On the 14th November, I am to stand trial at Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire on a breach of the peace charge. Due to the anticipated large number of witnesses, the proceedings are set to last for two weeks.
The terms of my defence will ensure that this trial becomes a test case, not only for the future of the freedom of the press, but also impacts on freedom of speech. I shall stand on the right of a journalist to publish what he believes to be the truth and is in the public interest. My excellent legal team, led by the eminent Frances McMenamin QC, feel that the success of my defence may be enhanced by having letters produced in Court from those who have supported my actions in bringing the Hollie Greig case into the public domain and believe my stance to be justified in the public interest.
Thus, I would be most grateful to anyone who feels that they can support me in this way.
The letters must be hard copies, sent by mail, not email. To be valid, they must contain the address, name and signature of the sender and be addressed in the following manner, to enable me to forward them to my solicitor, Mr Gerry Sweeney, and then onward to be placed before the Sheriff. It should open with "To whom it may concern".
Here is the address,
The Court,
c/o Robert Green
4 Birchdale Road
Appleton
Warrington
Cheshire WA4 5AR
This issue, I believe, is of importance far beyond the parameters of the case itself. It revolves around the concept of openness versus secrecy in our society. It must now be obvious to any reasonable person following the Hollie Greig case that the degree of secrecy involving senior state officials in trying to obstruct and pervert the course of justice by making clandestine agreements behind closed doors is completely unacceptable in any civilised and democratic society.
May I thank everyone who has supported Hollie, Anne and me throughout the campaign and hope that you may be able to help in this regard. The letters do not need to be lengthy, nor particularly detailed. All that is requested is a statement that you support my position before the Court.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
What Are We Trying To Achieve ?
Our primary aim is very simple. We want Justice for Hollie and the first step in that process must be for the police to conduct an open-minded and thorough investigation of her various allegations.
Irrespective of the outcome of these investigations, we also want a full public enquiry into the failure to properly investigate the allegations in 2000 and the reasons why various public bodies have, not only denied Hollie justice, but actively persecuted her and her mother.
Regrettably, I do not believe we will achieve these twin aims as a result of the authorities recognising that this is the right and proper thing to do. I believe that we will only achieve them as a result of widespread public pressure being brought to bear on the authorities. Therefore it is essential that, not only do we do everything we can to generate awareness of Hollie's case, but that we must always take care to present both ourselves and the case as being wholly credible and serious. We are seeking much greater coverage in the mainstream media, and I believe that this will happen, but we must always convey the message in the correct manner.
We must take great care not to present Hollie's case as part of a greater conspiracy. It is humanitarian single-issue campaign with no connection to any other cause. We cannot afford to be distracted by irrelevant issues.
We must avoid exaggeration or speculation about the possible motives behind the failure to investigate the allegations. The facts are so powerful that they do not require any embellishment.
On a related theme, I am often asked to endorse or assist other anti-paedophile campaigns. The scale of child abuse, both in the UK and abroad, appears to be horrific and I applaud those who are genuinely trying to combat this evil and to raise awareness. However, as I am fully committed to the Hollie Greig case, I regret that I am unable to actively support any other causes.
Irrespective of the outcome of these investigations, we also want a full public enquiry into the failure to properly investigate the allegations in 2000 and the reasons why various public bodies have, not only denied Hollie justice, but actively persecuted her and her mother.
Regrettably, I do not believe we will achieve these twin aims as a result of the authorities recognising that this is the right and proper thing to do. I believe that we will only achieve them as a result of widespread public pressure being brought to bear on the authorities. Therefore it is essential that, not only do we do everything we can to generate awareness of Hollie's case, but that we must always take care to present both ourselves and the case as being wholly credible and serious. We are seeking much greater coverage in the mainstream media, and I believe that this will happen, but we must always convey the message in the correct manner.
We must take great care not to present Hollie's case as part of a greater conspiracy. It is humanitarian single-issue campaign with no connection to any other cause. We cannot afford to be distracted by irrelevant issues.
We must avoid exaggeration or speculation about the possible motives behind the failure to investigate the allegations. The facts are so powerful that they do not require any embellishment.
On a related theme, I am often asked to endorse or assist other anti-paedophile campaigns. The scale of child abuse, both in the UK and abroad, appears to be horrific and I applaud those who are genuinely trying to combat this evil and to raise awareness. However, as I am fully committed to the Hollie Greig case, I regret that I am unable to actively support any other causes.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Kenny MacAskill Helps Hollie's Campaign For Justice
Regular readers of this blog will know that I do not hold Scotland's "Justice" Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, in high regard. Nevertheless a recent statement made by Mr MacAskill can be regarded as positive news for our campaign.
