Lady Dorrian in the High Court this morning described a position taken by the Scottish Parliament’s legal advisers, on the publication and inclusion of Geoff Aberdein’s and Alex Salmond’s evidence, as “an absurd interpretation of the court order”. She also stated that “The answer is for the committee to take a robust attitude to the question of publication and redaction. But this is not the place for that. It is not my job to tell them that.”
To recap briefly. The Fabiani Inquiry has all but collapsed as it has refused to publish or consider evidence from Geoff Aberdein and Alex Salmond. These are the most important pieces of evidence in the entire inquiry. The Committee has refused to accept them because the evidence names a person who made accusations against Alex Salmond, on which he was found not guilty.
Here is the important point. The evidence of Salmond and Aberdein being refused by the Committee has no relation at all to the accusations that person made against Alex Salmond. She is mentioned in a different role. As I have repeatedly tried to explain, the accusers come from a very small coterie close to Nicola Sturgeon. Those closest to Sturgeon were at the heart of the orchestration of the plot. The Committee which has been pretending to investigate, has been doing so on the basis that the protection of identities of complainers precludes it from hearing any evidence that refers to these people – even if it refers to other actions not connected to the accusation they made in court.
Geoff Aberdein’s evidence proves conclusively that Nicola Sturgeon lied to Parliament over when she first knew of the allegations about Alex Salmond, not just by the difference between her meeting with Aberdein on 29 March and her meeting with Salmond on 2 April, but by weeks, because it was Sturgeon’s office which had set up the meeting over three weeks earlier and the subject had been specified then. Aberdein’s evidence is not the whole story – actually Sturgeon initiated the whole effort to set Salmond up months earlier – but Aberdein’s evidence is the smoking gun that would force Sturgeon’s resignation for lying to Parliament.
So the SNP and Green majority Fabiani Committee has ruled that Aberdein’s evidence must be excluded, and it is being excluded at all costs. Their figleaf is legal advice that the Court Order precluding identifying individuals applies to identifying them in any circumstances, not just as accusers in the Salmond case – this is the interpretation that Lady Dorrian said in court was “absurd” (though it was put to her as a hypothetical interpretation, not with specific reference to the Aberdein evidence, though in the context of being able to publish that evidence.)
The Fabiani Committee is hiding behind its legal advice. The source of this advice is mysterious. There is a Solicitor to the Scottish Parliament, but my information is that this specific “absurd” advice actually comes at source from a large US commercial law firm. As legal advice so often is, especially advice from firms wanting their contract renewed next time, it is very friendly to what the client wants to hear.
Geoff Aberdein’s evidence is therefore excluded because somebody was involved in the discussion and organisation of the meetings with Nicola Sturgeon, who also later added her own accusations against Alex Salmond – something of which she made no mention at the time, as Geoff Aberdein testified at the Alex Salmond criminal trial. I always found it passing strange that someone would go through literally scores of meetings about the Salmond accusations before finally adding the claim that they had been sexually abused too, which claim the jury found against as with all the other accusations. What that manoeuvre did however obtain was the court order protection of her identity, and the Scottish government argument that it means all the actions of this person in her entire role in the plot may not be discussed.
Alex Salmond’s statement to the Hamilton Inquiry is excluded by the Fabiani Inquiry on precisely the same grounds. But this statement has been published, with just one paragraph redacted, by the Spectator magazine. This has led to the absurd situation where the Fabiani Inquiry is refusing to consider Salmond’s statement to the Hamilton Inquiry, causing him to withdraw from the Fabiani Inquiry, even though the Spectator has published the statement. The Committee is absurdly arguing that it would be illegal to publish it or consider this statement, even though the Spectator has published it without being prosecuted.
That is how we ended up in court today, with the Spectator asking Lady Dorrian to amend her court order to make clear that the publication and consideration of the Aberdein and Salmond evidence would not be in breach. Lady Dorrian has been highly resistant, taking the view that it is for the Committee to interpret the order, that is pretty plain, in a sensible way – while making perfectly clear that she finds the Committee’s strange interpretation somewhat baffling.
Just before lunch Lady Dorrian had suggested an amendment to the order to state that complainers must not be identified “as complainers in those proceedings”. She suggested that this would clear up any “misconception” that they might not be named in other contexts. As I write, the court has just concluded with all parties agreed on this.
Lady Dorrian’s amendment certainly should sweep out the legs from under the Committee’s ludicrous excuse for not publishing the Aberdein and Salmond evidence, and thus pave the way for Salmond to appear before the committee. But my intelligence from a committee member is that, whatever today’s ruling, the SNP members will continue to refuse to publish, and they are confident that their lawyers will be able to argue the Spectator case has increased the risk of jigsaw identification.
So the mad charade of an “Inquiry” continues. It is, I think, the most shameless cover-up that could possibly be imagined. Wings Over Scotland have listed some 60 separate instances of the Scottish Government directly obstructing the work of the Inquiry. What has changed in the last fortnight is the SNP members of the Inquiry are no longer feigning that they too are looking for the truth.
—————————————————–
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
Ethereum/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.
Two points can the Scottish government appeal against Lady Dorrian’s decision, and would that tie things up for ages , and effectively knock the inquiry charade on the head, and if necessary, which I think it is, can the inquiry board be replaced.
Doesn’t this mean that the Committee itself has predjudiced the submissions? Had they not identified one of the accusers in the document in another role, there would have been no confirmation that any of the accusers were named therein?
It would appear that the commitee, acting on the advice from the COFPS, has contrived to reveal the identity of one of the complainers in the AS trial using Peppa Pig level jigsaw identification. Will the COPFS be sending round Police Officers to carry out a raid on the COFPS offices.
