riday, 6 January 2012
In Veritas...
In truth – A defence normally used against a defamation action where the defendant relies on the principal that the truth does not defame. It’s an unlikely defence in my view to a Breach of the Peace charge – Though the logic is almost-there; in the Robert Green case it’s as tenuous as the charge itself...
Assuming for a moment we do not learn something new and pivotal from the prosecution’s submission when Green actually comes to trial; and frankly I suspect we might... We may soundly speculate that the prosecution will primarily argue that those ‘named and shamed’ in respect of the Hollie Greig case were placed in a state of fear and alarm by the allegations Green is accused of publishing – an extraordinary tack since it seems to fly in the face of legal precedent as well as the fact of course that Green was far from the only or even the main culprit.
The Scottish courts defined this crime in 2001 in the case of Smith v Donnelly .Certainly, until that case any conduct which caused, or was capable of causing, mere embarrassment, upset or annoyance to another person was usually sufficient to furnish a conviction... Things have changed considerably since then!
Smith v Donnelly was a three judge decision making reference to jurisprudence coming from the European Court on Human Rights, which gives it added weight. The decision was accepted as correct by a full bench sitting in the case of Jones v Carnegie in 2004. Breach of the peace, according to Smith v Donnelly, is...
“conduct which [presents] as genuinely alarming and disturbing, in its context, to any reasonable person” (Smith v Donnelly 2001 SLT 1007 at [17])
Conduct will be ‘alarming and disturbing’ if it is of the sort which would cause a reasonable person to fear that the peace of the immediate neighbourhood would be broken in the sense that a serious disturbance would ensue. “Reasonable” and“serious” are the key words here...
The court has set an objective test for this: if a reasonable person would not have been alarmed to that serious degree, then the conduct is not sufficient for breach of the peace (Jones v Carnegie). Conduct which presents as merely embarrassing, annoying, irritating or inappropriate will not be of sufficient gravity to satisfy breach of the peace. And the obvious contention is that while the leaflets handed out by Green may well have been defamatory – standing on a street corner handing out bits of paper is not likely to provoke a riot...
So, based on what we know of the matter, where is the prosecution’s case?- You might be tempted to speculate there isn’t one – we certainly have been!
However, Green has now lost a couple of defence lawyers with the parting advice that he change his plea to ‘guilty’ – why? Stupid conspiracy theories aside the fact is that those who have walked are people known for their integrity; and on the face of it this case is a pushover to defend... It just doesn’t hang together; and these people clearly had to ‘walk away’ for very good reasons... What might they be?
These people are not fools, and would be keen to take the 'high ground' if they were able to get Green off the hook. But they apparently couldn't. - What might have taken Green’s alleged behaviour from ‘merely annoying’ to the stage where a reasonable person may fear the peace could be breached? What rendered these charges indefensible in the eyes of highly skilled legal professionals?
‘Not much’ is the short answer! – it could be something as simple as forwarding or endorsing or just casually agreeing with the suggestion that some act of violence be perpetrated against the alleged abusers...
The public’s response to sex abuse cases can be well-meaning but inappropriate. Knee-jerk reaction, to the effect that accused individuals are tried and convicted by rumour and conjecture, is often compounded with notions of ‘sentencing’ where they meet a violent end. Such is the nature of the kangaroo court!
- As a journalist one is taught very early on in one’s career never to rise to or concur with such suggestions. It is imperative that violence or criminality is never endorsedno matter how personally convinced one might be of a certain person’s guilt or how revolted one is by the crime they may have committed. And that is true for anyone with any degree of professional involvement in such matters.
However, the general public is the general public...
Understandably there are those who would like to see and are allegedly prepared to finance the ‘criminal underworld’ to step in and serve what they see as justice. – I say ‘understandable’ not because I endorse such action; but where the legitimate justice system is so clearly corrupted and failed it is no wonder people are prepared to go feral in seeking this essential element of life.
