UPDATE Some journalists, NGOs and observers registering for my trial using details below are being asked for the case number. This is HCA/2020-06/XM.
My trial for Contempt of Court in my reporting of the Alex Salmond trial is on 27 and 28 January at the Court of Appeals in Edinburgh. Contempt of Court charges can be brought by a judge or by the Crown. These are being brought by the Crown – an important point. It is a strange charge. The potential penalties are very serious – up to two years in prison and an “unlimited” fine. Yet it is not a criminal offence nor a criminal trial, and despite the life-changing penalties there is no jury; but the judges do have to rule on the facts to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
I am being charged with contempt of court on three separate counts:
a) Publication of material likely to influence the jury
b) Jigsaw Identification of Protected Identities
c) Reporting the Exclusion of a Juror
These are some of the key issues involved:
a) Publication of Material Likely to Influence the Jury
- My defence team believe this is the first modern prosecution in Scotland (or England) for a publication allegedly influencing a jury in favour of the defendant. All previous prosecutions for at least 150 years appear to be for prejudice against a defendant. It has always been assumed the Crown and the judge are big enough to counter any prejudice against the Crown (If anyone wishes to research the unprecedented prosecution point further that would be welcome; it is of course difficult to prove a negative)
- The Lord Advocate cannot order censorship. The Crown has not had the power of censorship in Scotland for 300 years. I am not obliged to obey an instruction from the Crown Office to remove an article. If the Lord Advocate genuinely believed an article could influence a trial, he had a public duty to go to a judge before the trial, in a timely manner, and ask the judge to order the removal of the article. I would have contested, but obeyed if I lost – only a judge can order the removal of an article.
- It is ludicrous to claim my little blog influenced the jury, compared to the massive outpouring of mainstream media articles amplifying salacious allegations against Salmond released by the Crown Office.
- Political satire is protected speech
- My articles were well founded journalism indicating the Salmond prosecution was a conspiracy involving senior members of the Scottish Government and SNP, with the active corrupt collusion of the prosecutorial authorities. This is true and evidenced in documents held by the Crown but kept from the Salmond trial, kept from the Holyrood Inquiry and so far kept from my trial. Publication of this true information was of crucial public interest and protected by my Article 10 rights to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.
b) Jigsaw Identification
- I did not jigsaw identify anyone.
- The Lord Advocate argues that I am responsible for tweets in reply to my own tweets. We argue this is not true – I am not the publisher of twitter – and would set a very dangerous precedent.
- The Crown is specifically arguing that the bar for jigsaw identification is that any one single individual with specialist knowledge would be likely to identify a witness from my writing; this could be, for example, an individual who worked in the same office, or the doorman at Bute House who knew who was there on which day. My defence is that jigsaw identification means likely to identify to the public. If the Crown’s definition were accepted, there would be a massive chilling effect on journalism.
- The mainstream media demonstrably gave more jigsaw identification information than I did, notably, but not only, Dani Garavelli and Kirsty Wark. I have been singled out for prosecution on political grounds.
- The court order protecting identities did not come into being before 10 March 2020. Most of the Crown’s alleged examples are before this date. We absolutely deny my articles enable jigsaw identification, but even if they did they were not illegal at the time of publication.
- Up until 10 March 2020, had I wished to publish identities I could have done so quite legally in the articles before that date which the Lord Advocate cites. Unlike England, there is no law in Scotland barring publication of witness identity absent a specific court order. The fact I did not do so in the year between my learning identities and the ban coming into force, in several articles on the case where I could legally have published the identities, make nonsense the Lord Advocate’s contention that I deliberately gave clues.
