GARY CLUCKIE ON MATTERS HOLLIE

Blog Archives

Hollie Greig/F.O.I reply15/5/12 and response

THIS IS THE REPLY FROM THE CROWN OFFICE PROCURATOR FISCAL SERVICE WITH REGARDS TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS MADE ON 15/5/12 AND MY RESPONSE TO THEM!!!

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
Crown Office, 25 Chambers Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1LA
Policy Division
Mrs Michelle MacLeod, Head of Policy
Tel: 0131 226 2626
Mr G Cluckie
RNID Typetalk prefix: 18001
Email:yelan@hotmail.co.uk
Fax:
Your ref:
Our ref:
15 May 2012
Dear Mr Cluckie
Thank you for your email of 15 April 2012 requesting information under the Freedom of
Information (Scotland) Act 2002 about the investigation into the case involving Hollie
Greig, and in particular:-
Details of whom Grampian Police interviewed in regards to those persons
accused by Hollie Greig and the conclusions thereof; Details of any decision made by said authority not to interview or investigate any
person named as one of Hollie Greig’s abusers; and Full details of any decision made by Dame Elish Angiolini in her past positions as
the local Procurator Fiscal and as Lord Advocate with regards to the case and a
full conclusion and official statement of her own satisfaction with regards to all
allegations placed before her being thoroughly investigated.
I regret I am unable to provide the information requested in relation to the
investigation into the c
ase involving Hollie Greig. Any information held at any time for
the purposes of an investigation which the authority has a duty to conduct to ascertain
whether a person should be prosecuted for an offence is exempt under section
34(1)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). This
exemption applies regardless of whether criminal proceedings are live or have been
concluded.
This exemption is not absolute and I have to consider whether the public interest in
disclosure of the information requested is “outweighed” by the public interest in relying
on this exemption under FOISA. The courts in Scotland have traditionally placed great
weight on any assertion of the Lord Advocate that it is not in the public interest for
certain documents to be disclosed except when, in the particular circumstances, the
interests of justice require it. In particular a high degree of confidentiality has
traditionally attached to police reports. Having considered the circumstances of this
particular case, I have come to the conclusion that the public interest falls in
maintaining the exemption in this instance.
In addition, section 38(1)(b) of FOISA provides an absolute exemption for all personal
data. The information requested contains personal data of a third party/third parties
and thus disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Schedule 1 to
the Data Protection Act 1998.
If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your request has been handled, you do
have the right to ask us to review it. Your request should be made within 40 working
days of receipt of this letter and we will reply within 20 working days of receipt. If you
require a review of our decision to be carried out, please write to The Disclosure
Section, Policy Division, 25 Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1LA or if you wish to
.
email you request please e-mail foi@copfs.gsi.gov.uk
The review will be undertaken by staff not involved in the original decision making
process.
If our decision is unchanged following a review and you remain dissatisfied with this,
please note that although generally under section 47(1) of FOISA there is a right of
appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner, where the information requested is
held by the Lord Advocate as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and
investigation of deaths in Scotland, under section 48(c) no application can be made as
respects a request for review made to the Lord Advocate. The information you have
requested appears to fall into that category, although ultimately it would be for the
Commissioner to decide whether that was the case should you refer the matter to him.
In circumstances where section 48(c) does not apply and the Commissioner accepts an
appeal, should you subsequently wish to appeal against that decision, there is a right
of appeal to the Court of Session on a point of law only.
Yours sincerely
L Almond
Policy Division
Crown Office

MY REPLY

Dear Mrs Michelle MacLeod,

I would like to formally request a review of the decisions made by your office regarding the freedom of information requests I submitted to you as I find your reply to be wholly unsatisfactory.
   I find it staggering that the very office that should be there to protect the innocent and and to let it be seen that justice is done finds it not in the public interest to disclose information with regards to the case of Hollie Greig.How can an office such as your own come to the conclusion that all requests by myself and many others are not in the public interest?How can an office such as your own hide behind these pathetic excuses and proudly state that a full and proper investigation has taken place when it has not?The Lord Advocates office too has previously ignored this issue,both current and past occupiers of the position.The former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini has been involved in Hollie Greigs case in one form or another from the beginning and has done all she can to distance herself from the case and it seems now that even to mention her name in connection with documented facts of these astonishing events is to place yourself at the wrath of over zealous sections of our law enforcement directed by an undisclosed voice,an absolute abuse of privilege and a further misuse of public funds and resources.Has it come to the stage in this so called free country that freedom and justice is now only to be experienced by a few who see themselves as judge,jury and executioner and abuse the very privilege that has been bestowed upon them?It becomes more apparent with every action and inaction of the Scottish authorities that we are witnessing a cover-up of epic proportions.The First Minister,The Justice secretary and all the so called representatives of the Scottish people run for cover when Hollie Greigs name is put to them,our news papers have been warned off and will not touch the story for fear of the repercussions.I ask again “who are our authorities protecting?,who are they so afraid of?”.We have here the courts and ministers of Scotland stating by their refusal to act an open message to those who sexually and ritually abuse our children and the vulnerable that they will not be brought to justice and that there victims themselves will be bullied into silence by the very offices they sought justice from.Let us not forget here that the longer their is a refusal to investigate the case of Hollie Greig that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service headed by the office of the Lord Advocate is responsible for the ongoing abuse of others and the longer a highly dangerous and deeply sick pedophile gang is free to sexually abuse the innocent and ruin the lives of many.
  Once again I demand a full and open public investigation into all that has taken place because it is absolutely in the public interest that those who would abuse the innocent are brought to justice no matter what privilege they perceive themselves to hold.
Yours sincerely
Gary Cluckie


A REPLY FROM THE COPFS REGARDING ROBERT GREEN

THIS IS THE TRULY PATHETIC REPLY TO MY E-MAIL TO THE CROWN OFFICE PROCURATOR FISCAL SERVICE ABOUT ROBERT GREENS TRIAL AND SENTENCING.