The first step for Hollie to achieve justice must be for the allegations she has made to be thoroughly investigated by the police. As Grampian Police's previous "investigations" can best be described as a whitewash, it is difficult to imagine how they could possibly launch a proper investigation at this time.
Thanks to Mr MacAskill's plan to merge the Scottish police forces, Grampian Police will soon cease to exist and we can look forward to a new police force investigating Hollie's allegations without being weighed down by the baggage of the past.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/scotland/newsid_9583000/9583141.stm
At the same time, Mr MacAskill has announced that all Scotland's fire services will be merged, which will spell the end for Grampian Fire Service, who ludicrously failed to provide Anne Greig with information about the death of her brother, Roy, as they claimed this would infringe the deceased's human rights.
Thank you Mr MacAskill for your "accidental" boost to Hollie's quest for justice.
The first step for Hollie to achieve justice must be for the allegations she has made to be thoroughly investigated by the police. As Grampian Police's previous "investigations" can best be described as a whitewash, it is difficult to imagine how they could possibly launch a proper investigation at this time.
Thanks to Mr MacAskill's plan to merge the Scottish police forces, Grampian Police will soon cease to exist and we can look forward to a new police force investigating Hollie's allegations without being weighed down by the baggage of the past.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/scotland/newsid_9583000/9583141.stm
At the same time, Mr MacAskill has announced that all Scotland's fire services will be merged, which will spell the end for Grampian Fire Service, who ludicrously failed to provide Anne Greig with information about the death of her brother, Roy, as they claimed this would infringe the deceased's human rights.
Thank you Mr MacAskill for your "accidental" boost to Hollie's quest for justice.
Friday, September 9, 2011
I Am Prepared To Engage In Open Debate
On Thursday 25th August, I was interviewed live on the Edge Media (Sky Channel 200) programme On The Edge, with regard to many aspects of the Hollie Greig case. Of course, I strongly criticised individuals and organisations I believe responsible for their conduct and obstructing the course of justice.
A statement was subsequently published by Edge Media that I was willing to engage in open, live debate with any of those named who considered my remarks to be unfair or inaccurate. The TV station has made it known that it is prepared to offer its faciities to enable such a debate to take place.
To date, not one person or organisation so named has been prepared to accept the challenge.
The overall invitation still holds, but I would particularly wish to invite Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary to come forward. When I last challenged him publicly at a pre-election meeting in Edinburgh in April, he refused to comment on the grounds that I was facing criminal charges. This was, of course, a bluff, as such as discussion is completely outwith the terms of the charges against me as it focuses on the conduct of the Scottish government and other public bodies, not on mine.
As it is my policy to take people on face-to-face if I choose to criticise them, I have always invited opponents to come forward for debate throughout the Hollie Greig campaign, but so far, none holding public office have accepted.
I firmly believe that it is in the public interest for all aspects of the Hollie Greig case to be openly debated rather than swept under the carpet.
A statement was subsequently published by Edge Media that I was willing to engage in open, live debate with any of those named who considered my remarks to be unfair or inaccurate. The TV station has made it known that it is prepared to offer its faciities to enable such a debate to take place.
To date, not one person or organisation so named has been prepared to accept the challenge.
The overall invitation still holds, but I would particularly wish to invite Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary to come forward. When I last challenged him publicly at a pre-election meeting in Edinburgh in April, he refused to comment on the grounds that I was facing criminal charges. This was, of course, a bluff, as such as discussion is completely outwith the terms of the charges against me as it focuses on the conduct of the Scottish government and other public bodies, not on mine.
As it is my policy to take people on face-to-face if I choose to criticise them, I have always invited opponents to come forward for debate throughout the Hollie Greig campaign, but so far, none holding public office have accepted.
I firmly believe that it is in the public interest for all aspects of the Hollie Greig case to be openly debated rather than swept under the carpet.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Vulnerable And Traumatised Witnesses ?
On April 13th of this year I attended Stonehaven Sheriff Court for an intermediate diet. I was forced to represent myself, as at that time my Legal Aid had been withdrawn. I asked the court to delay the trial, which at that time was scheduled to commence in June to allow me time to deal with the Legal Aid issues.
The Crown, represented by Anne Currie, the Area Procurator Fiscal for Grampian, strongly objected to this and claimed that the trial date should not be altered as they had 50 witnesses scheduled to attend, half of whom were "vulnerable" as they had suffered "trauma" due to my actions.
On that occasion Sheriff Val Johnston agreed with the Crown's view and the trial date was maintained until the next intermediate diet.
At the latest intermediate diet which took place on August 18th the Crown, on this occasion represented by a male fiscal whose name I do not know, stated that they had only 18 civilian witness and there was no mention of any trauma they had suffered. The Crown confirmed that no application whatsoever had been made to the Court in relation to any of the vulnerable witnesses referred to by Anne Currie.