- After Alex Salmond’s acquittal the false accusers continued to take advantage of the court anonymity order to decry and undermine the jury’s verdict and malign Alex Salmond. Given the high positions of influence the women hold, I decided to challenge in court whether there was not a public interest in stopping this behaviour, in this unique case greater than the important general public interest in protecting identities. I did not take it upon myself to determine this, but commissioned and paid for a senior advocate to prepare a case for the judge to decide. I received the draft application from my senior counsel but the application was postponed by Covid. I would not have taken this expensive and responsible legal route if I was leaking the identities illegally as alleged.
c) Juror Exclusion
- All I published was that a juror had been excluded but I was not allowed to say why. We argue this does not breach the court order preventing disclosure of the proceedings where the exclusion was discussed and ordered. The simple fact of the exclusion was not secret. (Though it is a very interesting story indeed which I shall tell you once I can).
AN APPEAL FOR HELP
I hope that brief account gives some idea of the legal arguments involved. But everybody whose head is not buttoned up the back knows this is not really what the case is about. This is about the ability of those in power in Scotland to use the law to persecute their political opponents. They tried it on Alex Salmond, they tried it on Mark Hirst – both blowing up in their faces – and now they are trying it on me.
If there were a jury, I would not lose one moment’s sleep. But there is not. I am buoyed by the fact that what the Alex Salmond and Mark Hirst trials show is that while both Police Scotland and the Crown Office may stink of rotten corruption at the top, Scotland’s judiciary is still independent. It is worth noting that the simply astonishing admission of the Lord Advocate and Crown Office to malicious prosecution recently in the Rangers case is going to cost the taxpayer almost £50 million, once all costs are in and awards paid out. The police and legal costs for the Alex Salmond case total some £10 million wasted.
I call on journalists worldwide who support freedom of speech to pay attention and to cover this trial. The case is HMA vs Craig John Murray in the Court of Appeals, 27 January. The emails for registration are [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] – please copy to all three. I also ask you to press specifically for video access, not the dreadful quality sound only phone-in.
I also call on NGO’s, political associations, community bodies and elected representatives worldwide to apply to register for observer status using the same email details.
Once registered, journalists and observers should ask the court for copies of the court documents. I am severely constrained in giving out documents at present.
Members of the public will be able to register to listen live. I am afraid this will very probably be the same poor quality sound only link down the telephone. It also involves giving the court some registration details, and may incur call charges to a London number. Registration details will be posted here by the court shortly – where you will also find details for Martin Keatings’ vital case on Scotland’s right to hold an independence referendum without Boris Johnson’s permission.
I appeal for as many people as can do so to register and listen in. Your support is vital to me both morally and practically. I can see no reason why registered members of the public should not inquire to the court as to the availability of the documents. Justice is supposed to be seen to be done.
Long term readers of my blog know that for well over a decade we have campaigned against injustice, ill-treatment, imprisonment and detention of many, both the famous and the obscure. I therefore feel little shame in asking everyone now to try and join in the same cause on my own behalf.
—————————————————–
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.
You’ve got loads of support Craig, never doubt it.
Many watch and support you with great interest Craig,from near and far.
This is an extremely important case for those of us who care about justice,fairness and basic human decency.
I’ll be staggered if the judge doesnt throw this horrific and vengeful case out very promptly indeed.
This absolute rot has to stop.
Best of luck.
Everything you say points to only one conclusion: That is a political trial of an inconvenient thorn in the sides of the prosecution, who has broken no laws, at the same time as others who have behaved far more egregiously. I hope that, as it would be on any reasonable examination, be thrown out immediately. The grounds are so flimsy, so feeble and so selective that it will bring the justice system in Scotland into terrible disrepute if they proceed with this show trial. If the prosecution, and those behind it, are so convinced of the justice of their broader case, why are they so discomforted and disturbed by the journalism of a blogger which has evidentially broken no rules?
Best of luck, i can’t see how they can proceed with this, other than to prolong harassment and cost the defendant money and reputation (as they did with Mark Hirst, found innocent, but at great personal cost to himself).