THE SHAME OF THE SCOTTISH ESTABLISHMENT KNOWS NO BOUNDS AND IT SEEMS THEY WILL SUPPORT CORRUPTION NO MATTER HOW ABSURD THEY LOOK OR WHOM THEY PUT AT RISK.

HOW LOW WILL THEY GO AND HOW LONG BEFORE THEY BREAK RANKS AS THE WORLD EXPOSES ALL INVOLVED.THE EXCUSE “I WAS JUST DOING MY JOB” AINT GOING TO CUT IT HERE!

Dear Sir
Thank you for your email of 19 February 2012.
Following a trial on summary complaint at Stonehaven Sheriff Court, Robert Green  was convicted of breach of the peace and breaches of bail. Sentencing is a matter for the court.

As with any case, the decision to prosecute was taken after full and careful consideration of the facts and circumstances. This was a serious matter involving the publication of offensive and alarming allegations which had a significant impact on the people who were the subject of the material Robert Green published.

Regards

Anthony McGeehan
Deputy Director of Serious Casework

A COMPLAINT TO THE COPFS ABOUT THE TRIAL OF ROBERT GREEN

AN E-MAIL SENT TO THE CROWN OFFICE AND PROCURATOR FISCAL SERVICE SCOTLAND ABOUT THE GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE SERVED UPON ROBERT GREEN AT STONEHAVEN COURT.

Dear sir/madam,
                        I am contacting you today to complain in the strongest possible terms about the treatment and prosecution of Mr Robert Green by both the Grampian Police Force and the Scottish Justice System. I see this not only as the right thing to do but also as my moral duty as a free and conscious member of society who would see justice upheld and the innocent protected from harm no matter where the harm originates or the originators perceived position of privilege is seen to be. I would also suggest it is also the moral duty of any member of society to raise their voice in any set of circumstances where a miscarriage of justice is perceived to have taken place if done in an open and non-abusive manner,for a system unchallenged soon fails to be a system and becomes a dictatorship.
   As I am sure you are aware Robert Green was first arrested in Aberdeen on the 12th of February 2010 and subsequently charged with a breach of the peace for attempting to alert the public of a highly dangerous group of paedophiles operating in the area as part of his campaign in the local elections that were to take place in the area. Robert Green was unlawfully arrested and was denied his right to initial representation,then whilst in custody an interdict was served upon him which prevented him from following his campaign for justice and was the excuse for his arrest in the first place by plain clothes Police Officers. The subsequent court appearances and resulting trial has cost the taxpayer in excess of £500,000 to prosecute a man for a breach of the peace,an unbelievable expense for such a crime and it can only be concluded that Mr Green must have indeed deeply upset some people in perceived high places with an ulterior motive for his silence. The prosecution in this case and the Sheriff judging the proceedings,Sheriff Principle Bowen can easily be construed as acting as one in this prosecution of Robert Green as his two main witness’s for his defence were denied to him by Mr Bowen,namely Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan (who went on to act for the prosecution in the trial) and the former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini. Elish Angiolini is herself under investigation at the moment for her actions involving Mr Green, Crime Reference Number CS-20120125-0112,and has been involved directly with the case involving Hollie Greig and the campaign for justice in which Robert Green is part of since the complaints were first lodged in Aberdeen in the year 2000. Sheriff Principle Bowen failed also to announce his association with Elish Angiolini and their 10 year relationship within the Northern Lighthouse Board,surely a conflict of interest to say the least or a blatant attempt to prevent a key witness from taking the stand due to a personal connection and her former position of office. An office in which her own handling of child abuse cases was brought into question and was even forced to make a public apology for her failures in 2001 for the failure of her office to prosecute in time the rape of a 10 year old girl. A case unbelievably dismissed by one of those whom Hollie Greig alleges to have been one of her abusers. There seems to have been no attempt to offer a thoroughly decent man the chance of a fair trial or even to state his own case openly,5 days were given to the prosecution and 1 morning given for Robert Greens defence,hardly surprising with the main witness’s being forbidden and glaringly obvious need to prosecute. The sentence handed down to Robert Green of one years imprisonment,the indefinite restrictions placed upon him and the accompanying speech by Sheriff Principle Bowen about protecting the innocent and the integrity of Scottish Law were both shameful and hypocritical beyond measure as all aspects of Robert Greens case and the disgraceful failings of the Scottish Establishment to protect the vulnerable and the young by allowing paedophiles to roam free have anything but the stamp of integrity upon them and are more akin to Orwell’s Ministry of Love and newspeak. The recent case of Liam Gibson from Biggar a prime example,almost 50,000 vile pictures of children in his possession but off he trots on his sad little way to do what ever sick perverse thing takes his fancy while a man of astonishing courage and moral dignity has his liberties removed for having the strength to stand up to a corrupt collection of “people” who hide within the echelons of power,is this just?,is this indeed even an act of a sane and competent judiciary?.
   Is Scottish Justice and our Systems of Government to be known and remembered for the persecution of the innocent and the support of the paedophile? I would demand from you in the strongest possible terms of humanitarian decency that Robert Greens incarceration is ended immediately and that a full,open and independent inquiry is undertaken forthwith into all aspects involving his arrest and persecution. I would demand from you in the strongest possible terms that a full,open and independent inquiry is undertaken into the abuse and harassment suffered by Hollie Greig and all circumstances and people surrounding this whole chain of events that is indeed Scotland’s Shame. I await your reply.

sincerely
Gary Cluckie 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *