The Mind of Lady Dorrian 155

By Kirsten MacDonald
Republished from Consortium News

This paragraph is from Lady Dorrian’s original judgement on Craig Murray. It oozes malice and prejudice in its very plain twist of both logic and fact. She seeks to make something obviously to Murray’s credit work to his detriment.

[68] A notable feature of the affidavits is the repeated focus by the respondent on the absence of a court order prior to 10 March 2020 as meaning that had he wished to identify the complainers he could have done so prior to that date, “knowing there was no general law or court order in place preventing me simply from publishing”. This however “would not have been responsible journalism”. That it would have been a clear contravention of the IPSO Editor’s Code of Practice and of the local convention are not matters which appear to have engaged him, although it is clear from para 40 of his main affidavit that he was aware of the convention.

In his affidavits Murray had stated that he could have simply published the names at any time before 10 March 2020 and that would have been legal. It was therefore, Murray argued, ridiculous to argue he was instead engaged in a sneak attempt to out the names by code.

Dorrian judges that Murray should be given no credit for not publishing the names, because he did so in the name of “responsible journalism” and not in the name of the IPSO Editor’s Code or of a “local convention”. The extraordinary thing here is that Murray was following both the code and convention. He just did not name them.

It is even weirder than that. He did in fact name the Editor’s Code, but did not do so in the same paragraph where he explained his determination to not out the accusers.

Lady Dorrian’s logic here is precisely the same as saying “You may have been under the 30mph speed limit, but you did not state specifically you were under the 30mph speed limit according to the Highway Code, so your good behaviour does not count.” Dorrian’s position is self-evidently ludicrous.

Dorrian’s twisting does not stop there. As a blogger, Murray had no obligation to follow the Editor’s Code. His point was he could have published the names prior to 10 March with no legal penalty, and the fact he did not shows that he had no wish to. That remains true – there would have been no penalties for Murray in breaking either the code or the local convention.

Dorrian dismissed this argument on grounds which are spurious in logic.

In her Opinion rejecting Murray’s application to appeal to the Supreme Court, Dorrian returns to this same point. She makes a distinction between bloggers and journalists, and argues that bloggers and new media should get harder sentences for contempt than legacy media journalists, because legacy media journalists are self-regulated.

[4] The applicant describes himself as a “journalist in new media”. Whatever that may
involve, it is relevant to distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press, which is
regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the
applicant does are not. To the extent that the submissions for the applicant make
comparisons with other press contempts, and the role of mainstream journalists, this is a
factor which should be recognised.

Dorrian needed to answer two points raised by the defence.

The first was why Murray is prosecuted when objective opinion poll evidence shows the “respectable” media – especially the BBC and the Scotsman newspaper – were responsible for far more jigsaw ID than Murray.

The second was why Murray has been jailed for contempt when no legacy media journalist has been jailed for contempt for at least forty years. There have been some extremely serious findings of contempt in those four decades, including full and open revealing of protected identities, with both names and photos. They have been punished by fines and not imprisonment.

It was simply impossible for Dorrian to argue that Murray is not being treated more harshly than other relevant cases. So she argues that bloggers ought to be treated more harshly. Murray’s legal team are pinning their hopes that this will catch the eye of the Supreme Court.

Disdain for new media in general and for Murray in particular permeates everything written by Dorrian on the case. The evidential basis on which Murray was convicted is entirely obscure. Murray used the same code letters as all other journalists to report the accusers in the trial. He repeated again and again in his affidavits his intention to keep identities secret. He gives details of how he went about this.

Murray states, as discussed above, he did not reveal the identities when he legally could.

Murray states he conducted google searches to make sure details he published did not reveal identities.

Murray states that he omitted important details – like who was present at the 29 February 2019 meeting between Geoff Aberdein and Nicola Sturgeon – to guard against jigsaw identification, even when the entire legacy media published those details.

Both the first and last of those points are true as plain fact. That Murray also conducted google searches was not contested by the Crown.

Here is the most important point of all.

