The coverup continues.
CAME VIA EMAIL (mangled):
Robert Green, Hollie Greigs legal representative, appeared at Stonehaven
court today to answer the charges of breach of the peace, and the subsequent
breaking of the bail conditions, allegedly, connected to that. One can tell
from the outset that the judgements given out today by the Procurator Fiscal
were way over the top and unneccasary for someone who has no previous
convictions, and attended court today under his own volition.
Robert Green has also been the subject of many things a certain police
force and a certain council needs to be investigated for because they acted
totally outside the law, and committed other serious crimes whilst in that
And I for one would any time contest the ridiculous notion that any of
Roberts emails "were allegedly grossly offensive or of an indecent,obscene
or menacing character". This is a gross exagerration and a figment of
deluded minds to make out Robert is some kind of menace which is simply
ridiculous. Anybody, apart from certain people in the Scottish establishment
who Robert has dared to upset, and people named as paedophiles in the pdf
file made by the Palestine Telegraph, will tell you that. Having met Robert
Green many times I will say one couldnt meet more of a mild-mannered, placid
and totally passive, law abiding person anywhere on earth. I say that with
my hand on my heart and he is the complete opposite to the people who are
dishing out these false judgements from their ivory towers.
These outrageous measures undertaken today are just part of punishing him
for bringing certain paedophiles names to light, for showing some corruption
within the Scottish establishment legal system. These criminals need
exposing and investigating and made to take the bitter pill of justice for
the many crimes they are so very guilty of for the good of every lawabiding
citizen AND CHILD everywhere, who, incidentally, have been paying their
wages whilst theyve been committing their crimes.
Even changing the procedure of Roberts case being judged by a Procurator
Fiscal rather than a jury smacks of something very sinister.
Why isnt the Procurator Fiscal doing anything about the paedophiles named
who are left to continue their appalling crimes against children? We know
The coverup continues.
This from John Taylor:
" Robert Green appeared in Stonehaven Court today.
Robert was arrested in Aberdeen in February 2010 as he attempted to
distribute leaflets relating to allegations that Downs Syndrome girl Hollie
Greig had been the victim of a paedophile gang.
In April 2010 he was charged with an alleged breach of his bail conditions.
Today's hearing was a "Reduction to Summary" case, which to the best of my
knowledge means that the Procurator Fiscal wishes to change Robert's trial
from "Solemn" (decided by a jury) to "Summary" (decided by a Sheriff). The
hearing was heard in open court although the Fiscal did not explain why she
sought this change in status.
Technically the two outstanding charges against have been dropped and a "de
novo" case has been started which consolidates these charges and various
others. There are now a total of 5 charges altogether.
The first charge is basically an extension of the original Breach of the
Peace charge and claims that between 1 June 2009 and 7 December 2010 at
various locations in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and elsewhere, Robert conducted a
public campaign of harassment against named persons placing them in a state
of fear and alarm for their safety and causing the apprehension of serious
public disturbance in Aberdeen and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The second and third charges relate to alleged breaches of bail conditions.
The fourth and fifth charges relate to emails sent which were allegedly
grossly offensive or of an indecent,obscene or menacing character.
The bulk of the hearing related to a debate on bail conditions. Robert's
solicitor, Gerry Sweeney made the point that as this was a "de novo" case
the previous bail conditions had lapsed and argued that as the case was
being reduced to summary there was no automatic requirement for bail
conditions to be applied and argued that as Robert had no criminal record
and that he attended todays hearing, at which was cited to appear rather
than appearing from custody, then no bail conditions should be applied.
The Fiscal argued that bail conditions identical to those in the previous
charges should be applied. She stated that these bail conditions were "for
the protection of those impacted by Mr Green's activities". I did not follow
the logic of this arguement as my understanding is that Breach of the Peace
"is designed to protect the community at large, not guard against an affront
to individuals based on their own character."
The Fiscal stated that the bail conditions she was seeking were "in the
public interest" although she did not provide any details of how the
interest of the general public would be served. In respect of the bail
conditions which require Robert to sign in at Warrington Police Station
twice per week she argued that these were necessary to prevent him "sloping
off to Aberdeen".
Mr Sweeney responded by stating that the bail conditions were totally
disproportionate for a summary charge of breach of the peace and likened
them to using not just a sledgehammer but a jackhammer to crack a nut. He
expressed his dismay and outrage at the language used by the Crown and his
view that what was being proposed was fundamentally undemocratic and in
breach of Robert's human rights.
In respect of the Crown proposals that Robert should be prevented from
both talking about the case and continuing to campaign on the wider Hollie
Greig affair , Mr Sweeney used the analogy of a notional person accused of
assault who would be prevented from explaining while he was on bail that he
had acted in self-defence and would also be prevented from acted in
self-defence if he was attacked again while on bail.
The decision of Sheriff Davies was that in addition to standard bail
conditions Robert would also be subject to 3 special conditions:
1) That he does not approach or contact various named persons
2) That he does not advance or communicate, or cause to be advanced or
communicated, allegations similar to those alleged in in the charges
3) That he does not enter Aberdeen City or Aberdeenshire
The unanimous opinion of the members of the public in attendance was
that we were all surprised at this decision as it appeared that the
arguements put forward by the Defence were much stronger than those put
forward by the Crown.
An intermediate diet was set for 13th April and a trial diet set for 6th
June. The trial is anticipated to last for 5 days although as it is now a
"de novo" case, Robert will have to re-apply for Legal Aid etc which will
almost certainly result in a delay. "
from John Taylor