Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Court Hearing Monday 21st November

Sheriff Principal Bowen heard the application of Edinburgh Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan`s request to remain as Crown Prosecutor, despite having been called as a witness for the defence.

Mr Alan MacLeod, for the defence, stated that as he was part of a new legal team and that time was needed to assimilate all the copious and complex evidence, requested that the trial be delayed until 16th January at the earliest. This was opposed by Grampian Area Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie, who wished for the trial to go ahead as quickly as possible in the interests of the Crown witnesses. Mr MacLeod responded that if the sheriff accepted this, the whole defence team would have to withdraw as it would be impossible and unreasonable for them to prepare its case in a short amount of time, given its undoubted complexity.

Sheriff Bowen accepted the defence`s plea and ruled that the trial should commence on 16th January and that an interim hearing to resolve the issue of Mr McGowan`s refusal to recuse himself should be heard on 21st December.

The sheriff also voiced his concerns about the rising costs of pursuing the case.


  1. Interesting developments on Monday 21st November 2011 at Stonehaven Sheriff Court, where the Sheriff stated that Robert Green's former Senior Counsel Frances McMennamin had 'subverted' his 'order'. A totally false misrepresentation of the facts.

    However, even more revealing than that, the legal aid certificate was transferred away from Frances McMennamin to a new Lawyer by the Scottish Legal Aid Board on the Thurday afternoon, immediately after the Hearing was adjourned by the Sheriff after this so called subversion.

    This subversion of the Sheriff's order (even though this is untrue) reveals and implies that Robert Greens Senior Counsel was disciplined in the immediate aftermath of the Hearing being adjourned!

    By having the timerity to ask the prosecuting Fiscal (Crown Agent) to recuse himself for erring by naming himself in his own productions has had the opposite effect, with Frances McMennamin having to recuse herself instead.

    This raises the interesting legal question, whereby Robert Green has not been allowed the legal team of his own choosing, which is his fundamental legal right to do so, if the intention is to uphold the rule of law?

    Interesting too that this disciplining and withdrawal of Robert Green's legal team coincided with the appearance at Stonehaven Sheriff Court by Sheriff Buchannan (one of the alledged abusers), through a side entrance, when no witnesses were required to be at the Court.

    This is not the first faux pas in this case, with both prosecuters alledgedly lying already and clearly won't be the last.

    It has taken considerable discipline from the public benches to refrain from bouts of laughter, so comical have events become, although the sheriff officer did have to admonish a few giggles at one point.

    It would not seem inappropriate in this case if John Cleese were to walk in through one door doing his funny walk only to leave through another door.

    It is that surreal!

    Still, the case motors on towards the £1M pound mark and beyond and with the international newsmedia feed booked for the trial proper, it will be interesting to see who the witnesses will be and how they answer the inevitable difficult questions.

    When the case does finally collapse and or Robert Green is totally vindicated, it will be interesting to see if and to whom and how many Robert Green pursues for damages for what I imagine would end up being tens of millions of pounds through the civil courts for preventing him from campaigning to become a member of the Scottish Parliament?

    Notwithstanding the likely police interest in certain people who have acted unlawfully?

    This prosecution is starting to have all the hallmarks of a fit-up job.

    Wasn't there serious concerns raised by a few QC's about the propriety of Sheriff Bowen a few years back.

    Should he have recused himself from accepting such a politically sensitive case such as this, which everyone can see is ultimately going to end up before the Supreme Court of Appeal in England?

  2. It sounds as if it is a case of "what a web we weave when we practice to deceive". The Scottish legal establishment is displaying a sense of panic in all of this.

    Their conduct needs investigating as it is clear it is not in the public interest. The costs incurred to date are something that are of concern especially. Why should be public purse be expected to fund their vendetta?

    It is also apparent that they have no knowledge,concept, or care, for the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. They are breaching this with abandon. Robert is entitled to a fair hearing under Article 6 ECHR. The conduct of the judiciary can be appealed under this as well.

    This needs maximum exposure as well as the appalling way in which Hollie has been treated.