I will never get back the four months of my life I spent locked at least 22.5 hours a day in a 12 foot by 8 foot cell. I have nothing personally to gain from carrying on the legal fight – I was a civil prisoner and do not have a criminal record.
But the legal distinction made by Lady Dorrian’s judgement between “new media” and “mainstream media”, in terms of their liability to prosecution and to imprisonment, has to be fought, because coming from a three judge bench of the High Court in Edinburgh it is a citable precedent throughout many English speaking jurisdictions (and is directly contrary to ECHR rulings).
On Wednesday we appeal to the nobile officium, the Scottish appeal court of five High Court judges, where Lord President Carloway will hear the appeal. In pursuit of my commitment to Open Justice and to giving readers original sources so they can make up their own mind, I had intended to publish our Submissions to the Court here, but the legal team informs me I cannot in law do this until the court starts its hearing. So watch this website on Wednesday.
However what I can tell you is that a common theme emerges from the various points of appeal – the arbitrariness of Lady Dorrian’s proceedings. Consider these points, all part of my appeal:
1) Neither the Crown nor the Court ever suggested in the proceedings or papers, a distinction between “mainstream media” or “new media”. It was never put to us, so we could never argue against it. Lady Dorrian simply formed it in her head and then set it in stone. Had the distinction been put to us at the trial, we would have wished to bring forward expert witnesses to refute Lady Dorrian’s dicta that “mainstream media” is more ethical than “new media”. To introduce the distinction into law is deeply worrying. To do so without hearing arguments is extraordinary.
2) The majority of the jigsaw clues to identification found in Lady Dorrian’s judgement, were never in the accusation against me, so we had no opportunity to refute them in court. The Crown identified in its petition a number of phrases they claimed could be identifying, and we argued in submissions and in my affidavits that this was not so. But Lady Dorrian in her judgement came up with a number of new phrases she stated were identifying, but which proposition had never been put to me in proceedings, and I had no idea were claimed to be identifying, until the judgement.
3) Lady Dorrian entirely discounted my affidavits as untruthful without ever putting that to me to give me a chance to respond. I submitted two detailed affidavits on oath setting out that it had never been my intention to disclose identities. I stated the steps I had taken to ensure I did not do so, and how my precaution was greater than that of the mainstream media. My counsel informed the court that I was prepared to answer any questions on my affidavits, either from the Crown or from the Court. Both Crown and Court declined to question me. The normal presumption is that if evidence is not challenged in court, it is accepted. To dismiss my affidavits with no cross-examination is extraordinary.
4) Lady Dorrian had based her substantial prison sentence on her judgement that I had “relished” giving clues to identity. This had not been alleged by the Crown, the court had heard no evidence from anybody to this effect, and it was directly contrary to my own unchallenged evidence on oath.
5) It is impossible for the journalist to know exactly where the line lies for “jigsaw identification”. My article of 11 March, for example, consisted entirely of material gleaned from mainstream media as I was not in court nor yet had my own sources in court on that day, yet I was found in contempt for publishing nothing but what the mainstream media had already published.
This is all remarkably arbitrary, in the most literal sense.
These are points of process. The more fundamental point is that I, as a journalist, had access to both written and eye witness evidence that led me to believe that the current First Minister of Scotland was orchestrating a plot to frame the former First Minister of Scotland on entirely false charges: a belief of which I am now quite certain. This was a matter of the highest possible public interest leading to an overwhelming Article 10 ECHR right to publish. I realised that right was in conflict with the Article 8 right of the accusers to the privacy ordered by the Court, and I did my best to balance the two (even when I was publishing articles on the plot for eight months before there was a court order in place protecting identities).
However, Lady Dorrian gave no weight whatsoever to the Article 10 Freedom of Speech side of this equation. This was worsened by the fact that the Crown held the documents which I had seen which convinced me of the plot against Salmond, many of which are still not public, and the Court refused my application for their disclosure, so I could assert the reasonable grounds for my belief in the plot against Salmond.
The current situation is that Wednesday’s appeal will be held with no public gallery and no streaming or dial-in access. I have asked my legal team to object to this, and will keep you posted. I am frankly furious that the public will be kept away from the hearing.
I am afraid that I am going to have to renew my appeal for funds to help with the legal costs. Fighting these kinds of actions is simply crippling. Your dedication to freedom and your support have so far saved me from personal bankruptcy, but we now need to raise a further £80,000 immediately.