Confused? I certainly am.
Republicofscotland – I don’t think that the SG can appeal because, as far is I understand it, the judgment was agreed by both parties. So there should be no delay as a result of this. But the committee may insist on waiting for the judge’s reasoning. A week maybe.
What would appealing say to the world?
Another point Craig that you touched on.
What happens if the inquiry refuses to publish Salmond’s and Aberdein’s info, regardless of what amendments Lady Dorrian added.
By first refusing to publish and then being told they can so long as people are not mentioned as accusers, they can no doubt argue that to publish now would identify those mentioned but not in that context. They did indeed hit on the perfect plotting vehicle that would protect their identities.
But the Spectator magazine published what the committee voted against publishing in full, yet today in court they (Spectator magazine reps/legal team) were found not to have broken the law. The info is already in the public domain.
The former Green and all round twonk, Wightman.A is also unconcerned about the truth or justice. As the casting vote this all falls on him. Being a willing scapegoat is not the best strategem for a long and successful career. More like a short drop off a long pier with concrete wellies.
But there is no suggestion that he will stand for re election again in May, so it could be that “a long and successful career” is not on his agenda.
He may well be a “twonk” but he appears to be more of an unknown quantity. Some background on him and how he came to be on the committee would be of more assistance.
The story as to why he resigned the Green Party may give some clues as to how twonky he really is…_
Brazen, shamless, corrupt and corrupting leadership of SNP about to win agIn at the polls. I only hope one of the alphabet accusers spills the beans one day, unable to have peace of mind and sleep well.
“Some background on him”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Wightman
https://andywightman.scot/resignation-from-the-scottish-green-party
Looks like he’s an independent thinker (and also now an independent MSP). Looks like he left the Greens because he didn’t care for the identitarian line, and didn’t like being strong-armed into conformity by officials. I’d say he walks like a Green and quacks like a Green.
I have no idea what makes him a “twonk” (nor worthy of death threats).
Hmmm. On reading some more comments, I find that there’s a certain amount of rage against Greens around here; perhaps that’s what makes him a “twonk”.
I wondered if perhaps the Greens were opposed to independence or something like that, but it doesn’t seem so.
BTW, I have made no attempts to perform jigsaw identification (nor unscrambling eggs identification). I have actively tried to /avoid/ learning that identity. But the way it looks, I’m probably going to be foiled, because the government have more-or-less given it away. Is that right?
Thanks Jimmeh, this is what I have found out about him.
He’s also wrote books with “who owns the land” type of titles. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out he has a tattoo of Pancho Villa on his private’s.
First things first, I don’t see him as likely to join the SNP with their lionising of the woke agenda, he’s just left the greens for that very reason. Or maybe he didn’t.
Although I see him being enraptured with the SNP’s election promises that ‘everybody in Scotland shall have a windmill planted in their name” I still don’t feel he’s about to join them.
All the same, the ‘twonk’ in me is interested in this character, his continued vote is crucial to the stitch up.
I don’t think Scottish politicians need lessons in the value of patronage either…_
So there we are left with the whole thing hanging on whether or not Andy Whiteman changes his mind?
The rats in the irrelevant SNP sack continue to tear themselves to sheds, who cares (outside the Holyrood bubble ?)
thanks for spelling out the full absurdity of this inquiry with such clarity .. . it makes a laughing stock of anybody who now tries to validate it .. how much more glaring would the bad faith and dishonesty need to be for such people to say, no, look i’m sorry, i simply cannot defend this anymore?
Mr Murray
Perhaps you might like to add a couple of sentences up top explaining what the legal proceeding being presided over by Lady Dorrian actually is, just so that those of us readers who are not feverishly spending all day in the minutiae of SNP politics can remind themselves the specific dispute being ruled upon by Lady Dorrian?
Even if it were just a link to a previous blog of yours to allow us to refresh our memories, that would be immensely helpful.
FYI
The Scotsman – Spectator magazine set for crucial legal action linked to Alex Salmond evidence to harassment complaints inquiry
The legality of publishing Alex Salmond’s submission to Holyrood’s harassment complaints committee is set to be tested in the High Court tomorrow.
By Conor Matchett
Wednesday, 10th February 2021, 11:46 am; Updated 12:38 pm
Rhys Jagger
What???? You’re not spending all day feverishly studying the minutiae of SNP politics??? This is the greatest comedy ever to come out of Hollywood (or is it Holyrood)?
Or – at least it *would* be a hilarious comedy if they weren’t trying to bang up Craig Murray for the crime of excellent journalism and Alex Salmond for the crime of being a very good politician.
These two paras are perfectly plain to me:
“Alex Salmond’s statement to the Hamilton Inquiry is excluded by the Fabiani Inquiry on precisely the same grounds. But this statement has been published, with just one paragraph redacted, by the Spectator magazine. This has led to the absurd situation where the Fabiani Inquiry is refusing to consider Salmond’s statement to the Hamilton Inquiry, causing him to withdraw from the Fabiani Inquiry, even though the Spectator has published the statement. The Committee is absurdly arguing that it would be illegal to publish it or consider this statement, even though the Spectator has published it without being prosecuted.
That is how we ended up in court today, with the Spectator asking Lady Dorrian to amend her court order to make clear that the publication and consideration of the Aberdein and Salmond evidence would not be in breach. Lady Dorrian has been highly resistant, taking the view that it is for the Committee to interpret the order, that is pretty plain, in a sensible way – while making perfectly clear that she finds the Committee’s strange interpretation somewhat baffling.”