No evidence of any kind was produced in court to contradict Murray’s sworn testimony that he tried to conceal identities. Yet Lady Dorrian decided to treat Murray’s affidavit as lies despite hearing no evidence to contradict it, and despite no claim from the Crown that it was lies. She did so entirely on the basis that her own reading of Murray’s articles revealed to her a deliberate “campaign” to reveal the names by “clues”.

The astonishing thing is this. Murray’s articles on the case had totaled hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of page views before Lady Dorrian read them. Yet nobody before Lady Dorrian had ever alleged – including not on any social media platform – that Murray was conducting a campaign to out witnesses.

Like all Murray’s journalism, there was a very great deal of comment from those hostile to him. Including on Facebook, Twitter and his blog. That includes paid trolling by both Sturgeon related SNP staff and by British Government influence programmes. But not even any of these had ever claimed to have discerned or alleged a campaign by Murray to reveal identities. Nor had the prosecution ever alleged it. The notion arose entirely in the mind of Lady Dorrian.

Nothing that would meet the bar of evidence was produced to the court that anybody was in fact identified from Murray’s writing.

Murray further testified, with evidence, that he believed it was for the courts to decide on anonymity.

After the acquittal Murray had instructed, at his own expense, Craig Sandison QC to draft an application to court to lift the anonymity of specific accusers shown in court to give false testimony.

The key point being Murray was going the legal route to this, had paid a QC and was prepared to accept a court decision on it. That is not consistent with a secret campaign to reveal identities.

There is one further pertinent point.

Lady Dorrian’s evident dislike of the modern world of new media makes her oblivious to who Craig Murray is. As I know from editing his collected works, Murray has been at the forefront of internet freedom campaigns since 2005. Murray has himself released secret classified documents on the net, mirrored thousands of times worldwide. Murray has been involved in notable Streisand effect campaigns with subjects including oligarch Alisher Usmanov and mercenary commander Tim Spicer.

Murray is a friend of Wikileaks, and with many from hacker communities, where he is well-regarded.

There is a plain truth that should be stated. Had Murray wished to reveal the names, he had the capacity and contacts to have them mirrored all over the internet in places where Scottish jurisdiction does not run. Murray has the knowledge, resource and access to initiate this in ways that could never be traced back to him. Anyone with a basic understanding of web activism can see that Murray has never wanted these names released. Or they would have been.

In my last report I recounted that an experienced journalist told me that they had never seen a judge so “emotionally invested”, as Dorrian against Craig Murray.

We now know that one reason Murray was kept waiting an agonising ten weeks for the verdict after the main hearing was that Dorrian was busy writing a report for the Scottish government. This tackles sexual assault trials and how to increase conviction rates.

Dorrian’s recommendations in that report include the abolition of juries in sexual assault trials, and the end of the right of the defendant’s lawyers to cross-examine the accuser in court proceedings.

Dorrian was clearly parti pris in all of this. In the United States and other jurisdictions she would have had to recuse herself.

Dorrian’s extraordinary decision on Murray’s guilt lacks a basis in evidence. But that is not a point that can be contested at the Supreme Court.

The original trial judge remains the sole judge of fact, which is a potentially disastrous situation for Murray. The UK Supreme Court can only intervene on points of law where the judgement is inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. Murray has only a narrow path to freedom.


As with all articles on this website, this article is free to reproduce in whole or in part, including in translation. If in part, there must be a link to the original.


There is of course a major difference in the finances of bloggers and mainstream media and it is an unfortunate truth that an appeal to the Supreme Court will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Details of how to contribute to Craig Murray’s Defence Fund are here:

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above


Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

155 thoughts on “The Mind of Lady Dorrian

1 2
  • Carl

    It seems a mind incapable of logical thought and addled with hate. How on earth does such a person get made a judge let alone be selected to preside over juryless trials? Dorrian is the kind of senior judge you would find in a Tom Sharpe comedy novel ser in apartheid South Africa. An epic idiiot with a frightening degree of power.