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
Happy to donate to this. The idea of respectable journalism being defined by some know-nothing placewoman of Nicola Sturgeon is simultaneously comical and horrifying.
Donation on the way.
This must be fought!
Done. Your fight against a legal system, that was clearly designed to keep peasants in their place tugging forelocks, is simply admirable.
Fazal,
Maybe David is about to give Goliath a very good fight.
I’m utterly ashamed at what my country has become under Sturgeon. I don’t know where you find the strength to fight on Craig but we all know that you must. Donation already sent.
Many thanks Graham. I generally find strength in a Lagavulin bottle.
On the personal financial side, gifting assets protects them from bankruptcy proceedings after 5 years and from taxes after 7 (I think). Similarly, trust funds can protect one’s assets from the grasping claws of a corrupt State, but again I think that there is a delay of several years before this kicks in.
As for legal funds, apart from the crowdfunding avenue, surely at least one of the myriad “rights” groups that talk the talk about sticking up for the downtrodden and victimised could weigh in on the spondulix side, or are they really all mouth?
Lagavilin tastes like something that might come out of an oil refinery, infused with the fumes of burning rubber and roadkill skunk but that might make it handy to use as a molotov cocktail. Mind you I once gave a drop or two to a female Russian medic. her enthusiasm was something to behold , and true to her profession tested its therapeutic power to the max.
> Lagavilin tastes like something that might come out of an oil refinery
Perhaps you’ve never tried Laphroaig. Lagavulin is mild by comparison. (I happen to like Laphroaig, but only occasionally; and Bowmore).
Whisky is my vice; I never keep a bottle in the house.
“Lady Dorrian entirely discounted my affidavits as untruthful without ever putting that to me to give me a chance to respond. I submitted two detailed affidavits on oath setting out that it had never been my intention to disclose identities. I stated the steps I had taken to ensure I did not do so, and how my precaution was greater than that of the mainstream media.”
In a case c.15 years ago in which I was defending myself, it took a year to obtain witness statements from the PF’s office. During the trial, the Sheriff refused to allow them to be entered as evidence on the grounds that “I could have printed them up the night before”! Similarly, my aerial photographs (courtesy of Google maps) were rejected on similar grounds, i.e. that they could not be verified as genuine!
They paid (literally) for their corruption, however. My defence over 2 years led to the sacking of the first PF overseeing the case (I only discovered this from the QC who handled the appeal) and the total cost of at least a dozen hearings (several with all witnesses present and ready to go) must have been astronomical.
Result for me: a £250 fine. Ahahahahaha.
Giyane,
Apologies for deleting your comment, but while I am happy for people to comment on Dorrian’s judgement, I don’t think her personal history, speculative or otherwise, is fair game.
Craig
Nothing fair in live nor war, agreed.
Donated. Best of luck.
It’s utterly appalling you were imprisoned at all, Craig, but to have been cooped up in a cell like a criminal is beyond atrocious on the part of Scotland’s authorities
You must have hurt them really badly
Well done you, and good luck with the appeal(s)
PS Who were the ladies? I really have no idea, so that just proves how daft the whole thing is.
I absolutely think you are right to challenge Dorrian and the courts findings but my immediate thought was that it will be a waste of time and money although patently the right thing to do because you know exactly what you’re dealing with as you referenced in a post a number of days ago:
‘How the Establishment Functions: The Real Dark Web‘.
You’re taking on the establishment again who if they haven’t already decided the outcome, will simply close ranks against you.
Blogging and the internet in general, still isn’t taken seriously by the ‘establishment’ and that’s why the distinction was made between you and mainstream media. You’re dealing with dinosaurs who cannot see, or are purposely ignoring, the future.
Anyway, I sincerely wish you all the best in your endeavours because as I said, it is patently the right thing to do.
Misty.
On the contrary, I think blogging and the internet IS taken seriously by the ‘establishment’. The difference is that ‘they’ cannot control it, whilst the MSM is totally under their control. So, the seriousness demands it is trampled on.
@Mist001 I suppose you have to exhaust domestic legal remedies before appealing to the ECHR?
It’s a pleasure to read your blogs, and an even greater pleasure to send a wee donation (just done) to register my displeasure with the way the bastards are lying to us.
PS. Hope you get your passport soon.
Sounds to me like it is Lady Dorrian, not you, Mr Murray, who should be facing legal proceedings for ‘gross professional misconduct in the carrying out of her duties’….