But possibly being so pompous damages reading comprehension
But she also said it is not her job to tell the committee what to do. Which gives them the wriggle room they need. They will simply say they are sticking to their initial interpretation because to do so would ‘endanger’ one of the ‘victims’. They have shown how shameless they are in assisting Sturgeon and smearing Salmond. I am not sure the ruling will change that, given their abysmal track record of precluding the inquiry from being an actual inquiry.
I can’t see why it matters what the Committee does. Someone, whoever – it doesn’t matter, can now publish both accounts in a sensible way and they will be in the public domain. They will then have a strong defence of their doing so.
Ian, for “victims’ that should surely read “accusers”…
That’s why it is in inverted commas.
If I have understood, this is beyond farce. By making a song and dance about not publishing a Salmond accuser’s name in any context, the SG have provided a jigsaw piece, and it has been validated by the court ruling that the woman can be named in any context not related to the criminal proceedings. And now, because of the song and dance, to name the woman in any context risks jigsaw identification.
They could not between them have been clearer about who it is if they had published her name.
Of course, the big question which I understand you wouldn’t wish to comment on, is whether this affects your own case and thus the outcome. I can only imagine it makes it more probable that it is thrown out. Let’s hope so.
A court order such as that made by Lady Dorrian is usually very specific as to the evidence that may not be made public or may not be used at trial. It is very rarely, if ever, open-ended. She is quite right to be hesitant about making clear to the committee what could and could not be opened up to scrutiny, because that is not the job of the judiciary in this instance, and her reluctance shows that the committee is acting in a manner inconsistent with openness.
In other words, she should not have to be put in a position where she has to state the obvious. The evidence ruled at the trial to be unnecessary/superfluous to the criminal case, will not necessarily be so to the inquiry, and, indeed, that is the position. It is, in fact, very necessary, crucial even, that it should be heard because, without it, the inquiry will fall – which, presumably, is the intention.
The people involved in the criminal trial may well be some of the same people involved in the redacted/unheard evidence, but the court ruled that they should remain anonymous as witnesses at the trial, as is consistent with the rules of evidence. If the unheard evidence to the inquiry has absolutely nothing to do with their role as accusers/witnesses in the court case, but to ancillary actions way before the court case and which neither depended on the court case nor had any direct bearing on the criminal case, but which stand alone and offer evidence of other dealings, then the court ruling cannot apply to that ancillary evidence. It was very likely ruled unnecessary in the court case because that is what it was – unnecessary to those proceedings, but not so to other instances where to might have a bearing on an outcome or on actions that led to an outcome, and which would be within the remit of the inquiry.
Lady Dorrian appears to be a very erudite and even-handed member of the judiciary, Mr Murray, so I will be keeping my fingers and toes crossed that she is so in your case, to your credit – as I am sure she will be.
Is Lady Dorrian’s unfortunate suppression order itself suppressed?
Otherwise please post the erudite and even-handed suppression order.
The full order including the last 6 word addendum is printed in the Scotsman article tonight.
“Made an order at common law and in in terms of section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, preventing the publication of the names and identity and any information likely to disclose the identity of the complainers in the case of HMA v Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond, as such complainers in those proceedings.”
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/spectator-magazine-wins-legal-challenge-could-allow-alex-salmond-inquiry-publish-crucial-evidence-3131868
And it is precisely this wording, together with the court proceeding by the spectator, that have given the committee a basis for not publishing, taking account of an even greater risk of jigsaw identification as a result of the publicity generated by this court case. Hard to believe this was not thought through.
But it’s quite simple. Redact their ever being there. Remove them entirely from the account and allow discussion of whatever is left which should be plenty.
Hi Nigel. If only it were that simple. The presence of a particular person is I understand crucial. To entirely redact it would defeat the purpose. And much of what is left does not come within the remit of the Inquiry. It is for another time and another place. The Committee were making a good job of backing themselves into a corner, largely through the incompetence of the Tory and Lib Dem members, whose priority has always been not to undertake their remit, but to continue the SNP bad narrative, and the Spectator have now waded in and done their bit. I do not see AS’s submissions being part of his process.
Jon Cofy: It wasn’t a suppression, but entirely consistent with the rules of evidence and the normal situation in any case concerning sexual offences that the identity(ies) of the woman/women be kept under wraps. However, it seems to me that she made it plain that, where something else is involved that is not attached to the criminal trial, but is an entirely separate issue under which no anonymity order was made, that is not affected by the court order. It is both the committee (part of it) and the SNPG that is making it a legal matter when it is not a legal matter.
If, for example, something in the committee evidence was way before the criminal trial, any claim to anonymity in that instance would be deemed to be retrospective, and we all know how that can pan out. The parliamentary inquiry is not a judicial inquiry, not even a quasi judicial one, and Mr Salmond’s lawyers have already scrutinized the evidence so that it does not identify any of the women. All Lady Dorrian was doing was to to say: for heaven’s sake, it’s obvious that the ruling applies only to the court case and anything ancillary connected to it, the court case, before she actually amended her ruling to make it so. I really don’t see how she was suppressing anything.
It is standard procedure to have an anonymity order over witnesses’ identities in alleged sexual offences cases but it would be beyond reason and utterly absurd to try and extend that to everything the witnesses were involved in. Lady Dorrian cannot compel the inquiry to hear evidence or the SNPG to supply evidence. It is some of the committee members and the SNPG that do not want to have connections made between those closest to the FM and those who gave evidence in the court case. If anyone is suppressing, it is they. Lady Dorrian, as a member of the judiciary, will not wish to be dragged into political sword-play. The fact that The Spectator has published Mr Salmond’s statement (with a small redaction), together with Lady Dorrian’s amendment rather whips away any implausible fig leaf that the SNP committee members and the SNPG tried to cover their nakedness with, and leaves them open to public scrutiny.
