Shedding New Light on Bowen’s Acquaintances

Posted on 27. Jan, 2012 by in Elish Angiolini, News

Robert Green’s defence in his breach of the peace trial in Stonehaven this week substantially involved witnesses he was not permitted to cross-examine. Sheriff Principal Bowen denied Robert the right to have former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini take the stand under oath.
We all know he wanted to put Elish Angiolini in the dock because she was allegedly instrumental in the cover-up of abuses against Hollie Greig during her tenure as Regional Procurator Fiscal for the Grampian, Highland and Islands region of Scotland.
Normally in jurisdictions where the law is above board and not tainted by corruption, a judge has to declare affiliations with witnesses and, if necessary, a judge should recuse himself from the proceedings if there is any hint of association.
In a case where one of the witnesses is a high ranking legal official, it stands to reason that a judge may, in the course of the trial, be placed in a situation where their judgement could be prejudicial to his superior(s). This is a difficult situation but it does happen and the impact of any suspected bias could be significantly reduced by having a judge who has had relatively little interaction with any witnesses who may be from within the legal profession.
So, what if Sheriff Principal Bowen had interactions with Elish Angiolini and Frank Mullholland in circumstances beyond their role in the legal profession?
This would surely be a circumstance in which a Defendant had reasonable grounds to request that the judge be recused and replaced with a judge who had less perceived bias.
Sheriff Principal Edward Farquharson Bowen QC sits on the Northern Lighthouse Board alongside Elish Angiolini and Frank Mullholland.
Now, astute readers will note that all Sheriff Principals in Scotland are required to sit on the Northern Lighthouse Board and in that sense, Bowen has no choice in the matter. His role in that instance is an ancient legal function. However, Robert Green’s trial should have taken place with a Sheriff – not a Sheriff Principal.
From Wikipedia:

Judicial Functions

A sheriff principal sometimes sits in criminal courts or conducts major fatal accident inquiries. However, a sheriff principal is primarily an appellate judge who sits alone to determine appeals from the decisions of sheriffs in civil matters. An appeal lies from the sheriff principal to the Inner House of the Court of Session.
In terms of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 sheriffs principal are charged with a number of duties in respect of the courts for which they are responsible, including in particular a duty “to secure the speedy and efficient disposal of business in the sheriff courts of that sheriffdom”.

Notwithstanding the various professional affiliations between Sheriff Principal Bowen, Angiolini and Mullholland, why did Bowen preside over Robert Green’s trial? We’ve seen Bowen sit on appeal cases including the one where he let a paedophile go free (here). If his role is more suited to an appellate court then what on earth was he doing defending his legal buddies in a breach of the peace case?
A quick glance at other professional affiliations shows that Sheriff Principal Bowen has worked with Lord Cullen – the master whitewash merchant on the Dunblane Inquiry. In this respect, Bowen was the Chairman of SACRO and Cullen is its Honorary President.
We all know that these people rub shoulders all the time and in the low population of Scotland, this handful of lawmen are bound to be best buddies. But does Bowen have to be so obvious? Are his professional relationships with Angiolini and Mullholland sufficiently strong that he should have recused himself?
Tell us what you think.

Should Sheriff Principal Bowen have recused himself from Robert Green’s Trial?
  • Yes – he is too involved with the protaganists (94%, 165 Votes)
  • No – he is totally honest and impartial (6%, 11 Votes)
Total Voters: 176

6 Responses to “Shedding New Light on Bowen’s Acquaintances”

  1. 1

    Meg Selby Says:
    Get Elish Angiolini in the witness stand. Who is she covering for? JUSTICE FOR HOLLIE GREIG!!!

  2. 2

    Barbara Richards Says:
    How much taxpayers money have they frittered on taking Robert Green to court for the henious “crime” of handing out leaflets in a public place, and how much cash from the same source have they squandered on protecting their paedophile chums? And, once again, where is the media and the BBC?

  3. 3

    Steve Says:
    This case is one of the biggest misscarrages of justice in recent times & I’m only commenting on what I’ve read. Handing out leaflets is a breach of the peace, These so called “Legal” people are insane in that case. Bowen & Angiolini are “bent” end of story, not to mention countless other people involved with this case, they have ALL conspired to cover up the truth & are a disgrace to the legal system & they should be damn well charged with perverting the course of justice. Robert Green has been well & truly shafted for standing up & doing the right thing, he now has a criminal record with time served in prison & plainly that is not justice…..I really do despair.

  4. 4

    Robert Green – Page 49 – Fresh Horizon Says:
    […] to this thread so far…. Shedding New Light on Bowen’s Acquaintances|Hollie Greig Hollie Greig|Archive|Events Aberdeen Paedophile Ring|Hollie Greig Trial Day 1: Angiolini still […]

  5. 5

    Mick Says:
    I think there is much mis-information on both sides here. Green was not charged with ‘breacing the peace’ becaus ehe ahnded out leaflets-it was what was in thsoe leaflets that he was charged for. There is still a law of ‘crimial defamation’ and yiou can be charged with a ‘breach of the peace’ for perpetuating a defamation.
    However of course Robert Green’s leaflets may be entirey truthful and he will eventualy have his day in court to prove that.
    He was also jailed (most unfairly in my view) for breaching his jail conditions and for nothing else.
    Again however-as mr Green has so many supprters and a good legal brief who is a QC why doesn;t eh launch a private prosecution of those involved in the illgeality. They could no longer ignore it then.

  6. 6

    chris Says:
    As someone who has recently become familiar with these proceedings, i have to say that i am absolutely dumbfounded.
    My heart goes out to those directly involved in this pit of lies and evil.
    It stinks to the high heavens. Not forgetting that all these trials cost money and that is going back into the hands of tge perpetrators. It is quite sickening.
    I for one will raise awareness of this case to friends and family.
    Good luck Hollie.

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

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