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

Alternatively:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a


155 thoughts on “The Mind of Lady Dorrian

1 2
  • David Ballard

    Very thoughtful article. Not many have analysed Lady Dorrian’s shocking Opinion in such detail. At a time when the political classes (in fairness principally in Westminster) appear willing to lie and obfuscate it is even more shocking to find the courts, the last line of defence against such corruption, to be equally corrupt. To twist the facts and completely invent a narrative to suit her purposes – which I assume to be political – scares me more than the politicians. They can be voted out but we are likely stuck with Lady Dorrian.

    • Cotter

      David, you qualify your statement about “. . . political classes with (unfairness principally in Westminster) . . . ” Yes them too, but I fear it is closer to home i.e. that foetid pile of malice that is in Holyrood and elsewhere.

      • Athanasius

        The “fetid pile of malice” is centred on the SNP. And no, I didn’t say “nationalism”, I said “SNP”. They’re not the same thing.

  • portside

    This extraordinary mistreatment testifies to the truth of your brave reporting on the Salmond and Assange trials. It’s the same lust for vengeance that Julian sparked with his reporting on US military atrocities.

    • Giyane

      Jane in France

      Adjourned till next month to see if the Supreme Court accepts his application to hear his appeal. A temporary respite but without any public admission that she has changed her mind. Surely this is the whole point of having a jury in a rape trial, that a judge can get things wrong? Or as Three Mobile Network says in its musical interludes. ” I’m only human, after all. ” Lady Dorrian is after all.only human, and is quite capable of human error , same as everyone.

      • Blissex

        «Surely this is the whole point of having a jury in a rape trial, that a judge can get things wrong?»

        Juries can get things wrong too. The case for juries is that for the law to be endorsed by a community its application must be regarded as reflecting the opinion of that community, there being no “natural justice”. So for example if juries convicted 100% of rape defendants regardless, because their community feeling was “better 10 potential rapists be imprisoned that a single rapist be mistakenly let free”, that would be fulfilling the purpose of juries in trials.

        • Jeff

          Blissex: “better 10 potential rapists be imprisoned that a single rapist be mistakenly let free”

          You would soon change your view when it was your turn to be wrongly convicted.

  • Twirlip

    A beautifully clear amplification of the idiocy of Dorrian’s reasoning. I’d even say that it was a joy to read, were it not for the shocking darkness of the subject matter, and the consequent real peril that Craig is in.

  • Ingwe

    The judiciary is not independent of the legislature either in Scotland or England. So the judges will start with the outcome that their political masters require and then dance the judicial jig to get the desired outcome. There are many instances of British judgments where the judicial twisting and logic-defying arguments would stagger a sixth form law or logic student.
    That so many lawyers are prepared to put up with this bullshit is truly depressing. They know it’s bollocks but are so cowed because their profession is controlled by government and, apart from a few notable exceptions, fear the consequences to their professional standing if they call out clearly political judges for the charlatans they are.

  • Bayard

    Although Julian Assange is much closer to being the Dreyfus de nos jours, with Belmarsh standing in for Devil’s Island, Lady Dorrian’s opinion reminded me of the passage in the Dreyfus trial where the handwriting expert makes the case that the treasonable document must have been written by Dreyfus, because in places the handwriting matched Dreyfus’s and in other places it did not, his reasoning being that, where the writing matched, this showed it was Dreyfus that wrote it, and where it didn’t it showed that Dreyfus was disguising his handwriting while he wrote it as he was conscious of acting treasonably.

  • Ian

    Excellent takedown. It is almost impossible to believe that Dorrian’s reasoning is any more than prejudice, speculation and personal animosity. Clearly one of these should be enough to strike down the judgement by an independent opinion on appeal, but all three make it wildly inappropriate for such a person to be in the position of judge in this case, and infinitely worse, judge of the appeal. How can it possibly be just for her to sit on judgement on herself? Will she slap herself down and condemn the judgement as unsafe and likely to bring the courts into disrepute (as she should)? Hardly.
    And what kind of recommendation is her conduct for jury free trials? It is horrifying and should never get past first base. Although we all know the FM will welcome it with open arms. While they’re at it, why don’t they bring back the stocks and public stonings, since that seems to be the course they are set on.
    I wish I had confidence in the Supreme Court, but I don’t, and the ECHR which will surely condemn this decision could take years. It is almost as if the whole system is designed as a trap, in which there is no recourse to natural justice or reason. David Hume would be birling in his grave. Responsible newspapers would of course be making this case loudly and vociferously, in a way they would be forced to climb down from. The silence is deafening, and tells you a lot about how much they actually ‘hold power to account’, a phrase they love to parade while doing absolutely nothing.

