Glasgow Videos

  Last week I travelled to Glasgow where I had hoped to speak to Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini. regarding the reasons why Hollie's allegations are not being investigated and also to senior Legal Aid Board official, Douglas Haggarty, regarding the reasons why my Legal Aid has been removed.

 Although I was not able to speak to either of them I was able to have my attempts filmed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7O1gEzSt_w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O1QwFOEXo8&feature=player_embedded

Jersey Child Abuse Scandal: Parallels To The Hollie Greig Case

 In my blog of March 23rd I referred to Dr Ian Oliver, the Chief Constable of Grampian Police between 1990 and 1998. Dr Oliver left office following a damning report into his force's investigation of the murder of a nine-year-old boy by a known paedophile. The author of the report was Graham Power, who was then Deputy Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police.

 In 2000, Graham Power was appointed Chief Officer of Jersey Police and in 2007 he and his deputy, Lenny Harper, began an investigation into allegations of abuse at Haut de la Garenne children's home which prompted hundreds of former residents to come forward with evidence.

 In August 2008, Lenny Harper retired and was replaced by David Warcup from Northumbria Police, a graduate of the Common Purpose Matrix course.

 In November 2008, Graham Power was suspended and Warcup became Acting Chief of Police and immediately began to downplay the abuse allegations and to condemn the actions of Power and Harper. By the time Power reached retirement age in July 2010 the disciplinary proceedings against him had been abandoned.

 In April 2009 prominent Jersey politician Senator Stuart Syvret, a long term campaigner on Child Protection issues, was arrested for an alleged breach of the Data Protection Act. In November 2010 he was sentenced to ten weeks in prison for contempt of court. His court battles continue although he has been refused Legal Aid.

 These very disturbing issues are simply being ignored by the media in Jersey.

 The similarities to the Hollie Greig case are uncanny: failure by the police to properly investigate extremely serious allegations; silence in the mainstream media; persecution of those who attempt to bring the case to the public attention; links to Common Purpose.

 There is one key difference. In Jersey there were at least 3 prominent public servants who were brave enough to speak up and to attempt to do the right thing.

 For more details on the Jersey scandal I would recommend Stuart Syvret's blog.
 http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/ 
******

 A special word of thanks to all of the people who sent me cards and messages for my birthday yesterday.

More Censorship

 A number of Hollie supporters have been posting on the "Call Kaye" facebook page ran by BBC Scotland. They were very politely asking the question why the Hollie Greig case is not being reported by the BBC or indeed any other media organisations. It would be fair to say that there was a very positive response from the other members of the group.

 Strangely on Thursday 24th April the "Call Kaye" facebook page disappeared and the attempt to start a debate was thwarted. Following the decision not to proceed with a documentary on the Hollie Greig case in 2009, it would appear that the BBC will not tolerate any discussion of this case whatsoever.

 Atholl Duncan, BBC Scotland's Head of News and Current Affairs, was quoted last year as saying: "We will offer more debate and analysis than ever before on radio, TV and online covering UK, Scottish and local issues."  Why will the BBC not debate or analyse the Hollie Greig case.

 Atholl Duncan is a member of the Glasgow Advisory Board for Common Purpose and I am struck by how many people connected to the Hollie Greig case also have links to this organisation.

 Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini was a speaker at a Common Purpose Masterclass in Glasgow last Monday. I attended the venue for this event as I had hoped to speak to Mrs Angiolini about her recent comments on rape victims. Unfortunately I did not get the chance to speak to Mrs Angiolini on this occasion.

 Shropshire Council have treated Anne and Hollie in the most shameful manner and their Chief Executive, Kim Ryley, also has links to Common Purpose. When he was in charge of Hull council he issued an email asking that he be personally informed of any information requests relating to expenditure on Common Purpose.

 Grampian Police failed to investigate Hollie's allegations in any meaningful way and the expenses of their Chief Constable, Colin McKerracher, show that he attended a Common Purpose "Openground" event. Two senior officers who have, at various times, been in charge of Hollie's case, Simon Blake and Adrian Watson, also have Common Purpose links. Blake is a member of the Aberdeen Advisory Board and Watson is a graduate of the Matrix course.

 I do not intend to post for a few days as I am celebrating my 65th birthday this Sunday. 

