Part 4 – The Scottish Legal System rejects Hollie’s story
If you can recall we covered the terrible cover up of Robert Greig’s so called suicide which now appears to be a very convincing case of murder His extensive injuries would indicate that he was severely beaten/kicked, placed in his car and then set alight. We must remember that the car had not been involved in an accident and therefore such injuries could not have been as a result of a crash or be self inflicted.
In another article we revealed some letters that were sent advising those concerned of the terrible ordeal that Hollie had endured. It was as a result of Robert Green becoming involved in the Hollie case that things started to move along. Robert communicated with many people and so now we can turn to the response from some of those people. One must take note that the person at the centre of these communications is Elish Angiolini and any such response from her office becomes her direct responsibility. Here is the wording of a letter dated 17th of November 2009 that was sent from John Logue, Head of Policy Division – Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service – Crown Office Edinburgh.
Dear Mr Green,
I refer to your correspondence of 27th July, 2 and 21st August, 9th and 18th September 2009 to the First Minister, together with your letter of the 25th August and 26th October to the Lord Advocate and letters of the 2nd and 10th September, and 5th October to Mrs Currie, the Area Procurator Fiscal for Grampian regarding allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated against Hollie Graig. Please treat this response as a reply to all of these matters.
You have been concerned of the recent safety of Anne and Hollie Greig in Shropshire following an incident which occurred at their home. I understand that this has been reported West Mercia Police Force. Jurisdiction over the investigation of alleged crime committed in England is a matter for the local police force involved.
You have also expressed concern over any involvement which the Lord Advocate may have in this case in light of comments you have made about the Lord Advocate’s involvement in the case when she was the Regional Procurator Fiscal for Grampians, Highlands and Islands.
I should make it clear that your correspondence refers to allegations of abuse by a number of named individuals who have never been reported to the Procurator Fiscal for consideration of prosecution. Grampian Police submitted a report in 2000 to the Procurator Fiscal containing allegations against one person only. In that case there was insufficient evidence in law to prosecute. Accordingly the Procurator Fiscal had no proper basis to bring a prosecution and instructed that no criminal proceedings be commenced.
The Lord Advocate was not in post as Regional Procurator Fiscal when this decision was made. While you have provided a copy of a letter to her from Brian Adam MSP dated 27th October 2000, that correspondence is dated after her appointment as Regional Procurator Fiscal and suggests nothing to indicate personal involvement by the Lord Advocate in the decision taken before her appointment. It is clear from the available records that the decision was taken on evidential grounds alone. There is, therefore, no basis for you to claim that the Lord Advocate was involved in any way in a decision which pre dated her taking up post as Regional Procurator Fiscal.
The Procurator Fiscal at Aberdeen has recently reviewed the original decision taken in this case and it remains clear from the available records that, standing the extent of the available evidence and the requirement for corroboration in Scotland, there was no basis on which to prosecute any person and no scope whatsoever for any other decision to have been taken.
There is accordingly, absolutely no foundation for any assertion that the decision taken in this case was based on a consideration of any improper conduct or that the decision was subject to any improper influence by anyone.
It is widely known that it has been a long standing and personal commitment of the Lord Advocate to tackle the challenges faced in bringing to justice those who commit sexual crimes and in this regard she has introduced significant reforms to the way in which sexual crimes in Scotland is investigated and prosecuted. The suggestion that she would be party to any attempt to pervert the course of justice in any case is extremely serious and profoundly defamatory.
