Criminal Charges And Bail Conditions

 I appeared in Stonehaven Sheriff Court yesterday in relation to the criminal charges which have been brought against me. The purpose of the hearing was to change the status of my case from "Solemn" to "Summary" because the Crown has decided that it is in the public interest for my case not to be decided by a jury. One positive development was that the proceedings took place in open court. My three previous court appearances were all "in camera" ie closed to the public.

  The case was heard by Sheriff Davies in spite of the facts that: a) I had formally complained about comments he made in April 2010 when I applied for a variation in my bail conditions; b) my lawyer had written to the Court to request that the case was heard by a Sheriff from outwith the Aberdeen area.

 There have been some amendments to the charges brought by the Crown, and the Breach of the Peace charge now states that between 1 June 2009 and 7 December 2010 I conducted a public campaign of harassment against named persons, placing them in a state of fear and alarm for their safety causing the apprehension of serious public disturbance in Aberdeen and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

 I am advised by legal experts that this appears to be a most unusual interpretation of the law relating to Breach of the Peace.

 In addition there are 2 charges relating to breach of bail conditions and 2 charges relating to the Communications Act.

 There was a lengthy debate over my bail conditions with the Crown arguing that it was in the public interest for the existing conditions to be maintained. In respect of the requirement that I sign in at Warrington police station twice per week the Crown stated that this was necessary to confine me to Warrington and prevent me from sloping off to Aberdeen.

 My excellent defence lawyer, Gerry Sweeney, passionately countered that the bail conditions were totally disproportionate, undemocratic and breached my human rights. He expressed his horror at the language used by the Crown and argued that there was no need for me to be subject to any bail conditions whatsoever.

 The decision of Sheriff Davies was that, in addition to standard bail conditions, I should be subject to 3 special conditions.

 Firstly, that I should not approach or contact various named persons including those whom I have previously named as members or victims of a paedophile gang. This condition does not concern me as I have absolutely no intention of approaching them.

 Secondly, that I do not advance or communicate allegations similar to those alleged in the charges. Mr Sweeney used an excellent analogy to demonstrate the absurdity of this condition. It would be akin to a person accused of assault being unable to explain to anyone when he was released on bail that he had acted in self-defence and also being prevented from acting in self-defence if he was assaulted after being released on bail. In my own case, this would mean that if someone was to approach me claiming that their child had been the victim of a paedophile ring and the police had not properly investigated these allegations, I would be prevented by the Court from offering any assistance.

 Thirdly, that I do not enter Aberdeen City or Aberdeenshire. This condition seems fundamentally unfair and I do not understand how it could be deemed to be in the public interest.

 I intend to appeal against these bail conditions but, at the present time, I have no option but to abide by them which means that I am prevented from investigating or publicising either the allegations of sexual abuse made by Hollie Greig or the suspicous death of her uncle, Roy Greig. There is nothing to prevent me from carrying out other work for my clients Anne and Hollie Greig, such as investigating the circumstances of the raid on their home by Police and Social Services in June 2010 or the sectioning of Anne in September 2000. In both of these matters there are significant new developments which I hope to be able to publicise very shortly.