Censorship

I was pleased to read an article in the independent legal magazine "The Firm" on March 18th, which reported that English Conservative MP David Ruffley was writing to the Scottish Parliament about the Hollie Greig case, which he described as "appalling".

http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2313/MP_challenges_Scottish_Government_over_lack_of_prosecutions_in_Hollie_Greig_case.html

  Mr Ruffley appears to have got cold feet as he has since contacted "The Firm" asking them to remove the article. Steven Raeburn, editor of "The Firm", has replied to Mr Ruffley making it perfectly clear that his attempt to interfere with the freedom of the press is not welcomed.

http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/900/MP_tries_to_silence_The_Firm_.html

 Why would Mr Ruffley want the fact that he is concerned about the failure to prosecute paedophile crimes to be kept secret ?

 Has he had his knuckles rapped by someone high-up in the Conservative Party for raising an issue which many prominent people appear to wish to keep hidden ?

 Last month David Cameron appointed Craig Oliver as his Director of Communications.

 Craig Oliver is an associate and former colleague of Mark Daly, the reporter who decided not to proceed with a BBC documentary on Hollie's case (see previous blogs).

 He is also the son of disgraced policeman Dr Ian Oliver, the Chief Constable of Grampian Police between 1990 and 1998. Hollie has alleged that she was abused by a paedophile ring during this period and in 1997 her uncle, Roy Greig, died in suspicous circumstances.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3387874/PMs-new-aide-is-shamed-cop-son.html

The Legacy Of Elish Angiolini

 The attached interview with Scotland's top law officer, Elish Angiolini, appeared in "The Scotsman". It is hard to believe that such a sycophantic article could be published in a supposedly serious newspaper. The final sentence reads:

"However, she will hope that she will be remembered as the defender of victims, particular those who have been raped."

http://living.scotsman.com/features/Interview-Elish-Angiolini-Lord-Advocate.6735979.jp

Money, Money, Money

I am still being pursued by the Scottish courts to pay an amount of £6,195.60 in respect of expenses incurred by a Mr Graham Buchanan who has taken out an interdict against myself (see my blog of February 18th).

The Scottish legal system appear to have the mistaken belief that I have vast financial resources as I am still being denied Legal Aid for my criminal case (see my blog of March 14th).

The financial affairs of the Lord Advocate ofScotland, Elish Angiolini, have also came under scrutiny in the Hollie Greig case. The private law firm Levy and MacRae sent out letters to various publications on behalf of Mrs Angiolini threatening them with legal action. "The Drum" lodged a Freedom of Information request to establish whether Mrs Angiolini paid her own legal expenses or whether htey were paid from the public purse. The Crown Office, of which Mrs Angiolini is the head, declined to provided the information “on the basis that it would be likely to prejudice substantially the prevention and detection of crime.”
 http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2010/08/06/15079-did-scots-lord-advocate-spend-more-on-her-reputation-than-a-girl-got-for-being-raped-/
 http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2010/09/03/15472-magazine-poll-says-lord-advocate-should-say-who-paid-to-hush-the-media/

In 2008, Mrs Angiolini was again in the news when she was invited to join the Faculty of Advocates without the standard requirements of passing their exams or going through the nine month period of unpaid training known as "devilling". Bypassing devilling saved Mrs Angiolini around £80,000.
 http://www.heraldscotland.com/row-over-angiolini-s-invitation-to-join-advocates-1.826755

Mrs Angiolini has recently agreed to become patron of a charity which encourages the provision of "pro bono" (free-of-charge) legal services. She is quoted as saying:

"Pro bono work is something that I feel passionately about. I firmly believe that all of us in the legal profession should use our skills and expertise to serve the community in which we practise."

"It is this need, and the belief that everyone should have access to legal advice regardless of their financial position, which continues to inspire my support of pro bono services."

 I am reminded of the old saying: "Actions Speak Louder Than Words"
 http://news.scotsman.com/legalissues/Elish-Angiolini-Pro-bono-work.6733379.jp?articlepage=1

More On Mark Daly And The BBC: How Are They Connected To Grampian Police

 In my blog on March 11th, I reported that the BBC's Mark Daly had obtained a copy of Roy Greig's autopsy report from Grampian Police. Roy, who was Hollie's uncle, was found dead in a burning car in November 1997. I am not familiar with the law in this area, but I am deeply concerned that it appears that an unconnected person should be allowed access to this report when it took Anne Greig, Roy's next of kin, 12 years to be given a copy.