    • Antiwar7

      The biggest assholes are the ones selected at every level of our corrupt “establishment”.

  • Antiwar7

    From the report she had authored, advocating no jury and no cross-examination of alleged victims in sexual assault cases, and from her judgement here referring to Salmond’s “victims”, it’s clear “Lady” Dorrian wanted to find Salmond guilty, and is personally angry with anyone that got in the way. Including Craig, who almost solely published the defense case.

    What an out-of-control, evil, autocrat. In any real democracy, Dorrian would be out of a job. If there were any justice in Scotland, she would be the one facing jail for trying to imprison an innocent man.

  • Bayard

    “The behaviour of Dorrian is a mystery that invites speculative solutions.
    One such speculation is that one or more of the alphabetties are Dorrian’s lovers, which would explain much if not all of her motivations.”

    Whilst we are speculating, I think there is a much simpler explanation than that, which is this:
    Lady Dorrian was under instruction to help the COPFS get a “guilty” verdict from the jury and then give the maximum sentence allowable. She failed to do that and was carpeted. She was told that, if she had better not fail in her second task, which was to find Craig guilty of contempt of court and put him in prison for the maximum length of time, to teach him, and other dissenters, a lesson. It was left to her to give some semblance of legality to her judgement, not an easy task, which is why she took so long about it. Her “Opinion” is the best she can do in the circumstances, probably the best anyone can do when they have to start with the sentence and work backwards to the reasoning for it, Red Queen style.

    • TonyN

      I gave you an even simpler explanation, which was that the ‘instructions’ you refer to, probably emanated from an emotionally charged relationship or relationships, such is the characteristic of certain kinds of sexuality.

      BTW to continue the speculation, one could enquire as to whether Dorrian was ever married? Has she ever had children?

  • Twirlip

    I don’t know what that makes me, because I couldn’t find it when I searched today. Indeed, I still can’t find it.

    I suppose this must mean that I’m even dimmer than Dorrian, although it’s hard to believe that such a level of stupidity is humanly possible.

  • Steve

    If Lady Dorrian’s verdict cannot be questioned on a point of law, but she has asserted on no evidence that Craig is a liar, is she also immune from a civil prosecution for Libel?

  • Ingwe

    I like the notion of ‘karma’ but certainly don’t believe it exists. Just like I don’t believe in god’s existence or anything after death.
    The unpunished presence on this earth with all the trappings, baubles and luxury flowing from their immorality, of the likes of Kissinger, Blair, Straw, Reagan, Bush, Clinton,Trump and Johnson etc, etc, tells me that for some, there simply is no accounting, no retribution, no need to explain or show contrition, no punishment and no atonement. The ‘learned’ judge too will continue to receive her reward for being prepared to debase humanity with impunity.

    • Giyane


      Blair is mad. Dorrian is mad. Cameron is mad. And now it looks like Middle England in the path of HS2 is going to decide that Bojo is one of Tolkein’s bloated monsters from Middle Earth.

      • nevermind

        yes he is the only one who can use false pretenses and evidence for a war with Iran. I’m sure he’ll find a new job for his old pal and fellow murderer Bibi
        what a prospect and low depth English politics has arrived at, right next to the Mariana trench.

      • Tom Welsh

        “…he is said to believe he would do a better job as PM now than when he first occupied the post”.

        Isn’t that self-evidently true? In the same sense as any positive number is greater than a very large negative number.

        On the other hand, I am firmly persuaded that Blair will always remain a very large negative number. His main use to us is as the distillation of the depths to which our political system is tending.

        We might calibrate the wickedness of leaders in Blairs. For instance, Trump might be 0.1 Blair, Cameron 0.2 Blair, Biden 0.4 Blair, and so on. Johnson doesn’t really fit on the “wickedness” scale, as he is an outlier on the orthogonal “absurdity” scale.

    • Tom Welsh

      I think karma relates more to the inner life. The punishment for being Kissinger, for instance, is simply being Kissinger.

