![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.craigmurray.org.uk\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/rulingdisclosure1-scaled.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.craigmurray.org.uk\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/rulingdisclosure2-scaled.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
I am strongly advised to shut up and say nothing just before my trial. I will however point out three things:<\/p>\n
1) These documents are all in the possession of the Lord Advocate. They are held in the Crown Office. That is why we are asking the Crown to disclose them. The Lord Advocate at no stage, in opposing their release, denied their existence. This is the Lord Advocate’s reply to the application. 20210114 Answers to Disclosure Request (3)<\/a> The High Court ruling notably does not endorse the argument here on Murrell and Ruddick’s privacy. The Lord Advocate’s refusal to provide these documents to the Holyrood Inquiry on the grounds of the privacy and data protection rights of Murrell and Ruddick is therefore unlikely to survive a court application by the Fabiani Committee. That would require a great deal more courage than the Committee have shown to date. <\/p>\n I am as advised not going to comment on the merits of the High Court ruling, or on what the messages show.<\/p>\n But, as a matter of simple fact, these messages have now been barred from:<\/strong> Move along please. Absolutely nothing to see here. Nothing at all. Everything in Scotland is perfectly normal and above board. Ignore Craig Murray, he is a conspiracy theorist. —————————————————–<\/p>\n Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.<\/p>\n Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received<\/a>.<\/p>\n Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:<\/p>\n
\n2) These are some of the same documents the Lord Advocate has refused to give the Holyrood Inquiry and which Alex Salmond has said prevent him appearing before the Inquiry until the Lord Advocate agrees he can reference them in his evidence.
\n3) The High Court has agreed with the Lord Advocate that these messages are irrelevant to my trial and do not go to my Article 10 rights of free speech. The High Court notably refrained from endorsing the Lord Advocate’s argument that they are “private messages” and that Murrell and Ruddick are protected from their disclosure under Article 8.
\nThis is extremely important as it means the High Court has not endorsed the Lord Advocate’s arguments for keeping these messages from the Holyrood Inquiry.<\/strong> The grounds on which the High Court did find against me – relevance and Article 10 – relate to my trial but do not relate to the Holyrood Inquiry.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.craigmurray.org.uk\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/Screenshot-1417.png\")
<\/p>\n
\n1) The Salmond Trial
\n2) The Holyrood Inquiry
\n3) The Murray Trial<\/p>\n
\nAnd if you don’t ignore all this, if you publish anything, we may send you to prison.<\/p>\n
\n
\nForgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing. <\/p>\n