View source for Document:Whistleblower Craig Murray Sentenced To 8 Months In Prison Over His Reporting On Former Scottish First Minister’s Trial

{{Document
|title=Whistleblower Craig Murray Sentenced To 8 Months In Prison Over His Reporting On Former Scottish First Minister’s Trial
|type=Article
|publication_date=11 May 2021
|source_name=The Dissenter
|source_URL=https://dissenter.substack.com/p/craig-murray-8-months-prison-sentence
|authors=Mohamed Elmaazi
|image=Craig_Murray_2.png
|image_width=300px
|image_caption=[[UKSC]] denies [[Craig Murray|Murray]] permission to appeal<ref>''[https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/craig-murray-to-be-jailed-after-supreme-court-refuses-permission-to-appeal "Craig Murray to be jailed after Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal"]''</ref> 
|subjects=Craig Murray, Hugh Kerr, Alex Salmond, UKSC, ECtHR, David Morales, Jury trial
|description=[[Craig Murray]] [https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1392192871571283979 tweets: "I cannot commend this article highly enough to anybody who wants to understand why and how I have been sentenced to prison."]
}}
{{QB|[[Hugh Kerr]], a former vice chair of the Scottish Executive Council of the [[National Union of Journalists]], called the verdict and sentence "a real threat to civil liberties"}}
Former UK diplomat-turned [[whistleblower]] [[Craig Murray]] was sentenced to eight months in prison at the High Court in Edinburgh for contempt of court resulting from his coverage of the trial of former Scottish First Minister [[Alex Salmond]].

A three-judge panel determined on March 25, 2021—following a two-hour trial in January—that information published by [[Craig Murray|Murray]] in a number of his blog posts was likely to lead indirectly to people being able to identify witnesses in [[Salmond]]’s sexual assault trial.

This process, known as “jigsaw identification,” refers to the possibility that a person may piece together information from various sources to arrive at the identification of a protected witness.

In doing so, the judge ruled that [[Craig Murray|Murray]] violated a court order prohibiting the publication of information that could likely lead to the identification of the alleged victims in Salmond’s case.

[[Craig Murray|Murray]] is a broadcaster, [[human rights]] advocate and [[journalist]], who has extensively covered the prosecution of [[WikiLeaks]] founder [[Julian Assange]] and is known to support other whistleblowers. He also strongly supported Salmond and the Scottish campaign for independence.

He denied the charges, arguing he went to great pains to cover the prosecution without identifying the witnesses.

The trial and eight-month prison sentence was heavily criticised by a number of veteran Scottish journalists and lawyers.

[[Hugh Kerr]], a former vice chair of Scottish Executive Council of the [[National Union of Journalists]], was a [[Labour Party]] [[Member of the European Parliament]] before he joined the [[SNP]]. He told ''[[The Dissenter]]'' that he considered both the verdict and the sentence in [[Craig Murray|Murray]]’s case to be “disgraceful.”

“[This decision represents] a real threat to civil liberties,” [[Hugh Kerr]] argued.

“A key point, of course, the women who are meant to be threatened with jigsaw ID all remained anonymous, [[Alex Salmond]]’s life was destroyed, and [[Craig Murray]]’s life is about to be destroyed too.”

“I know that [[Craig Murray|Craig]] shall appeal not only to the [[UK Supreme Court]] but also to the [[European Court of Human Rights]]. He will do so with the support of many people in [[Scotland]] and many people around the world,” [[Hugh Kerr]] added.

“It is believed to be the first instance in Scottish legal history where ‘jigsaw identification’ has led to an individual being imprisoned,” a statement released on behalf of [[Craig Murray|Murray]]’s family declared.

Award-winning investigative journalist [[John Pilger]] said, “In these dark times, [[Craig Murray]]'s truth-telling is a beacon. He is owed our debt of gratitude, not the travesty of a prison sentence which, like the prosecution of [[Julian Assange]], is a universal warning.”

“[[Craig Murray]] has compiled a remarkable record of courage and integrity in exposing crimes of state and working to bring them to an end,” Professor [[Noam Chomsky]] stated, contending [[Craig Murray|Murray]] “fully merits our deep respect and support for his achievements.”

