FORMER British ambassador turned independence campaigner Craig Murray will face contempt of court charges on October 22 and 23, judges have concluded.
A virtual hearing today decided to continue the case until late October, following legal submissions made by representatives of the Crown and Murray.
Murray, previously ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, was charged with contempt of court in late April this year relating to alleged commentary on the trial of former First Minister Alex Salmond. Murray, who was also rector at the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010, rose to prominence after opposing human rights abuses while an ambassador. In more recent years he has campaigned for Scottish independence. He denies the contempt charges.
Contempt of court is a criminal offence governed under common law and the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Under the act, contempt applies to "a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”. The maximum sentence for the charge is two years imprisonment.
The brief procedural hearing, conducted online due to the ongoing impact of Covid-19 on the court system, was presided over by Lord Justice Clerk Lady Dorrian alongside Lord Glennie and Lord Turnbull. Members of the public were able to listen in to the hearing through a dial-in system provided by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.
Procedural hearings are held to consider legal preparation on a case. At a full hearing witnesses and evidence are tested before a judgement is issued, which in Murray’s case is set for October.
Alex Prentice QC, advocate depute for the Crown, had no procedural objection to the legal documents or witness list provided to the court by the accused.
Lady Dorrian, the second most senior judge in Scotland as Lord Justice Clark, said she was “quite surprised” at the length of the witness list provided by the accused’s representatives. She asked whether all the names provided were “relevant”.
John Scott QC, the advocate representing Murray, replied that proposed witnesses were required to cover the issue of jigsaw identification – the process whereby single pieces of information released separately can, when combined, allow for a person to be identified.
Dorrian previously made a court order on March 10 preventing the publication of the names and identity, and any information likely to disclose the identity, of the complainers in the Salmond case. The former First Minister, who faced sexual offence allegations in court from nine complainers, was acquitted of all charges in March.
Prentice, acting for the Crown, requested that the court remind those following the Murray case that the contempt order remained in force following the completion of the Salmond trial. Lady Dorrian confirmed that this was the case.
Last December the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, who instigate criminal prosecutions, warned that online comments that create a substantial risk of predicting justice may amount to contempt of court.
In May, a range of political figures wrote a public letter to the Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC, head of Scotland’s prosecution service, concerning the Murray case.
The case has now been “continued” until October 22 with the possibility of a further procedural hearing before that date.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article