Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Public Opinion

  Opinion polls for the Scottish Election, in which I attended to stand but have been effectively barred from, show that the SNP is on course to retain power.


 Whilst I have no interest in party politics, I cannot help but wonder whether the Scottish people would have the same level of support for their current government had the Hollie Greig case been publicised in the mainstream media.

 Of course, the SNP were not in power in 2000 when Hollie made her initial allegations but they have been the party of government since 2007 and therefore have overseen the failure to follow-up on the allegations which Hollie repeated in 2009, the on-going saga of my own court case and the attempts by the Lord Advocate to silence the media.

 I know that Kenny MacAskill and others are fully aware of the case but as they maintain a vow of silence I can only speculate as to why the government turns a blind eye to this appalling case of injustice which incorporates, not only sickening crimes against some of the most vulnerable members of society, but also persecution of those, such as Anne and myself, who refuse to accept the unacceptable.

 Did they think that the Hollie Greig case would be so damaging to Scotland's international reputation that it would be better to ensure that the general public never heard about it ? If so, I would suggest that was a grave error of judgement.

 Although various individual politicians have made encouraging noises, no major political party has yet called for a full and fearless enquiry into the very serious issues raised by the Hollie Greig case. Which one of them will have the integrity and courage to do so ? 

Thursday, April 21, 2011

The Silence Of The Bams

 Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond, and Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, have both mastered the art of self-promotion and rarely miss an opportunity to grab the headlines.

 Why then are they so tight-lipped on the Hollie Greig case ?

 Salmond took time out from his election campaign to meet a group of protesters last week.

 First Minister Alex Salmond won plaudits yesterday after he spent an hour listening to the concerns of public-service cut protesters shunned by Labour. He met the Citizens United Against Cuts to Public Sevices group in an Edinburgh cafe to discuss their fears.

 Yesterday, Mr Salmond talked with the six strong group. Speaking afterwards. the First Minister said: "Their points were entirely reasonable and, hopefully, we can make some progress. These are not unreasonable people and they are not making unreasonable demands. They asked for a meeting and I said "yes" - why shouldn't I meet them ?" 

 As I believe it is entirely reasonable that Hollie Greig's claims ought to be properly investigated I wrote to Salmond asking for a meeting at a location of his choosing. I have not yet received a response.

  In her farewell tour, Angiolini has given a series of interviews in which she has tried to portray herself as a "victims champion". Yet, as reported in "The Firm", she has kept the Freedom of Information Commission waiting for 5 months and has not yet said whether it was herself or the taxpayer who funded a series of legal actions against sections of the media in connection with the Hollie Greig case.


Wednesday, April 20, 2011

MacAskill Dodges A Direct Question And Pays Tribute to Angiolini

 I attended a public hustings meeting in the Edinburgh Eastern constituency last night where Kenny MacAskill is standing as candidate for the SNP. The organisers of the event tried to prevent me from entering, citing my bail conditions and their fears that I intended to disrupt the meeting. When I assured them that I had no intention of either breaching my bail conditions or causing a disruption they had no option but to allow me to enter.

 I took the opportunity to ask  MacAskill a question about the role of the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, in the Hollie Greig case. He refused to answer the question on the ludicrous grounds that my court case is sub judice. The question I asked had no relevance whatsoever to the criminal charges against myself. Instead he took the opportunity to pay a gushing tribute to Angiolini.

  "I have the utmost faith in, and it has been a privilege to serve  with, Elish Angiolini who has been an outstanding Lord Advocate."

   I have already documented the shameful role of Elish Angiolini and the Crown Office in respect of the Hollie Greig case but is worth remembering that she has also faced severe criticism from other quarters:

   Prominent QC Robert Black describes Aniolini's tenure as "a disastrous experiment which should never be repeated".

  Another QC, Ian Hamilton, in relation to the Tommy Sheridan perjury trial says "For the Lord Advocate to bring this case was a prostitution of Scots Law".

  Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton, wrote to Angiolini in 2007 following a statement she made in Parliament which undermined the independence of the judiciary.


  Angiolini accused of trying to protect her predecessor in public inquiry into Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal.

  MacAskill and Angiolini may think that if they stick together and bury their heads in the sand then the Hollie Greig case will simply disappear. However the cracks are already beginning to appear and I am encouraged by recent communications I have had with the candidates opposing MacAskill from the Labour, Conservative, LibDem and UKIP parties.

 A few days earlier a group of Hollie supporters picketed a BBC hustings in Aberdeen and had very productive discussions with both members of the public and representatives of the BBC. I was unable to attend as my draconian bail conditions prevent me from entering Aberdeenshire. The Crown Office, headed by Elish Angiolini, have stated in Court that they believe there is "a risk of serious public disturbance" if I set foot in Aberdeenshire.