It is known the Hollie Greig campaign was infiltrated by individuals seeking to ‘scupper’ it. Green, it is obvious, is easily-lead , not educated in the law or in journalism, hears only what he wants to hear and has little awareness of the pitfalls of what he has involved himself in. He could well (for instance) have been duped into incriminating himself via email... Or a careless remark made on tape or in public in front of hostile witnesses. Certainly, I am awareof individuals possibly canvassing for such responses...
Robert Green was ‘lead up the garden path’ by Greg Lance-Watkins in respect of what was published to the world on the internet in the ‘Stolen Kids Hollie’ blog. Was he also tricked into endorsing or condoning violence? Could this be what the Prosecution’s case is consolidated on?
‘Hanging by a thread’ would be the phrase that springs to mind but for the equally tenuous line of defence that seems to be emerging.
The ‘veritas’ tack Green seems to be taking is a curious one; and as much as the prosecution’s case appears at the moment to be frivolous it is matched by this apparent line of defence... We guess the ‘logic’ is as follows - Someone who is guilty of a criminal act (or thinks ill of someone who does their duty in bringing a criminal to account) cannot be a ‘reasonable person’ - precedent for this exists most famously in defamation law. Therefore if Green can prove the allegations are true – even if these people were alarmed by the allegations - as they’re not reasonable people no breach of the peace can have taken place...
It’s about as ‘Mickey Mouse’ a defence strategy as they come in terms of the charges against him! – Even if Green did manage to ‘prove’ the case against an individual, all it would take is for a member of their family or an associate or even a neighbour to claim they too were alarmed and fearful that the peace might be disrupted... Again; there is precedent for this...
It’s also one hell of a long-shot attempting to prove in a court of law that the former Lord Advocate, various Police Officers and members of the Procurator Fiscal’s staff are not ‘reasonable people’ – However much one might be convinced in an opinion to that effect.
Just as I don't believe for a second that Frances McMenamin (the QC who had to walk away from Green the last time) encouraged Green to gather the 'letters of support' he canvassed for in late 2011; I'm afraid my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the law leads me to form the opinion that Green's current reported strategy is simply something being cooked up in his own kitchen...
I don't believe any professional lawyer would be prepared to even consider walking into a court with that sort of nonsense; and so Green leaves them absolutely no choice but to walk away.
And so the farce goes on and on and on...
In his blog Green keenly tells us of the high-profile and numerous witnesses he intends to call in his defence. – I assume he intends now to defend himself; because no legal professional could possibly endorse or condone the revelations carried on his blog which, in themselves, verge on contempt of court.
‘Showboating’ as he does over the notion that {quote} “It may be that psychological and medical examinations may be required of some witnesses to establish further whether or not they are telling the truth” - is completely and utterly unacceptable. Obviously some witnesses might be intimidated by this prospect and inclined to withhold their evidence as a direct result... It is a wonder Green is not facing further charges over this! But certainly all he has done is dug a deep dark hole for himself and I fully expect his current layer will ‘walk’ too as a direct result... It’s madness, just plain simple madness...
Similarly, Green now compares his position to that of the Daily Mail in respect of their decision to name the five men it believed to have killed Stephen Lawrence; which they did on the basis that it was in the public interest, that the police`s investigation was unsatisfactory and that given the nature of the crime, the public remained at risk from the perpetrators.
- The big difference is of course that the Mail went to press armed with a far higher standard of corroborated evidence than is actually needed for a conviction. Before printing a word The Mail consulted legal experts to ensure it was and remains ‘fireproof’... The Mail also published only limited amounts of information, protecting vital evidence and was prudent in the way in which it presented its revelations... That is what is necessary in such an exposé - The expertise to ensure that what you run with is legal, does not defeat the ends of justice and stands up to the closest of close scrutiny...
The Mail did not break the law on reporting restrictions nor did it make really stupid mistakes – such as not challenging why a Brother, his Sister and her husband all shared the same surname; the very point on which Mark Daly was provided with the ammunition to rip Green to figurative shreds on live radio!
That Green compare the shambling mess he has helped make of Hollies quest for justice to that of professional journalists who have achieved a real-world result is simply absurd; at best it reflects a man steeped in delusion to the point where all grasp of reality has been lost.
The truth is If, and it seems unlikely, Hollie’s abusers are ever brought to trial they will walk straight out the courtroom laughing up their sleeves because the first thing their defence team will argue is that a fair trial is now impossible thanks to the actions of Robert Green and Greg Lance-Watkins... Oh; the latter may be the real villain of the piece; but Green had a chance to redeem himself since Watkins was exposed; he simply refuses or more probably is unable to accept the horrible reality of what he is continuing to do...
Having spent much time soul- searching and going over the material I have to hand, I find I do not doubt Green’s morals or basic motivations. His actions however, the things he now writes and his continuined pawing over a silly line of defence- things that cannot possibly be based on any grasp of reality - lead me to distressing conclusions. Sadly, reluctantly, and with a heavy heart I can only form the opinion that the balance of Robert Green’s mind is now affected by the stress that he is under. I fear that the man may be mentally ill...
On that basis of course he is not fit to stand trial; and it would be better that the Crown act appropriately in that respect rather than allow this expensive farce to go on... It is a damning indictment of our so-called justice system... A child is raped. Her rapists walk free thanks to laziness, incompetence injelitance. And the man who tries to expose all of this is driven to the point where he loses his mind... And possibly his liberty!
Clearly the prosecution of Robert Green is not now and never was in the public interest; the Crown needs to stop this cruel fiasco now. This has snowballed into something vindictive on which the money needed to serve justice is being squandered. A fiasco which seems to serve only the personal agenda of certain corrupt fat cats...
Mad as a Stoat Green may well be – but it doesn’t change the fact that Hollie Greig was raped, and her rapists are walking away, free as birds. That is a major failure on the part of the Scottish justice system - And Green cannot be criticised for taking the issue up on her behalf no matter how foolish and misguided he has been. Green makes some good points when he highlights the failures of certain individuals. - It is fact that certain convicted sex offenders have got off far too lightly at the hands of certain judges. It is fact that there is a seedy underworld of perverts who prey on children and vulnerable people. It is fact that some of those people are ‘well-connected’, influential...
The Scottish Justice sytem is achieving nothing by its actions except call itself into disrepute. It's rather as if the story of the Emperor's New Clothes concluded with the small boy who pointed out the King was in the altogether being beaten to a pulp by the palace guard... They're in the wrong as far as the Hollie Greig case is concerned and now they want to jail a possibly-ill man for having the temerity to seek justice for her.
The plain fact is that the only thing achieved by the continued persecution of Robert Green is to draw the light of suspicion firmly onto those behind it...
– Sheriff Buchanan has, I believe, an interdict in place against Green. Let his dirty work be done from his own pocket and not the public purse . If Green has breached that interdict then I believe the Sheriff needs no education from me as to what legal steps are actually appropriate... And while he’s at it; if Buchanan feels he has been defamed – why hasn’t he acted against the man who actually defamed him –Greg Lance-Watkins?
One of the biggest questions I am left asking myself as a result of this farce is what hold Greg Lance-Watkins has over Buchanan? Why is he let off the hook while ludicrous lengths have been travelled to persecute Green? And what is it Buchanan might actually have to hide?
As previously discussed here - it's obvious Green is barking up the wrong tree in respect of Buchanan being involved in the rape of Hollie Greig; and certainly he should not be acting as he has - it's counter-productive. However, Buchanan's track record, as highlighted by Green, is not inspiring when it comes to protecting you and me and our children from dirty sex pests; that is a matter of record... The same goes for Angiolini and Co... Clearly, there is a serious problem with the integrity of these people, and if you, like me, form the opinion that you can have no confidence in them; that opionion can only be consolidated by the relentless persecution of Robert Green.
What do they imagine they are 'proving' by hanging this misguided man out to dry?
Robert Green’s ‘showtrial’ begins on January 16th 2012 – That is unless his lawyer walks out on him again, he is sectioned, or the Scottish Justice system sees sense, they all start behaving like grown-ups and put an end to this farce that calls it into such disrepute!
0 comments:
Post a Comment