The Battle Continues

I could not have reached this stage in my legal battle without the generous and sustained support of thousands of ordinary supporters of myself and the late Alex Salmond.

For those who are not familiar with my story it began in 2020 in the wake of Alex Salmond’s trial in which he was acquitted of serious allegations levelled against him by a cabal of politically motivated individuals.

It is my longstanding belief and that of many others familiar with this case, that Alex and ultimately myself and other prominent activists were the target of a close group of very senior officials who colluded with the Police and Crown to have myself, Alex and other jailed and they did this for very clear political objectives.

I, myself had been cited as a witness in Alex’s defence although I was not called when it became apparent the Crown case against him was made of straws.

Immediately after his acquittal a Scottish Government funded propaganda front, RCS, put out a joint statement from those who had colluded against Alex, effectively criticising the verdict by seeking to undermine it and signalling that their politically motivated campaign against the former First Minister would continue.

That was the immediate context in which I recorded a very short, 2 minute, 38 second video, expressing my view, my opinion, that if their campaign continued then the anonymity that they cynically secured and were now weaponising for political purposes, would not hold. Too many people knew who they were and what they were up to.

Their identities are well known by the political corporate media and the political class, despite the Court orders that remain in place and even more widely among independence activists.

Notwithstanding that, I have not and would not publicly identify them whilst these Court orders, that grant them anonymity, remain in place and would urge others to do likewise given the apparent eagerness of the Crown Office, Scotland’s prosecutor, to actually jail those who do so.

After my video was published, on a closed link on YouTube, I was contacted by the Scottish corporate media who informed me that some of the same politically driven complainers who were seeking to destroy Alex Salmond, had complained to police about my video, claiming they were threatened by it.

Of course, being politically motivated, they were not going to rely on due process to take place and allow the police to properly and independently investigate. Instead they went immediately to the corporate media, with who they had already colluded with, in smearing the reputation of Alex Salmond.

More than two weeks later, five detectives walked up this garden path and proceeded to serve a search warrant on me, seising all my technical devices. I wasn’t questioned or arrested at that point but my computer, phone and storage devices taken away for forensic examination. The SIO made it clear he and his team had been the same officers who had worked on Alex’s failed prosecution. They normally work murder cases, but here they were all five of them, in this garden, in my house because of a 2 minute and 38 second video in which I expressed a mere opinion. Remember that the next time we hear calls for additional police funding...

Five weeks later I was invited up to Edinburgh, formally arrested and questioned over this same short video I had made. No other evidence was presented and I was released shortly afterwards.

Initially I was charged with a Communications offence but this was later amended after, I’m presuming, the Crown Office (Scotland’s state prosecutor) realised their own guidelines on prosecuting for this offence could not be met.

Instead the charge was amended to the catch-all Breach of the Peace and my case sent for trial at Jedburgh Sheriff Court.

We have since discovered five depute fiscals (they won’t disclose which ones) discussed my case before referring it up to the Crown Agent for a final decision on whether to prosecute… five fiscals and the Crown Agent, the actual Chief Executive of the Crown Office and senior legal adviser to the Lord Advocate.

When has that ever happened before in a breach of the peace case?

It was a strange time coming in the middle of lock down and although I was entirely clear throughout that I had committed no crime, it was equally clear bigger political games were being played out.

My lawyers informed me that if found guilty I potentially faced a year in prison, although given I had no previous criminal record this would likely be reduced… but imprisonment was not off the table.

So I waited…. And I waited.

As many others have commented upon, as was the case for Alex, the process became the punishment.

Eventually my trial day arrived. I appeared in Jedburgh Sheriff Court and the Crown case against me opened by playing the two minute 38 second video on a large projection screen in the Court.

The Fiscal made some comments around when and how the video had been seised and then sat down. No other evidence was led. A clearly perplexed Sheriff Paterson addressed the hapless Fraser Matheson, the local Fiscal. “I’m sorry Mr Matheson, is that all you have?”

Matheson rose to his feet and offered to play the video again, evidently to the astonishment of Sheriff Paterson. “Why would we watch it again? We’ve just watched it.” That was essentially the end of the Crown’s submission. A two minute 38 second video. The only evidence presented, the veracity of which was not disputed by either side.

My lawyers then took to their feet and proceeded to highlight the frankly ludicrous claims that anything in the video could have been interpreted as either offensive or threatening.

The words that appear to have caused most fear among the politically motivated complainers, was my observation that they would “reap the whirlwind”.

My Solicitor Advocate highlighted that this phrase was common political parlance, uttered regularly in popular culture and by many politicians, including a certain Nicola Sturgeon!

Indeed, had I been required to take the stand to give evidence I would be required to swear on a book in which the phrase first appears! Such was the lunacy.

In the end, Sheriff Paterson through the case out, accepting a “no case to answer” motion from my defence team. He added that “no reasonable person could have been offended” by the comments I made in that short, 2 minute, 38 second video… ergo those who complained are not reasonable. Sheriff Paterson added the comments made “were an opinion and nothing more.”