@ Lorna Campbell Perhaps you didn’t notice but your explanation contained a gender assumption that women are the victims and men are the perpetrators.
Is it an assumption, or is it merely fact? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how many cases have involved female perpetrators of sexual offences? I was speaking in the general until I was not – i.e. specifically about the women in the Alex Salmond case. To my knowledge, the number of cases of female perpetrators is vanishingly tiny, but you’ll know best.
“Lady Dorrian has been highly resistant, taking the view that it is for the Committee to interpret the order, that is pretty plain, in a sensible way – while making perfectly clear that she finds the Committee’s strange interpretation somewhat baffling.”
I bet Lady Dorrian is extremely resistant:
She should never have made a permanent unqualified suppression order in the first place and having made it she is not in a position to change it. To revisit the suppression order it must be appealed. No one has done so.
Possible no one has standing to do so. Can Salmond appeal his innocence? The Crown applied for it.
Lady Dorrian is now embarrassed by her immutable order that turns out to be inappropriate and apparently part of a criminal conspiracy.
Lawyers have tried to revisit Lady Dorrian’s immutable suppression order asking for the judge to amend the order. This is possibly impossible.
There’s lesson here for the judiciary. Handing out permanent and unqualified suppression orders may appear easy and routine but such orders can readily turn sour, disrupt state functions and aid criminals evade justice.
Like you I also have doubts on permanent orders and other important aspects. Too many individuals appear to benefit from immunity as well as anonymity, and important evidence all too often is not heard, which inevitably raises questions of fairness. Given these ‘protections’, are some of the individuals concerned perhaps working for the security services?
The ‘Elitist Scotland’ report offers little encouragement given the very narrow societal group our establishment tends to be drawn from and ‘how it works’: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/elitist-scotland
Did she make that? That is how the SNP committee members and the SNPG chose to interpret it, because it suited them, but it was a bog-standard ruling for that type of case, and these things are never open-ended. They cannot apply to something that bears no connection or relationship to the actual case – especially if it took place way before the case. The Spectator has now cleared it up. I daresay she was miffed at having to explain a bog-standard ruling.
Perhaps Craig should take a leaf out of Wings over Scotland’s book and make very plain that CRAIG MURRAY IS NOT A LAWYER, therefore his interpretation of Lady Dorrian’s ruling is not guaranteed, therefore people should exercise the same restraint as previously regarding posting names on his blog.
That will be perfectly clear to anyone reading this blog. None of the writings here have ever been misleading on that point and there is no need to make it any clearer.
For those publishing other articles, they should seek a copy of the order itself, which will have been written in plain language so as to be easily interpreted by the public.
I like reading the comments under the articles. But it is a bit tiring when every other comment is a suggestion that the author should do this or do that.
One aspect of this case that I just cannot understand, nor find a rational explanation for, is just how these women have escaped facing charges of Perjury, and Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.
Pyewacket – yes – I was wondering about that too. Who would be responsible for bringing such a prosecution? Would it, by any chance, be the Crown Office? As we know, the Crown office is filled with Nicola Sturgeon stooges.
James – as to who would be responsible for any investigation into these crimes, Perjury etc, would surely rest with the Police. Whether each of them should be subjected to a dawn raid, siezure of computers, phones etc and then arrest for interview under caution, I couldn’t possibly say. But the latter, the interview, is a necessity, if charges are to be brought. The 64 Cents question, is which Force ? Police Scotland imo are already compromised, by their involvement in the initial Salmond investigation. It’s a conundrum all right, and it’s going to be interesting to see how it all unfolds.
It might happen yet. People who bring false evidence can receive heavy fines and/or a sentence if found guilty. The problem is that: a) they must either be proved to have lied deliberately with intent to cause the accused harm; or, b) they subsequently admit that they fabricated evidence. There are instances of women fabricating rape or sexual assault and being jailed for it, quite rightly.
However, it should never be taken for granted in cases that do not reach the standard of proof of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ were lying in all cases. Accused men go free who should be in jail because of lack of evidence, so it is a two-sided coin. If you start trying to get all witnesses jailed for supposedly lying when they simply could not prove their case, you will find that women will start calling for the burden of proof to be lowered for alleged sexual offences, and more men will go to jail.
It’s a double-edged sword, and the general has nothing to do with the specifics of Mr Salmond’s case. He was found not guilty. End of. It is all the doings leading up to it, the whos, the whys and the wherefores of those actings from the political side rather than the court case itself, that are of interest now.
Lorna,
But this is not hypothetical: and in this particular case a number of the women were undoubtedly lying.
If that is proved to be the case, Craig, then I would suggest that they may yet find themselves under investigation. No criminal court case is there to establish whether accusers lied, however; it is there to establish whether the accused ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ can be found guilty on the charges laid. If evidence is available that shows they lied, deliberately, then, yes, they might yet find themselves under investigation for what is a serious offence against the court.
Normally, when a jury returns a ‘not guilty verdict’, they are not stating categorically that this or that witness lied, but that this or that witness did not convince them, and that the weight of evidence against the accused did not convince them. It is not the job of the jury to state that anyone lied. That is the job of the police in a subsequent investigation.