To anyone with common sense, she brazenly dispensed with legal protocol, made conclusions without having first seen the evidence/lack of evidence tested under examination and cross-examination and reached conclusions totally unbacked by evidence presented by either side in court.
To me, that is corruption pure and simple. She couldn’t be in the position she is in if she were so mentally subnormal that she didn’t know what she was doing. She shouldn’t be in the position she is in if she is prepared to behave the way that she chose to behave.
The only pertinent questions for her, therefore, concern the higher political pressures being rained down on her. They are not excuses, but they are the justification for potential law suits with foreign governments for ‘conspiracy to pervert the course of Scottish justice’. I trust that, should such cases be brought forward, then Lady Dorrian will underwrite all legal costs for them personally….
Surely the fact that proceedings are arbitrarily in camera can be used in your favour at the ECHR?
It would appear that you were imprisoned on a judge’s opinion and not on evidence.
Taking whataboutery out of the equation, why haven’t those MSM journalists that did reveal or jigsaw revealed some of the complainers still not had their collars felt by the legal system.
“why haven’t those MSM journalists that did reveal or jigsaw revealed some of the complainers still not had their collars felt by the legal system”?
I think you know the answer to that RoS! (They ARE the “legal system”)
My legal informants have been telling me for years that Scottish judges “make it up as they go along” in order to get the result that they (or their paymasters) favour. And those in the Faculty of Advocates who could challenge them, don’t because either they want to be judges too, or they know what will happen to the cases they plead when they next appear before what must be one of the most corrupt judiciaries in Europe.
LD knew precisely what was required of her, and she is well aware of the impunity with which the corrupt Scottish judiciary operate.
Agreed John, but it still has to be pointed out, and as often as possible, its like the Alphabet women, one cried rape, but wasn’t even in the same building as Alex Salmond when the supposed incident was meant to have taken place, this was confirmed by witnesses, that is outright perjury in my book.
I’d just like to add without Craig’s fantastic coverage of the Alex Salmond trial we’d still be mostly in the dark.
Totally agree.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/12/06/this-is-goodand-clever/
This what I felt about it back in December — and nothing has changed my mind.
Craig, we support your efforts to protect real Journalists in an age of extreme propaganda and lies by our government and media owners. I know that your fight will will receive the spot light it deserves from the many independent news outlets that put to shame MSM. Jimmy Dore, The Grayzone, MOATS, Kim Iverson, Joe Rogan, Chris Hedges and many more will speak out on your behalf. Donation made and will make again. Strength and honour!
You actually think the likes of Jimmy Dore and Joe Rogan are serious journalists? They describe themselves as “just entertainers” whenever they’re called out on the misinformation or downright lies they promote. Which they do a lot of, by the way, when taking a break from hosting nut cases and racists.
glenn_nl. They have huge audience and give a platform to the likes of Craig and Tulsi Gabbard and Jullian Assange. More people watch them than your BBC and CNN. Also Russell Brand will help publicise Craig. People vote with their feet !
To the best of my knowledge neither has given Craig a platform. Next you’ll be telling yourself George Galloway has more viewers than the BBC.
Add Viva Frei and Robert Barnes and Tucker Carson to that list.
Tucker Carlson? Are you particularly fond of very rich, privileged white supremacists, or simply gullible enough to be actively supporting one without realising it? This bastard is a Nazi, likes Nazis, hangs around with them and promotes their cause. And you like him.
Btw, you do know this Tulsi Gabbard you keep promoting is conservative, right? You know she’s addressing CPAC and supports Indian fascists, hates social spending, is not anti-war, ran against Sanders – you know all this and more, right?
Or is the “comedian” Jimmy Dore’s love for her good enough for you?
to the best of my knowledge Jimmy Dore has been a consistent and strident (that’s good) supporter of Assange and critic of his captors. As far as I know he hasn’t mentioned Craig.
uh what has Dore lied about? I havent followed him recently, but he was always honest when I read him. especially when calling out the sellout scum at The Young Turks.
People like Dore, Galloway, Chris Hedges, Rogan, Brand, Viva Frei, Robert Barnes, Ron Paul, Kim Iverson, Aaron Mate, and Carlson come from different shades of left and right. They have huge audiences and give platforms to people who have different opinions to themselves. One may not agree with them on a particular issue, but for me they are more balanced and not pushing the msm and elites narratives and pro war agenda. For Craig’s case to get an airing on their platforms would reach millions. Brand has 4million, Rogan about 10million for example.