Monday, April 18, 2011

The Saga Of The Search Warrant

  On February 12th 2010, I was arrested by plainclothes police officers in Aberdeen and charged with Breach of the Peace. The following day my house in Cheshire was searched by Grampian Police officers and various items were removed including my computer hard drive, my diary and all paperwork relating to the Hollie Greig case, which included items belonging to Anne Greig. No inventory was taken of the items removed. I was advised by my defence team that they had never before heard of a Search Warrant being requested for a minor offence such as Breach of the Peace.

  On April 12th 2010 I asked officers at Warrington Police Station about the warrant and was told that DC Brian Geddes of Grampian Police would send me a copy in the post. This copy has never arrived.

 Around the same time Anne Greig's MP, Owen Paterson, contacted Grampian Police who informed him that a PC Greades from Tillydrone Police Station arranged the warrant. When we spoke to this officer, whose name turned out to be "Vreades", he told us that he had no knowledge of this matter and was not even authorised to issue warrants.

 On July 30th 2010 I was informed by Inspector Liz Adderley of Cheshire Police that she had seen an e-mail copy of the warrant but she refused to let me see it.

On March 25th 2011 I wrote to Grampian Police again and three days later received a reply from Detective Superintendent Peter Reilly who stated:

 I can confirm that the original Search Warrant was forwarded to the Procurator Fiscal at Aberdeen on Monday 15 February 2010, along with the other documents relating to your Court appearance on this date.

Grampian Police do not hold a copy of this Search Warrant.

Any request for a copy of this document should be 
 made to the Procurator Fiscal's Office, Atholl House, 84-88 Guild Street, Aberdeen.

 I do not understand how Grampian Police could have sent the document to Cheshire Police if they did not have a copy in their possession.

 I phoned the Procurator Fiscal's office to ask them to send me a copy of the warrant. I have not yet received this.

 On the morning of my recent court appearance in Stonehaven I went into the Procurator Fiscal's office in Aberdeen to try to obtain a copy. I was informed that the warrant was at Stonehaven. On my arrival at Stonehaven I asked a court official for a copy and was told that I could raise this in the hearing. When I did not get the opportunity to raise this in the hearing, I asked for a brief meeting with Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie. This request was refused.

 Why is it proving so difficult to obtain a copy of a Search Warrant ?

Friday, April 15, 2011

I Have Now Been Awarded Legal Aid

 On Wednesday at around 4.30 pm myself and 4 other Hollie supporters staged a peaceful picket outside the offices of the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB). We distributed leaflets which highlighted various issues including the strange circumstances in which my Legal Aid had been withdrawn.

 First thing on Thursday morning my lawyer received a phone call from SLAB advising that my Legal Aid has now been re-instated. I believe that I am now in a position to re-assemble my first-class defence team.

 I cannot understand why there were so many problems in granting Legal Aid. 

Thursday, April 14, 2011

The Hollow Words Of Kenny MacAskill

 Following my court appearance in Stonehaven yesterday, I travelled to Edinburgh where I hoped to speak to Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, about a statement he had made just three days earlier.

"Rape is a horrific crime, and we must do everything we can to ensure those guilty of such despicable offences are brought to justice."

 It appeared to me that these words were not consistent with his actions, or rather inaction, in  the case of Hollie Greig. Unfortunately, as you can see  from the attached video clip, Mr MacAskill did not wish to engage with me on this issue.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Trial Still Planned To Commence On June 6th

  At Stonehaven Court this morning, Sheriff Val Johnston did not accept Gerry Sweeney's written request that the trial should be delayed until my Legal Aid situation is resolved.

 The Crown, represented by Area Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie, argued that the trial should not be delayed as they have 50 witnesses lined up to appear during the week beginning June 6th. She claimed that half of these witnesses were "vulnerable" as they had suffered "trauma" as a result of my actions.

 She appeared to claim that evidence disclosed for the previous charges which were dropped should be used for the existing charges. I do not understand the logic of this argument. She also claimed that the Crown had made full disclosure of all evidence, which I do not believe to be the case.

 A further intermediate diet will be held on May 11th.

 I spoke to a reporter from the "Press And Journal" at some length after I left the court. He revealed to me that he has been contacted on several occasions by Greg Lance-Watkins, a person who is hostile to Hollie and myself.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Intermediate Diet

Tomorrow, Wednesday 13th April, I attend Stonehaven Sheriff Court for my intermediate diet.