      • deepgreenpuddock

        assuming there is an inner life in the likes of kissinger. I imagine Kissinger feels good about being kissinger

        • giyane


          Yes , Kissinger feels very good about the arming of Israel with F35s with Palestinian homes to practise on. He feels very good about the destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Yemen through his mercenary proxies on both sides of the Sunni/ Shi’a divide, sometimes using Shi’s militia and sometimes Daesh to achieve his ends, and using Iran as an overflow car park for Daesh militia and Libya as an overflow car park for Iranian militia.

          The Greater the Israel , the Greater the Kissinger feels about himself and the prouder he feels about his disgusting “”” covert “”” operations.

        • Ingwe

          Indeed. Tyrants never see themselves as tyrants. The extent of their psycophathy and lack of empathy prevents any real insight to the awfulness of their conduct and beliefs. I agree with Giyane about Blair’s “madness” to use an unacceptable description of a mental condition. I suspect he really does believe he’s in direct touch with God and is carrying out his orders. Just like the late Ripper.

    • Piotr+Berman

      Karma works in a longer cycle. Lady D. may, in the fullness of time, reincarnate as a small fish and live through many terrifying moments only to make a meal for a larger fish (or seafood eating humans), and then, with a credit for suffering, reincarnate as a being on a higher level, say, a well cared-for chihuahua. It is beyond human capability to map the future of her soul with any accuracy. Comparing with Abrahamic religions, the concept of Karma allows more calibrated judgements than hell/paradise scheme.

  • amanfromMars

    I wonder what a Lady Dorrian would make of Dominic Cummings’s shenanigans?

    Flora Page Jun 16
    You are now effectively “the opposition”. I hope that you have or are developing a plan for how to construct some form of structure around that, so that we don’t just end up with other incompetents taking over from the ones you have the dirt on.

    Dominic Cummings Jun 16
    V good question, yes I am thinking about this. Core problem is the parties… They are both having to change because of Brexit but not fast enough and fundamentally the MPs are much more influenced by daily media and party loyalty / climbing the pole than anything else. So a new regime means new incentives and that’s very hard… Ideas welcome…

    Who didn’t foresee this coming down the tracks like a runaway freight train? Shame that Cummings has thought it necessary to go down the subscription route/root …… thus making it again very elitist and too exclusive to be wide ranging and effectively overwhelmingly revolutionary. That’s easy fixed though with a change of heart and a copying of the Craig Murray model where subscription is not mandatory to participate and engage in dialogue and conversation/share alternative derivative positions aimed towards a similar singularity of enterprise and purpose.

    • giyane


      ” Core problem is the parties… They are both having to change because of Brexit but not fast enough “

      Dominic Cummings is lying through his teeth. The only good thing about politics is the Parties , and all the problems in politics arise from the compromising of what the Parties stand for for cheap , moneymaking, short-term solutions. Like the DUP giving Theresa May a majority, and ending up with a hard border down the Irish Sea. In fact the whole of the Red Wall phenomenon was the result of Dominic Cummings using his contacts in Northern constituencies to tempt long standing Labour constituencies to vote Tory. None of those fake promeises were ever going to be deliverable – ever.

      Dominic Cummings is the source of most of the problems facing this country at the moment, through the damage his foul style of politics , wheely dealy. compromisy, fake promises has done to us while he was serving BoJo to get Brexit done, at all costs and whatever collateral damage to the country.
      Obviously the damage he has done was in conjunction with humdreds of other people, so expelling the main culprit is not going to clean up the damage the prat has done.

      • Bayard

        “The only good thing about politics is the Parties”

        Any justification for that view? AFAICS, political parties are responsible for the majority of corruption in politics. For starters, with political parties, you are no longer voting for a candidate, you are voting for the party for which they stand. The candidate may be an amoral opportunist. No-one cares, they put an X in their box because they belong to the right party. Secondly, the party system enables governments to be elected with a minority of votes. Thirdly, once you have a government with a majority of seats, you might as well close down the House of Commons. No-one listens to speeches, they all know which way they are going to vote before the speech starts. Most MPs won’t even be there, they will have paired off with a member of the “opposition”. Whatever the government wants to do, however venial, evil or stupid, it can do, because with a majority, there is no-one to hold them to account effectively. Fourthly parties generate party loyalty, which means people keep voting for that party, no matter how bad the members of the party who are in government are, because they cannot envisage voting for any other party.