    • Jimmeh

      “It is almost impossible to believe that Dorrian’s reasoning is any more than prejudice, speculation and personal animosity.”

      I do think that prejudice and animosity have had a role. But it seems very clear to me that Dorrian twisted the logic of the case to support a conviction, in a way that judges are trained not to do; and then handed down a viciously severe sentence. I can’t think of another recent case in which a judge has gone so strongly against both law and natural justice.

      I conclude that she was leaned on by someone that objected strongly to his reporting of the Salmond case. I have no idea who might have done that leaning. It could have been people connected with the SNP government; it could have been people from the Westminster government. They both had reasons to want to suppress detailed reporting of the Salmond case. Both governments had motives to “send a message” – make sure she hands down a sentence and judgement that will make any independent reporter quake in their boots.

      I think her career is over – nobody in future can have any confidence in the fairness of her case handling. I’d guess that someone has promised her some kind of sinecure, perhaps a job running some kind of 10-year-long government inquiry that pays squillions. Watch this space.

      • John Cleary

        I have no idea who might have done that leaning.

        Jimmeh, here is a clue. Straight from the constitution:

        Judicial oath

        “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”

        https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/oaths/

        QEII has more to lose from Scottish independence than anybody. Dorrian is simply true to her oath, and her perversions of law and decency are simply Buckingham Palace “behind closed doors”.

        • Alf Baird

          This and several other recent cases, and no doubt more to come, reflect an oppressive colonial form of justice system and judgement in which the leading native campaigners for Scottish independence know they can expect nothing from such a regime, whilst those on the oppressor side may do as they please with immunity. Colonialism after all is prejudice, racism, and worse, and is what the UN describes as ‘a scourge’, a form of punishment, and calls for it to end.

          Does nobody ever consider why Scotland already has the largest prison population per head in Western Europe? This is primarily because we are a colony with an ethnic and cultural division of labour that is by its nature oppressive against the indigenous people.

          Ridding a people of their oppression in all its forms is always the main motivation for independence, which is also decolonisation.

          https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/05/01/is-scottish-independence-decolonisation/

      • Calgacus

        I think her [Dorrian’s] career is over

        Well, you might say it is clearly almost over. Not the way you mean, but the exact opposite. 🙂

        She is currently Lord Justice Clerk, the second highest position in the Scottish judiciary, and quite likely soon the Lord President of the Court of Session, the highest. The one who makes those appointments is the obvious candidate for the leaner.

    • Tom Welsh

      “It is almost impossible to believe that Dorrian’s reasoning is any more than prejudice, speculation and personal animosity”.

      But apparently British – or at least Scottish law – is such that a single judge’s personal bias can land an innocent person in prison.

      The UK has never been a democracy, and now it is crystal clear that it is not ruled by law either.

  • Ryan

    “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.”

    This analogy is irrelevant to Craig’s case. If somebody subsequently does break the speed limit, then their previous good behaviour does not count and is therefore irrelevant. The question here is whether the speed limit was later broken or not.

    • Penguin

      Keep lying for the Murrells like a good little Magpie!
      Did you not notice that CM didn’t identify any of the Alphabetties?
      Did you not read the part where not a Lady Doreen is shown to be working to orders from nicola murrell?
      Can you actually read?

      • Ryan

        Penguin – You’ve completely missed the point and then jumped to some rather bizarre and infantile conclusions. Never mind, don’t worry about it.

    • Twirlip

      “This analogy is irrelevant to Craig’s case […]. The question here is whether the speed limit was later broken or not.”

      Tell that to the judge! The quoted paragraph [68] from her judgement concerns the situation “prior to 10 March 2020”. The analogy (one so simple that it is hard to understand how anyone in good faith could misunderstand it) concerns good behaviour during that period. The concept of “previous” good behaviour does not arise.

