REPLY FROM THE COPFS ABOUT HOLLIE GREIG PLUS RESPONSE

THIS IS THE CONTENT OF A REPLY FROM THE CROWN OFFICE PROCURATOR FISCAL SERVICE CONCERNING LETTERS AND E-MAILS I WROTE TO MINISTERS REGARDING THE CASE OF HOLLIE GREIG.

 

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

Crown Office, 25 Chambers Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1LA

Policy Division

Mrs Michelle Macleod, Head of Policy

Tel: 0844 561 2000

[email protected]

RNID Typetalk: 18001 0844 561 2000

your ref:-

our ref:-

29 March 2012

Dear Mr Cluckie,

I am writing in response to your letter 18th December 2011 to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice,your letters 22nd January and 12th February and e-mail of 24th February to the First Minister and your letter of 25th January to Tricia Marwick,MSP concerning the case of Hollie Greig. As your correspondence relates to the investigation and prosecution of crime in Scotland it has been passed to me to reply.

 As you will be aware my office has previously written to you explaining that historical allegations of sexual abuse made by Hollie Greig have been thoroughly investigated by Grampian Police and the local Procurator Fiscal. I do not think there is anything further I can usefully add in relation to this point.

 The provision of criminal injuries compensation is the responsibility of the Criminal injuries Compensation Authority who administer the scheme in accordance with rules laid down by Parliament. My understanding is that it is not a prerequisite for a conviction to have been secured prior to criminal compensation being awarded and that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority apply a different standard of proof to applications, than is required in the criminal courts. The Criminal injuries Compensation Authority may be able to provide further information on the factors that it takes into consideration.

 As I previously explained there was insufficient admissible, credible and reliable evidence in law to take criminal proceedings in the case involving Hollie Greig.Criminal charges require to be proved by corroborated evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction to be sought and such evidence was not available. The fact that compensation was awarded is a separate and distinct issue.

 I also note that you are calling for a public inquiry into the allegations made by Hollie Greig. Any decision taken by the Lord Advocate in his capacity as the head of the system of prosecution requires to be taken independently of any other person and given the full and thorough investigation that has been undertaken I do not believe that a public inquiry would be appropriate.

Decisions as to whether to prosecute individuals are always taken independently and impartially based upon whether there is sufficient, admissible, credible and reliable evidence in law to take proceedings and if so whether it is in the public interest to do so.

 In relation to the prosecution of Mr Green earlier this month at Stonehaven Sheriff Court, the conduct of the trial including decisions on the relevance of witnesses are solely a matter for the presiding judge.

 Yours faithfully,

 Policy Division

THIS IS THE CONTENT OF MY REPLY BY E-MAIL TO THE CROWN OFFICE PROCURATOR FISCAL SERVICE IN SCOTLAND CONCERNING SEVERAL LETTERS TO MINISTERS WITH REGARDS TO THE HOLLIE GREIG CASE.

