The final push

By Mark Hirst

As many of you already know, the malicious prosecution directed by the Scottish state against me in 2020 was politically driven because of my vocal, public backing for the late Alex Salmond. Despite my acquittal and that of Alex, it has been a very long and drawn out process to seek to secure proper redress for those actions led by certain politically compromised officials in the Crown Office, Scotland's public prosecutor.

In June this year the Inner House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh published its ruling following the appeal made by the Lord Advocate, who heads the Crown Office. The Crown decided to appeal an earlier judgment by Lord Lake, the Lord Ordinary, who in February, and after nine months of deliberation, ruled in substantive terms, in my favour.

As many of you will know I have been fighting a protracted battle along with my legal team as I seek justice and a remedy for what I firmly believe was a malicious prosecution directed against me by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, in collusion with Police Scotland.

Lord Lake, in his February ruling, stated that there were admissions by both the Crown and the Police that they had “ulterior motive” to pursue me, before adding that “viewed objectively there were no reasonable or probable grounds for bringing the prosecution [against me]” and that those admissions by the State were indictative of malice. In addition Lord Lake also ruled that because the Crown has absolute immunity in cases like mine, and as the law stands, my case could not proceed. This in itself was, according to Lord Lake, a breach of my human rights under ECHR, namely Article 6 – the right to a legal remedy and fair hearing.

However following this ruling the Lord Advocate appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session, and whilst rejecting the Lord Advocate’s claims, made consistently over the past 5 years that they could voluntarily waive their immunity, the Inner House nonetheless overturned Lord Lake’s earlier judgement, making it clear the Crown has no discretion to decide whether it has immunity or not. In the view of the Inner House the Lord Advocate’s immunity from claims such as mine, regardless of how they acted and regardless of what their motive was, is absolute, as is the immunity of Scotland’s judiciary (Judges and court officials) from similar attempts to secure a legal remedy.

My legal team, led by Solicitor Advocate Gordon Dangerfield and Andrew Smith KC, have sought leave from the Court of Session to appeal this June ruling by the Inner House to the UK Supreme Court. It is our view that the three judges of the Inner House have made, specifically, four errors in law in their ruling that require closer scrutiny by the UK’s Supreme Court judges.

The Inner House, in rejecting the Lord Advocate’s appeal in relation to its ability to waive its immunity from claims such as mine, now effectively makes it impossible for someone, such as me or anyone else, who have been subjected to a malicious prosecution by the Crown from being able to seek a legal redress.

That situation, as we have argued and Lord Lake stated categorically, renders Scots law incompatible with international treaty obligations under ECHR.

Given the multiple and exhaustive submissions the Lord Advocate’s own KC, Gerry Moynihan has made over the past years, claiming this was not the case, we had expected that the Crown would have agreed to back our wish to see this considered by the UK Supreme Court. Moynihan himself stated on record the points raised by my claim raise issues of“general public importance”. But now the Crown have informed the Court of Session that they are content with the ruling, adding,“It is not appropriate that that point be considered by the Supreme Court at this time.”

Well, if not now, then when?

From the outset the Lord Advocate has sought to prevaricate, delay and add huge costs in order to defend their decision to prosecute me. The Lord Advocate’s case against me was rejected by Jedburgh Sheriff Court, who accepted a “no case to answer” submission in 2001 and in February 2026 by Lord Lake who made it clear that without the immunity of the Crown, the claim I now have against the Crown should have gone to proof. At that stage we could present all of the evidence and reach a definitive conclusion. As things stand today, that opportunity is being denied.

Instead the Lord Advocate by-passed the lower courts, which had been our preference for a legal remedy and remitted this to the Court of Session where costs increase massively.

There is no doubt this was a deliberate strategy but merely underlines a wider, more serious issue in Scotland namely, that to hope to secure any justice, any legal remedy, you must already be extremely wealthy. This kind of legal remedy is beyond the reach of over 95 percent of Scots and even when you have financial backing, the system appears defaulted to maintain the status quo at any and all costs.

I have been exceptionally fortunate that thousands of ordinary people, including many who do not share my political outlook, have contributed to my legal fund, both during the criminal defence and my subsequent civil action against the Crown and Police Scotland. Without that support we simply could not have reached this stage.

However, I am in a position again where I have to appeal to your generosity for this final stage within the Scottish legal system, that gives us at least a chance to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

We need to raise a further £5,000 to get us through that stage.

I appreciate these are very difficult financial times for everyone, but this is also a very important case that warrants much closer scrutiny in the UK Supreme Court.

Anything you can give will be hugely appreciated.

You can donate by visiting the website www.CivilLibertyScotland.com and clicking the donate button.

Thank you again for your support.