      What is truly “irrelevant” here is your (possibly deliberate) confusion of what the judge is writing about in paragraph [68] with the separate question of what did or did not happen “later”. It’s a good try at muddying the waters.

      • Ryan

        Twirlip – The problem is that the judge has already decided that the ‘speed limit’ WAS broken. The fact that the judge may have said something irrelevant doesn’t change that fact, and nor is that irrelevance grounds for appeal. Sorry, but these are just facts.

        • SA

          Ryan
          The whole point is that no law was broken. There was no identification of anyone through what was written. In the judge’s mind though there was potential for the law being broken and that is sufficient to convict, or was a crime of the mind. It is more like Mr. Murray was caught in a Porsche driving at the legal speed but because the road was clear and he did not see the speed camera that he obviously had the potential and motivation to speed because that is what people who drive a Porsche tend to do. In this case being a blogger and not a bona fide MSM journalist is the reason for conviction and harsh sentencing.

          • Ryan

            SA – Outside the bubble of Craig’s blindly loyal supporters it is at least debatable whether he is guilty of contempt. I personally think the most damning evidence against him is the tweet where he gave the job title of one of Salmond’s accusers. I say that with considerable regret because he has done so much superb work in the past. However over the Salmond trial I think he has behaved very unwisely.

          • pretzelattack

            ryan inside the shameless bubble of snp shills there may be doubt, but everyone else can see what a farce this is.

        • craig Post author

          Ryan, you are talking utter nonsense. I did not give a job title in a tweet related to the case. In the Yes Minister satire I gave a job title, but it was deliberately an entirely incorrect job title.

          • pretzelattack

            so ryan you’re saying the ceo of rape crisis scotland was one of the accusers? you have just identified one of the accusers! authorities, arrest this man!

          • craig Post author

            Ryan are you actually deranged? There is no job title in that tweet. Plus it is not one that even Lady Dorrian found to be identification.

          • Bayard

            “Several people replied to point out that you had essentially named one of the accusers. One even predicted that you would go to jail for it.”

            “Several”, eh? That makes them right, does it? If you are wrong and someone agrees with you, that doesn’t make you right, it makes them wrong, too.

          • Ryan

            Craig – No, I’m not deranged. I would also appreciate if you would not resort to silly insults. I have not.

            The tweet in the link above is actually the one referred to in sections 49 and 51 of the indictment against you (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/caseagainstcraigmurray230420.pdf) as anyone can see from the replies referred to in section 51. However the incompetent Crown Office used the wrong text in section 49 and so presumably decided they could not pursue it.

            I said I found it quite damning evidence and that is still my opinion. I can’t answer for Lady Dorrian.

          • Ryan

            Bayard – No, of course that doesn’t necessarily make them right. Any competent adult knows that. I posted the information so readers can make up their own minds. You have the capacity to do so too.

          • Iain Stewart

            Having read Ryan’s alarming « case against » link, I respectfully submit that many of the anonymous comments here expressing support for Craig may have the complete opposite effect.

          • Leftworks

            I am unable to see a job title in that tweet. Perhaps Ryan would like to copy and paste the job title asserted to exist in that tweet, otherwise to withdraw that statement and apologise? Thanks.

          • craig Post author

            Ryan, you stated that I had named a job title in a tweet. Then you triumphantly produced a link to a tweet which has no job title.
            It is furthermore a tweet which the Crown Office indeed included in the prosecution but which even the court found did not identify anybody.

          • Ryan

            Mr Stewart – I fail to see how the evidence of this tweet can be alarming. Craig has already been found guilty, so anything written on here, including Craig’s ill-tempered and tangential rhetoric, makes little or no difference now.

          • Jules Orr

            Ryan and IainStewart: Two POS affecting to be decent, respectable citizens.

          • Bayard

            “I posted the information so readers can make up their own minds. You have the capacity to do so too.”

            If you had really done simply that, you would have stopped with the link to the tweet. Why mention that other people thought like you, except as an attempt to bolster your own case?
            It is certainly not to help readers make up their own minds. I did read the comments and the ones that agree with you were a tiny minority.