MURRAY/FREE PRESS/PUBLIC/TRUTH v ROTTEN CONTEMPTUOUS COURT
Conviction is unthinkable (DON’T YOU DARE)…
The House has an unlimited budget to pursue harassment financed by the taxpayer, but voters will eventually have a say in ejecting the political devils behind this frivolous charade provided CM does a good job of hanging out their dirty laundry in the social media for all to see. In the meantime thanks to crowd funding we can keep hope alive, but some needy charities will lose out as punters adjust their budgets. Sick. CM has already seen off the Fiddlers on the Roof with their guerilla lawfare, and so it will be with this dastardly repeat of a curried haggis experiment to shut up dissent.
That doesn’t help Craig though does it. He’s facing Jail time. That’s something you’d expect of an African dictatorship not Scotland and its supposed excellent legal system
Yes – well – I always thought that Nicola Sturgeon would be better placed as president of Uganda – more her style.
You could have asked Abdul Baset al-Megrahi about “Scotland’s excellent legal system”.
Robert Black described Megrahi’s “trial” as one of the worst miscarriages of justice in Scottish history.
The pattern is unmistakeable: the greater the political involvement, the less the chance of justice being done.
In al-Megrahi’s case, weren’t our lords and masters across the water pulling the strings?
It takes centuries to build up a fine reputation. It only takes about five years to bring it all crashing back down again….
Guerilla lawfare!
Hadn’t heard that phrase before but will remember it.
Seemed more like gefilte warfare !!
The problem is, even if Craig wins with all costs paid the instigators will likely not be held to account by the electorate. Salmond’s and Murray’s side of this has been largely unsaid by the media, instead they have championed the losing side.
You’ve gone to great lengths to self-censor on many occasions and still these claims you’ve fallen foul. If a judiciary becomes politicised society is the ultimate loser. Permitted free speech gets narrowed to point where nobody knows exactly where the boundaries are.
As you highlight, where were these great defenders against prejudicial reporting when Alex Salmond was being tried in the UK tabloid and broadsheet press; with their lurid headlines and one-sided accuser-focused reporting about “sloppy kisses” and “groping” in the Daily Mail et al? Worth also pointing out that jurors can face contempt charges for researching cases online anyway, so the onus isn’t entirely on journalists and bloggers, there is that safeguard.
This prosecution if ‘successful’ like that of Mark Hirst before it, would set a low bar and a terrible precedent, however politically satisfying it may be for the myopic. Can these people see beyond that temporary satisfaction?
Craig Murray,
Forgive me for here recounting, but you might see why your situation brings to the forefront of my mind experiences I had over thirty years ago as a much younger and spirited lawyer in the British colony of the Turks and Caicos Islands. I chuckle now – but it was not funny back then.
We had a Chief Justice who, simply stated, was incompetent. A legal colleague, Lloyd Rodney ( a cousin of the famous Guyanese historian, Walter Rodney) and I used a provision in the written Constitution to petition for his removal based on the facts and reasons stated in Rodney’s petition and the separate facts and reasons stated in mine and we both delivered to the British Governor. Under pressure, the Governor was compelled to provide a ruling with reasons. He did – declined the request(s) – and in practical terms that would have been the end of the matter – our points having been publicly made. Instead, the Chief Justice thereafter issued separate warrants for our arrest. We were arrested and brought to court and chastised by the same Chief Justice and then released the same day. Things get really bizarre thereafter up to the point where the Chief Justice published a falsehood that the Government had condemned us both. I obtained a letter from the then Chief Minister confirming that the article had stated a falsehood as no such condemnation had ever taken place. I promptly then sued the Chief Justice in his personal capacity for defamation. Events led to both of us being placed before a new English Judge on the charge of ‘contempt of court by reason of scandalising the court’. Well, that is an obsolete law last used in the UK in the 1930s. Additionally, the Bill of Rights 1688 prohibits the prosecution of anyone who lawfully petitions the Sovereign ( read here – Sovereign’s representative – His Excellency the British Governor). Much more detail could be told – but to cut it short – Rodney was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and I was given 2 years of a probationary sentence ( i.e. no imprisonment). The matter was broadcast on the BBC which put its own spin on events to assist in covering the establishment. I rallied the best lawyers I knew around the English speaking Caribbean, then engaged human rights organisations in the Caribbean, in Canada and in the UK. Amnesty International intervened and directed the British Government that if Rodney was not unconditionally released from prison he would be declared internationally ‘ a prisoner of conscience’. He was first placed in hospital under prison guard and then upon instructions from the Superintendent of Prisons he was shackled to his hospital bed then released. We sued and before Judge and a civil jury there was victory and monetary compensation paid.