Furthermore, comment has been made about the fact that a claim by the complainer in this case criminal injuries compensation has succeeded. It is important to note that standard of evidence required to bring a prosecution is very different to that required to establish a claim for criminal injuries compensation. Proof to the criminal standard in Scotland requires that the crime and the identity of the perpetrator are each proved by at least two sources of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt. In establishing a claim for criminal injuries compensation, corroboration is not required and the crime need only be proved on the balance of probabilities. Furthermore, a claim for criminal injuries compensation may succeed providing it is established that the complainer has been the victim of crime which means that a claim succeed even where it is not possible to prove the identity of the perpetrator. For these reasons you will see that it is possible to establish for the purposes of a claim for criminal injuries compensation that a complainer has (on the balance of probabilities) been the victim of crime in circumstances in which there is insufficient evidence to prove the crime against any individual according to the much higher standard required by the criminal law in Scotland.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is committed to the thorough investigation of allegations of sexual abuse and the prosecution of such cases where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and where prosecution is in the public interest. Where sufficient evidence to prosecute is identified and it is in the public interest to prosecute there will be a prosecution.
As your concerns have been addressed on several occasions, The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service does not intend to correspond with you further on this unless you raise points which have not been previously addressed.
Head of Policy Division
It should be pointed out at this stage that Elish Angiolini became the Regional Procurator Fiscal for the Grampians, Highlands and Islands on the 27th of July 2000 and remains in that office until her appointment to Lord Advocate on the 5th of October 2006.
In relation to comments made in the letter above lets just review who was where and in what office at the time of the bulk of the allegations made to the police in 2000.
In 2000 Anne was violently abused by her husband after she commenced checking the background to her brother Roberts mysterious death and the money paper trail that he had left behind (these aspect were covered in the last article). As a result of this outburst and the injuries sustained by Anne she decided to take Hollie and move into a hostel. In June 2000 Hollie started to reveal to her mum her father sexual abuse and also by her brother Greg, This abuse by her father Denis Charles Mackie had been going on since the age of six.
Anne decided to go to Bucksburn Police Station in Aberdeen and report the details has described to her by Hollie. Later that Summer Hollie revealed to her mum that the sexual abuse extended well beyond that of her Husband and Son Greg. Anne again contacted Bucksburn police and on the 25th of August 2000 attended the police station with Hollie to make the allegations.
What is very clear here is the fact that the main bulk of the reporting was carried out after Elish Angiolini had taken office as the Regional Procurator Fiscal (27th July 2000) who was also based in Aberdeen. Despite the arrogant wording of the above letter it is very clear as to whose shoulders this case rested on. It was Elish Angiolini who shelved this case probably to protect the Sheriff of Aberdeen Graeme Buchanan who is central to this abuse. One must also understand that this case involved many people in Aberdeen covering the Grampian Police Force – Education – Health Care – Mental Health – City of Aberdeen Council etc.
It is extremely pitiful that most of those connected with Scotland’s legal system are an absolute disgrace to their profession namely Kenny MacAskill MSP (Cabinet Secretary for Justice), Elish Angiolini (Lord Advocate), Graeme Buchanan (Sheriff of Aberdeen), Peter Watson (Solicitor Advocate) of Levy & McRae in Glasgow….the latter having been awarded Solicitor of the Year 2008. We cannot leave this list without adding the entire Scottish Parliament, Alex Salmond (The First Minister for Scotland), the Grampian Police, Aberdeen City Council and all the associated partners – Welfare/Social Services – Mental Health etc who dealt with this appalling case of sexual abuse.
What is sad about this entire episode is the fact that Peter Watson had an impeccable paper trail of success before allowing himself to be dragged into this grime. I would assume that Levy & McRae will be in full damage control at the moment in the hope that this nightmare will go away……if I were in their shoes I would shed Peter Watson and make a full apology for the manner in which he disgraced the name of Levy & McRae and even possibly assist Hollie and the other victims to bring their cases to court for a successful conclusion.
Moves are in place to obtain the assistance of a very well known International Lawyer so someone should be taking note of this case and respecting Hollie’s right to justice. For those that choose to arrogantly go down the same path then beware we are on to you and it’s only a matter of time.
I will continue this tragic story with more evidence (all of which is held on file by the Palestine Telegraph)….stayed tuned for Part 5 shortly and in the meantime keep adding your names to the “Hollie Army” which has now passed 16,000. Keep lobbying and keep protesting……the end is in sight believe me. Bless you all
Peter Eyre – Middle East Consultant – 17/3/2010