==Court Felt It Had No Choice But To Imprison Murray==
“A significant fine is how this court normally deals with media contempt, even those that actually interfere with the course of justice,” [[Roddy Dunlop]] QC, [[Craig Murray|Murray]]’s lawyer, told the High Court on May 7. “To rule otherwise, in this case, would be harsh to the point of being disproportionate.”

In mitigation, Dunlop informed the court that [[Craig Murray|Murray]] is 62 years old, the father to a newborn child, and suffers from pulmonary health conditions, which will worsen if incarcerated. There was also no risk of repeating the crime and [[Craig Murray|Murray]]’s intent was never to violate the anonymity order.

[[Craig Murray|Murray]]’s legal team highlighted sentences handed down in other cases, such as the English contempt of court case against [[Stephen Yaxley-Lennon]] (aka [[Tommy Robinson]]), the far-right co-founder of the [[English Defence League]].

In 2017, Yaxley-Lennon filmed and published a video online of criminal defendants on trial for rape, in which he described them as “Muslim child rapists”. He was given a three-month suspended sentence for contempt of court that was conditioned on him not prejudicing any other pending trials.

One year later, Yaxley-Lennon published another video in explicit defiance of a reporting ban regarding three related sex-assault cases. He was ultimately sentenced to 9 months in prison.<ref>''[https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tommy-robinson-sentencing-prison-jail-hearing-years-grooming-contempt-court-a8999366.html "Tommy Robinson is jailed, and in my 26 years in the courts I can't recall a more blatant or serious example of this type of contempt"]''</ref>

==‘At The More Serious End Of the Scale’==
[[Craig Murray|Murray]]’s case is “at the more serious end of the scale,” Judge [[Lady Leeona Dorrian]] said on 11 May, when addressing the other cases raised by the defence.

[[Dorrian]], who also presided over [[Salmond]]’s trial, headed the panel of senior Scottish judges that heard [[Craig Murray|Murray]]’s contempt of court case.

In reading out the court’s sentence, [[Dorrian]] said that [[Craig Murray|Murray]]’s actions created “a real risk that complainers [in sex offence cases] may be reluctant to come forward in future cases, particularly where the case may be high profile or likely to attract significant publicity.”

The publication of jigsaw identification strikes “at the heart of the fair administration of justice,” and therefore “notwithstanding the previous good character of [Murray] and his health issues, we do not think we can dispose of this case other than by way of a sentence of imprisonment,” [[Dorrian]] added.

As part of his defence, [[Craig Murray|Murray]] submitted examples of mainstream outlets which he argued published even more “jigsaw identification.” In effect, an argument of selective prosecution could be inferred.

But the judges in [[Craig Murray|Murray]]’s case considered that to be “irrelevant to whether what [Murray] published constituted a contempt of court.”

==A Politically Motivated Stitch-Up==
[[Craig Murray|Murray]] was critical of the prosecution of Salmond which he described as a politically motivated stitch-up, a fact which appears to have irked the judges in his case. 

“As with many of the articles with which these proceedings are concerned, the respondent does not merely identify information, put the material before the public, and ask questions arising from it. He acts as arbiter, presenting the matter on the basis that his belief, opinions and interpretation of the information, assuming that is the right word to use, is “the full truth,”” the judges noted in their opinion [PDF] on March 25.

For his part, [[Craig Murray|Murray]] contends the charges against him are politically motivated as a result of his support for Salmond.

Salmond was acquitted by a jury on all 14 counts of sexual harassment and assault brought against him. However, that fact was considered irrelevant by the court when deciding the contempt of court case against [[Craig Murray|Murray]]. 

Before [[Salmond]] was tried in March 2020, evidence had already emerged of a potential conspiracy against the former leader of the [[Scottish National Party]] (SNP).

Emails and text messages between members of the Scottish civil service, the [[SNP]] bureaucracy, and some of [[Salmond]]’s alleged victims revealed an apparent conspiracy to destroy [[Salmond]]'s political career and reputation.

A number of legal and journalistic observers, such as Scottish lawyer [[Gordon Dangerfield]], Scotland’s former Justice Minister [[Kenny MacAskill]] MP, and [[Craig Murray|Murray]] himself called attention to this evidence.

The High Court of Scotland, which reviewed the investigation and handling of [[Salmond]]'s case, determined that the process was "unlawful", "procedurally unfair" and "tainted by apparent bias,” a year before the trial commenced.