  • Colin Alexander

    The selective prosecution and harsh sentencing of Craig Murray can be compared to the political prosecutions of Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela or Julian Assange. Craig Murray is a man who has risked his freedom to expose the corruption at the heart of the SNP and their political conspiracy to destroy Alex Salmond because Mr Salmond posed a threat to Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP Scottish Government acting as British colonial administrators.

    Craig Murray spoke out about corruption, not only at the heart of Scottish government but at the head of the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), which acts as the state prosecutor in Scotland. He highlighted how the head of the COPFS, the Lord Advocate, is part of Nicola Sturgeon’s Government. Craig Murray also believes the people of Scotland are sovereign; not the Queen. He believes Scotland should again be an independent country.

    It’s a truism that power tends to corrupt. Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Sooner or later corrupt governments threaten and then imprison their political enemies. We what are seeing now in Scotland is the politically motivated prosecutions of campaigners for Scottish independence.

    • Alf Baird

      Yes, Craig demonstrated the absolute rottenness of what is at best a semi-colonial regime and they came for him, just like they came for Mandela, Ghandi, Assange and many others. This judge and the two co-judges should follow the lead of the discredited Lord Advocate and his number 2 and resign forthwith. This malicious case and ridiculous sentence against Craig should be cancelled and other political persecution cases dropped. Many reasonable people no longer have any faith in the crown or the judiciary in Scotland and quite rightly so. If such ‘practice’ is allowed to continue we are on a very slippery slope which will not end well.

      What we see here, according to postcolonial literature (Albert Memmi) is: “The ideological aggression which tends to dehumanize and the deceive the colonized (as reflected by) a government and a judicial system fed and renewed by the colonizer’s historic, economic and cultural needs.”

  • Prasad

    hang about
    Dorrian says
    [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, …blah blah’

    Isn’t that weird? She is refusing to admit there is a difference and then punishing it all for being different, all in same sentence

    • Tom Welsh

      I think the point is that she implicitly refuses to accept that anyone other than employees of “proper” mainstream media corporations has a right to be a journalist and report on news.

      The mainstream companies are agreeable to government, as they are large, static and vulnerable to a wide range of penalties.

      It wouldn’t do to let ordinary citizens air their opinions – oh dear, no.

  • Alastair Stuart

    .
    Ambassador Murray may have to pay a heavy price.

    It is medically possible that a very severe price will be demanded in what lawyers often term: cruel and unusual punishment. The Bard’s pound of flesh, given Craig’s underlying health issues, may find Lady Dorrian having to give an account of her very public actions. Such an account to be required at a far higher level of the judiciary and beyond

    But what is coming to the fore is the FACT Lady Dorrian has already caused serious concern amongst her peers. The Faculty of Advocates intervened with public condemnation in earlier Dorrian efforts regarding solo sheriffs presiding over trials of rape.

    Bringing the Scottish system of justice into disrepute, whether with a butterfly on a wheel or too close a proximity to politics may yet be tested in ways that will see the judiciary deal with the Lady Dorrian problem in their customary way. Promotion-be-gone.

    This article’s penultimate phrase refers to Craig Murray’s narrow path to freedom.

    Long after Ambassador Murray regains his freedom, the stain upon the repute of Scottish Justice will have a direct and traceable path to the doors of certain actors courtrooms.

    The path to the very top job are becoming vanishingly narrow.

    As for history?

    How, in the end, will history judge Craig Murray?

    How, in the end, will history judge Leeona June Dorrian?

    “O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as others see us!
    It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
    An’ foolish notion.”

    • Tom Welsh

      “How, in the end, will history judge Craig Murray?
      “How, in the end, will history judge Leeona June Dorrian?”

      Very much as it has judged Galileo Galilei and the inquisitor Vincenzo Maculani. Or Socrates and his accusers Meletus, Anytus and Lycon.

  • bevin

    “…Dorrian’s recommendations…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…”

    The lady clearly does not believe in justice and should be impeached.

      • John Cleary

        Dorrian is another snob.

        Rather than attend a normal school with normal people she went to a fee-paying school with people who believe money is the measure of everything.

        When she qualified she went to work as a government lawyer.

        No mention of a husband or children, but that may just be security.

        And this woman is going to arbitrate between normal men and normal women? And do a better job than a jury weighted towards women like the Salmond trial?