The matter was written up in an international human rights journal affiliated to the United Nations.
Again, I say that it would be impossible for me not to recall, since you now face contempt charges. I do not take your matter lightly – but – honestly I think in your case there is a calculated attempt to intimidate you based on concocted charges which I believe you will defeat. I do not see prison time for you (and you are not in a British colony) so I can’t see them imprisoning you. However, observing what has been done to Julian Assange I sincerely hope that I do not have to eat my words.
Craig Murray – on that note – I wish you the best in your trial.
“(and you are not in a British colony)”.
I’m afraid we are. See Alfred Baird’s excellent book
Doun-Hauden: The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Doun-Hauden-Socio-Political-Determinants-Scottish-Independence/dp/B086Y6MMH2
and his various postings here for a full explanation of Scotland’s colonial status.
Re the identification of the women, for this to be contempt of court, surely it would have to be in the ‘public interest’ that the jigsaw identifications should not identify them? Probably, 99.9% of people in Scotland wouldn’t have a clue who they are. Where is the public interest? Of those who could make a stab at solving the jigsaw, they will be those in the know anyway: politicians, public servants, civil servants, journalists. It is a wee, incestuous coterie.
I recall that you specifically stated in your piece that you were not intending to identify anyone, and you didn’t, as far as I could see, and, as stated, other people – MSM journalists – gave away a lot more information on that score. They, however, have been spared.
As for the juror, whoop-dee-woo: again, who would know? If the jury was excluded, then most people would just think, okay, must have done something specifically not sanctioned by the court. I have read before of a juror being excluded in another case. It doesn’t happen often, but, when it does, you wonder why, accept that it was something that might jeopardise the case, then pass on. You did not identify the juror or state why he/she had been excluded.
I don’t know how it got to this point. I wish you the very best of luck, Mr Murray. What is in the ‘public interest’ is that you should not be prosecuted.
The exclusion of the juror was widely reported at the time as being due to him telling someone that Salmond was innocent. May have been set-up. Wouldn’t be a surprise in this case.
I know somebody else who was on the jury. Their secret is safe with me. Maybe not from everyone else who also knows them.
Am I to understand that the prosecution will argue that the jury was unduly influenced by what they heard in court.
They argue that they were likely to be unduly influenced by my “Yes, First Minister” satire.
Your Yes, First Minister satire is well worth a re-read in hindsight, especially in the light of Gordon Dangerfield’s article from yesterday:
CONTRARY TO THE FACTS: THE EVIDENCE OF LESLIE EVANS AND JUDITH MACKINNON
Really! It’s like Roy Jenkins never existed and his reforms never took place. Is the Lord Chamberlain going to make an appearance? Pity the late Jeremy Hutchinson QC is not here to represent you.
How on Earth could that be proved or is assumption simply enough to convict. If that were the case then God help us all.
Ian Caldwell
‘Whilst you undoubtedly intended to serve your (First) Minister loyally, wholeheartedly and devotedly in principle, there emerged certain challenges to that underlying principle in practice, which ultimately caused you to inform your more senior (legal) Principals in practice, that your (First) Minister’s unprincipled practices caused your practice of principled principles the sort of ethical and principled difficulties that caused the principled principle of loyalty in principle to be strained beyond the point of practical loyalty in practice….. ‘
Didn’t it??