 It has been brought to my attention that a former BBC colleague of Daly's, with whom he has recently exchanged messages on Twitter, is a close relative of someone who held a very senior position in Grampian Police at the time of Roy's death.

 I intend to ask this person whether they were involved in either the acquisition of the autopsy report or the decision to halt production of the BBC documentary on the Hollie Greig case.

Scottish Legal Aid Board

 The initial legal advice I received after my arrest in 2010 indicated that the complexities of my case were such that I would require an extremely high-calibre defence team. As I am by no stretch of the imagination a wealthy man, I applied for Legal Aid which was was duly awarded. I was then able to assemble a defence team which comprised Gerry Sweeney (human rights lawyer), John McLaughlin (junior counsel) and Donald Findlay QC (senior counsel).

 In January 2011 the Crown Office dropped the original charges against myself and replaced them with new charges. This change required me to re-apply for Legal Aid. I was advised by several people at the time that, although the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) is technically completely independent of the Crown Office, this situation looked as if it had been engineered to deny me Legal Aid and deprive me of the services of my high-calibre legal team.

 So it proved that my initial application was refused and now my appeal has been turned down as well.

 I find it hard to believe how I could be refused when it has recently been reported that both parties in a £10million divorce dispute have been awarded Legal Aid.

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12493505

 It has also been pointed out to me that a senior SLAB employee, Douglas Haggarty, faced criminal charges in 2009 after being arrested with a rent boy in a shopping centre toilet. In this case the Procurator Fiscal decided to scrap court proceedings in favour of a "direct measure". It was never disclosed what this "direct measure" was, Haggarty did not face any professional sanctions from the Law Society of Scotland and he remains employed by SLAB. He was defended by Paul McBride QC, a member of the SLAB board who has been tipped to be the next Lord Advocate.
 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/05/03/exclusive-legal-aid-chief-arrested-with-rent-boy-in-shopping-centre-toilet-78057-21328394/
 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/08/15/legal-aid-chief-found-in-shop-toilet-with-rent-boy-keeps-job-86908-21598336/ 

Mark Daly And The BBC

I was very surprised to hear Tony Rodgers announce on his radio show that on December 3rd 2010 he received an unsolicited email from BBC reporter Mark Daly which stated :

"Just wondering if you've woken up to the nasty self-publicising little conman that is Robert Green yet ?. I take it you are no longer peddling the Hollie Greig story. "

 I am very grateful for the kind words which Tony used to defend me on air but I am utterly bewildered at this latest bizarre action from Daly.

 It was Daly who first contacted me in April 2009, within days of the News of the World running the story that Hollie had been awarded £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. At this time various other mainstream media outlets were interested in the story but Daly wanted the BBC to have an exclusive and Anne and myself agreed to this. We passed a great deal of documentation to Daly and spoke to him regularly on the phone. He told us that Hollie's story fitted in with a pattern of similar abuses against the disabled in Scotland which he was investigating and indicated that two programmes would be commissioned by BBC Scotland, one for TV and one for radio, with the likelihood of a Panorama documentary to be broadcast nationally.

 On June 4th 2010 Daly, along with two colleagues, Kathy Long and Liam MacDougall, visited Anne and Hollie in person and the discussions lasted for more than five hours. We were told that they would return with a camera crew and that the first documentaries would be broadcast in August or September.

 Six days later we were informed out of the blue that the BBC had scrapped their plans to produce the programmes. It did not make sense to me that they could reach this decision after having already expended so much time, money and effort. 

 I voiced the opinion in public that I believed that Daly had been pressurised by persons unknown into stopping production of the programmes. He evidently disagreed and phoned in to Tony Rodgers' show on Manchester Radio Online to put his side of the story while I was a guest in the studio. Everyone I have discussed this matter with has agreed that Daly sounded extremely nervous and at one stage he actually referred to me as "Graham" rather than "Robert".

 Daly's argument was that the BBC had decided to halt production when they realised that the facts of the case were not sufficiently strong. I would have thought that the very first thing the BBC would have done before committing any resources to a project would be to establish whether there was sufficient "evidence" and the reasons which Daly gave on air to justify this decision were either irrelevant to the main allegations or else patently untrue. The most ludicrous statement Daly made was when he attempted to justify the BBC's decision by referring to the autopsy of Roy Greig, Hollie's uncle. Roy's death in suspicous circumstances was only discussed in passing and there was never any intention that this would be included in any programme. The autopsy was not released until six months AFTER the BBC had stopped production.

