Challenge to Sir Stephen Young Bt QC, Sheriff of Grampian, Highlands and Islands



I am in receipt of communication from a man you will know all about by now and who recently contact[ed] you, his name is Robert Green, now known as Prisoner 125799 due to a miscarriage of justice at the hands of Sheriff Bowen who is also copied into this email along with his Masonic Grand-Lodge.

In the said communication, Mr Green confirms that you wrote to him and stated that it was you personally who appointed Sheriff Bowen to preside over Robert Green’s trial. That is my reason for contacting you now with this serious concern about you.

As an innocent man, Robert Green, naturally has grave concerns over the entire procedure leading to his incarceration, from the method of his arrest and the unlawful way in which the edict [interdict] was issued to him AFTER his arrest, whilst he was already in Police custody, therefore, a retrospective edict [interdict], which obviously made it impossible for Robert to even consider complying with__ the instructions therein as he had no prior knowledge of its existence_), to the many breaches of ‘_due process_’ during his trial, the compromised position of the presiding Sheriff who failed to declare that he was acquainted with at least one of the key witnesses, to the actual manner of his sentencing by the same Sheriff and, given all of the above, the sentence itself.

As such, the entire period or Robert’s two years awaiting trial under draconian bail conditions, his trial and ultimately his imprisonment are all unlawful and miscarriages of justice. Therefore, Robert Green should be freed immediately and those accused of paedophilia should now be arrested, tried and, if found guilty based on the evidence presented against them, sentenced to lengthy prisoner terms for the harm they are alleged to have caused and continue to cause little children.

I, along with millions of others who are now following the unfolding events of this case online, also have very serious concerns over the ongoing protection of those accused of acts of paedophilia assaults on little, innocent, defenceless children… not to mention those creatures who are knowingly and illegally protecting them, such as your own professional associate, Dame Elish Angiolini. This ‘_Dame_’ is currently under investigation by the Scottish CID in respect of the ‘_misappropriation of public funds_’ that she is accused of stealing from the Scottish people in order to secure the ‘_private_’ services of the law firm (_I use that term loosely_) called Levy & McRae, also copied into this email.

Further, the ongoing obstructions and barriers being placed in Mr Green’s way in an attempt to prevent him from exercising his legal and human right to an Appeal hearing is equally disturbing, as it suggests that those taking part in this obstructive behaviour are in some way complicit in the protection of paedophiles by helping to cover-up their horrendous crimes and, therefore, they themselves would appear to be a direct threat to children.

In respect of you personally, Sir, the concern Robert Green, I and many others have is one related to the apparent lack of ‘_impartiality_’ and, what can only be described as a lack of ‘_logic_’ that you appear to have exercised when you settled on the appointment of Sheriff Bowen to chair the proceedings against Mr Green.

I say the concern is one of ‘_impartiality_’ and ‘_logic_’ because, like Sheriff Bowen and Dame Angiolini, you have also served as a Commissioner on the Northern Lighthouse Board, alongside both of them for some time. Therefore, the matter of Sheriff Bowen being a Freemason would not have been unknown to you, neither would his Racist tendencies – expressed directly to Robert Green when handing down sentencing.

Also, the fact that Dame Angiolini was (_and remains_) is a prime suspect in the biggest cover-up of paedophilia that Scotland has ever known to date would, I suggest, also not have come as a surprise to you.

The fact that Sheriff Bowen never disclosed his professional relationship with Dame Angiolini before or during the trial (_a Dame-hood, incidental, that is now under review due to a complaint lodged by myself with Her Majesty, The Queen_) would have been a material factor, I’m sure you would agree, in Sheriff Bowen’s decision not to allow his friend, Angiolini, to be questioned by Mr Green’s lawyers.

As it was your professional associate, Dame Elish Angiolini, who instigated the arrest of Robert Green, at the behest of one of her friends who was accused in 2000 and again in 2009 by HOLLIE GREIG of paedophile attacks against her person, Sheriff Graham Buchanan, this point alone clearly shows a miscarriage of justice and a failing of due process, not to mention the blatant breach of Mr Green’s human rights to a fair trial. Add to that, the matter of HOLLIE GREIG’s accusations remaining un-investigated (_a fact established during Robert Green’s trial_) the safety of the Scottish children – to this very day – remains in peril.

Sir, I don’t know you personally, so I will speak openly and respectfully to you, in the hope that you are a good, law-abiding and honourable man. Being professionally and socially linked to both Sheriff Bowen and Dame Angiolini, I would have thought it to have been a fairer and more honest approach for you, in respect of the integrity of the Scottish legal system, if you had first taken the above facts into consideration before coming to your decision to appoint Sheriff Bowen for this trial. As someone who would have been very aware of the initial matters surrounding Mr Green’s arrest, i.e.; the monumental cover-up of the case of HOLLIE GREIG, to allow a compromised Sheriff, like Bowen, who had/has a relationship with a key witness (_Angiolini_), a witness who was/is under investigation, would seem, to my untrained eye, to be a rather poor judgement on your part.

