1) From what we know of precedent in Breach of the Peace cases and of Robert Green's actions and behaviour; there is nothing to suggest that either the mens rea or actus reus of that charge are met.
2) The correct course of action for anyone who feels aggrieved by these allegations would be to seek redress through a Defamation action. And I point out that action would really need to be directed at Greg Lance Watkins as well as Robert Green.
In practice Defamation actions often don’t come to court. Defamation is an unusual ‘charge’ (it’s actually a civil matter; not really a ‘charge’ as such) in that the defendant in essence has to prove their innocence - i.e. that what they claim is true.
Normally, in the first instance where this is not possible the defence to a defamation action is an offer to make amends... Apologise, withdraw the claims and perhaps compensate the victim...
Green’s assertion that Sheriff Buchanan was involved in Hollie’s abuse falls swiftly on the claim that Buchanan is the brother of one of the women named as an abuser. – We are expected to accept that a man, his sister and her husband all share the same surname! -This Elephant in the room was discussed a few entries back; so I won’t go too far into it again...
On the basis of what we know of the matter; Green would need to be pretty stupid to try and defend the allegations he makes against Buchanan... On the face of it then, Buchanan’s case against Green is ‘open and shut’. The man is a senior lawyer – in the trade so to speak. Just as an electrician would not break sweat installing an extra socket at home, Buchanan is an individual particularly well equipped to utilise the legitimate process of law...
You have to ask then why he wouldn’t act to secure the public retraction and apology that a Defamation action would almost-certainly secure?
Green would have no basis for a defence ; and would probably be forced to defend himself as he wouldn’t get legal aid... Although it has to be noted that if he did, much of the material he has on the Hollie Greig case would be examined and entered into a court record such that it became to an extent ‘proven’ on the balance of probability. – That’s not good enough for a criminal prosecution of course; but it may be enough to make a more thorough investigation into Hollie’s allegations unavoidable.
But then that is mere speculation – why would an innocent, defamed man have anything to fear from such events? It’s a serious question. Quick, easy, banged-to-rights... Why not?
Is this whole Breach of the Peace fiasco perhaps the result of Buchanan using his influence to get the public purse to do his dirty work? Were a few wee strings pulled? Perhaps Buchanan and his cronies have (we speculate) pulled this sort of ‘flanker’ many times? Perhaps they thought this would just ‘kill’ the whole issue quietly? – Perhaps Scotland’s Sheriff Courts see people before them on a daily basis who are actually the victims of official bullying and abuse of position?
- A situation that the rest of the Justice system might well ‘close ranks’ to cover up!
There remains, at this point in Green’s trial, absolutely no sign of the evidence that would prove mens rea and actus reus in respect of the Breach of The Peace charge. – It may come, but we are frankly mystified; because try as we might we can certainly find nothing to indicate Green has in any way incited, endorsed or encouraged any act that might disturb the peace of the general population. Was Green’s conduct ‘severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community’? - Well where is the prosecution’s ‘ace’ in that respect?
- And on the subject of what cannot be found we’re willing at this stage to indulge in a little speculation as to what won’t be found by the forensic examination of either Robert Green’s or Anne Greig’s computers...
Much of the prosecution testimony thus far seems to hinge on people being distressed by what was appearing on various websites; notably the ‘Stolen Kids’ blog written by Greg Lance-Watkins. – And that’s the point! It was written by Greg Lance-Watkins, not Robert Green! - Green, it seems, is merely the face in the frame; and clearly it was Watkins who gave this material world-wide exposure...
It would be foolish to suggest Green had ‘nothing to do’ with this... But hope the prosecution seize on the absence of evidence that Green was the publisher of this material that (apparently) has caused so much harm and distress. While they’re about it we would be interested in learning from the Police why they did not submit the real publisher to the same treatment Robert and Anne ‘enjoyed’?
All the evidence we have indicates that Green was deceived by Watkins into believing he was a highly experienced rights campaigner. Green was therefore misadvised – I prefer the term duped – to believe that his actions were all of sound, reasonable and legal. – That makes him a bloody fool; not a criminal!
In fact, Greg Lance-Watkins is quickly and easily proved to be a liar and a fantasist – a real life Walter Mitty. Disturbingly one with self-admitted firearms convictions who, in a chilling pre-echo of the Dunblane Massacre, once entered a Primary school with the stated intention of killing a man! - Exactly the sort of dangerous looney that the public would want protection from.
We’re happy to speculate that the forensic examination of Greg Lance-Watkins’ computers and premises might have turned up a great deal of ‘evidence’ and truly opened up a ‘can of worms’. – And wonder, as we frequently do, what makes Watkins apparently immune from persecution?
– So why is the hapless, bumbling, foolish but utterly non-aggressive Mr Green in the frame for this? - Shouldn’t they be ‘hunting down’ the nutter with a fascination for guns, murder and the soiled contents of a rape victims’ laundry basket?
Green’s biggest fault is that he hears what he wants to hear, believes what he wants to believe - And very often that’s at odds with what needs to be taken on board. That doesn’t make him a bad man – just an unwise one; which isn’t cause enough to crucify him!
In his blog today Green writes....
“Perhaps a very pertinent and basic question that is arisen as to why I have been prosecuted at all for a Breach of the Peace, which is intended to protect the public in general, not a specific number of individuals who have been identified by letter of other means of communication. Virtually all of the civilian witnesses brought by the prosecution who claim to have been upset by me comprise some of those named as alleged abusers or victims by Hollie.
A perfectly adequate legal remedy exists for those concerned - defamation.”
Quite so... Green quite simply should not have published what he did the way he did. He shouldn’t have been taken in by Greg Lance-Watkins. And once Watkins was exposed, he should have taken the opportunity to educate himself as to the error of his ways. He should recognise the enormous damage he has done to the prospects of putting Hollie Greig’s rapists away... And he should be facing a defamation action; but not alone... For the man more culpable in all this is Greg Lance Watkins...
We don’t say a Breach of The Peace action is warranted against Watkins or Green. This is a matter of defamation. And in that respect Green writes...
“No-one, either individually or collectively has chosen to take this logical civil route that would have the most appropriate one, at no cost to the people of Scotland. Instead, even prior to the trial, an estimated half a million pounds of taxpayers` money has been spent on prosecuting me on a simple summary charge. It is an issue of possible misuse of much-needed public funds that may justifiably be put to the Scottish establishment, including leading politicians.”
There is no “possible” about it in my opinion.
The Scottish ‘Justice system’ continues to piss your tax money up against the wall on Monday the 23rd of January at Stonehaven Sheriff Court.
Robert Green's blog entry, summing up his perspective on the trial to date can be read here:
http://holliedemandsjustice-robertgreensblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/stonehaven-trial-so-far.html