I wish you well in your legal tussles. Arbitrary censorship by a dictatorially-inclined court is no way to run a country. Let me remind you of part of the Claim of Right of 1689:
“[James VII] invaded the fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom and altered it from a legal limited monarchy to an arbitrary despotic power …”.
I want rid of our current arbitrary despotic power and a return to the notion of a legal limited monarchy. If anything Scotland needs this even more than the rest of the UK.
“the legal distinction made by Lady Dorrian’s judgement between “new media” and “mainstream media”, in terms of their liability to prosecution and to imprisonment, has to be fought”
Agreed. I’ve put a small coin in the tin.
As always, good luck in court. I would have hoped that other journalists, whether UK based or international, would back you and make this a cause célèbre. This is about more than what Salmond did or did not do, it is about more than what you did or did not do. It’s about journalists being free to hold the powerful to account. There’s nothing in your case that leads me to believe that you were treated fairly. It’s as though the decisions were made in advance on what to do to you and then they sought justification which still looked very weak, a compliant press then printed misleading stories about you. Only those who read what you put online know that you have not broken any law.
I know little about this type of case and wonder if the bar for conviction is lower than in criminal cases? As with the case with a civil claim is it on ‘the balance of probability’? And the evidence withheld, were the same people the decision makers? I know this HAS been coordinated but do they have any plausible deniability? This reminds me of how Thatcher had striking miners dealt with and abused the judiciary to do so. Whilst this can happen we are not living in a proper democracy..
No, it is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt, to which Dorrian makes no reference.
Much obiter dicta and precious little ratio decidendi about Lady Dorian’s version of jurisprudence.
They’re completely excluding the public now; how low can they stoop? Are they letting in any reporters from the corporate media?
Best wishes Craig.
Yes, media accredited to the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service will be admitted. They only accept journalists from IPSO accredited organisations, so mainstream media basically.
You shouldn’t call it the mainstream media Craig because it doesn’t represent the mainstream of people. A majority opposed the invasion, occupation and devastation of Iraq; the corporate media supported it. A majority of people support the renationalisation of utilities; the corporate media oppose it. Besides, calling it the mainstream subconsciously conditions defeatism.
FT, Guardian and Indy are not IPSO members. Are they locked out too?
Hmm. The court can exclude the public, but Craig has to be there and he’s a popular blogger, so it looks likely that the court will impose a gag order preventing Craig from publishing about his own appeal.
Injustice must not be seen to be done, I fear.
Yes, it’s the arbitrariness of the charges and the harsh sentence coming after a judgement you couldn’t defend yourself against which is so painfully unfair and unjust. Donation sent. Good luck Craig!
I hope it gives you some comfort that you have joined a long and very honourable list who have found themselves in the slammer for speaking truth to power.
Donation made as while I may not agree with all of your views – I do think in a free society journalists should be treated fairly. Good luck in your case.
Astonishing stuff, Craig, especially in conjunction with your tweets. I thought I had digested the full arbitrary, illogical and vindictive nature of your ‘trial’ (read arraignment), but this level of detail about the, to me, complete defiance of due process, due to any defendant, is both breathtaking and deeply worrying. And then I read that they are denying any pubic access to the appeal, including for your appeal to Strasbourg. This deifes alll norms, surely, and any pretence at due process. What has happened to Scotland when we have legal appeals in secret, with no accountability or record available of the arguments? Needless to say we can only conclude the appeal will be dismissed on, as far as the public are concerned, unknown grounds. What kind of ‘justice’ is that, and what kind of country are we now living in that practises it? Whatever the ‘mainstream’ think of you, there should be no doubt that they need to make it clear that you are considered such a threat to the establishment in Scotland that you must be first jailed, denied your appeal to the Supreme Court and now subject to a secret hearing?
There must be powerful reasons for such singular treatment, and we can all surmise why. But the fact that the legal profession goes along with political directives and demands is an appalling act of complicity and failure to respect the basis of the separation of powers essential to any so-called democracy. I wish you well, and you deserve the support you need, for no doubt they would want to bankrupt you before you can get any justice. They apologised for historic witch hunting, but now have resurrected them under a new guise. Hard to credit how damaging this to Scotland’s constitution, or what remains of it, and it is a powerful reflection on how some individuals are absolutely desperate to prevent light being shone on an appalling misuse of state power. That it falls to one man with limited resources to take this on, without any media or other support, tells its own sorry tale. It does, however, increase my admiration for your principled and brave stance, which should be applauded by everyone across the political spectrum with an interest in open, honest government.
