Thread by @Consortiumnews

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 craigmurray.org.uk

Presiding are Lord Turnbull, Lord Menzies and Lady Dorian. Court its now in session.

#CraigMurray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

John Scott: Mr Murray, a former diplomat is not fixated on the Alex Salmond case. He is interested in open justice & is a former whistle-blower. He covered the #JulianAssange case. He has a significant heart condition. Was refused accreditation so attended in person every day.

John Scott: Mr Murray is a man of integrity. He was aware of the complainer's names but did not reveal them. His affidavit outlines the care he took to avoid identification. Crown asserts he "dropped enough hints". He sees a bigger picture involving the complainers.

John Scott: Re warnings, he only received one. He saw that one as inappropriate censorship rather than a friendly warning that there MIGHT be contempt. There was no order to remove his articles. Many others reported & he based his reporting on theirs when he was not in court.

LD: How do you test it for accuracy if not in court?
JS: He cross-referenced between different reports and issue commentary in his own words. When he was excluded from the court, he held the court as "a beacon of integrity". He speaks of why they reached a sound verdict.

John Scott: Turning to the legal submissions...
There are 3 points: prejudice, identification & revealing a juror had been dismissed. Nothing of this was drawn to attention of the court before or during Alex Salmond's trial. Now that is over & Salmond acquitted, it's too late

Lady Dorian: If the argument is prejudice, it could go either way?
JS: Indeed yes. The prejudice was in relation to the bigger picture, but the Crown should have drawn attention earlier. There was no complaint about the fairness of Alex Salmond's trial.

John Scott (defence): Re revealing juror's dismissal, no order was breached. Re 'Yes Minister' article, that was satire.

If the Crown's interpretation of identification were accepted, nothing at all could be reported. There will be workmates who have pieces of the jigsaw.

John Scott: [referring to identification by "the public"] If a crime were committed on a lighthouse (or Bute House) the mere mention of the place would enable many to work out who a complainer was.

Lady Dorian: More so by work-mates, for example?

JS: Yes indeed.

John Scott (defence) If the definition is that ANYONE could identify, that is too wide and not reasonably balanced with the public's Article 10 rights to be informed.

Lady Dorian: There will be a work colleague who will know, perhaps because complainer told them, but others not.

Lady Dorian: Where does one draw the line?
John Scott: That depends on each case. There may be colleagues who could work out the identity of a complainer. LD: It has to fact sensitive. One piece of info may be enough. If only one member of staff...
JS: Article 10 applies here

That concludes John Scott's comments on Article 10. No questions from Lord Turnbull or Lord Menzies. John Scott & Craig Murray are conferring. Scott is reminded by Murray that no reference was made as to what in his article might be in breach. He nevertheless revised & redacted

The court is adjourned. Notification of the outcome will be in writing. Lady Dorian was the only judge to speak. We do not know the opinion of Lord Turnbull or Lord Menzies.