        • Giyane


          As I said , nothing wrong with Parties. Politics is corrupt through and through .

          • glenn_nl

            How can you come back with “As I said”, and repeat the original point?

            Bayard just gave you a rather good argument for why parties are a bad thing, and all you do is repeat the same simplistic assertion he addressed?

          • Bruce H

            I never thought this would happen, I agree with you. Without political parties democracy is impossible, without them populism and individualism rules. Without political parties how can people learn the basics required to play their role? How can a individual devise a coherent economic program in a world that is more and more complex? etc etc. Of course there are problems within parties but that internal fight is what prepares militants for equally dirty fights when they are elected. An example is what is happening within the Labour party, in meltdown at present but probably not for ever, another is the situation in Scotland, if the present leadership was not ultimately under the control of the party structure why would they change their attitude? What could force them to without internal party democracy?

          • Bayard

            “Without political parties democracy is impossible, without them populism and individualism rules.”

            “Democracy” is Greek for “Rule by the people”. Political parties are anti-democratic. With political parties, the only thing the people get to do is choose which candidate out of a pre-chosen list they would like to choose the people (ministers), from an also pre-chosen and more nepotistic list, who will form the next government, i.e. rule the country. How is that “Rule by the people”? In any case, you cannot have populism without political parties. Parties tend to be populist, because they want their party to be popular over the entire country, or at least in enough marginal seats to get them re-elected. If there were no parties, the individual MPs would only be concerned with keeping their constituents happy, so no-one would bother with populism. As to individualism, you may prefer the sheep-like block vote, but democracy it ain’t.

            “Without political parties how can people learn the basics required to play their role?”

            What makes you think that the average first time political parachutee has any idea about anything, apart from how to rise in the Party hierarchy? Sometimes they don’t even know where the constituency they are supposed to be representing is until they are informed that they are the chosen candidate to fight that seat.

          • Johny Conspiranoid


            ” populism and individualism rules”

            What’s ‘populism’ and why is it a bad thing.

        • nevermind

          political parties are corruptable because they exist to win elections, make policies and to pursuade the public to follow their line and theirs only.
          A random means of selecting possible candidates for a constituency, coupled with a strong instant and reasoned recall mechanism is to be preferred, imho.
          PR is fine, but equally has all the loopholes to circumnavigate voters wishes/needs to be corrupted.

      • amanfromMars

        Not that it matters a jot, giyane, but you have definitely confirmed yourself as having lost the plot with that crazed submission.

        Do incompetent political parties fit the bill with regard to their being the major and predominant core problem ….. with mainstream media lackeys happy to carry 0day news daily of their constant bungling?

        Methinks a marvellous Big Brother would be both opposition and competition which they would fail defeat with their persistent negativity and forced attention to supporting the collapsing status quo. Where are the great novel ideas for fantastic new beginnings?

  • Lyn

    Mmm, intended to provide a link from Consortium News BUT the article is not there anymore???? It 100% was there a couple of days ago …………

    • John Cleary

      Yup. If it damages the interests of the British royal family then it is against “National Security”.

      In the UK there is the crown. And then there is everything else.

      And everything else don’t count but for a row of beans.

      • wiggins

        The Crown, is The City Of London i.e. an independent Corporation/State outside of the UK.

        • DonnyDarko

          Parliament is a corporation, our Police forces are corporations, Our councils are as well.All for profit, and not for the people.
          Democracy is an illusion.
          We are a revenue stream.

      • Bruce H

        @John Cleary

        The royal family is a vestige from the past, what counts is the interests of those who own the country. In as much as some of the aristocrats are also capitalists it concerns them but they are no longer the principal owners of the country.

