Read on Twitter
Thread
Notes of Procedural Hearing of @CraigMurrayOrg's case:
HM Advocate said he thinks what some of the witnesses (for the Defendant Mr. Murray) may say are not relevant to the case.
Judge said she was "surprised" to see the length of list of witnesses for the defendant. https://twitter.com/craigmurrayorg/status/1280413052622516224
Notes of Procedural Hearing of @CraigMurrayOrg's case:
HM Advocate said he thinks what some of the witnesses (for the Defendant Mr. Murray) may say are not relevant to the case.
Judge said she was "surprised" to see the length of list of witnesses for the defendant. https://twitter.com/craigmurrayorg/status/1280413052622516224
HM Advocate said he hopes the production (of documents from both sides) can be combined into a single bundle.
Mr. Murray's lawyer said identification of relevant witnesses, witness affidavits, their relevance etc. is an issue *after* both sides submit their statements.
Mr. Murray's lawyer said identification of relevant witnesses, witness affidavits, their relevance etc. is an issue *after* both sides submit their statements.
Judge said the case will continue to full hearing on 22 & 23 Oct 2020 (Thu & Fri).
Mr. Murray's lawyer said they hope that the same judges will be available & that Mr. McKay (Deputy Clerk of Justiciary) wanted to check their availability.
Mr. Murray's lawyer said they hope that the same judges will be available & that Mr. McKay (Deputy Clerk of Justiciary) wanted to check their availability.
Judge said she can't set a late September date due to a number of uncertainties.
Judge asked HM Advocate if he has any questions for Mr. Murray's lawyer.
HM Advocate said No.
Judge asked HM Advocate if he has any questions for Mr. Murray's lawyer.
HM Advocate said No.
Judge said "It maybe that once the statements are submitted, agreement may be possible on the relevance or otherwise of witnesses."
Judge said the date for these (submissions & determining relevance of witnesses) will be notified in due course. "In the meantime the case will continue to full hearing on 22 & 23 Oct."
HM Advocate said he wanted to remind journalists that the original contempt of court order is still in force.
HM advocate referred to Mr. Murray's blog post (I believe it is this 
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/07/i-need-a-craig-murray/ ) & said "that post does not appear to address the wider issue of identification by implication"
Me: Mr.Murray's blog post seems to contradict HM Advocate's claim
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/07/i-need-a-craig-murray/ ) & said "that post does not appear to address the wider issue of identification by implication"Me: Mr.Murray's blog post seems to contradict HM Advocate's claim
I note here that Mr. Murray specifically addressed this in his post "I can think of no reason you cannot comment, but please say nothing that might in any way reference specifically anybody with a protected identity." https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/07/i-need-a-craig-murray/
This contradicts HM Advocate's claim
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/07/i-need-a-craig-murray/This contradicts HM Advocate's claim
Judge confirmed that "the original contempt of court order is still in effect"
Judge said that anyone listening in to the hearing needs to be aware of that.
She once again confirmed that the case will continue to full hearing on 22 & 23 October.
Judge said that anyone listening in to the hearing needs to be aware of that.
She once again confirmed that the case will continue to full hearing on 22 & 23 October.
I note here that I have the (dis)advantage of not knowing the details of Alex Salmond's case other than the fact that the jury found him innocent of all accusations & that it's perceived that he was persecuted as he, like Mr. Murray, are prominent Pro-Scottish Independence voices
Plus, I don't know Scottish politicians names other than Nicola Sturgeon.
It's advantageous in the sense that I needn't be worried about inadvertently identifying anyone—even by implication. So I can report the goings on in these proceedings, provided that I'm physically able.
It's advantageous in the sense that I needn't be worried about inadvertently identifying anyone—even by implication. So I can report the goings on in these proceedings, provided that I'm physically able.
Today's hearing was short—only ~15mins, which I still found physically taxing to listen, concentrate & scribble notes. I will strive to do what I can manage physically.
The disadvantage is that I won't be able to analyse & comment on the significance of any intermediary decisions (such as objections to witnesses). I really hope someone else does that.
