Many people have questioned the conduct and sentencing comments at my trial by the above sheriff.
It may be a good time to remind readers of some of the points he made in order to justify sentencing me to one year`s imprisonment. He described my conduct as “completely despicable.”
Hollie Greig, as mentioned previously, has unquestionably been the victim of criminal sexual abuse, based on expert medical and state evidence, including that of Grampian Police and its forensic medical officer. Hollie, also agreed by the experts to be a competent and truthful witness, described her alleged attackers and locations on 8th September 2009 to DC Lisa Evans of Grampian Police, in my presence. There can be no rational or credible reason to disbelieve Hollie. The experts certainly believed her. Therefore, someone must be responsible for committing crimes against her. It was established in court that not one of those named had even been questioned by the police, let alone have their computers examined, standard practice in this type of alleged crime. Moreover, given the nature of the crimes, it is reasonable to suppose that such crimes are likely to be repeated, with the resultant danger to the community.
My actions, which the sheriff found so despicable, were to highlight the failures of the police and other authorities to carry out their duties to protect citizens, especially vulnerable ones and to alert the citizens of the risk to public safety as the result of such failures.
Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion about my actions, but even if one was minded to consider the sheriff“s view, could it possibly be more despicable than convicted but influential sex offenders Liam Gibson (50,000 child pornography images), Douglas Haggarty QC, boss of the Scottish legal Aid Board (found having sex with a boy prostitute in a busy Glasgow store) or senior Procurator Fiscal Stuart MacFarlane (found having sex with a female prostitute in a public place in central Glasgow and then attacking and injuring the two police officers who arrested him)?
I was given a year`s jail sentence. The actual sex offenders all walked free.
The sheriff also stated that “the law is on the side of the innocent” – not if you happen to be Hollie Greig, one might reasonably suggest!
He also said that I had sought to undermine the criminal justice system and the Government of Scotland as a whole and had criticised the prosecuting authorities without justification. This was said in the full knowledge that I had provided documentation relating to senior figures justifying my stance entirely and that I, along with 76,000 others, suffered because I was denied legal representation on arrest, in direct contravention of Scotland`s own commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights. Lord Hope,of the Supreme Court, severely admonished the Scottish legal establishment after its ruling against Scotland in the famous Peter Cadder case.
It is not just Lord Hope, amongst eminent Scottish lawyers and judges, who has publicly reprimanded the justice system or its leading practitioners and politicians. Included in making condemnations are such figures as Jock Thomson QC, Chief Justice Arthur Hamilton QC, Anne Ritchie QC (Vice President of the Glasgow Bar Association), Professor Robert Black QC, senior advocate Iain Hamilton QC and Professor Alistair Bonnington, former law professor at Glasgow University and senior legal advisor to the BBC.
In fact, as reported on BBC News on 29th August, the professor described the current SNP government of doing more damage to Scots law than Westminster has achieved in 300 years and that long-held beliefs on the right to a fair trial had been dumped.He went on to criticise MSPs for passing legislation to create criminal offences which have been illegal under the protection of Common Law since the Middle Ages. He concluded that such actions were worthy of those of a totalitarian state.
Finally, returning to Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen, he denied my defence team the opportunity of questioning, on oath, two key cited defence witness who refused to face the Court and concealed from the defence his own ten-year relationship with one of them. It should also be noted that the Crown had earlier arbitrarily amended the charges to deny me the the right of trial by jury that I had sought.
Perhaps, therefore, the sheriff was a little hasty in his criticisms of me. It may also be said that he was less than impartial and honest with me. We shall see.