What if at least one or more of the women were treated as hostile witnesses (they did not wish to give evidence against Mr Salmond) and were threatened with a subpoena? Perhaps they felt that their experience was not on the higher level of offence and was dealt with by themselves without repercussions (Mr Salmond himself admitted inappropriate behaviour not of a criminal nature) and, therefore, they saw no reason to give evidence against him at a criminal trial, and, indeed, expressed the wish that they would not give evidence, but were compelled?
The two more serious alleged offences were of a different nature, and it is here that the whole thing becomes so much more complicated because the women, apparently accepted apologies from Mr Salmond (who again, insisted that there had been no criminal wrong-doing) and went on to work with him for some time afterwards, having refused a change of job at the same salary and status. Later, they were ‘persuaded’ to resurrect their complaints – retrospectively – and one gave advice on the new procedure, it was alleged, while one of them felt pressured by the other to give evidence at the criminal trial when it must have been the situation that she was reluctant to do so. Had I been on that jury, I would not have been persuaded by that evidence at all, and the actual jury was not convinced by the evidence (being a majority female jury is not really significant if they are doing their job properly).
Mr Salmond was acquitted, quite rightly, in my opinion, and I really do not see how any other verdict could have been reached, given the sheer lack of evidential weight in the case. It is a mystery to me, and others, why the case was brought at all on such lightweight evidence, and I doubt that it could have been, had not other women been unearthed and given evidence in a Moorov-style prosecution. Even with those other pieces of evidence, the case was still lightweight, it seems to me, based on the quality (or lack of) of the evidence.
If the women were lying, it might yet be in the public interest that they be investigated by the police, but I think all the evidence that has been deemed inadmissible to the inquiry will have to come to light first. I think, too, that Lady Dorrian has acted honourably and with propriety and legal scrupulousness in making it clear that the order was never intended to be an open-ended one that would cover the women whatever the circumstances. It was a bog-standard ruling which is par for the course in this type of case. It is the use to which it has been put in relation to the inquiry that appears draconian.
By the way, still keeping my fingers and toes crossed for you. I think that the evidence against you is just as lightweight and insubstantial.
So, if the accusers whose identities are protected from disclosure were alleged to have sought to have conspired to jail an innocent man, if they were subsequently put on trial for Perjury to determine this, would their trials be secret trials, and if they were then to be found guilty and convicted & jailed, would anyone who then commented on their absence from their normal daily routine be jailed for Contempt of Court for jigsaw identification?
CRAIG MURRAY IS NOT A LAWYER neither am I
Perjury is lying about a material fact under oath.
Perverting the course of justice can be an act or omission and may be broadly applied.
Crown witnesses are never prosecuted for these crimes.
If they were 90% of the Queensland police force would be charged along with numerous Crown prosecutors. This is a reality that perpetuates injustice.
When it suits them, police will charge informants for lying to police.
The only realistic chance the miscreants will have to answer for their actions is if Salmond sued the false complainers for damages.
Very unlikely?
@ Lorna Campbell “Accused men go free who should be in jail because of lack of evidence”. Lack of evidence is the reason that innocent people are acquitted, they went into a trial innocent and were not convicted ergo they are innocent (unless you get your ideas of justice from Himmler or Bliar).
Los: they would be named in those circumstances, I should imagine, and their trial would not be held in camera.
Of course lack of evidence frees men who have raped and sexually assaulted. What do you want me to say? As a woman, I see it as grossly unfair, but, as a human being, I would never wish to jail an innocent man by twisting the evidence to suit. The law is what it is. The rules of evidence stand. The crime of rape or of sexual assault is such that there will not, normally ,be witnesses: ergo, little or no evidence that a crime has taken place; and the accused walks free.
Yes, indeed, evidence can appear to exist which is not of sufficient strength to convict. That is as it should be. It also means that innocent people go free and are not locked up, although that can happen, and does, especially if evidence is manufactured and subsequently believed. I really don’t think you get it at all, do you, Squeeth? How dare you compare me to Himmler or Blair, you silly man. I suggest you do some research to find out just how many sex offenders walk free through lack of evidence. The material is considerable. Each case must be taken on its own. The whole point of the state taking on the role of prosecutor is so that people do not take the law into their own hands when they feel that justice has not been done. If you don’t want women walking around with handguns, the law is the best defence you have, because I can tell you that it is women who receive the least justice, on balance.
What any of this has to do with the Salmond case, I’m at a loss to understand. Is it just a case of you salivating for a witch hunt? Mr Salmond has behaved with a great deal of restraint and dignity. Don’t use him or his case to justify your underlying misogyny, and don’t insult me with your spurious accusations. The truth will come out.
By the way, Squeeth, your contemptible ‘Himmler’ accusation was done under a pseudonym – effectively anonymity. Want to give us your actual name? Irony or what?
Short, sharp and to the point; thanks Craig.
I dabbled with going Green or Lib back in the noughties. Mostly for local election stuff and in horror at the NuLabInc monster that was worse than what proceeded it’s overwhelming majority. There was that tree hugging aristo, Jonathan Porritt appealing with his ‘woke’ and ‘egalitarian’ image of saintly class and wealth abandonment for a truly planetary vision.
But because of JP’s transient prophet, and the burgeoning environmental charity corporations that spring-boarded from the green as grass believers amongst the populace, suckered in by JP, I soon came to see through yet another illusion, narrative manufacture and control and enrichment of the same old whores of State.
It is galling that even as many of my peer group who still believe in the great fraud Blairism and his cloak of NuLabInc and his current Mini-me, The Great Knight Hope ™; many are still fully clamped onto the teats of the great green wizards also created to salve their consciences with easy direct debits and wasted votes on the Greens.