In terms of section 148(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 the purpose of an intermediate diet is to ascertain:

"So far as is reasonably practicable, whether the case is likely to proceed to trial on the date assigned as the trial diet and, in particular - the state of preparation of the prosecutor and of the accused with respect to their cases; whether the accused intends to adhere to the plea of not guilty, and the extent to which the prosecutor and the accused have complied with the duty under section 257(1) of this Act."

 My case is one of 52 listed for Stonehaven and I will not be in front of Sheriff Patrick Davies, who dealt with my previous hearings, as he has recently retired.

 An intermediate diet is usually a very brief administrative procedure but I have learnt to expect the unexpected !


 I note that Elish Angiolini has lined herself up with a summer job to begin shortly after she leaves the post of Lord Advocate in May. She has landed a position as a visiting professor at a Law School in Florida.



 I am encouraged by the actions of Devon and Cornwall Police who are actively investigating allegations of sexual abuse dating back to the 1980's and are exhuming the body of one of the victims. 


Monday, April 11, 2011

What Do You Think Mate ?

On his radio show last night Tony Legend (TL) broadcast a phone conversation he recorded with BBC reporter Mark Daly (MD) which went as follows:

MD: Hallo Mark Daly.

TL: Hi there Mark. My name is Tony, I am from Manchester Radio Online. 

MD: Hallo

TL: I am doing a bit of a show this week about the Hollie Greig case ....

MD: (laughs) which er, which ....

TL: I am from Manchester Radio Online. Is this a case that you don't want to talk about or can't talk about ? Which ? I just wanted to hear it from the horses mouth, yourself. Is your hands tied ?

MD: What do you think mate ?

 People are free to form their own opinions about the Hollie Greig case based upon the known facts. Here are some facts which are not in dispute.

Fact 1: Grampian Police failed to interview alleged paedophiles because their names did not appear on police records. They also failed to interview alleged victims and expert medical witnesses.

Fact 2: Within a few weeks of Hollie making allegations of a paedophile ring her mother Anne was forcibly sectioned. Shortly afterwards Anne obtained an independent psychiatric report which declared her perfectly sane.

 Fact 3: Hollie was awarded £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority largely on the basis of a report from eminent psychologist Dr Eva Harding which categorically identified two abusers and concluded that Hollie was "probably abused by others who had access to her".

Fact 4: Scotland's most senior legal officer, Elish Angiolini, has written to numerous media organisations warning them not to write about this case.

Fact 5: I was arrested by plain clothes officers on a charge of Breach of the Peace as I attempted to publicise Hollie's story. My case has yet to be heard in court but my treatment thusfar by the Scottish criminal justice system is completely without precedent.

 Based on these facts, I would have thought that an award winning investigative reporter would have given his eye teeth to produce a documentary on such a complex and disturbing case.

 What do you think mate ? 

Friday, April 8, 2011

Twenty Questions

It is a sad fact that it is extremely difficult to prosecute sexual offences so the fact that no-one has been convicted in relation to the allegations made by Hollie Greig is not, in itself, particularly unusual.

 What is extremely unusual, if not absolutely unique, is the extra-ordinary behaviour of numerous persons in positions of authority who have attempted, not merely to deny Hollie any possibility of justice, but to actively persecute her and her supporters.

 Below is a list of twenty questions relating to Hollie's case which remain unanswered.

1. How can Grampian Police justify failing to interview persons named by Hollie as abusers simply because their names were not on police records ? The fact that I do not have a criminal record did not stop them from arresting me.

2. Why did Grampian Police not interview expert medical witnesses such as Dr Eva Harding, the psychologist whose report clearly stated that Hollie had been a victim of abuse, or Dr Paul Carter, who diagnosed Hollie as suffering from an STD at the age of 10?

3. Why did police officer Leanne Davidson instigate the sectioning of Anne shortly after Hollie made the allegations about a wider paedophile ring ?

4. Why did social worker Catherine Mason falsely claim that Anne's sectioning order had been signed by John Logan JP ?

5. How was BBC reporter Mark Daly able to obtain the post mortem report on Roy Greig, Hollies uncle, several months after the BBC abandoned their documentary ?

6. Why have none of the persons accused of being members of a paedophile rape gang launched a civil action for defamation ?

7. Why did Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, instruct lawyers Levy & MacRae to write to the Scottish media warning them not to cover the Hollie Greig case ? 

8. How can the Crown Office justify refusing to answer a Freedom of Information request regarding whether or not Angiolini paid her own legal bills "on the basis that it would be likely to prejudice substantially the prevention and detection of crime" ?

