One of the key factors contributing to the decision of the court and Lady Dorrian to impose a previously unheard of draconian jail sentence on Craig Murray was that he was not, in the opinion of the court entitled to the same rights and privileges as a mainstream journalist.
Paragraph 4 of the judgement stated in disparaging terms:
“The applicant describes himself as a “journalist in new media”. Whatever that may involve, it is relevant to distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press, which is regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not. To the extent that the submissions for the applicant make comparisons with other press contempt’s, and the role of mainstream journalists, this is a factor which should be recognised.”
But online activity is not a devolved matter. It is reserved to the Westminster government who publicly announced 3 week before the judgement and comments of Lady Dorrian that Craig Murray was fully entitled in Law to consider himself to be a bona fide journalist. Lady Dorrian’s judgement was predicated on a misinterpretation of her powers and that of the court.
This is the position of the Westminster government, published three weeks before lady Dorrian’s sentencing of Craig Murray.
Media minister John Whittingdale, speaking for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) said; “citizen journalists will have the same protections for their work as professional news providers adding, “we don’t want the legislation to lead to a ‘woke web’ where legitimate journalism is censored. That’s why we’ve built in safeguards so that content from news publishers will not be in scope of new laws, including content shared on social media platforms, and media providers will need to factor in the crucial role of journalism as well as freedom of expression in their moderation decisions. A vibrant and free media is essential to our democracy and our Bill will make sure vital public interest journalism can reach its audience without interference.
7 replies on “A judge is not permitted, in a judgement to express a personal view on a political question – But is that not what Lady Dorrian did when she inferred there were different standards to be applied between Bona Fide journalists and bloggers”
On May 11, Craig Murray was sentenced by a judge to eight months in prison.
On June 8, same judge refused permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court, but a direct appeal to the UK Supreme Court could and was then made.
On July 29, UK Supreme Court judges refused permission to appeal the conviction stating that they would not hear submissions from Murray’s lawyers.
Source – BBC News
Given the clear difference between the opinion of a Scottish judge and the UK Government’s position on Social Media reporting and the MSM, and that Social Media activity is a UK reserved matter, it would seem clear that at the very least, the appeal should have been heard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Supreme Court is made up of Senior Scottish judges as well as Judges from all parts of the UK , there is no difference of opinion between Scottish Judges or Supreme High Court Judges , which is why they rejected the appeal , what will you do when the EU Court rejects any appeal too ? This is a moot point because Craig Murray knows that is what would happens so its unlikely that appeal ever in reality gets made. There will be plently claims of it happening though but it will all be Hot Air. (and perhaps accompanied by another crowdfunding from the gullible hoards.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_judges_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom
Did you ever read the full original judgement ? It was made by THREE senior Judges not just one. (and all three of them plus the Supreme Court know much more abou the law than you do) https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj002.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2BECuq6OluW_Fd_2zDDexAu6Xh_6MTwtdhKiiKo7altQJmMRsdiuZpQb4
Your views are interesting and need to be considered. I have done so and am of the opinion that the saying “tarred by the same brush” aptly describes the judgement.
The issue is you don’t understand the law and looks like you have used another propaganda blog as a source of truth instead . Real Journalists do had a code of conduct that they follow it means that when the Courts request them to remove something that could be in contempt of court they then do it. The difference is that Craig Murray while not being a bona fide Journalist was also given the same requests due to being in contempt of court, the difference being other real Journalists did as requested while Craig Murray fecked around instead because he thought he knew the law better than Senior Lawyers do. Craig Murrays Jailing was nobody’s fault but his own. Its all explained in the full Judgement published online but you probably don’t understand the legalise anyway. and also made clear here “Q: What can’t newspapers publish?
A: Generally, unless editors can prove there is a public interest in doing so, newspapers are not allowed to print:
• information which might identify a victim of sexual assault;” https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/1511/court-reporting-public.pdf
You are so wrong. The request your refer to were made before the Judge made her ruling. She rejected the Crown Prosecutors reasoning on the basis that the Crown failed in its duty to provide the information to her court timeously so she could decide on the matter. The subsequent delay persuaded her to the view that the subject was time expired.
“A judge is not permitted, in a judgement to express a personal view on a political question” The simple answer of course is this is your opinion , but what the Judge was staing was Her Legal View as a Judge and she is suitably qualified to be able to do that and the final overall judgement was backed up by another two Senior Scottish Judges and then later the Supreme court too.
I cannot concede to your comment. The part of her statement referring to bloggers was political and a direct contradiction of official UK government policy and the Supreme Court did not issue a judgement