Is it any surprise therefore to see the Green treason against Scottish independence as being anything other than mere controlled ‘opposition’ ?
DunGroanin – how much for the use of your trade marked ‘The Great Knight Hope’? Excellent!
? I gift it to CraigMurray.org – please arrange commercial rights with him directly.
Yes indeed!
I do believe the Scottish Green vote is soft and many folk of the knitted yoghurt disposition, scunnered by wee Patrick Harvie’s obsession with Queer Theory and failings as a promoter of action against the destruction of our planet for corporate greed, may will head toward a more genuine party that seeks Independence and a sustainable future. Perhaps ISP?
So… Hypothetically, are malicious complainants who perjure themselves in a Scottish court (of law) not considered to have done so, because er, the judgement could have been wrong, to erm, protect them from prosecution or something else, or because they swore to tell the truth at the time or is the answer more simple, like: Shut up Robert. just because you attended a whole term of business law at Glasgow Tech and now live in Northern Ireland doesn’t give you the right to even eat haggis or wear a kilt or have an opinion on Scottish independence. or law
TBH I think once both the inquiries have reported we may see a move to convict SOME of the complainants, if in the course of the inquiries it becomes obvious there has been a miscarriage of justice.
Whether it is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or simple perjury charge depends on what transpires, there may also be cases where coercion has been used, I imagine those complainants will be unlikely to be charged with an offence.
Again I’m not a lawyer!
Eileen: agreed. I think that at least a few of the women felt pressured into giving evidence against Mr Salmond. People forget that you can be subpoenaed as a hostile witness or threatened with a subpoena or just persuaded to it because you have put your name to other things. I believe it will all come out eventually, and one or more of the women might well crack before then, anyway. Behind it all are the political actors.
Lorna, you are being far too charitable in giving the accusers the benefit of the doubt. The original 2 complainants probably didn’t think it would go as far as a criminal trial and felt safe making false allegations to an internal inquiry that they knew was rigged in their favour. It’s quite another to make the same false accusations in court and risk a perjury sentence. Of course they were reluctant to go to the police, but LE gave them no choice. I don’t have any sympathy for them – they knew what they were doing when they made false testimony against an innocent man.
I have even less sympathy for the rest of them. They didn’t come forward until after the police investigation began and it became obvious they would need additional complainants to convict under the Moorov Doctrine. They knew they were colluding to jail an innocent man. The only one deserving the benefit of doubt is the “sleepy cuddle” lady (Ms K?) who may have been honestly convinced by others that it was more than it actually was.
Stuart, I believe in the rule of law as applied to high and low, black and white, male and female. I am not going to accuse anyone of anything without evidence to prove it. The evidence against Mr Salmond did not convince me at all, and, if I had been on that jury, I would have reached the same conclusion. Does that clear it up for you? I am not prepared to convict anyone in the court of public opinion.
Stuart: may I also add that I am fairly sure that at least one woman was threatened with subpoena as a hostile witness (not one of the two more serious allegations, I might add) and had no desire to give evidence against Mr Salmond. Perhaps you were not aware that the police held an investigation to unearth the other women whose experiences were then used for the Moorov Doctrine effect. Does that mean that the women lied? No, I don’t think it does, and Mr Salmond has never said it did. Mr Salmond admitted that he had acted inappropriately at times, but not with criminal intent.
We really must not go down the path of stating that all the women were lying, because we simply do not know. It is quite possible for two people to see something very differently, to interpret it very differently, and neither lying. Imbibing alcohol does tend to make the best of us act stupidly and do things we later regret.
I do not know about the allegation from the woman whom some are saying was not there at the time of the alleged offence, but, then neither do you or anyone else. The fact that there was no extraneous, corroborative evidence (e.g. a guest sign-in book; CCVT footage; security approval) is worrying from a number of perspectives, but, without going over all the evidence again (to what end, and isn’t that what they are doing?) there seems to be no way to call someone an out-and-out liar, but merely to not be convinced by her evidence – which is what the jury evidently decided. They found the evidence offered by the defence had more weight.
Mr Salmond was acquitted, and that, in the end, is what matters. That jury decision is the end of it. Let them snipe and try to instigate a trial by media. It won’t work. They do themselves no favours at all. The backlash against the BBC’s Glenn Campbell interview, following on from the Kirsty Work one, shows that even Unionists are getting irritated by this and see it as a feint to take the heat off the FM’s and Mr Salmond’s evidence at the inquiry. Lady Dorrian’s clarification of her ruling on the anonymity question opens the way to their evidence being heard now.
$emantics, due process, $elf interest, opinion, £aw, politic$.
Truth, justice, liberty, equality, fraternity.
It’s a tangled muddy puddlle with no silver lining they weave, gathering moss and saving time only to deceive.
I think you put that rather well. ;O)
Robert: people must be proved to have lied to be prosecuted for lying in a case. The non-identity order will not cover anyone in those circumstances unless there are extenuating circumstances. It is not the job of any jury or any court to establish that a witness has lied (albeit the defence will try to show that). It is the job of the jury to evaluate the evidence and decide on the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ hurdle whether or not that standard has been reached by the prosecution evidence. It is the job of the court to ensure that a fair trial has taken place, and the judge will summon up to the jury to clarify the evidence. If there is subsequent evidence – and there must be evidence, remember, so that we are not having a witch hunt – that a witness lied and that the lies would have sent an innocent person to jail, then a police investigation is likely. In other words, the ‘lies’ must have been malicious fabrications, and PROVED to have been so. You can’t go prosecuting people on a gut feeling. Mr Salmond was PROVED innocent and acquitted.
