottish (devolution) Government etc. Furthermore, all the prosecutions related to the Alex Salmond case, so far, appear to be against pro-Scottish independence supporters only.
All they want is to nip you in the bud from starting a new Scottish Independence Party before the May election. At the moment Sturgeon is the default choice, but AS and CM and others are all competent alternatives
All fillibustering and no bustering of fillies.
A state within a state. The Judiciary is still independent, as, I believe, are most public offices as institutions, albeit individuals may well be corrupt. I hope that your case will get short shrift. If it doesn’t, I can see this being the straw that broke the camel’s back.
In order to arrive at a decision whether any alleged jigsaw pieces revealed by CM add up to a critical mass for identification (and make CM culpable), the prosecution has to have seen the other pieces of the puzzle. As CMs lawyers have the right to sight all the prosecutions evidence, this can be applied for via the presiding judge with the said incriminating documents to end up in the public domain? Enough for the oppressors to scuttle their own case, or the SNP Government falls. Unless Hamza wants to take over at SNP after sinking the Sturgeons in that way?
It was a theme in “Yes Minister”, don’t start an Inquiry unless the outcome is certain – in this case to clear Nicola Sturgeon. But that looks impossible now. Yesterday they had to ignore Geoff Aberdein’s evidence, now they have to ignore the Murrell texts.
I have no loyalty to Holyrood or Westminster and I am not here to praise them, one day I hope to help bury them both.
But for the here and now I will repeat one of my main criticisms of the nationalist argument…….how the hell can you have a free and independent country with such a bent and corrupt judiciary?
I justify such a charge on the lack of justice we have witnessed over the verdict against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who was accused and found guilty of the Lockerbie Bombing by Scottish judges. To date that miscarriage of Scottish Justice has not been put right.
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/
I kind of concur with this completely. I basically very much like what Craig Murray is trying to achieve, what he stands for, the sort of vision for society. If I had the slightest confidence that Scottish independence could achieve this, then I would be all for it.
Nicola Sturgeon and her set and – yes – what they have done with the Scottish justice system which was the envy of the world only 40 years ago indicates that this argument is fallacious, because it is based on licensed premises. Left to our own devices, we can be just as corrupt as the English.
And yes – convicting Al Megrahi was a gross miscarriage of justice.
Shouldn’t it be up to the judge at a trial to decide if it’s relevant? Everyone has seen these documents so that they can make a decision as to whether someone else in their profession should see them. A lot of hard work is being put into keeping these documents from both your trial and the Hollyrood Inquiry, too much hard work..
Craig Murray
Has it been established that the SPADs involved are private individuals. I thought they are regarded like temporary civil servants?
See also: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832599/201612_Code_of_Conduct_for_Special_Advisers.pdf
This may be relevant for (f).
In case BC and others v Chief Constable Police Service of Scotland and others [2019] CSIH 61, the court ruled that Police Scotland officers’ WhatsApp messages could be used as evidence for disciplinary matters; that it did not breach their Article 8 privacy as they are expected to uphold certain standards of conduct.
Courts frequently order disclosure of private documents, but disclosure is on the basis that is only for the purpose of the litigation and should not be used for ulterior purposes.