Your best defense may be to point out that the jury were unduly influenced by the fact that the prosecution case was rubbish and it looked as if Alex Prentice was trying very hard to lose.
The Salmond verdict was a total humiliation for them and remains incredibly raw and painful. This case against you can only be understood as a desperate attempt to exact ‘revenge’ on another innocent man. It is a nonsense. Hopefully the judge has had enough time now to appreciate what is happening and will step back from trashing his professional reputation.
In addition to the details of this particular case, there is surely a far wider question in this trial about justice in Scotland. Simply put, is there a legitimate right for any citizen to scrutinise, question and hold up to the light actions and decisions which are being taken in his name, and all of our names, through the courts? They have no case that either a protected witness was named, or that the jury was influenced (by satire!), so the only logical conclusion is that they (who supposedly represent ‘us’) do not like their actions being examined and questioned by the public. What kind of state does that? It’s certainly not a liberal democracy.
Thought about Craig and Julian when reading piece in Dec 21 New Yorker Murder in Malta by Ben Taub about the murder of Daphne the journalist who exposed corruption at the highest level in Malta. It is astonishing tale well told. Malta is a small country but people are people everywhere and what’s to stop this level of corruption happening elsewhere.
Constitutions are only as strong as the conscience and integrity of those in power.
There is a quote by a Maltese Judge who served on the ECHR. He had predicted Daphne’s death. He later said: “there have always been abuses-it’s not as if the previous government were immaculate” but then weaknesses were exploited “by people who don’t care about integrity…….[and] the lone voice crying out in the wilderness is standing out for assassination”.
It’s worth reading. I’m not saying that Craig faces this risk, but he faces a potential custodial sentence and political prosecutions should never become a UK norm.
Aside from each judges conscience what keeps courts on the straight and narrow are two
things: (1) court reporting and (2) ability to appeal (one could something about legal costs there as if one can’t afford to defend or appeal…)
Hope this trial is reported objectively by the MSM.
I’ll be there, Craig. From hundreds of miles away I can say that, though I’ve followed most everything you’ve written in the last year (and subscribed), not only do I still not know the identity of the alphabet women, but that my laughter at your Yes, Minister sketch was tinged with the exquisite frisson of suspecting that confirmation bias and guilt would rightly ruffle the feathers of the pompous, entitled and therefore corrupt. That’s political satire for you.
And in next week’s episode we get to see and hear it live….
Of course Garavelli reported that “The jury took six hours to deliver its verdict which meant its deliberations spanned a weekend. By Monday, it had lost two of its 15 members.” as described by Craig in his line by line analysis of her interpretation of the saga.
May justice be done, next week, Craig.
All the best, Craig, you have much more support and admiration than you know. And you’ll walk this. You’re up against a bunch of amateurs who have systematically screwed up everything that they’ve touched over the last few years.
This set of charges is like a badge of honour for Craig Murray, whose honesty and persistence are about to ruin corrupt officials and rotten politicians who have disgraced their office, and themselves.
Good luck, Craig.
Ready to contribute if your fighting fund needs topping up.
Anyone who believes the female witnesses in the Salmond trial were ‘false accusers’ is deluded. Seek help. Salmond got off through a lack of corroboration, lucky for him.
Pity you weren’t giving evidence John. Your corroboration would have clinched a conviction.
Dom
The cumulation of similar evidence from up to 10 witnesses should have been plenty to obtain conviction – with no need for any involvement from me – or you. Remember, these women were Scots and all someone’s mothers, wives and daughters. The jury erred very much on the side of the old adage – better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. It’s what once made Scots Law respected around the world.
No, it was the independent eye witnesses who contradicted their stories,
Craig. If only. The nature of the allegations, as in most cases of domestic abuse, ensured there were no independent witnesses. And one car driver saying he was unaware of any sex pest shenanigans in the back seat does not mean they did not happen.
And how, pray, John Cunningham would you know?
but if that was the case JC they would have delivered the ‘ not proven verdict’. They did not – they returned not guilty!
