Wings over Scotland | Lady Dorrian’s Law
For the avoidance of any doubt, this site does not believe that Scotland second oldest judge, Lady Leeona Dorrian, is corrupt.
He does not believe that he is acting at the behest of the Scottish Government or the Prime Minister, even though Lady Dorrian is known to wish to succeed. Lord carloway as the highest ranking judge in the country when he retires in the near future and that position – Mr. President of the Court of Session – It’s on the Prime Minister’s gift.
What this site believes is that it is acting biased. Lady dorrian known to want to dispense with juries in sexual assault trials, and we believe, based on observation of his conduct during the Craig Murray trial and his apparent emotional investment in the case, that this is because he belongs to the sizable group of people who fundamentally believe that all acquittals in such cases are unlawful , and that, in essence, any man accused of rape or sexual assault is automatically guilty simply because he was accused, on the grounds that no woman would ever lie about such a thing.
(Or scarier, that a small minority of accusers LIE, but false convictions or ruined lives of a few men are a price worth paying).
However, their actions, by incarcerating Craig Murray for eight months for a crime (the so-called “puzzle identification”) that is desperately ill-defined and for which no one has been imprisoned before in all of world history, runs the risk of do more to undermine the rights of women alleging sexual assault more than any individual before.
Craig Murray goes to jail without the benefit of a jury, having been denied the basic right to an appeal, and most notably of all, not knowing who he supposedly identified and how. In an extraordinary circumstance more appropriate for a Franz Kafka novel, at no point has he been specifically told who he “identified” or how, or why he is the only person responsible for the construction of what is seemingly and oxymoron a one. -Piece “puzzle”. Only in serious cases of terrorism are the most elementary principles of law and justice often neglected with such abandon.
And in whose name has this happened? The whistleblowers in the Alex Salmond case were conspirators, liars, or both. Despite having the benefit of unimaginable resources for ordinary women and the full weight of the state behind them, a jury made up of mostly women rejected every one of her claims.
(Can you imagine anyone claiming, honestly, that a man once “pricked” his curly hair in an elevator in the presence of other people who went to the police and took him seriously, to the point where the matter ended in the highest court in Scotland?)
It is materially inescapable that at least some of the witnesses, especially Woman H, deliberately and knowingly lied, but no perjury investigations have been conducted, in stark contrast to the millions of pounds of public money and hundreds of hours of time. police which were in vain trying to prove that Salmond once briefly touched someone’s leg during a 60-second ride in the back of a car.
Alex Salmond was acquitted in court of all charges, an innocent man. But Lady Dorrian’s seeming obsessive determination to protect even conspirators and perjurers from any consequences has led to an inescapable and grave conclusion.
 A notable feature of the affidavits is the defendant’s repeated focus in the absence of a court order before March 10, 2020, to the effect that if he had wanted to identify the complainants he could have done so before that date, “knowing that there was no general law or judicial order in force that prevented me from simply publishing ”.
This however “would not have been responsible journalism.” The fact that it had been a clear contravention of the IPSO Editor’s Code of Practice and the local convention are not matters that appear to have involved him, although it is clear from paragraph 40 of his main affidavit that he was aware of the convention.
The above quotes are taken from Lady Dorrian’s trial on March 25 this year. Others have already highlighted the deeply disturbing notion in them that online journalists should be subjected to different interpretations of the law than those applied to newspaper journalists, on the comically absurd basis that the latter are responsible for the “ IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice ”- a toothless self-regulator who administers occasional light slaps on the wrist and small edits at the bottom of page 2 in lieu of prison sentences.
But what they also inevitably imply is this: that in the future, Anyone who knows the names of the complainants in a sexual assault case must name them in public at the earliest available opportunity, loudly and repeatedly..
If Craig Murray had done it before Alex Salmond’s trial, he would not have broken any laws (assuming, of course, that he had done so in a way that didn’t hurt the case, another law that apparently “mainstream” journalists are exempt from ).
He and anyone else could have freely named them during and after the trial when their claims were revealed to be fabrications, because obviously their identities would already be in the public domain.
In Scotland, unlike England, there is no automatic right to anonymity in sexual assault cases. It has to be specifically ordered by the judge in each case, something that didn’t happen until the first day of Salmond’s trial after James Doleman of Byline Times directly named one of the whistleblowers in a tweet, for whose major infraction he was simply reprimanded. and excluded from court in the following days.
(This is despite the fact that Byline Times is do not subject to the IPSO award and actually calls the organization a “Fake regulator”, and therefore, by Lady Dorrian’s own judgment, she should have treated Doleman more harshly than the “proper” journalists).
This, clearly, would be a tremendously undesirable situation. Genuine victims, unlike Salmond’s whistleblowers, would be strongly discouraged from filing their complaints, knowing that their names would be public and they themselves could be subject to intrusive and traumatic scrutiny by the press.
But it is the inescapable logic of Lady Dorrian’s judgment. Naming all of Salmond’s whistleblowers before trial would have protected Craig Murray, and he wouldn’t go to jail today (nor would Clive Thomson, who served a six-month sentence earlier this year to name a few of them on social media).
His restraint and decency in not wanting to do so is what has condemned a frail and elderly man who poses no danger to the public to months of vindictive and injurious imprisonment, in direct violation of the law. alleged presumption in Scotland against such judgments.
We do not believe that was the intention of Lady Dorrian. But it is reality. If you don’t want to be jailed in Scotland for “puzzle identification”, the only sure way to protect yourself is to name absolutely everyone before trial.
The ruinous determination of the Scottish Government and judicial system to put Someone whoever connected with Alex Salmond in jail for the insane paranoia and sheer malice of the Prime Minister has had many disastrous results, for people, taxpayers and the country at large. We could write an article 10 times longer than this one about all the terrifying aspects of the case. But this may be the worst of all.
If you are a woman in Scotland and someone has raped or sexually assaulted you, Lady Dorrian just made it much more dangerous for you to go to the police, because journalists, or at least journalists not loyal to the state, will. now I have to seriously consider naming it immediately as a self-protection precautionary measure.
Today is a terrible day for Craig Murray, journalism, freedom of speech, responsibility and the integrity and reputation of Scottish justice. But it is also a terrible day for victims of sexual assault and rape, and that is why everyone involved, from the Prime Minister and her fellow conspirators all the way down, should forever hang their heads in shame.