 Daly's weak arguments were portrayed by the tiny handful of people who wished to rubbish Hollie's stories as a huge blow to the credibility of the case. On May 31st the blogger Anna Raccoon wrote:

"Exit Mark Daly – but not before he had helpfully asked for and received from Grampian Police, the autopsy report for Roy Grieg (sic)."

 I am extremely alarmed at the possibility that Grampian Police would have issued Daly with Roy Greig's autopsy especially as his sister, Anne Greig, was not allowed access to it until 12 years afer his death.

 However this is not the only instance of Daly appearing to "obtain" evidence from the police in unusual circumstances. In December 2010 he presented a Panorama documentary on the Sheridan case within hours of the verdict being announced, which broadcast police interviews with Tommy and Gail Sheridan. The BBC's reporting of this case demonstrates that they are not interested in serious investigative journalism. I will quote from Kenneth Roy in the "Scottish Review": 

 "What did this act say to the Scottish people about the relative value, as the BBC sees it, of all those public issues of greater importance which it fails to report so generously? What was it trying to tell us about its own principles and priorities?"

  "Someone was paid to write this salacious drivel in the name of public service broadcasting: the juvenile bravado of the venture was always shamelessly transparent, indeed positively boastful in tone. "

 "BBC Scotland has allowed its standards to reduce to the level of the tattiest tabloid."

 Kenneth Roy is a journalist with courage and integrity, qualities which seem to be in short supply at the BBC.

http://www.scottishreview.net/KRoy66.shtml

Police And Politicians

Following concerns raised by Ian Hamilton QC regarding the accountability of the police in Scotland to elected representatives, the independent legal journal "The Firm" asked the Scottish Government to clarify it's relationship to police forces.

 The response contained the following quotes :

 ‎"neither police authorities nor Scottish Ministers have power to direct Chief Constables on the enforcement of law or deployment of police officers"

 ‎"It would therefore not be appropriate for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice or any Scottish Government official to intervene in individual cases. This important principle is essential to protect the political and operational independence of the police service in Scotland."

 The words of the Scottish Government do not appear to be consistent with the actions of Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, last Saturday when it appears that he directed the deployment of police officers to question me and personally intervened in my pending court case by suggesting that I had breached my bail conditions.  

 http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2301/Scottish_Police_forces_not_accountable_to_devolved_Parliament%2C_Holyrood_confirms_.html

A Campaign Of Harassment ?

Having had time to reflect on the events of Saturday morning, I have posted a letter to the Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police, David Strang, informing him of the circumstances and asking for his views.

I cannot conceive any plausible explanation other than that Mr MacAskill, or someone acting on his behalf, called the police in order to prevent me from asking him questions which he was unwilling to answer.

It is somewhat ironic that the criminal charges against myself claim that I conducted a "campaign of harassment" against certain individuals. I believe that I myself was harassed on Saturday and that it is very likely that this was instigated by Mr MacAskill. Furthermore, I would assert that the actions taken against me by Grampian Police, the Crown Office and the Courts are tantamount to a "campaign of harassment".

 It is not only myself who has suffered harassment of course. Last June, Anne and Hollie's home in Shrewsbury was raided on the spurious grounds that Hollie was a "missing person". Again, I would have to question why the police acted in this way.

Kenny MacAskill: Wasting Police Time ?

 Yesterday, along with 2 other Hollie suppporters I attended Kenny MacAskill's constituency surgery in Edinburgh. Mr MacAskill is the Justice Minister in the Scottish Parliament and has been informed of the Hollie Greig case on numerous occasions. As he has failed to respond to letters and e-mails I intended to speak to him in person.

 When Mr MacAskill arrived at 1000, I introduced myself and attempted to ask whether there would be a public enquiry into the Hollie Greig case. However, Mr MacAskill simply ignored me. We remained in the vicinity as I intended to try again when Mr MacAskill left the building. we spoke to a number of people about the Hollie Greig case and all were very supportive.

 At 1125 a police officer arrived and said that he had been asked to "check everything was OK". He asked my name, which I provided and then he asked for the names of my companions. Both refused, as they are perfectly entitled to do.