      • giyane


        I suppose we all knew the control the Tory Brexiteers wanted to take back from the EU was government scrutiny and accountability.

        Totalitarianism rules. UK?

      • giyane


        Where did they get 14 years for publishing information that embarrasses government from? Gulag?

  • Giyane

    The mind of Lady Dorrian is focussed almost exclusively on the protection of women from sexual predatory violence. She seems to have nobbled by the Lord Advocate into thinking that Alex Salmond’s acquittal requires some sort of revenge against Craig Murray.

    The Lord Advocate is a man and he is the driving force , not Lady Dorrian , in this political campaign against Craig. Furthermore, Wolffe is now gone, somehow leaving his political malice as a stain on Scottish Justice, when most people would agree with Lady Dorrian is in the right to pursue justice for victims of sexual abuse.

    There’s no benefit in attacking Lady Dorrian, except in so far as Wolffe and maybe Police Scotland have succeeding in deluding her into thinking that Craig and Salmond are her enemies. She’s the one to agree with because she is championing justice.

    What one needs to address is the evil legacy of Wolffe, the police and Nicola Sturgeon. Dorrian is the good guy here, and it is irrelevant that she is female. Anybody who champions the rights of women men not to be abused , is on my side, because sexual abuse of anybody damages all society. I’m with her all the way on that.

    The attack on Craig is politically motivated from a dark place in the Scottish administration, accidentally planted on Lady Dorrian.

    • vin_ot

      Ridiculous. All you need to do is read the two articles Kirsten MacDonald has written on Dorrian’s handling of this case Or even just the one you’re commenting under.

    • Penguin

      You are demonstrably insane.

      Not a Lady doreen chose to prevent the evidence of a conspiracy to frame Salmond from being presented to the jury. She chose to proceed as thought the alphabetties were actually victims and not all proven perjurers before they had even set foot in the court.

      She choses to put Feminism ahead of fundamental Human Rights. Hardly a shock given who she works for.

      She is an evil woman and would be removed from her set of power and be facing a long sentence if we lived in a democracy under the rule of law and not the dictatorship of a Man-hating and self-loathing lesbian.

  • ViceLedMonk

    I don’t care what the legal system or what anyone wants says… why is Lady Dorrian even allowed to take part in any of this? Judges are terrible at admitting when they are wrong or heavy handed. Why can she decide if someone can appeal or challenge her verdict\findings\diktat? What a complete load of nonsense. Of course Dorrian is going to block the appeal… of course Dorrian is going to twist and attack anything that may harm her word. Without any legal or formal training, it is painfully obvious to see she is biased and using all her power to impose her will.

    This is the kind of person who needs thrown out of the legal system… the fact she is advocating for trials without a jury shows her lack of respect for the common people. Contempt of the common people… far worse than contempt of court, as a court only exists within the world of the common people. It is not Dorrian’s domain, she is but a servant to the common and needs reminded of it.

    Anyone trying to divert ire and criticism of Dorrian to her superiors needs a hard look at themselves. She is in this position within the legal world because she is meant to be able to make fair judgement and decisions of her own – if she cannot be trusted to do that and bends to the will to that of her superiors so easily then she deserve the sack even more as she cannot be trusted to serve the common people in her duties.

  • pete

    Apparently judges judge judges. It’s part of the separation of powers, see

    The separation of the judiciary and the legislature exists only in theory in the UK, drawn as the practitioners of power are from the same shallow evolutionary pool, the same educational institutions, the same clubs, the same social circles etc, etc. The theory is wonderfully described here:

    If there were an answer to this I would love to see it, it surely must be obvious to everyone that you cannot be the arbiter in the case you are trying, as someone commented earlier, you should not be marking your own homework.

    The slow progress of Craig’s legal battle must be very painful for him and I assume the judge is hoping for this, as this is how her summary reads as meaning. It will be for others, therefore, to restore some common sense to the court and reject the whole concept of jigsaw identification as ridiculous.