Yes, that’s what I was asking. Thanks.
Was Trump still in power when the Committee privatised legal advise to Americans?
When both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon are committed to independence for Scotland. It is difficult to understand this apparent effort to destroy each others reputation., It is understandable that injured parties seek redress, but in the context of independence for Scotland the actions of both parties appear to be self serving and incompetent. Is the glittering prize of leading an Independent Scotland, which may now be on the horizon, blinding blinding both parties and hastening the end of the independence fight? Your clear explanation would be appreciated.
Gordon, maybe you could read some of the previous articles and the clarity will become self evident; *clue* Alex Salmond is not seeking to destroy anybody. Off you go…
Your answer is simple…Sturgeon is not committed to Scottish independence. The reason we are where we are is because Alex Salmond had announced he was returning to guide Scotland to its independence. They had to stop him in any way they could.
Who is “they”? Sturgeon’s cabal? Westminster? MI6? The crown? Washington?
Hi James. Can you refer me to the statement by AS announcing he was returning to guide Scotland to Independence. I was completely unaware of that announcement.
It reminds me of an episode of the TV drama “Rumpole of the Bailey”: A very important person (VIP) was caught up in a Police raid on a brothel. In the story, the VIP was able to keep his identity a secret when called as a witness at the brothel owners’ trial by claiming he was also a victim of blackmail.
That episode was vintage Rumpole – oh how he would have relished going after the Crown Office and their nefarious denizens!
thanks craig… is lady dorrian’s response that she finds it baffling, a polite way of saying ‘they are full of shite’? it seems very similar to me..
nothing like having the criminals building a wall – calling it a committee in this example – and using it to protect themselves… ”you can’t get to us because we have built this wall to protect ourselves!” wow… the snp under sturgeon is more pathetic then i realized…
I hope any budding William Shakespeares out there are paying full attention.
I’m on the edge of my seat watching this heavyweight contest as it is right now.
If this thing was being reported rather than suppressed the whole country would be likewise.
Who knows where it goes? The future is unwritten (Willy) and the edges seem to be fraying as the threads are being tugged at.
I think that Lady Dorrian has basically said today that you can’t go and state publicly that Ms X is an accuser in the Salmond case but that doesn’t mean she becomes invisible!
She is saying that it’s “absurd” for The Fabiani Committee to decide that they can’t fulfill their remit in the matter of investigating what went wrong with the Governments procedure, that subsequently rendered it illegal, simply because some of those involved in that process were witnesses in the trial that followed.
She is saying that the trial is a separate matter, that with appropriate redaction (as per Salmond submission and The Spectator publication of it) there is no reason not to mention accusers for their part in the process IN THEIR CAPACITY AS EMPLOYEES, provided they are not revealed to have been subsequent accusers at the trial and that the trial itself is not referenced in any way that might breach disclosure laws.
Regarding Geoff Aberdein’s submission, an Order is in place preventing identification of accusers, so provided Aberdein’s submission doesn’t do so, there is nothing stopping Fabiani from accepting that submission, or a redacted version of it, and also from publishing it.
Finally, if anyone has breached the Order it’s The Spectator, but as they haven’t been rebuked by Lady D, we can assume they haven’t.
Fabiani must allow evidence from Aberdein and Salmond now or her committee is exposed utterly for the sham it has always been.
No Mistertaximan it’s not the Spectator that’s breached the order it’s the Redactor.
Absurd certainly seems to be the best way to describe how the committee decided to apply the anonymity order – or rather, inconsistently, sometimes apply it. All through looking at their evidence, and watching the testimony you read stuff and try and follow who’s doing what – and this is stuff well before the criminal trial so it has nothing to do (much) with who the final accusers were – they have two complainers to protect the identity of, that’s all, from the SG investigation.
But we have a constant battle of things being withdrawn, and evidence not published (it’s not just these sensational ones that aren’t) – there was an email referred to by Alex Cole-Hamilton (it’s on record), with footnote and reference, that implied there was a third person making allegations (in Dec 2017), that wasn’t published – he was frustrated he couldn’t ask the witness questions on evidence they had. Leslie Evans also said that they referred three complaints to the Crown Agent (but that could be three events perhaps, rather than three people). Whole chunks of time periods are missing from the published stuff too.
But in doing all this stupid ‘legal constraints’ stuff, they’re making it more obvious who at least one identity is, adding then withdrawing them from the witness list, public records of names at events, the committee redacts names from, etc – they have been making it worse, and I thought it extremely irresponsible all along.
Of course, when a judge says ‘absurd’, that really means ‘you are a bunch of imbecilic morons, to have even thought up this ridiculous restriction, and you shouldn’t even be allowed near tea-making facilities, let alone hold public office’. But politicians – they’re probably too dim-witted and egotistical to understand even that much.
The aim of these shenanigans is not to protect the ‘complainer’ but to prevent evidence being shown that proves to all that Nicola Sturgeon lied and the process was a witch hunt
it took me 2 minutes to establish the identity of the person referred to above, at the time of the Garivali article. For some reason (words used/expession) it was easier to do so from that article than from the CM and Wings blogs. That person’s identity is now widely known. Her role in the affair is widely known. As far as I can tell the only effect of maintaining the charade is to protect Nicola Sturgeon. But she is at great pains to always state her concern for victims (we put aside the doubt that this person is really a victim). That person is implicated further as the likeliest source of the leak to the Daily Record. It looks to me that this individual has been thrown under ta bus for Nicola Sturgeon’s sake. It seems to me that Nicola Sturgeon needs to come clean and stop shielding herself with her junior colleague. The hypocrisy of Sturgeon’s position is devastating. The message is that Sturgeon is lacking the most basic integrity and honour in hiding behind the anonymity order for something that we all now know was orchestrated by her, as the senior person involved. She is also shielded by her poll ratings but these seem to be on the slide as a result of the affair. How long can she remain when the membership is haemorrhaging? How long before we arrive at the ‘et tu’ moment?
