Day One In Court

 Twenty-one months after my arrest my trial has finally got underway at Stonehaven in front of Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen.

 After a morning of legal arguments my defence team served a witness citation during the lunch break on Stephen McGowan. As Mr McGowan is the Procurator Fiscal representing the Crown in this case, this citation may have put him in an awkward position and he asked for the case to be adjourned until tomorrow to allow him to consider his position.

 My team took this action as the documents produced by the Crown in evidence included correspondence between myself and Mr McGowan, dated before my arrest, relating to the decision by the Procurator Fiscal not to prosecute anyone in relation to the allegations of sexual abuse made by Hollie Greig.

Disorderly ?

 The Crown Office, represented by Anne Currie, have claimed, inter alia, that I conducted myself in a disorderly manner at various locations in Edinburgh. I believe she is referring to August 21st 2010 when I handed out leaflets in Scotland's capital. You can watch this video and decide for yourself whether or not I am conducting myself in a disorderly manner.

When Is A Vulnerable Witness Not A Vulnerable Witness ?

In my blog on September 6th I pointed out the inconsistency between two statements made by the Crown at intermediate diets in April and August.

 I wrote to the Crown Office asking for an explanation of this matter and have now received a belated response from Mr David B Harvie, Director of Serious Casework.

 I will quote from Mr Harvie's response:

 "You claim that, in opposing your motion to adjourn, Ms Currie indicated that there were 50 Crown witnesses available for the period of the trial and that half were vulnerable witnesses suffering from trauma as a result of your alleged conduct..... Ms Currie made it clear to the sheriff that she was using the word "vulnerable" in the everyday meaning of the word. The sheriff could not therefore have considered Ms Currie was referring to the specific legal definition of "vulnerable witness" found in section 271 of the Criminal Procedure of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995."

 This statement is quite simply untrue. I was standing approximately ten feet from Anne Currie when she referred to "vulnerable witnesses" and, unless she used some form of secret code, she made absolutely no attempt to clarify that she was using the word "vulnerable" in it's everyday sense. Several other persons in court on the day will also be able to vouch for this.

 I would point out that on the day when Anne Currie referred to "vulnerable witnesses suffering from trauma", I was forced to represent myself in court as my Legal Aid application had been refused at that stage.

 Mr Harvie goes on to say:

"...you have misunderstood what was said to the presiding sheriff at the intermediate diet on 18 August by Mr McGowan. He advised the court that there were 18 complainers. this is not equivalent to stating that there are 18 witnesses."

 Once again this statement is simply untrue. I have a very clear recollection that Stephen McGowan referred to "18 civilian witnesses", and other persons in court on the day share this recollection. The comment was made in the context of the Crown arguing that the trial should not be delayed, so the number of witnesses was relevant but the number of complainers was not.

 I am deeply concerned that the Crown Office's response to my complaint should contain two untrue statements. I have advised Mr Harvie of these errors, and when he establishes the facts it may well be that he re-considers his opinion that "the conduct of the Area Procurator Fiscal for Grampian on 13 April 2011 was entirely appropriate".

The Charges Which I Will Face At My Trial

On various occasions between 1 June 2009 and 7 December 2010 at (various Aberdeen addresses) High Street, Princes Street Gardens and Meadowbank Stadium, all Edinburgh you did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner, conduct a public campaign of harassment against named persons, send and cause to be delivered letters, leaflets, emails etc to various persons, post or cause to be posted articles etc on internet websites, take part in online radio broadcasts and internet discussions and by said means repeatedly make allegations of sexual abuse of named children, murder and complicity in murder and the suppression of evidence against   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (SIXTEEN NAMES REDACTED), place them in a state of fear and alarm for their safety, in particular to the alleged victims of sexual abuse, causing the apprehension of a serious public disturbance in Aberdeen and elsewhere in the UK and commit a breach of the peace.

 On various occasions between 5 March 2010 and 7 December 2010 you failed to comply with bail conditions in that you participated in television and radio broadcasts and online discussions using the internet regarding the allegations libelled against you and participated in public meetings, distributed leaflets, contacted other individuals and placed adverts in the Evening Express and Press & Journal regarding the allegations libelled against you.

You did between 22 April 2010 and 7 December 2010 participate in online and telephone discussions which were not for the sole purpose of social contact with friends and family in breach of your bail conditions.

On 14 August 2010 you sent emails to                                   (TWO NAMES REDACTED) that were grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, in that said messages related to allegations of sexual abuse of children and murder contrary to the Communications Act 2003.

On 1 September 2010 you sent emails to                        (ONE NAME REDACTED) that were grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, in that said messages related to allegations of sexual abuse of children and murder contrary to the Communications Act 2003.

Yet More Injustice In Scotland

 Although there has been little or no coverage in the mainstream media of my own case, the newspapers do report on some of the other blatant abuses of the criminal justice system in Scotland.

 In the latest case, a widow is claiming that her husband's death was not properly investigated by Lothian and Borders police.

 Martin Douglas was killed after being hit by a car in Edinburgh. The driver drove off, but a charge of leaving the scene of the crime was dropped in spite of the fact that there were 58 witnesses. The driver was not breathalysed and there are discrepancies between the police accident report and the pathologists report.

 The driver has recently been revealed as an off-duty police officer, who last year was pictured meeting "Justice" Secretary, Kenny MacAskill.

 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/10/30/hit-and-run-hogmanay-horror-cop-revealed-as-victim-s-widow-demands-answers-86908-23525517/

http://www.anorak.co.uk/242671/news/the-muslim-police-association-acts-as-recruitment-consultant-for-a-biased-force.html/

Breach Of The Peace

 I am facing a charge of Breach of the Peace which is defined in Scots Law as: “conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community".

 The legal firm, Levy and MacRae, who have played a prominent role themselves in the Hollie Greig case, state that: "Breach of the peace is designed to protect the community at large, not guard against an affront to individuals based on their own character."

http://www.lemac.co.uk/resources/guides/Breach_of_the_Peace.htm

Trial Will Proceed On November 14th

   Following yet another intermediate diet at Stonehaven it now appears certain that my trial will commence on November 14th. As I have no intention of changing my plea of Not Guilty the only realistic scenario which could cause the trial not to go ahead would be if the Crown was to drop the charges. The trial is still expected to last for 2 weeks.