Here is a summaryof the way that the Scottish "justice" system has treated Robert Green from the outset
Scottish Crown Office - Unfit for purpose?
Here is a summaryof the way that the Scottish "justice" system has treated Robert Green from the outset.
12 February 2010
Whilst walking peacefully down a side street in Aberdeen at ten in the morning on the way to meet the electorate and media, to discuss my campaign for the 2010 General Election, I was seized and handcuffed by two plain clothes policemen, DS Drummond and DC Crowder, thrown into solitary confinement in a police cell for four days and refused legal or indeed any other representation. This was in direct contravention of my human rights and in breach of Scotland`s own solemn commitment under European Human Rights Legislation.
13 February 2010
Whilst held in custody, four Grampian Police officers, led by DS Brian Geddes, were sent on a 700 mile round trip to raid my home in Cheshire, taking my computer , diaries and all documentation, including privileged documents held for my clients, including those belonging to Anne Greig, which were to be used to bring legal actions against Grampian Police, amongst other bodies and individuals in Scotland.
It took almost eighteen months for Grampian Police to produce the warrant for the raid and in that time two false statements were issued by the police, one of which was made to Owen Paterson, Anne`s MP. When the document was finally available, it was signed by Sheriff Patrick Davies, a close associate of the sheriff Hollie had named as an abuser. By this time Davies had taken "early retirement", four years early.
15 February 2010
Taken before the court at Stonehaven and released on the most onerous bail conditions, amongst which were conditions forbidding me to enter Aberdeen or Aberdeenshire and effectively even preventing me from putting to the electorate issues I was standing for,becoming the only candidate in 300 years of parliamentary elections to be treated in such a way.
30 April 2010
With just one week to go before the General Election, I came before Sheriff Davies to appeal for a temporary variation to my bail conditions to allow me to campaign freely in the Aberdeen South constituency. Davies refused, citing two reasons.
The first was that he considered that my presence on the streets of Aberdeen would be likely to lead to civil unrest. This in itself is a highly contentious reason, as it could well be used by any party to deny a political rival such freedom. It`s easy to see how any party, especially ones of the right or left, could be denied proper access to the electorate on such a basis.
The second was even more bizarre, outside the sheriff`s limitations and factually wrong. Davies stated as a reason for his decision, his opinion that I did not belong to a "proper professional party". Not only is that outrageous in itself, but I was representing SACL in the election, a party that is as correctly and officially constituted as any of the large parties.
Although I was effectively shut out of the election process, I complained to the Electoral Commission, who admitted that they knew of no comparable situation that had happened before. I asked the court for either a recording or transcript to confirm what Davies had said. No record of any kind was available and the hearing had been held in camera, denying it to be witnessed by press or public.
26 January 2011
With Sheriff Davies again adjudicating, for the fourth consecutive time, my solicitor, Mr Gerry Sweeney, asked for the bail conditions, that had required me initially to report three times a week to my local police station, later reduced to two, to be varied to omit this requirement. The Crown office objected. Mr Sweeney, in a most eloquent address, stated his shock at my treatment by the Scottish justice system. He said that in his long experience as a defence lawyer, he had never known anyone to treated as badly or unfairly by the system, particularly as I am a non-violent man with an impeccable record. On this occasion Davies conceded.
13 April 2011
I was forced to appear before Sheriff Valerie Johnston without Legal representation. Earlier, the Crown Office had connived to change the status of the charges against me, which meant that my Legal Aid funded team, led by the redoubtable Donald Findlay QC, had to be dissolved. It also denied me a jury trial. The Legal Aid Board repeatedly refused attempts by Mr Sweeney to reconstitute the team through Legal Aid. It is worth noting that a senior official in a position to decide whether a case justifies Legal Aid, is a convicted sex offender, Douglas Haggarty QC, arrested a short time earlier when found committing a sexual act with a 17-year-old male prostitute on a Saturday afternoon in the pubic toilet of a major Glasgow store. That such a person remains in a important position of influence would be beyond belief, were it not for the fact that it is the Scottish justice system we are talking about.
As the date for my trial had then been set for 6th June and I , as a foreigner in the Scottish court, had no representation and no guarantee that I would obtain it, asked for an adjournment, in order for Mr Sweeney to explore all avenues to receive the professional legal defence my case clearly merited. The Crown, represented by Area Procurator Fiscal Anne Currie, successfully objected, on the basis that the Crown claimed to have fifty witnesses ready to testify.of whom half were vulnerable witnesses, suffering from trauma due to my allegations. This statement was made in open court before press and public witnesses.
Following the hearing, I wrote to Ms Currie, asking for the necessary medical proof to ascertain that the witnesses were indeed sufferuing from the serious condition she had described. Ms Currie became immerdiately aggressive and offensive and refused to cooperate with my perfectly legitimate request.
18 August 2011
Having earlier finally secured Legal Aid, I had again been represented by the excellent Mr Sweeney, as was the case at this hearing, in open court the tenth so far since I was arrested. Ms Currie had never been seen again since the April hearing and on this occasion the Procurator Fiscal from Edinburgh, Stephen McGowan, represented the Crown. Mr Sweeney forced McGowan to admit that not one application had been made to the court for vulnerable witnesses. Thus Currie had blatantly lied to the court in an attempt to procure a likely miscarriage of justice against me. Mc Gowan now went on to say that the Crown`s list of witnesses had declined to "eighteen civilian witnesses", the precise words he used.
After this hearing, I laid a formal complaint about Currie to the Crown Office, with a letter sent on 6th September. I was promised a response within twenty working days when receipt was immediately acknowledged, In fact it took eight weeks for a response from David B Harvie, Director of Serious Casework. He had begun an investigation, but Ms Currie had told him that she did not mislead the sheriff, on account of telling the sheriff that the word "vulnerable" was used in its general sense. This was complete nonsense. Currie had made no such remark. To compound the matter further, Mc Gowan now claimed that he had said eighteen complainers, not civilian witnesses. Again, this was made, again before Sheriff Johnston, in open court heard by the press, public and indeed my own solicitor. In my view, both officials should be suspended from duty whilst the investigation continues.
Would any reasonable person argue against the view that I have continually faced an unacceptable degree of bias against me throughout these proceedings?
Is it fair that I should be subjected to prosecution by these dishonest individuals?
I think not.