    • Bayard

      “the practitioners of power are from the same shallow evolutionary pool, the same educational institutions, the same clubs, the same social circles etc, etc. “

      As was beautifully illustrated when TPTB needed someone to chair an enquiry enquiring into goings on in Westminster. They could not countenance having a chair of any enquiry who wasn’t already a passenger on the Westminster gravy train, because that was how it had always been done, however the complete train was compromised by its closeness to Westminster and we ended up with the farce of chair after chair resigning. In the end they solved the problem by getting a passenger of the gravy train in another country.

    • Stevie Boy

      The English equivalent is the Baraitser.
      Although the Dorrian injustice is technically legal throughout the UK many courts prefer the Baraitser rather than the Scottish generated injustice.

    • Cotter

      But would the English accept the Dorrian? It’s the same with Scottish pound notes.

  • J

    I have the definite sense that the clique behind Dorrian are winging it, hoping they can squeak through without too much fuss being generated, which suggests that she and they are extremely vulnerable.

  • Ruth

    I’ve seen a High Court judge spit venom. This was when he was sending an innocent appellant back to jail to avoid the relevation of state crime.

  • Elmac

    It is not enough that the passage of time will see this perverse judgement for what is. This woman is unfit for her office. Whether her actions are due to state corruption or mere incompetence should now be a matter for the courts as it would be in any decent society.

  • Joseph Mellon

    I wonder if Scotland’s often impossible ‘corroboration’ evidential requirement has led to a ‘fit up’ culture in the Scottish justice system in which the police, prosecution, public defenders, and the courts silently collaborate to ‘put away’ bad guys.
    The danger is of course once such a system is in place abuse is inevitable: the corrupted regard their corruption as a public service, and become self righteous about ‘putting away’ people they don’t like.
    Was the prosecution in the Salmond case confident despite the incredible ‘evidence’ that what had so often worked before would also work with Salmond?

    • Joseph Mellon

      …and did Lady Dorrian look at Craig, and think “My court let the team down by not convicitng, and I really dont like this Murray person, he is a bad guy who needs put away”. And then transfer that animus into ignoring the lack of evidence and shoogly legal basis?

  • Joan Hutcheson

    I believe it inappropriate for Lady Dorrian to have tried the Contempt case against Craig Murray because of a conflict of interest.
    In HM Advocate v Alex Salmond she excluded Mr Murray from Court when the Crown alleged Contempt. (This occurred without Mr Murray knowing why he was being excluded or having an opportunity to defend himself.)

    Before the Contempt case, Lady Dorrian had therefore made a decision presuming guilt on Mr Murray’s part.
    If she were to subsequently find him innocent at his trial she would have been seen to have acted erroneously or at least prematurely during the Salmond case. She cannot therefore be regarded as an impartial judge in the Contempt case.

    Lady Dorrian should not have been a judge in the Craig Murray trial. For her to have had authority to refuse the Appeal to the Supreme Court gave her a third bite at the same cherry. This is unjust and inappropriate.

    • Coldish

      Joan Hutcheson: those are good points. I hope they will carry weight with the Supreme Court.
      In the appeal against the conviction of Megrahi in the Lockerbie case the 5 judges appointed were a completely different team from the original 3 judges at Camp Zeist. Of course the fact that the 5 were lower down the cursus honorum pole than the 3 may have made them reluctant to find against the decision of their nominal superiors. But there was at least the potential for a different finding.

  • velofello

    Thank you Joan Hutcheson, neatly described.Dorrian’s prejudice does appear a major factor. Trouble is that vanity – individual or organisational, obstructs recognition, and correction of prejudice.

  • Dafydd

    It is interesting to compare the Matt Hancock debacle with what happened to Craig.

    Hancock and his aide were identified using CCTV imagery, obtained illegally and then revealed to the public – this is not even legal! It has been voyeuristically, repeatedly shown time and again on the media.

    In Craigs case even the judge could not identify when jigsaw identification had been used to identify the alphabet sisters.

    In the first case I assume that no action will be taken against the Sun.
    In the second case the full weight of the law was used in a vindictive fashion.

1 2

Comments are closed.