As for the unknown person – is that person still operating in her original role? We hear nothing at all now of her. It can’t be very pleasant keeping such a low profile. It can’t go on indefinitely – will she be employable in the future shackled with this scandal widely known?
I fear the parliament they will refuse, and the reason will be some wonderful circular logic: If the one redaction on the Spectator is a name, then surely if that name wasn’t publishable under the (deliberate misinterpretation of the) old court order but would be now, then that alone would be jigsaw identification. Because the only reason that the name would have been redacted in the old version was that it belongs to one of the complainers.
In other words, Lady Dorrian’s new order to allow names published other than in conjunction with the HMA v AS case would be the other piece of the jigsaw that allows jigsaw identification. It is Lady Dorrian’s new order that makes it impossible to publish any names and prevents the parliament with complying with Lady Dorrian’s new order…
Here’s Milady chatting away about her appointment.
https://first100years.org.uk/lady-dorrian-biography/
A ‘tangled web’ indeed. The Parliamentary Salmond Inquiry is looking more and more irrelevant, as more and more evidence is being put into the public domain. Nicola Sturgeon is now metaphorically turning cartwheels in her attempts to claim the ‘Salmond stitch up’ (quote from what the Daily Mail and other mainstream press sources called it) was absolutely NOTHING to do with her. Inevitably, she was going to condemn herself out of her own mouth, and it happened during this week’s ‘First Minister’s Questions’ , televised on the BBC and transcripted as normal Parliamentary Business. Old adversary Ruth Davidson accurately pinned down Sturgeon on when she knew about the women’s complaints. Wings on Scotland picked this up immediately and published the entire exchanges:-
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-first-ministers-story/#more-125415
EXTRACT:
“I was determined that I would do nothing to intervene in or compromise the confidentiality and the independence and the integrity of a process that was kicked off […] because women came forward with complaints and I thought it was important that they got properly investigated.”
We don’t need the Aberdein evidence or any other evidence to prove Sturgeon lied to the Parliamentary Inquiry, about when and under what circumstances she learned about the complaints investigation, since she has admitted instigating this herself.
To suggest that the Spectator action and even Lady Dorian’s judgements are contributors to jigsaw identification is an artificial construct of the same level as the deliberately absurd position held by the Crown Office. The application of their false standards to Craig’s already thoroughly redacted sworn testimony has effectively confirmed the identity of the person outed by Garavelli and Wark, plus given very clear pointers to a second, whose identity will be clear to anyone who saved the original text. In no sense does Craig point the finger but the fact of deletions are significant. A male name is deleted, which is not that of an actor. The 10th complainer, who wasn’t proceeded with in the Salmond trial, appears to have outed herself. Speculation on another blog puts a fourth name in mind, but with no confidence.
Thrashing around to hold this position does not help any of the complainers, in particular the one whose identity is widely known. The stress she must be under is unimaginable. I would be concerned about the consequences for her mental health and presumably that of others. The Scottish Government have a duty of care to this person, who currently is in the position of the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dam. They also have a similar duty to all of those who have been and are still subject to malicious prosecutions. Where is the integrity?
Perjury, deliberate lying in a conspiracy to have someone charged and put to trial that would lead to imprisonment as well as loss of reputation along the way as the real motive of the conspiracy, is a CRIMINAL offence.
The moment one of the complainants was proven to have been lying – she should have been put under arrest, by the police, who were witness to that perjury. The Judge should have even directed it.
Why has a proven liar and perjurer not been charged and put in trial?
I don’t care if they remain anonymous for a good reason – as long as they have their day in court for their criminality.
Tick bloody took – a whole week after a few hours of farce and quick adjournment to deliver the obvious judgement the Lady still hasn’t. Is she too about to reveal other true red/white colours?
DunGroanin – yes – I begin to see elements of the logic from `The Mikado’. If she writes any meaningful judgement, it will contain information that will make her guilty of `jigsaw identification’ and she’ll have to send herself to prison. So don’t expect a judgement any time soon.
What I don’t understand, doesn’t the very act of redacting by the crown in this context draw attention to the identity the individuals?
Especially if an unredacted version has already been published? Ie aren’t the crown guilty of jigsaw identification by their very act of redaction? It’s all absurd.
Well, yes – of course. But the Crown Office isn’t going to prosecute itself …. and is innocent until proved guilty.
Nicola Sturgeon is fighting for her life here. She can’t simply resign as First Minister and then leave it at that – if she is forced to resign, then she’ll also have to go to jail.
James B. NS works for the security state. They will not let her go to jail, if anything she will get a prime job for a charity or in the EU. Along with her husband and the rest of the SNP leadership.
Wikikettle – yes – that is, I think, kind of what I’m afraid of. No matter how grotesque it looks, they’ll be able to keep up the charade, because they have people in their pockets who can be bought.
I’m surprised at Andy Shightman – a Green of all people – playing their game.
Refusing to accept the evidence of Salmond and Aberdein amounts to saying, `we know that Sturgeon done it, but you can’t prove it – and we have the machinery to ensure that you can’t prove it – and she’s innocent until proved guilty, even though we all know that she done it.’