        Only in a feudal nation where the laird makes all the decisions.

  • Republicofscotland

    An excellent article, so there’s absolutely no evidence showing that Craig jigsaw-revealed any of the complainers, its only Lady Dorrian’s opinion that he did, backed up with no evidence whatsoever.

    How Craig’s conviction is allowed to stand is baffling to say the least.

  • Tim Glover

    Very clear, thank you.

    I would find it helpful to have some idea of where Craig is in meeting his funding target – is that possible?

  • Carolyn Zaremba

    Judge Dorrian has an obvious animus against Craig Murray. She should have recused herself in the first place. But like the notorious Judge Vanessa Baraitser in the Julian Assange case, she ignores exculpatory evidence, ignores points of law, and makes a travesty of the proceedings in order to fulfill a specific agenda, i.e., the protection of members of the SNP who lied and connived against Alex Salmond and now against Murray himself.

  • mark golding

    I see red and feel physically sick over and over again as pieces of the jig-saw, the facts, designed to generate false accusations against Alex Salmond, identify the basis, the fundamentals for Craig’s heinous and cruel entrapment using vacuous arguments to legitimize contempt.

    I believe Craig has it fact been held in contempt by Dorian for validifying a plot, a process designed to generate false accusations against Salmond that failed, that ran aground when witnesses from Nicola Sturgeon’s private office were due to give evidence as to her own knowledge and involvement.

    The precursor to this collapse was a massive police operation to get accusers to come forward against Salmond. This went to ludicrous lengths. For example In an email from one woman to Alex, she stated that she had been called in and interviewed by the police because many years ago Alex Salmond had been said by another person to have been seen kissing her on the cheeks in a theatre foyer. The woman stated she had told them it was a perfectly normal greeting. She went on to warn Alex of a police fishing expedition against him.

    Alex understood that over 400 people had been interviewed by the police. A case of clear disposition/predisposition from Dorian in my mind.

    • Tom Welsh

      Moreover, the whole issue of “jigsaw identification” (more accurately referred to as “aggregation”) is completely beside the point.

      It should never have arisen, and only did arise because of the insanely bigoted rule that accusers in cases of sexual misbehaviour should have complete and unconditional anonymity for life.

      That is absurd and obviously unjust.

      It means that anyone with a grudge has carte blanche to accuse anyone they dislike, and not only not suffer the penalty of perjury should the accusation be rejected, but be able to hide under the protection of the law.

      I am almost tempted to bring charges of rape against Lady Dorrian, just to see if the door swings both ways.

      But I shan’t, as I am quite sure it doesn’t.

      • Tom Welsh

        It is quite true that I am an elderly man and she a woman; that I live in a different country; and that we have never met. But by the standards of the accusations against Mr Salmond, that should prove no obstacle.

  • nevermind

    Thank you for this reasoned opinion of judge Dorrians peculiar and self contradictory judgement/s, Kirsten.

    These are mentally challenging times and it should not surprise us that such emotionally challenging moments, as Nicola presentation to the Parliament inquiery, for example, can confuse actions, or take actions in haste.
    Could it be that this pandemic period and AS trial has taken her to the brink of acceptibility?
    Or is she under strickt orders to hurt Craig, diminish and misinterpret his genuine and very considered actions not to identify anyone?
    What is more worrying that people are prepared to let her get away with it, although they might want to dress this up as caring for her, such judgement and judges should be improving the dire state the judiciary is in, withdraw from serving politicians at Hollyrod, not making the existing malaise worse.

  • dearieme

    SNP supporters have delivered Scotland to a proto-fascist system of government, courts, police. Well done, lads. Well played. Top stuff.

    And now the revolution devours its children. As they do, you know. It’s been observed before.

  • Joe+Mellon

    Some speculate on a conspiracy by the ‘deep state’ to explain Dorrian’s appalling behaviour. It seems however to be better explained by simple uncontrolled malice and lack of judgement. One has to wonder if perhaps something like Alzheimer’s is involved: in any event it is hard to see how she can continue to sit on the bench.

    • Johny Conspiranoid

      “Some speculate on a conspiracy by the ‘deep state’ to explain Dorrian’s appalling behaviour. It seems however to be better explained by simple uncontrolled malice and lack of judgement.”