From: Gary Cluckie ([email protected])
Sent: 03 April 2012 12:36:30
To: [email protected]
Dear Mrs MacLeod,
In response to your e-mail concerning the letters I have written to the 1st Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Justice concerning the case of Hollie Greig.
First of all I feel I must take issue with the referenced dates of contact and the recipients of the letters and e-mails of which you refer.
You state that the letter of 18th December 2011 was to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice,this is incorrect.It was sent to Alex Salmond the 1st Minister.
I also wrote and e-mailed the First Minister on 22nd January,12th February and 24th February 2012 none of which were replied to with any satisfaction or indeed any interaction with the person whom they were addressed to namely Alex Salmond MSP.
You also state that on the 25th January 2012 I sent a letter to Tricia Marwick MSP,this is also incorrect.I have never written to Tricia Marwick in any capacity.I did arrange a meeting with her at her Markinch office to discuss the Hollie Greig case and to ask her to forward a letter(dated 25th January 2012) from myself to Kenny MacAskill the Cabinet Secretary for Justice about the disgraceful treatment of Robert Green surrounding his arrest and persecution at the hands of the Scottish Justice System and the failure of our systems of law to investigate the abuse of Hollie Greig and all the events surrounding her case.
I also wrote to the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC in a letter dated 29th January 2012 asking him to address all matters surrounding these sorry events and the conduct of all involved,once again I received no reply.
Secondly you state in your reply that “historical allegations of sexual abuse made by Hollie Greig have been thoroughly investigated by Grampian Police and the local Procurator Fiscal”.
This as a matter of your own records is also incorrect.Only two of the named abusers were ever questioned by Grampian Police,Dennis Charles Mackie and his son Greg,only questioned in relation to another sexual misdemeanor.This was also backed up at Robert Greens trial in Stonehaven as some of those testifying against him were among those whom Hollie Greig had named as her abusers,it was stated under oath that they had never been questioned by Grampian Police in regards to the alleged abuse.Also we have the matter of the local Procurator Fiscal.At the time when these allegations came to light it was the now Dame, Elish Angiolini who quashed the investigation into the abuse.As I am sure you will be fully aware Elish Angiolini is under investigation at the moment with regard to her actions surrounding Robert Green and the case in general and was spared her time on the witness stand by her colleague and associate of ten years or more as a member of the Northern Lighthouse Board, Sheriff Principle Bowen,the judge in Robert Greens trial.
I find the answer provided quite frankly astonishing,perhaps the powers that be feel that the people of Scotland should just ignore child abuse and blatant injustice and cower beneath a system that is clearly being abused itself by a few resulting in the tarnishing of the many good souls within its walls and corridors,I for one have no such intention.
Thirdly you mention the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.There is to date no official record of any crime having taken place,the historic evidence being withheld by Grampian Police.The privately obtained eligibility of her claims being upheld by two separate doctors on two occasions,once in 2001 and secondly in 2005,by doctors Jack Boyle and Eva Harding respectively,both stating that Hollie Greig had indeed been abused by her father,brother and very probably by others who had access to her.As you rightly state the C.I.C.A is a separate body and works on a different premise but it would not need Sherlock Holmes here to deduce criminal abuse had taken place.
Fourthly you further emphasize that “there was insufficient admissible,credible and reliable evidence in law to take criminal proceedings in the case involving Hollie Greig”.This of course under these circumstances may be true given that no investigation had taken place,without full investigation where was the “admissible,credible and reliable evidence” supposed to materialize from?From the onset here there has been a blatant attempt by those involved to quash any investigation because of whom some of the alleged abusers were and what positions they held.I have no doubt what so ever that had they been a fly-by-night bricklaying squad of pedophiles they would be behind bars as we speak,but there seems to be a closed shop mentality when members of the so called establishment are involved.Would it not be better in a free and conscious society to expose and remove the offending abusers of both children and privilege thus upholding the good name of those within our establishment who would see our loved ones protected in a prosperous world?
Fifthly,on my own calling for a public inquiry into the allegations made by Hollie Greig and the trial of Mr Green.
Myself and many others to my knowledge are demanding that the Lord Advocate instigates a full and public inquiry into all aspects surrounding the allegations made by Hollie Greig and also now into the disgraceful treatment of George Robert Green who allegedly so traumatized certain people,those accused by Hollie Greig and that the Police failed even to question,that he has had his own liberties removed and imprisoned for one year for breach of the peace.A case I am sure you are fully aware cost the tax payer in excess of £500,000.
Again you have emphasized the point that a full and thorough investigation has taken place,perhaps,if this is indeed the case,a full report of the investigation could be made public and would settle any doubt or misunderstanding.If there has been a full and thorough investigation then why did those so traumatized by George Robert Green simply not state these alleged facts and proof of innocence from the onset and end their own pains by openly discrediting all allegations?The trial and sentencing of Mr Green was in my own opinion a disgrace and only brought more shame and confusion upon an already unbelievable sequence of events that now spans more than a decade of symbolic walls of silence and abuse of the innocent whose only wish is justice and closure on a truly sickening episode within a precious life.
I would like to finish by saying I see it as my duty as a free expression of humanity to question those who hold a position of privilege and act either in capacity as my representative within a given political arena or hold positions within a system of law that claims to be there for my protection and the protection of others.I have not,now or indeed ever had any form of personal quest or vendetta against any individual but again will exercise my own right to question their role in office and their action or inaction in my name,to hold public office is to answer to the public is it not? To deny the right to question or address matters with such wide reaching and socially devastating consequences as the ritual abuse of another human being is to become the abuser oneself.It seems that to question the matters surrounding the case of Hollie Greig and her still continuing harassment by sections of both the Scottish and English establishments is to step outside sections of law being used by a few people in an attempt to further stifle the very mention of Hollie Greigs’ name.When these rights are removed from an individual or a given society or the questions are met with resounding walls of silence then we have already sailed past the myth of a free and democratic society and are within the walls of a dictatorship that sees itself beyond reproach whose “people” are subject to its will.This I am sure you would agree is a world in which no sane person would wish to live or indeed preside over.
Again I state to all those concerned with these matters that a full and open public inquiry is the only way that this can and indeed must be resolved as the abuse of any human being especially those we would see as vulnerable cannot be allowed to go unchallenged no matter who the alleged abusers are.
Yours sincerely
Gary Cluckie

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *