Hollie Demands Justice

Here is a copy of a letter which was received by Robert Green in response to a letter of complaint he sent regarding Sheriff Patrick Davies who resided over Robert's court appearance on the 30th of April in 2010.  This hearing was held in private - what is known in the legal system as 'In Camera' - Sheriff Davies allegedly made comments during this hearing in which he referred to the party that Robert was a candidate for, in the upcoming Election in Aberdeen, 'Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers Party' stating that

Robert Green  "Did not belong to a "professional" party, the SACL, and that his appearance on the streets of Aberdeen South may lead to civil unrest"

This action meant that Robert, who was indeed a candidate for an 'official party' was unable to campaign in the area of Aberdeen where he was standing in the upcoming election because of the bail conditions Sheriff Davies upheld, banning him from entering the area. 

Also - When Robert asked for a copy of the transcript of this hearing (and rememember this all took place In Camera) he was told in the letter

"I have to advise you that there is no transcript of the proceedings relating to the hearing on 30th April 2010"

Here is an account of this, written by Robert and a copy of the letter which he received in response to his complaint after the 30th of April court appearance at Stonehaven Sheriff's Court.

"On 30th April, Sheriff Davies rejected my application for a temporary variation in my bail conditions in order to enable me to campaign freely in the General Election, for which I was an accredited candidate, on the grounds that I did not belong to a "professional" party, the SACL, and that my appearance on the streets of Aberdeen South may lead to civil unrest. I am not sure why he thought the latter would be likely to occur or even whether such grounds exist to prevent a candidate campaigning in an open and unobstructed way, but the SACL is just as much a legally constituted party as any of the larger ones. Thus, the sheriff made a false statement in support of his decision.
 
It hardly came as a surprise when the Court informed me that no transcript existed of this electorally important closed court hearing. Sheriff Davies acted and spoke completely outside his remit.
 
When he appeared again at the hearing on 20th August, I lodged a formal protest through my solicitor requesting that he stood down on the grounds that I had made serious complaints about his conduct on the 30th April, which may be of a criminal nature and that the letter of 12th May from the Clerk of the Court, Mr Hempseed, clearly indicated that I should not expect him to adjudicate again in this case. I believed that it was totally inappropriate for him to act in judgement on me. Sheriff Davies not only refused to stand down, but stated that I had "misconstrued" paragraph three of the letter. Bizarrely, he even went on to say that he considered that any informed independent observer would agree with him on this point.
 
Of course, due to the sheriff`s refusal to conduct matters in open court, which I had requested, there can be no prospect of any such witness having an opinion one way or the other, as no such individual is allowed to observe these proceedings, which I am informed, is the only Breach of the Peace case in Scotland to be conducted in camera this year.
 
I leave it to the readers of this and the accompanying Court letter to form their own conclusions."

Dear Sir,

Your letter of 4^th of May 2010 addressed to Sheriff Davies has today been passed onto me by him with a request that I respond to you and, at the same time advise you that it is not appropriate that you communicate directly with the sheriff.  Any correspondence with the court should therefore be addressed to the Sheriff Clerk.

Turning now to your letter, I have to advise you that there is no transcript of the proceedings relating to the hearing on 30^th April 2010.

In relation to the papers you enclosed with your letter for the Sheriff to consider, given that the hearing held to consider varying your bail conditions concluded on the 30^th it would not be appropriate for the Sheriff to consider them now and accordingly, they are returned herewith.  I should also advise you that whilst Sheriff Davies dealt with the petition and related bail matters, he may have no continuing interest in the matter and there is no expectation that he will conduct any future proceedings or trial if an indictment is served.

The court will, consider any documents forwarded to it in support of an application, or produced in the course of hearing on a “document by document” basis, but generally, no papers save for applications or documents (including productions) relating directly to further procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 Act should be lodged for consideration.

Yours Faithfully

A H Hempseed

Sheriff Clerk

On Saturday the 21st of August, Robert Green and other supportes of Hollie Greig spent a day in the busy city of Edinburgh, handing out leaflets containing details of Hollie and her story.

Robert has placed an ad in the Aberdeen Journal asking for parents and teachers of Beechwood Special School to get in touch with him and giving his contact details. The Journal was squeamish about him actually using the name 'Hollie Greig' in the ad. so it just named the school and gave no further explanation whatsoever. THE RESPONSE HAS BEEN PHENOMENAL! So far, Robert says, after only 1 showing of the ad on Friday 13th August (with 4 more to go, it'll be repeated today Monday) he has had 43 REPLIES (from 41 parents and 2 teachers). The parents are FUMING at the cover-up he says. WATCH THIS SPACE. 

I`m due to appear at Stonehaven Sheriff Court at 09.30hrs on Friday 20th August. This hearing has been requested by my solicitor for a variation in my bail conditions.
 
I have requested that the hearing should not be held in camera, as the others have.
 
Robert Green

http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2010/08/07/15088-drum-comment-has-the-fight-gone-out-of-the-press-in-scotland-/

Sat 7 Aug 2010

Drum Comment: Has the fight gone out of the press in Scotland?

The most recent issue of The Drum carries four pages of what, at first glance, might appear arcane and technical detail of a dispute between the journal and the Lord Advocate, Scotland’s most senior law officer.

However, we make no apologies for devoting considerable amount of space to the subject, for in the background is a Down’s Syndrome girl, Hollie Greig, who allegedly suffered abuse at the hands of a paedophile ring.

The fact that nobody has ever been prosecuted in connection with the case has motivated the family to launch a campaign which is critical of the Lord Advocate, who became regional prosecutor of the relevant region of Scotland around the time the case was active.

A report by The Drum’s sister title (The Firm) prompted the Lord Advocate to take action against that publication, for libel – a case which was eventually dropped after a considerable amount of dialogue with her solicitor Peter Watson, of Levy McRae.

The Drum launched a Freedom of Information request to find out who paid for her action. When this request was denied by the Crown Office our subsequent online report promoted Levy & McRae to complain about our coverage to the Press Complaints Commission.

They have now ruled in our favour and you can read our analysis here.

But the real concern about the Hollie Greig case is why – with a few exceptions – it has gone relatively unreported by the Scottish media.

Similar concerns about the Scottish media were also aired at the time of Glasgow City Council leader Steven Purcell’s resignation, a major story that did not get the coverage one would normally expect.

That Levy & McRae is a consistent thread running through much of the fabric of the Scottish media – as well as Lord Advocate Angiolini, the firm also represented Steven Purcell, and provides legal cover for several of Scotland’s major media owners – may be a factor, say some.

But so too is the fact that many media owners (there are exceptions, of course) seem to have lost their appetite for taking on those in positions of power.

One can’t help thinking if they got back to challenging those in authority more effectively it might not only be good for democracy, but for their circulations too.