And that, might have been that…. Except I was contacted by a large number of people in the political and legal sphere and even several serving and former police officers, urging me to pursue the Lord Advocate, who leads Scotland’s prosecution service and the Chief Constable for what is known as malicious prosecution. The broad concern were and remain that the Crown Office is bringing the entire justice system in Scotland into complete disrepute and damaging public confidence in it.

And so we commenced with a fresh crowdfunder and began this legal action, which is still continuing.

Lord Lake heard the first round of hearings at the Court of Session

Finally in May 2025 we had two days of hearing in the Outer House of the Court of Session, before Lord Lake. Lord Lake has a stern demeanour but I had been assured by senior legal figures I respect, that he has a reputation for fairness. Lord Lake also serves on the UK Supreme Court.

After those hearing we waited nine long months before his written judgement was published.

The full judgement can be found on the Scottish Court pages but in summary Lord Lake effectively dismissed my case on the grounds that the Lord Advocate, as the law stands, has absolute immunity from any claim brought against that senior legal position when the claim is for malicious prosecution, unless the person claimed has in fact being imprisoned as a result of a malicious prosecution. That situation arises from the Criminal Justice Act 1995 passed by the UK Parliament and is a situation that was later described in the Scottish Parliament as “patently absurd.”

However, that should have been the end of it as far as my claim was concerned.

But when you read through the judgement, although it effectively halts my claim, Lord Lake makes plain, on examining the motivation of the Crown in directing the initial prosecution of me, “viewed objectively”, he said, “there were no reasonable or probable grounds for bringing the case before any court.”

That of course is damning enough, but he didn’t stop there. He highlighted that the police and Crown Office admission that they acted with a degree of ulterior motive – they conceded in written statements ahead of the court hearings that they wanted to send a chilling effect among supporters of Alex Salmond by prosecuting me – that this was evidence itself of possible malice in their decision.

But the real kicker for the Crown came right at the end of the judgment. Lord Lake made a formal legal declaration that because of the immunity granted to the Crown by the UK Parliament, my human rights, namely Article 6 of the European Convention for Human Right, ensuring I had a legal remedy through a fair trial if I believed there had been an injustice, had been breached. The judgment concluded that as things stand Scots law in this respect is incompatible with the European Convention for Human Rights.

Although Lord Lake was dismissing my claim, this was a major and significant win on the substance of our arguments and claim against the Crown and left, and still leaves, the door wide open for us to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights to have this situation determined and remedied.

It also prompted an urgent question to Ministers in the Scottish Parliament from Fergus Ewing MSP, himself a former solicitor, Cabinet Secretary and member of the Scottish Government.

Fergus highlighted the need for fresh legislation to come before the Scottish Parliament in order to make Scots law compatible with Scotland’s international obligations under ECHR.

Outgoing Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain

So all of this put the Lord Advocate in a very difficult position.

Lord Lake had made it clear we had a statable claim that should move to the proof stage and Ministers were tacitly agreeing that fresh legislation will be needed, so she chose to appeal Lord Lake’s judgement, even though that judgement ended my claim against her. Of course it is a gamble but either way it places me in a very strong legal position whatever happens next.

We had two further hearing sessions before three Court of Session judges last month in the Inner House. The footage of those hearings are available on the Scottish Courts page and I won’t say any more about them as, at time of this recording, we are still waiting on their written judgement, but we are optimistic.

That all said, these legal proceedings and this process do not come cheap, and are in fact beyond most people on even a reasonable wage or who, unlike me, have been strongly supported in crowd funders.

I put out a fresh appeal just before the Lord Advocate’s appeal was heard and we have just recently, in the last few days, received the court costs for that, which are significant.

I am therefore in the unenviable position of once again appealing to supporters to enable us to continue this fight. People have been exceptionally generous and I am acutely aware of the wider financial pressures everyone is under.

There is no wealthy backer on the horizon for me. I do not have rich pals, that I know of, willing to help secure a proper legal remedy and continue this legal fight to the next stages, despite the now very strong position we are in.

It has been a clear tactic of the Lord Advocate, from the outset, to bypass the lower courts, where costs for bringing a claim such as mine are much lower, and remit this directly back to the Court of Session.

The Crown is able to draw on unlimited financial resources, paid for by taxpayers, to defend their actions which now two Scottish Courts have ruled were unwarranted and indicative of a malicious prosecution.

But for myself and my incredibly determined and committed legal team, Solicitor Advocate Gordon Dangerfield, Senior Counsel Andrew Smith KC and the stoic Solicitor Liz Coyle, we are focussed on seeing this out as far as we can. But to do that, we will need your help once again.

Lady Lilliard battled on, despite having lost both her legs in battle, driven by a desire to secure justice for her slain fiancé… She did not survive that battle but the Scots proved victorious at the Battle of Ancrum Moor because they never gave up, never surrendered and steadfastly refused to bow the knee to those who sought to subjugate Scotland.

If we continue to fight we have a real prospect of bringing all those responsible for this long, dark saga to account. If we have to stop now, we are guaranteed to fail in that respect, so I would urge all who can to support us if they possibly can.

Thank you for your support. Alba gu brath.