Very well expressed. This is back to the days of Judge Jeffries aka ‘The Hanging Judge’ who regarded the common herd as eminently disposable. What has happened to Craig beggars belief. It also exposes the mainstream churnalists and courtiers for what they are: craven lackeys of the billionaire media.
Remember when we used to think that a Scottish administration, under independence or even a devolved Holyrood, would demonstrate a more modern, open, accountable and fairer implementation of social democracy? It beggars belief where we have ended up, and how broken it is. An administration at war with its own citizens, specifically those who want the transparency, truth and accountability we were entitled to expect. Instead of Denmark, we are getting Belarus.
After Craig’s tweet, I feel we now know the real reason for the prosecution and its farcical parody of a trial.
It is now surely clear that there are some facts that certain people are utterly desperate to keep from the Scottish public, and who will go to any lengths to keep secret. What is astonishing to me is that there are people in the establishment who know this but turn a blind eye, despite its constitutional importance, as an action in itself and as a precedent for future governance and justice. It is a lesson, as with Boris and his court, of how easily our rights are denied and how flimsy the foundations of our democracy are.
Judge Jeffries’ reign of terror in the West Country followed the Monmouth Rebellion against James II of England. It was a series of political trials whose purpose was repression.
I think your comparison is apt.
The point that Craig makes about the new/old media distinction and how that sets a legal precedent is most interesting. I wonder if any legally trained folks here could comment – for this precedent to be used (or misused) in the future, would the judge in that case have to agree with it in order to use it? Or, being aware of it, would they be required to use it, even if they find it suspect?
Jon,
I will defer to legal trained minds, but my understanding is it is a theoretically binding precedent on courts of first instance.
Please be careful with what you publish CM, no one wants to see you go through more tribulation. I suspect you are not an err-on-the-side-of-caution kind of person when it comes to such things but please don’t give them an opportunity to have another go at you.
That said, more power to your legal elbow! The Scottish court site has a .pdf relating to the case which by virtue of it being published online is presumably in the public domain. I don’t want to link it, just in case.
Let’s hope the powers-that-be don’t start freezing the bank accounts of people donating to our excellent host’s new appeal, like they’re threatening to do to anyone who sends the Canadian truckers more than 25 loonie dollars.
This might be as good a time as any to remind people that, in these unprecedented times, it’s probably a good idea to have at least part of your savings in crypto. Alternatively, if that’s too new-fangled/volatile for you, physical gold and/or silver stored in a safe place – inside your cavity walls is always good.
Nothing I write should be taken as financial advice etc, etc.
> more than 25 loonie dollars
FTR, a “loonie” is a Canadian one-dollar coin. It bears on its obverse the image of a loon, a water-bird that appears to be halfway between a duck and a shag.
Thanks for your reply Jimmeh, as well as for clarifying that for any readers who weren’t aware that a loonie is a Canuck buck. Anyways, it seems I was behind the times when I wrote that post since, according to the HateMail, they’ve already frozen 206 bank accounts, including one belonging to a single mother on minimum wage who donated $50 to the truckers when it was perfectly legal to do so.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10535361/Canadian-MP-says-single-mom-bank-account-frozen-donating-50-Freedom-Convoy.html
They’ve also shown 253 Bitcoin addresses to various exchanges, presumably with regard to identifying the owners. Let’s hope that whoever they are, they bought their bitcoins with cash. A reminder that you should be able to donate anonymously to our host’s appeal using a Bitcoin ATM, as well as other methods.
Happy to donate. You shine a light in some very dark places.
Donated and I wish you the best of luck, Mr. Murray!
Dear friends, it only depends on our support, if Mr. Murray can afford justice. I’m afraid it might be ‘an attempted justice’, nontheless, if he doesn’t try to do it for all of us, then we would never know if justice exists.
Please, let’s do our best to support. Funding is crucial, but it also helps to share the article with our friends and wider audience.
There’re social media buttons under the article, it only takes one minor effort from you to click it and spread the word.
I think we all need to support you as much as we possibly can. Who would have thought that a Scottish court would treat anyone in such a despicable way.
Just donated. Best of luck.