[[Salmond]], along with [[Craig Murray|Murray]], is known to be a fierce proponent of Scottish independence and his prosecution comes at a time of splits within the [[SNP]] about the direction of the party and how the matter of [[independence]] is being approached by the current leadership of First Minister [[Nicola Sturgeon]].

A number of well-known Scots joined with [[Salmond]] to form the pro-independence [[Alba Party]] in February 2021. However, the overall politicised nature of [[Salmond]]’s case did not feature in [[Craig Murray|Murray]]’s contempt of court trial. 

==Murray’s Intentions And Motives Deemed Irrelevant==
The contempt of court offence is one of “strict liability,” which means [[Craig Murray|Murray]]’s intentions or motivations were deemed irrelevant by the court.

“The question which must be asked is whether in its context the material was such as was likely, objectively speaking, to lead to identification of the complainers,” the court determined. 

Also of significance was the court’s decision to apply a wide test when deciding whether [[Craig Murray|Murray]] committed contempt of court. Though the defence argued that the threshold should be whether “the public at large” was likely to be able to piece together the identification of a protected witness, the court disagreed.

“If the material would be likely to enable a particular section of the public to do so that would be sufficient.”

In other words, if someone who knows the complainants in [[Salmond]]’s case is likely to be able to piece together their identity from a combination of [[Craig Murray|Murray]]’s articles along with their own specific knowledge – that is enough for [[Craig Murray|Murray]] to have violated the court order.

Two other charges—one alleging that [[Craig Murray|Murray]] violated a court order barring the reasons given for the dismissal of a juror and the other alleging that two articles he published created a substantial risk of prejudicing the jury—were both dismissed by the court.

According to [[Hugh Kerr]], [[Lady Dorrian]], who presided over both [[Salmond]]’s trial and [[Craig Murray|Murray]]’s contempt of court proceedings, “has led the campaign to get rid of juries in the cases of sex offences in Scotland.”<ref>''[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56435743 "Specialist sex crime courts in Scotland could be jury free"]''</ref>

The Scottish government has been looking into specialised legal proceedings in sex offence cases, whereby complainants might be able to give evidence via video link as a matter of course and where judges would give the final verdict as to guilt or innocence.

[[Hugh Kerr]] considered this to be a “very worrying” development, which would have deprived [[Salmond]] of a [[jury trial]] and likely resulted in a conviction.

==Appealing To The Supreme Court==
Although the court originally gave [[Craig Murray|Murray]] 48 hours to surrender himself to authorities, they extended that to three weeks after Dunlop requested more time so an appeal to the [[UK Supreme Court]] could be lodged.

The decision means that [[Craig Murray|Murray]] will not be able to attend in person as a witness in the ongoing Spanish criminal case against [[UC Global]] Director [[David Morales]], who is being prosecuted for his role in the alleged illegal surveillance of [[Julian Assange|Assange]], his lawyers, and their privileged communications.<ref>''[https://dissenter.substack.com/p/uc-global-employee-thwarted-plan "UC Global Employee Thwarted Plan To Massively Bug Ecuador Embassy For Spying On Assange"]''</ref>

In a twist of irony, [[Roddy Dunlop]], who is [[Scotland]]’s most senior lawyer - known as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, was among the attorneys representing the Scottish government when [[Salmond]] successfully sued them in the High Court. Dunlop and one of his colleagues, threatened to resign if their client, the Scottish executive, didn’t concede the lawsuit, once it became apparent that they withheld evidence that they were obligated to disclose to [[Salmond]]’s lawyers.

“We have a very serious problem in Scotland at present”, veteran journalist [[Mark Hirst]] told ''The Dissenter''.

In Hirst’s view, the [[Crown Office]] is “an institutionally corrupt prosecuting authority” which is “abusing their power and acting in an evidently biased and political manner.”

Hirst, a longstanding friend of [[Craig Murray|Murray]], said he knows through his own discussions “with senior lawyers and serving police officers that there is concern the [[Crown Office]] are bringing the entire legal system in [[Scotland]] into utter disrepute.”

“Major reform is needed or we will see other journalists and political activists falling victim to malicious proceedings,” Hirst concluded.

==References==
<references/>