      Both of those things can happen at the same time.

    • John Cleary

      It seems however to be better explained by simple uncontrolled malice and lack of judgement.

      The woman is the second highest judge in Scotland. That being the case, why is it “better explained by simple uncontrolled malice and lack of judgement”?

      Are you arguing that senior judges are generally noted for malice and lack of judgement? Seriously?

    • Bayard

      I think the game where you have some letters and have to guess the rest is called “hangman”.

  • iain

    A terrifying example of the dangers of bench trials and of the moral bankruptcy of the highest judges. But the rot is not confined to the judiciary, as evidenced by the closing of ranks by our polity and media behind this mad woman.

    A bleak situation for Scotland. At least we have Craig Murray and Steve Clarke.

  • Rhys Jaggar

    Good to confirm that promoting women into positions of great seniority has no effect on their ability to be bent, corrupted, incompetent and vindictive.

    I would have given Harriet Harman the chance to comment on that state of affairs, since in her eyes, all that it would take to make the world perfect would simply be to replace all senior men with women……

  • DunGroanin

    Do most lawyers and workers in the judiciary actually BELIEVE that these actions and planned curtailment of blind fair and equal justice – which is their career choice – is desirable?

    If they went on strike – It may have a necessary effect upon the corruption and conspiracy from on high.

    But they won’t. Because they are toadies to that system and their income security and ‘promotions’ depend upon being a ‘good soldier following orders’ – just as the Nazis enrolled all Germans into doing, they are largely complicit. I may change my mind if I see actual lawyers prepared to get tried, judged and imprisoned by their own system.

    Any volunteers?

    • Fredi

      lawyers prepared to get tried, judged and imprisoned by their own system.

      lol!
      What! you mean act out of principal and morality? Lawyers?
      Forego a life of prestige, privilege and £750 plus vat per hour?

      nope..

  • Robert Dyson

    Whatever happens, this infamous judgement will resonate for decades. You can live in fantasy land only for a limited time after which reality will wreak its vengence.
    ” ‘I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury,’ Said cunning old Fury: ‘I’ll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death.”

  • josh R

    solid article,
    but didn’t see it on Consortium News, maybe it’s for publication on another day?

    I keep wondering lately, what the rest of the judiciary think of all this shameless skullduggery..

    For however cliquey & Establishment they can be, there’s quite a few bods in the industry who still place Rule of Law & Justice above political sycophancy, so I can imagine a range of opinion on this farcical persecution.

    Would love to know what the mood is amongst Dorrian’s bewigged colleagues up & down the land.

  • Stephen C

    A very clear description of the rediculousness and targeted action against Mr Murry.

  • Blissex

    A previous post also states:

    «both her judgement and sentencing remarks on Murray refer to Salmond’s “victims” and “offences” with no “purported”, “alleged” or other qualifier, even after the acquittal)»

    My guess here is that if an ordinary person had written that it would be libelous and Alex Salmond could act on that. Regardless, it is now possible for his enemies to attack Alex Salmond by quoting a senior judge describing him as having committed “offences” against women “victims”.

  • Joseph Mellon

    Craig’s real offence of course was “contempt of prosecution service”.
    His reporting on the Salmond trial revealed a case presented by the COPFS which bordered on conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
    Resigning Lord Advocate Wolffe admitted in another case to ‘malicious prosecution’: that means deliberately prosecuting someone while knowing them not to have committed the alleged offense. This is an astonishing admission from the most senior prosecution officer.
    We should note that the new Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, is the wife of Lord (Alan) Turnbull who sat on the bench with Lady Dorrian for Craig’s contempt trial with its astonishing procedural and evidential events.
    Well happily the maladroit Wolffe is gone. We must hope for a marked improvement in the standards of the COPFS.

  • Antonym

    This “lady” Dorrian tied herself an Albatross around her own neck called “Craig Murray”. In the future his name will always come to mind to anybody communicating with her. Maybe good for her next career move, but bad for her social contacts and more so for her karma.

    I favor AI robots over this kind of apparatchiks; much more chance of actual Justice.

  • M.J.

    Good luck with the appeal – and I hope that this excellent article by Kirsten MacDonald helps.

1 2

Comments are closed.