I referred to a medical dictionary which defined "trauma" as: "A severely disturbing experience that leads to lasting psychological or emotional impairment." I would expect that if anyone had suffered trauma as a result of my actions that they would have claimed damages against me in a civil court case but this has not happened.
I am at a loss to understand why, in the space of four months, the number of witnesses against me has reduced dramatically and also how those vulnerable witnesses appeared to have recovered from the trauma they were suffering.
It has been suggested to me that perhaps the Crown exaggerated the case against me at the Intermediate Diet in order to press ahead to a trial at a time when I had no defence team due to the withdrawal of Legal Aid. I will be asking the Crown to provide a full explanation of the comments made in court in April.
The Crown, represented by Anne Currie, the Area Procurator Fiscal for Grampian, strongly objected to this and claimed that the trial date should not be altered as they had 50 witnesses scheduled to attend, half of whom were "vulnerable" as they had suffered "trauma" due to my actions.
On that occasion Sheriff Val Johnston agreed with the Crown's view and the trial date was maintained until the next intermediate diet.
At the latest intermediate diet which took place on August 18th the Crown, on this occasion represented by a male fiscal whose name I do not know, stated that they had only 18 civilian witness and there was no mention of any trauma they had suffered. The Crown confirmed that no application whatsoever had been made to the Court in relation to any of the vulnerable witnesses referred to by Anne Currie.
I referred to a medical dictionary which defined "trauma" as: "A severely disturbing experience that leads to lasting psychological or emotional impairment." I would expect that if anyone had suffered trauma as a result of my actions that they would have claimed damages against me in a civil court case but this has not happened.
I am at a loss to understand why, in the space of four months, the number of witnesses against me has reduced dramatically and also how those vulnerable witnesses appeared to have recovered from the trauma they were suffering.
It has been suggested to me that perhaps the Crown exaggerated the case against me at the Intermediate Diet in order to press ahead to a trial at a time when I had no defence team due to the withdrawal of Legal Aid. I will be asking the Crown to provide a full explanation of the comments made in court in April.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Summary Of The Hollie Greig Case
The ongoing Hollie Greig case is so complicated that I believe it is worthwhile to recap the key facts.
In 2000, Hollie, a twenty year old woman with Downs Syndrome, told her mother, Anne, that she had been abused over many years by a paedophile ring in her home town of Aberdeen.
These allegations were reported to Grampian Police but their "investigation" was extremely limited. They only interviewed 2 members of the alleged ring on one occasion each and failed to interview any of the other 6 children named by Hollie as fellow-victims. There were no searches made at any of the properties where the abuse was alleged to have taken place and no medical experts were asked to assist.
Shortly after the allegations were made, Anne was forcibly sectioned against her will in Cornhill Psychiatric Hospital in Aberdeen where she was held for 3 days. It is a matter of public record that this sectioning was initiated by Grampian Police. Anne has no history of mental illness and, within a few weeks of her release from Cornhill, she was assessed by an independent psychiatrist who pronounced her perfectly sane.
In 2005, Hollie was awarded £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, in spite of the fact that no-one had ever been charged with any offence. The CICA based it's award on evidence from medical experts, including the eminent psychologist Dr Eva Harding who stated unequivocally that Hollie had been sexually abused.
Anne and Hollie did not regard this payout as a satisfactory conclusion and were determined to see the abusers brought to justice. However they were continually frustrated in their attempts by officialdom and felt as if they were banging their heads against a brick wall.
In 2009, I began to assist Anne and Hollie and, after encountering the same type of problems when trying to achieve justice through the official channels, I was encouraged when I was approached by the BBC who asked if they could produce a documentary about the case. However this proved to be another disappointment as, after two months working on the programme, the BBC abruptly decided to halt production.
In October 2009, in an attempt to break the impasse, I named the members of the alleged paedophile ring at a public meeting in Edinburgh. This prompted some limited media coverage in publications including "The Firm" and "UK Column". In December 2009, Scotland's most senior legal official, the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, issued a warning letter to various media outlets via the Glasgow legal firm Levy & MacRae, asking them not to publicise the case. Mrs Angiolini has declined to answer a Freedom of Information request asking whether she used public funds to pay for this action.
Early in 2010, I announced my intention to stand as a General Election candidate in an Aberdeen constituency. On February 12th 2010 I visited Aberdeen with the intention of distributing leaflets to launch my campaign. Before I could do this however, I was arrested by plain clothes police officers and charged with Breach of the Peace. I was released subject to bail conditions which prohibited me from entering Aberdeenshire or using the internet and required me to report to my local police station thrice weekly. Such is the complexity of the case that I have been awarded Legal Aid to fund a high calibre legal team led by Frances McMenamin QC. My trial is scheduled to commence on November 14th 2011 and is expected to last for two weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)