Facebook tonight (the 17th of January 2012) carries an account of Day 2 of the Robert Green Trial at Stonehaven Sheriff court... interesting stuff.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/hollieg4justice/permalink/10150533250488955/
After a rather silly start yesterday where Green, for some bizarre reason refused to give his name until a pointless question as to the Sheriff and others’ membership of the Masons had been addressed, the trial finally got going today...
Presumably someone must have given him a shake last night! It’s worth noting that Robert now acknowledges a reality we highlighted when Greg Lance-Watkins was rattling like a tin drum full of pebbles about the trial basically clearing the names of those accused of abusing Hollie... Which it won’t...
“Robert would like it stressed that it is very important to keep in mind that this trial is not to determine whether those accused by Hollie of abusing her or assisting and/or facilitating in the abuse, were guilty. It is simply to determine if Robert’s actions have caused the accused some level of harm or distress. Nothing more, nothing less.”
Fair enough! “Nothing more, nothing less” ...The trial is (save for the matter of Green having breached bail conditions) about a single issue.
Thus he seems now to acknowledge that matters such as whether people support what he has done or not are irrelevant; which rather seems to justify our doubts as to whether one of his previous QCs had encouraged him to canvass for letters of support a few months back as he did... Perhaps he is finally grasping reality again?
– The question then is basic; did Robert Green conduct himself in a manner 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?
We have already commented at length as to the nature of the Breach of the Peace charge; and in particular noted the cases of Smith v Donnelly and Jones v Carnegie. It is established in precedent that Conduct which presents as merely embarrassing, annoying, irritating or inappropriate will not be of sufficient gravity to satisfy breach of the peace. The prosecution will need to show something rather more than just ‘harm’ or distress... Green’s conduct will need to be shown to be of a level and nature such that a reasonable person would have been alarmed to a serious degree. Anything less and Green’s conduct is simply not sufficient for breach of the peace (Jones v Carnegie).
- So far we seem to have several witnesses claiming to have been embarrassed , annoyed and irritated. And it is certainly inappropriate that Hollies alleged co-abused were ever named. I have often said that by rights you probably shouldn’t even know Hollie’s name...
But embarrassment, irritation and annoyance are matters dealt with via interdict in the first instance and ultimately the Defamation Act.
At the point of Green’s arrest there was no interdict in force; besides which breaching a court order is a different offence from that he is on trial for! As for the inappropriateness of naming Hollie’s alleged co-abused; that is a question addressed in the Sexual Offences Act... Breach of the Peace is a very different thing.
As we’ve said before; based on what we know, the prosecution’s case seems to defy all precedent; one would imagine there would not be the slightest difficulty in defending it; this should not even have got to trial. And yet Green has lost a number of QCs. And generally the parting advice has been that he simply put his hands up and change his plea to guilty...
At this stage I remain of the opinion that the prosecution must have something on Robert Green; some ‘ace’. A slip that Green has made that moves his conduct across a certain line... That aside, I also remain of the opinion that this whole farce amounts to an unjust abuse of process and waste of public money... But those are just opinions based on what may prove to be partial information...
Assuming (and it may prove to be a dangerous assumption) that the reports we have from Green’s camp are accurate, the prosecution’s case seems to have got off to a weak start. If prosecuted by evidence of that calibre then I believe the grounds for appeal would be obvious; as would the question marks over those who ‘walked’ away from defending such an obviously weak case . And of course those who pursued it in the first place!
Interestingly, and apparently on record, an admission has, it is claimed, been made which reflects on and testifies to the inadequacy of the Police investigation into Hollie’s claims. If this proves accurate then at least this showtrial will have achieved something useful.
I'll close tonight with a quote from the account of day 2 at the "Hollie Demand Justice" site. This it has to be said is a site I don't endorse. Even in tonight's piece it drives a coach and horses through the rules on what can and cannot be published in terms of evidence and allegations - and does immense damage to the prospects of bringing Hollie's rapists to book... For that reason I'm not providing a link to it. However, of the prosecution witness testimony it says..."Much was made of their being distressed by articles on websites and blogs that were controlled not by Robert but by Greg Lance Watkins and Tom George. An explanation is required as to why these other 2 individuals have not been charged, as it could be argued that their blogs have caused more ‘alarm and distress’ than anything put out by Robert. "
Quite so...
This Blog has been focused on Greg Lance-Watkins for some time. It has exposed him, discredited him and repeatedly pointed out that Robert Green had no control whatsoever over the "Stolen Kids Hollie" Blog... That blog published the allegations to the world; and breached heavyweight legislation such as The Sexual Offences act...
I believe it is also the case that Watkins deliberately mislead Green into believing his actions were defensible in law. - Ignorance of the law is no excuse of course; however this does explain and mitigate to some extent Green's actions...
As much as I believe that the crown acting as it has against Green is nothing more than a vicious abuse of public funds and of the law, a very fair question remains... If Green has breached the peace by his action then clearly Watkins is equally if not more liable - why isn't he in the dock?
The right place for all of this of course is a civil court in a defamation action paid for by Buchanan out his own well-lined pockets... And I think there is much evidence to say the wrong man is in the dock! I make no apology for repeating the question I've often asked in respect of the failure to chase Watkins down...
WHAT HOLD DOES GREG LANCE-WATKINS HAVE OVER BUCHANAN ET AL THAT ALLOWS HIM TO GO SCOT FREE WHILE ROBERT GREEN IS HUNG OUT TO DRY?