 The officer then stated he thought I might be breaking my bail conditions. I find it quite extraordinary that an officer with Lothian and Borders Police would be aware of the bail conditions imposed in the Grampian Police area for a summary charge of Breach of the Peace.

 When Mr MacAskill exited the building I again attempted to talk to him. The police officer then informed me that "Mr MacAskill does not want to answer any questions". It would therefore appear more than likely that it was Mr MacAskill who asked the police to attend.

 The police officer went on to say that if he could not satisfy himself that a Breach of the Peace did not take place he "might have to get a van to take us away". The definition of a Breach of the Peace is as follows:

The actus reus of breach of the peace, according to Smith v Donnelly, is

“conduct which [presents] as genuinely alarming and disturbing, in its context, to any reasonable person” (Smith v Donnelly 2001 SLT 1007 at [17])

Conduct will be ‘alarming and disturbing’ if it is of the sort (such as fighting, or challenging persons to fight, in the street) which would cause a reasonable person to fear that the peace of the immediate neighbourhood would be broken (in the sense that it would be likely that a serious disturbance of that peace would ensue) if that conduct were allowed to continue or be repeated

 I cannot accept that any "reasonable person" could have been alarmed or disturbed by anything that happened.

 Shortly afterwards 2 other police officers arrived . They were very friendly and explained that they had been called away from investigating a serious assault in order to attend this "incident". After the first officer spent some time talking on his radio we were allowed to leave.

 Mr MacAskill is attempting to save money by reducing the number of police forces in Scotland. But was he himself wasting police time (and indirectly taxpayers money) by calling the police to a matter which ought to have been of no concern to them ?

 I am currently considering what further action to take in respect of this matter.

*******

 Attached is a video of some of yesterday's events.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdzCtDIiH7g
 

The Case For The Defence #4: Police Investigations Have Found No Evidence

 The response of Grampian Police to Hollie's allegations could not be described by any reasonable person as "investigations". I will simply reproduce my blog of February 14th in full to demonstrate this.

******

The Press & Journal report of 27 January 2011 made the following statement in relation to the allegations made by Hollie:

"two police investigations have found no evidence to support the claims"

  Similar statements have been made by the Solicitor-General of Scotland, Frank Mulholland, when responding to MP's and MSP's.

  It is worth reminding ourselves of the scope of the "investigations" carried out by Grampian Police.

  On 18 May 2000, Hollie made her initial allegation that she had been abused by one member of her family, referred to as Relative C in the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS) Report. The PCCS Report states: "Relative C was traced, detained and interviewed on 12 June 2000... and the circumstances were reported to the Procurator Fiscal." This was the one and only interview with "Relative C" and there appears to have been no further investigation undertaken. One may have thought that the police may have searched the property of "Relative C" and removed items for forensic examination but this did not happen.

 On 25 August 2000, Hollie made further allegations against a number of individuals. As a result of this only one further interview with a suspect took place and that was seventeen months later. To quote from the PCCS Report: "Relative A was interviewed on 9 January 2002, after which he was released without charge due to the absence of evidence. .... Detective Sergeant F stated that it was possible that he expressed civil regret that Relative A had been inconvenienced by the process."

 None of the other named persons were as much as interviewed. This is how Grampian Police explain this failure: "Superintendent J stated that he had contemporary checks carried on police system's regarding the individuals named by X and confirmed that at the time of Detective Sergeant F's check there was nothing present on the systems to support any of the complainer's suspicions." This extraordinary statement suggests that if you do not have a police record then it is the policy of Grampian Police not to investigate any allegation against you !

 At the time the wider allegations were made Grampian Police were more interested in arranging for the sectioning of Anne Greig rather than investigating allegations of sexual abuse, as is evidenced by this statement from the PCCS Report: "Detective Constable E stated that she was later advised by a Social Worker and the complainer's GP that the complainer had failed to keep any appointments and, as a result, consideration was being given to visiting the complainer at home with the intention of detaining her under the Mental Health Act. " So it is the view of Grampian Police that missing an appointment with a GP or Social Worker is  grounds for sectioning someone !

 On 8 September 2009 I was present and able to listen when Hollie was re-interviewed in Shrewsbury by DS Lisa Evans of Grampian Police.Hollie spoke clearly and consistently, naming both the alleged attackers and other alleged victims, and giving details of locations. By this time Grampian Police were fully aware of expert medical witness statements, which overwhelmingly supported Hollie's allegations.