Achnababan
Don’t quite understand your logic, bud. A not guilty verdict, same as not proven, indicates only the evidence presented by the Crown did not meet the Scots Law criterion of ‘proved beyond reasonable doubt.’ This often happens in domestic abuse cases where there are no independent witnesses. Salmond as FM tried through his then justice minister to scrap Scots Law’s reliance on corroborative evidence. He failed, which ironically has proved beneficial to him. Still, his jury was entitled to take a cumulative view that one witness may bear false accusations; perhaps even two…or three. But 10? Hardly.
10 would be an issue of they were independent of each other. Far from it though, collusion at a minimum. Independent eye witnesses directly contradicting key facts put forward by the accusers – inc in the most serious case.
Davie – My point is the jury, as ‘masters of the facts,’ were perfectly entitled to decide that each of the 10 women corroborated one another, such was the similarity of their complaints. Or they could have decided to treat each charge separately, as seems to have happened. I have no idea who the women are – and I’ve no desire to know, thanks, Craig – other than they all worked alongside Salmond.
John Cunningham
” seek help ” . Are you sure you didn’t type ‘ Sieg Heil ‘, but it was changed by autocorrect?
Every critic of the cybernat community is a fascist, eh Gi? Blended learning is clearly not agreeing with you. Return to full time schooling as soon as the pandemic allows.
Good luck.
Jigsaw identification (3): This claim by the Crown seems especially absurd. Anyone with the kind of inside knowledge suggested in the examples probably knows the identities already, without a prompt from Clive M or anyone else.
Isn’t this really about an effort to invalidate the aquittal of Alex Salmond? Because, it seems to me (as a technically qualified person, but an ignoramus in law) that if they can convict you then they can claim that the Salmond trial was compromised by your actions. Salmond should speak up (IMHO).
Good luck, Craig. Will be rooting for you.
If the worst comes to the worst, then you’d just spend one year in prison maybe less. I believe the court can only take half your property if it’s shared with your wife and if that happens, then I’m sure your followers would make up the loss. If confiscation includes earnings from your blog then all contributors could stop payments until ownership was transferred to your wife.
Oh well, that’s alright then (heavy sarcasm).
Of course it’s absolutely not alright but when there’s a political angle to a case and when time and time again judges act as stooges to the state one must be ready for anything
It is being argued that this blog influenced, or possibly influenced, members of the jury. How are they going to prove that the jury even heard of this blog, or were influenced by it?
I have only served as a juror in english courts and I am fully aware of the legal consequences of discussing those trials with anybody outside the jury room. That being said, all of the jurors notes were collected and sealed for possible examination in appeals. Has the Scottish court examined these notes to see if this blog was even mentioned?
I suspect there could be some difficulties in how such evidence would be examined by the court, but if there is no proof of influence, how can anybody be declared guilty of exerting influence without supporting evidence…_
CASE OF KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 29492/05). I found this to be an interesting case on Article 10, freedom of expression. *
eg. “99. The Court recalls the “chilling effect” that the fear of sanction has on the exercise of freedom of expression (see, mutatis mutandis, Wille,cited above, § 50; Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 54, ECHR 2002-II;Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 114, ECHR 2004-XI; and Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 714, 13 November 2003). This effect, which works to the detriment of society as a whole, is likewise a factor which concerns the proportionality of, and thus the justification for, the sanctions imposed on the applicant, who, as the Court has held above, was undeniably entitled to bring to the public’s attention the matter at issue”.
* https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/49d331102.pdf
Can anyone provide a reasonable excuse for the non-prosecution of D Clegg, formerly of the daily rectum, and his publishers?
They had a front page containing the same story, word for word, as provided by Alphabetty H during the trial.
If that wasn’t likely to influence a jury member then nothing would.
There is also the problem that by publishing that story the revolting Ulster Unionist bigot broke a number of date protection laws. Breached the confidentiality of the Complaints Process, and shat all over Salmond”s rights.