There are others who even say that you are in some way complicit in the attempt to silence Robert Green by ensuring his trial is rigged. Robert Green’s ‘_show-trial_’ is seen by many now, as an attempt by the paedophiles (_and their legal & Ministerial friends_) to send a message to others who might be thinking of standing up against the sick filth like paedophiles. Robert Green’s incarceration has had exactly the opposite affect! I trust the second scenario, your complicit involvement, is not correct. The reason I am putting those two scenarios to you, Sir, in this public email, is that I cannot see any other logical reason for you knowingly appointing such a compromised Sheriff. Or, have I overlooked a third scenario that you can enlighten on? If so, I urge you please do explain it, so as to ensure that there is no misunderstandings on this matter and your name is not unfairly pulled into this case any further. However, I must admit that I do find it strange that Robert Green and his legal team had to go to such lengths and wait so long to finally get you to confirm, in writing, to Mr Green, that it was, in fact, you who appointed the compromised Sheriff Bowen to Robert Green’s trial.

Given the above facts, this in itself raises suspicion about you and your personal involvement in this case. Suspicion that I trust is misplaced and shortly to be dispelled by the content of your full and thorough reply. Of course, suspicion does not confirm guilt.

Unfortunately, Sheriff Bowen, like the rest of the paedophile protectors in this case, including Peter Watson of Levy & McRae Solicitors (_also copied into this email_), has still not been man-enough to reply to my previous communication to him in respect of his membership as a Scottish Freemason and his misuse of that organisation’s influence in Robert Green’s trial to allegedly place Mr Green at a disadvantage. This is not a Freedom of Information request, so you are not bound by time constraints. However, in order to prevent your name being pulled into this matter even further, I would recommend a quick, totally honest and thorough reply. I would suggest a working week is more than enough time. When replying to me, I hope to have the following points addressed by you…

* Why it took so long for Robert Green to have such a simple question (_who appointed Sheriff Bowen to his trial_) answered

* The method you used to decide who would preside over Robert Green’s trial: this should include the reason why no one else was seen as more suitable, as well as more local (_Sheriff Bowen had to travel some considerable distance, at the Scottish Tax Payer’s expense, to preside over Robert Green’s trial_)

* Details of your professional relationship with both Sheriff Bowen and Dame Elish Angiolini, including the length of time you have known them both in that capacity

* An explanation as to why Robert Green’s lawyers have been denied a copy of the Court audio transcripts of the trial proceedings but the prosecution was not and when Robert Green can expect to receive a copy of that transcript – in the interest of justice and fairness.

Please note, the usual response of it being the decision of the presiding Sheriff is not good enough here as the Sheriff is compromised with a key witness. Further, this email is directed at YOU and your involvement in this miscarriage of justice by the appointment of a compromised Sheriff – so you must take responsibility for your part in this matter as it could not have occurred in this way if you had appointed someone more honest and not compromised as Bowen was.

It will, no doubt, be perfectly clear to you by now that I have no fear whatsoever of anyone who acts corruptly! I challenge ALL corruption and I challenge it publicly. As such, this request for answers is made to you, via public email, at the same time as it is being put on the Internet for anyone to view. This does not, of course, imply you have had a negative hand in these proceedings, but it will be clear to you, as it is clear to anyone else following this case, that it would be highly advisable to address this matter as soon as possible. An innocent person would be able to answer the questions above, in proper contexts, quickly and without having to think too hard about it as the truth is the truth and does not need pondering on. A dishonest or corrupt person would need longer… and no doubt plenty of legal jargon to hide behind.

I look forward eagerly to your timely reply.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McFerran

UPDATE 13/4/12

Dear Admin at www/,

Sheriff Young is refusing to answer my perfectly legitimate questions about his personal involvement in Robert Green’s percussion on the grounds that it would “…not be appropriate”, the same comment he gave to Robert. Why am I not surprised?

It has to be said, then, that Grampian Police Force, Sheriff Bowen, Sheriff Young, Dame Elish Angiolini, Levy & McRae, the Grand Lodge of Scottish Freemasonry, the Northern Lighthouse Board and the highest level of the Scottish Government are all willing participants in the active and ongoing cover-up of paedophilia in Scotland. Because they are knowingly leaving Scotland’s children at risk of paedophile attacks and even murder, by taking no action to protect them, they should ALL NOW BE ARRESTED for their crimes against children and crimes against humanity!

Ian McFerran

—–Original Message—–
From: MacPherson, Frances
To: ianmcferran
Sent: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:48
Subject: Appointment of Sheriff Principal Bowen to Robert Green’s trial

Dear Sir,

Sheriff Principal Young has asked me to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail dated 11 April. It would not be appropriate for him to offer any comment on what you say.

Yours faithfully,

Frances MacPherson

Frances MacPherson
Sheriff Clerk


4 thoughts on “Challenge to Sir Stephen Young Bt QC, Sheriff of Grampian, Highlands and Islands

  1. Enough dilly-dallying with these people, Scotland needs a Lord Protector to weedle out the scum.

    Dissolution of the Long Parliament by Oliver Cromwell given to the House of Commons, 20 April 1653

    It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

    Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

    Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

    In the name of God, go!

  2. Am I being thick?, if Bowen retired in May 2011
    and Lothian & Borders is covered by Mhairi Stephen since his ‘departure’ to carpet bowl land

    I understand that retired sheriffs can return in some capacity, but why when the case is in GH&I did Young appoint a retired PS from another region after 6 mths retirement was Bowen appointed for the Nov 2011hearing or just the January 2012?
    Can anyone explain my denseness to me?

  3. In my opinion Bowen was hand picked because he could be relied upon to deliver the “right” result.

    Ask yourself this, regarding the Breach of Bail conditions charge, how could Robert be guilty of this when the Interdict/injunction was delivered by post to his home in England while he was in Scotland?

    How could he therefore be Guilty of breaching bail conditions that he had no knowledge of?

    A reasonable and impartial Judge would have dismissed that particular charge.