Read on Twitter
We're standing by in the virtual courtroom for @CraigMurrayOrg's trial to begin. Our tweets will be on this thread. More info on the case can be found at http://craigmurray.org.uk
No further information to be submitted. John Scott is speaking. Affidavits have been submitted. Lady Dorian discussing relevance. The respondent is willing to give evidence.
Advocate depute invites court to consider whether Craig Murray's conduct constitutes contempt of court (n reporting on the trial of Alex Salmond), in terms of :
1/ jigsaw identification of complainants
2/ influencing outcome of trial
3/ contravening order to desist
1/ jigsaw identification of complainants
2/ influencing outcome of trial
3/ contravening order to desist
Advocate referring to Murray's 'Yes Minister' article, which he asserts could have permitted jigsaw identification. The court issued a warning on Jan 21 2020. Murray did not remove the article and court decided not to prosecute.
Lady Dorian: You refer to article on Jan 18. What about a previous article on Aug 21 2019?
Advocate Depute: The earlier article is in a different category
LD: Both were before the trial. If the Crown thought there was a problem, strange that no action was taken then
AD Agreed
Advocate Depute: The earlier article is in a different category
LD: Both were before the trial. If the Crown thought there was a problem, strange that no action was taken then
AD Agreed
Lady Dorian: These assertions are disputed, especially in relation to Woman C. How far can one take this point? The respondent completely disputes jigsaw identification.
Advocate Depute: All the court can proceed on are facts
LD: So what is disputed we have to put aside
Advocate Depute: All the court can proceed on are facts
LD: So what is disputed we have to put aside
Lady Dorian: Although there is nothing in the body of Murray's article, comments on his website should have been moderated (and removed if identification was happening)?
AD: Yes
LD: Do we interpret this generally or specifically?
AD: If anyone can identify, not general public
AD: Yes
LD: Do we interpret this generally or specifically?
AD: If anyone can identify, not general public
Advocate Depute: Identification more harmful if it happens close to the complainant's own workplace. Even if no particular piece of info doesn't identify, it should be taken in conjunction w/ all other material.
LD: I have difficulty w/ the 2 articles before which didn't breach
LD: I have difficulty w/ the 2 articles before which didn't breach
AD: Previous articles were not removed.
LD: Moving on to whether outcome was influenced. Does the Crown accept that there is a balance to be struck here w/ Mr Murray's Article 10 rights )freedom of speech)
AD Yes
LD: Moving on to whether outcome was influenced. Does the Crown accept that there is a balance to be struck here w/ Mr Murray's Article 10 rights )freedom of speech)
AD Yes
Defence lawyer John Scott: This is an open court. There are 313 listening on the Webex connection and more on phone line. Re internet searches, you drew attention to how variable they are. Mr Murray should be held to the same standard as mainstream media...