Is he immune from prosecution as he is still rutting with Liz Lloyd and thus protected by Nicola Murrell?
Or is he covered by the anonymity order? You couldn’t put him on trial without revealing at least one of the conspirators, so his crimes go unpunished. Just as the Sturgeon enquiry is handicapped by the same ruling.
Regarding the criminal trial of Alex Salmond who was acquitted of all charges, if the Crown or judge believed the jury had been likely to have been influenced by Craig Murray’s satirical article, how come they never moved for a retrial on the basis that the jury had been influenced by a third party?
My own view is that it was tacit acceptance that the satire played no part in the jury’s judgment; and that the jury had clearly decided the Salmond case on the basis of the the factual evidence and legal arguments put before them in court.
They could probably say that it is irrelevant, because the intent was there to influence it. However, they would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt such an intention, which is of course absurd, given there is no grounds for believing what is only an unprovable assertion. It would be just an opinion, of the Crown, and since when are people prosecuted by the authorities holding an opinion, with no evidence?
In a perfect world, of course, everyone would believe implicitly everything that they are told by the government; and would never be “influenced” by anyone else.
Jurors would start trials tabula rasa, remembering and knowing nothing of their previous lives.
Perhaps Elon Musk and Bill Gates can help get things started.
Zoe Rillstone’s New Zealand 2007 essay for a university research project entitled Media Coverage of Criminal Trials – Sub Judice, Contempt, Freedom of Expression and the Right to a Fair Trial examined the law in NZ and noted that whilst it looks as if the right to a fair trial (in NZ) is simply the right of the accused to a fair trial because their Bill of Rights says it is the accused who has this right there are two arguments (in NZ) to suggest the prosecution also has this right – see p19. Her first argument is that ‘fair’ means no disposition to either side. I wonder if this is correct. When one thinks of basic duties the duty of the prosecution is to prosecute fairly, but the duty of the defence is to defend fearlessly. Human rights such as the right to a fair trial exist to protect humans not the state / Crown Prosecution (perhaps the Crown may say they seek to protect the right of the victim for a fair trial of their grievance but victims are not a party to public prosecutions). Secondly, she argues NZ common law.
I have not followed the detail of Craig’s case and therefore make the following points only very generally. If the fair trial point means that the trial has to be fair and evenly balanced both for the defence and also the prosecution and if there are things being said in public which may tend to make it more difficult for a defendant to face a fair trial then surely if one reporter or commentator were to arguably adjust the unfairness in a counter direction in favour of the defendant then presumably any prosecution of that one reporter must look at all the reporting and other public comments not just the reporting or satirical comments of the accused.
If it only looks at the accused’s material that would appear fundamentally unfair. Surely it has to be weighed up by understanding all the reporting and surrounding media information. Otherwise there would be no fair way of assessing whether the material constituted a real risk as distinct from a possibility. If the media wind blows in strongly in one direction where is the harm if there is a little breeze from the other direction (indeed sophisticated states know this very well and tolerate a little dissent for this very reason – its a safety valve, makes the state look liberal and mature and if its just a little breeze so what ).
Does any one have a list of cases from different jurisdictions in which the sub juice material was satire and where it was found that the satire had made it unfair for the prosecution? I ask because it would be interesting to see which jurisdictions have taken the view that satire is unfair for the prosecution. Scotland can then see with whom she is judicially aligned.
Keep the faith Craig. (And the heid too…)
Your moral courage is truly inspiring.
Trust the fact that you’ve a wealth of support behind you here – dig deep and keep on speaking the truth.
I read somewhere, can’t remember now, that Noam Chomsky and John Pilger have taken an interest in your unjust plight, I’m hoping for a three in a row, Salmond, Hirst and yourself, and the judge sees common sense and acquits you.
Good luck to you, Craig.
Yes so many will be with you in spirit and praying with all our hearts that things go well for you. You would be surprised by how much you mean to us.