 To the best of my knowledge, Grampian Police did not interview any of the alleged attackers or any of the other alleged victims or any of the medical experts.  

 It would appear that Grampian Police investigate some crimes more zealously than others. Attached is the story of how they spent £170,000 of public money by repeatedly arresting a male stripper who dresses as a policeman as part of his act.

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-163170000-strippergram-1452292.html

******

I have had a very interesting morning indeed and intend to post a full report on the blog tomorrow.

 

The Case For The Defence #3: It Would Not Be Possible For Such A Massive Cover-Up To Be Organised

 I cited the example of the Catholic Church paedophile scandal in my blog of February 25th to demonstrate how serious crimes taking place on a global scale could be covered-up for decades.

  I firmly believe that the vast majority of people employed by the police, Crown Office, Social Services, mainstream media etc will be perfectly decent and well-intentioned. However, I also believe that in organisations where there is a culture of secrecy and where the majority of employees will simply follow instructions rather than "rock the boat", then it will be fairly easy for a very small number of people to orchestrate a cover-up. Such people will be extremely well organised and will typically have links to other organisations.

 It must be said that the Scottish criminal justice system does not have a particularly good record for openness and honesty. Three specific examples are the Lockerbie/Megrahi affair, the Shirley McKie case and the Fettesgate scandal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/23/lockerbie-inquiry-justice-megrahi

http://www.shirleymckie.com/facts.htm

http://living.scotsman.com/great-edinburgh-scandals/Fettesgate-39Magic-Circle39-spells-panic.5008996.jp

 I cannot understand why anyone could definitively state that there has not been a cover-up in the Hollie Greig case.

The Case For The Defence #2: Hollie Is Being Manipulated By Her Mother Who Is Mentally Ill

The allegations which Hollie has made are so horrendous that it would be natural to think that perhaps she is being manipulated by her mother who could possibly be suffering from some form of mental illness. However there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory.

  It is true that Anne Greig, then known as Anne Mackie, was forcibly sectioned in September 2000 in the immediate aftermath of Hollie's allegations. As my blogs of December 12th and January 29th explain, the circumstances of this sectioning, are to say the least, extremely suspicous and a few weeks later Anne obtained a report from an independent psychiatrist which pronounced her perfectly sane.

  The PCCS report admits that this sectioning was instigated not by a medical professional but by a police officer.

  In January 2001 Anne's GP, received a letter from Dr Alasdair Palin of Cornhill Hospital which stated:

  "I have had no further contact from Anne since I spoke to you in November 2000 and am writing to confirm that I have now closed the case from a psychiatric point of view"

  To the layperson this seems a remarkably quick recovery from an alleged psychiatric condition which required sectioning just four months previously.

  Were it the case that Anne Greig was an unfit mother who was encouraging her disabled daughter to tell outrageous lies, then one would imagine that Hollie's father would intervene and attempt to gain custody. However, Denis Mackie has made no attempt to have any form of contact with Hollie since 2000.
******

 The highly respected journalist, writer and broadcaster Kenneth Roy has published an article on my bail conditions in today's "Scottish Review". It is included under "Legal Briefs".

 http://www.scottishreview.net/

The Case For The Defence #1: Hollie Is Not A Credible Witness

When people hear about the Hollie Greig case for the first time they may think that because Hollie has Downs Syndrome she is not a credible witness. However even the police have admitted that this is not the case, as the PCCS report contains the following quote:
 

"although there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the case this did not reflect on the credibility of X."

  Furthermore the conclusion of the report prepared by child psychologist Dr Eva Harding in 2003 reads as follows :

 "Despite her considerable mental handicap and limited language development, Hollie was well able to make herself understood. Good rapport was made with her so that she trusted me with her confidences. Her allegations were consistent and supported with details of time, place and incidental observations. She also showed good understanding of situations unconnected with the abuse e.g. in her accounts of the storylines and characters in her favourite "soaps". I found Hollie's accounts of abuse to be entirely believable, especially concerning her father who was clearly the principal abuser. This is confirmed by her descriptions of nightmares and flash-backs."

  It is worth noting that the decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to award Hollie compensation of £13,500 was largely based on Dr Harding's report.

  I simply do not accept the argument that Hollie is not a credible witness.