An attempt was made to send this response to the Herald’s investigative reporter David Leask who wrote the story, “Dame Elish in court bid to stop web ‘harassment’ which appeared in the Herald Monday 11th June 2012. Unfortunately, there was a typo in the email address and it bounced back.
Thank you very much David for pointing this out, we have passed this on to Alex and we take your comment below in the spirit with which we would apply it.
Email To email@example.com
Thank you for speaking to me today on the telephone regarding the story you published concerning the harassment order issued by Elish Angiolini and for correcting me over the pronunciation of the name “Elish.”
I forgot to ask you. Who was it that informed you there had been two investigations into the Hollie Greig abuse case? I would like to correct you here, with respect, I would recommend you look at the documents available of the case. You have written, “…despite two police investigations failing to find evidence of wrongdoing.” I have seen the Police Complaints documents it states “from my office it is evident the people listed by X were not interviewed….” The reason that was used to explain a policy of no search, is the police claimed there were no connections found between the accused.
Upon further investigation one can find ‘very clearly a connection’ between the accused. Under English law, it would not be accepted as an investigation without interviewing the accused. After consulting with a Scottish lawyer, I can confirm this is indeed the case in Scotland as well. Furthermore, corroboration will never been found in any case if the police are not willing to look for it. The police did not go to the home of the accused and do a search.
I would be interested to know if you have seen any of the statements taken by the police of the alleged abusers? I was in court in Stonehaven with others, I heard very clearly the accused say ‘under oath,’ they were ‘NEVER interviewed by the police in relation to the accusations made by Hollie Greig.’ The details and the clarification about no one being interviewed were most strongly established by WPC Lisa Evans of Grampian Police in court. Furthermore, the fact that Sheriff Bowen prevented Mr Green’s lawyers from having a copy of the court transcript is even more powerful. Here again, this all falls foul of the fundamental principles of justice this also prevented him from following an appropriate appeal response.
Later in your article you state: “The “investigator,” who always stresses Ms Greig received criminal injury compensation as a probable victim of sexual abuse, committed his breach of the peace while campaigning in the 2010 Westminster elections.” Under representation of the People’s Act and the PPER Act there are certain privileges afforded to parliamentary candidates and campaigning from this stance, as a candidate, is most definitely one of them. Part of Mr Green’s campaign was informing the Aberdonians about a miscarriage of justice in their city. This was his right as a parliamentary candidate. The police had no jurisdiction.
It was also claimed in court that Mr Green had distributed leaflets, yet the prosecution would not allow Mr Green nor his council to see the leaflet. Although I bow to your superior understanding of Scottish (Roman) laws, I am of the understanding Mr Green was cautioned when he was taken into custody, in which case, the police should only have held him for 6 hours without formally arresting and charging him. Therefore, why did Sterling Park Services go to the trouble of serving him with Sheriff Buchanan’s interdict whilst he was in custody the 2nd day? This was a second charge to Sheriff Buchanan.
For clarity, here are a few points for you to consider, pertinent points that should be asked by any investigative journalist following this case:
1) Mr Green was told he when was arrested, it was for “breach of an interdict.” Mr Green was not served the interdict documents at his home of which he had no knowledge. He was arrested for merely walking down a street to meet some supporters as a parliamentary candidate.
2) Why was Mr Green only issued with the interdict by Sheriff Buchanan whilst he was in police custody? Sterling Park services state in their invoice he was served at the Queens Police Station, therefore it makes his arrest and caution unlawful.
3) If the interdict was not necessary and a breach of the peace charge could be followed without it being served, why did Sheriff Buchanan order Sterling Park Services to do this? The charge was only changed to breach of the peace after they, the police, realised they had made a mistake. Is this not shifting the parameters? The Sheriff is a man of the law, surely he would know this? I am curious as to why did he spend £7,500 on the issuing of an interdict on Mr Green if it was not necessary? For the record the interdict was pushed through Mr Green’s letter box at his home in Warrington, England whilst he was on his way to Aberdeen. ‘Mr Green was arrested the next day as he left his B& B.’ The interdict was therefore issued to no avail, as it is now being claimed it was not used. You say it was changed to breach of the peace and this can be changed at any time. How strange is that? I smell a rat here.
4) Mr Green was detained for three days in a police cell. Scottish law states “You can only be held for 6 hours without charge and the police only have the power to hold a suspect without charge for a maximum period of 6 hours in a police station. After the detention period, you may be arrested.” At what point have you been told the charge was changed to breach of the peace?
5) Mr Green was not allowed a solicitor whilst in custody, this is unlawful and against his human rights as in the Cauder case,
From a research point of view, we can see the interdict was a tool that was used to take Mr Green into custody in the first place, from a tip off. The charge may have changed, but it was done in retrospect, this makes his entire detention and trial ‘unlawful.’
If one is ‘truly interested’ in this case, one has to look at all the evidence and so far, I and other journalists have not seen anything that can sensibly answer the above questions and, other pertinent questions about this story. I too have been working on this case for over a decade, researching into considerable depth, checking both sides.
Could you explain please why the Herald has never printed the story before since you have been following the story for so long? Interestingly, having researched your company, we have found the Herald’s legal advisors are Levy and McRae whose senior partner is Peter Watson. Surely this is direct conflict of interest for the following reasons:
1) It states in the interdict issued by Graham Buchanan V Robert Green, that Peter Watson of Levy and McRae was working with the Scottish Government in relation to Robert Green’s case. Documentary evidence is available.
2) Furthermore, in the interlocutor issued recently by the former PF & Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini reported by you, states she has given her private address as Levy and McRae.
3) Elish Angiolini, whilst in the position of Lord Avocate, went to Levy and McRae to issue veiled threats on The Firm and the UK Column to prevent them printing the Hollie Greig story. She has since refused to reveal if she used public funds to do so and she refused to answer Freedom of Information requests on this matter?
I suppose it would be prudent for the Herald to be cautious about what it publishes, law suits are not just for the privileged such as Elish Angiolini. Perhaps Mr Watson would be happy to advise, if he has not already done so?
The contents herein forms part of a report which is being prepared for a news release into the public domain. I shall be copying in others, including holliedemandsjustice.org, who may like to print the story.
We must get the pronunciation of the name Elish right, must we not.
kind regards Alex