9. Who gave the instruction to arrest me for Breach of the Peace in Aberdeen in February 2010 ?

10. Why were my first four court appearances "in camera" ie behind closed doors ?

11. Why is the Crown demanding I am subject to such punitive bail conditions which are unheard of for a charge of Breach of the Peace ?

12. If the Crown believes my offences are so serious why are they prosecuting the case on a summary basis (without a jury) rather than on a solemn basis (with a jury) which carries more severe penalties ?

13. Why did Grampian Police falsely claim that the warrant to search my property was signed by a PC Vreades ?  Fourteen months after the event I have yet to see this warrant.

14. Was John Smithies sacked from his position as Press Officer for the Downs Syndrome Association as a result of his support for Hollie ?

15. Why did West Mercia Police carry out a raid on Anne and Hollie's house in June 2010 on the grounds that they believed Hollie to be in danger ? An hour and a half before the raid I had told them I had no concern's for her welfare.

16. Why did Shropshire Council lie about the fact that they had prior knowledge of this raid ?

17. How did photographs of the Greig family appear on the blog of a person hostile to them shortly after the raid ?

18. How can the Court of Session justify asking me to pay the costs of a private detective hired by a person who has taken an Interdict out against me ?

19. Why did the Crown drop the original charges against myself and replace them with new ones in January 2011 ? I suspect this was purely to force me to re-apply for Legal Aid.

20. How can the Scottish Legal Aid Board justify refusing me Legal Aid in 2011 when my financial position is considerably worse than it was when I was awarded Legal Aid in 2010 ? 

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

More Problems For Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill

As if Kenny MacAskill didn't have enough problems with the Hollie Greig case, the defection of former Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa threatens to re-open the can of worms which is the Lockerbie affair. MacAskill risibly claims:  ‎"I think everybody accepts that the Crown and police investigation in Scotland has been thorough, diligent and carried out fairly and appropriately". It is more likely that these investigations were as thorough and diligent as the medical examinations which concluded that the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing had no more than three months to live.

 MacAskill's view is not shared by former MP Tam Dalyell who states: "As I have said before, I believe that at times the Crown Office has been duplicitous about this," he said. "So they would be the wrong people to question him."

  I would recommend the blog written by Robert Black QC on the Lockerbie affair. Having briefly scanned it, I learnt that there is considerable evidence to suggest that Iran and Syria, not Libya, were responsible for the bombing and that two key witnesses at the trial were paid a total of $3 million by the CIA.

The Scottish justice system is once again coming under the microscope.

Friday, April 1, 2011

Houses of Parliament

On Tuesday 29th March, I was invited to attend an All-Party Parliamentary meeting to discuss the role of Family Courts, which is relevant to Hollie on the grounds that it is this court we have attended due to the actions of Shropshire Council.

The meeting was chaired by John Hemming MP and there was a very good attendance consisting of many parents whose children had suffered as a result of alleged corruption and lack of accountability of public officials, ranging from social workers to members of the judiciary, as experienced in Hollie`s case, both in Scotland and England. Naturally, a great deal of understandable rage was directed at the Cafcass representative, Mr Douglas, who exasperated those present even further by refusing to answer a single direct question.

Belinda McKenzie was first to bring up the issue of Hollie`s case in a forceful yet eloquent manner and shortly afterwards, it was my turn to make a brief speech.

First, I asked how many members of this all-party meeting had bothered to turn up. The answer was just three, out of a total of around 900 from both Houses. Apart from Mr Hemming, another MP had briefly attended, but left before I spoke and the other was from the Lords, a baroness whose name I cannot recall and whose minimal contribution leads me to conclude that it is not even worth finding it out.

I suggested that this was an absolute disgrace, considering the lack of interest in the whole range of family court cases which are perhaps themost disgraceful and pressing issue facing our country in terms of inhumanity and totally avoidable suffering by the most vulnerable members of society.

I reiterated the importance of the Hollie Greig case and called on the parliamentary representatives and a journalist from The Guardian to support MP David Ruffley`s complaint to the Scottish authorities responsible for the debacle.

Finally, I brought attention to the extraordinary conduct of the judge`s clerk and the Honourable Mrs Justice Pauffley`s repeated attempts on 1st July 2010 to pervert the course of justice by denying us our legal rights under Equality of Arms. I urged that the time for prevarication on this and other issues was long gone and corrupt officials, regardless of rank, should be arrested and charged in instances where it was clear that the law had been broken.

There was a great deal of genuine and unselfish support for Hollie and Anne, even though many of those present had dreadful problems of their own to contend with.

How effective the meeting will prove to be cannot be predicted, but there can be little doubt about the strength of feeling and determination of those concerned.