ROUGH JUSTICE WRONG PERSON CONVICTED

TWO WALK AWAY ON NOT PROVEN VERDICTS WHILE

CROWN WITNESS WAS CONVICTED OF CONTEMPT OF COURT

One of the main contributing factors for the prosecution case failing in the High court in Inverness in Jan 2003was in the fact that Neil MacGregor could not prove from the witness box that he had given a statement for the police to his solicitors Craig Wood in Jan 2002. This campaign intends to correct that injustice.

Defence Council for the second accused repeatedly challenged Neil while he was in the witness box speculating that Neil had CHANGED his statement from what he told the police in Jan to what he then told the PF several months later.

The basic facts of both statements were the same except the later statement contained an elaboration of the incident but Council portrayed the difference as a CHANGE of statement haranguing the witness to destroy his integrity causing Lord Bonomy to accuse Neil of prevarication.

The Press and Journal 4-3-02 reported Lord Bonomy saying that Neil had answered questions in “ parrot fashion”.

Neil could only answer in parrot fashion if Defence Council repeatedly asked the same question in parrot fashion. Lord Bonomy failed to stop Defence Council haranguing the witness and perhaps the reader can see how the Judge exercised a grave contradiction in his analysis of the situation and lost the distinction between prevarication in the witness box and someone consistently repeating the truth.

During the trial, repeated attempts were made to get Neil’s solicitors Craig Wood to come forward and endorse what Neil had claimed in the witness box regarding the Jan 2002 statement but they would not assist saying that they were barred from commenting because of their involvement at the start of the defence work.

Below we publish an account of developments in our action to retrieve the missing statement

On 15-6-04 Craig Wood solicitors wrote to Bogbain saying. “ The statement that your son Neil MacGregor gave was a precognition in connection with the defence of Gary MacLennan for whom we were instructed at that time. You will appreciate that Mr MacLennan thereafter instructed other Solicitors so all papers in connection with that matter were then passed on to them”.

On 10-7-04 Bogbain wrote to Jim Friel (Glasgow Lawyer) outlining the position.

------Start of Letter ------

10-7-04

Dear Mr Friel High Court Inverness Jan 2003

You will recall how my son Neil MacGregor gave evidence for The Crown in the trial of HMA-V- Gary Maclennan when you represented MacLennan as the first accused and Neil was accused by Lord Bonomy of prevaricating, which amounted in the opinion of his lordship to contempt of court.

We have been working for some time now to clear Neil’s name and prove that his lordship made a bad judgement. We have now been directed to ask you for a copy of a statement that Neil prepared with his Inverness solicitor in Jan 2002.

This statement can be used to prove that Advocate Depute Brian McConnachy and Council for the second accused, Mr Brian Saddler, directed false allegations at Neil while he was under examination in the witness box. Both had speculated that Neil had never gone to see his solicitor in Jan 2003, but that Neil had made up a statement around July when he had visited the Procurator Fiscal in Inverness.

Neil, his sister and Neil’s solicitor had prepared the statement that is in your possession in Jan 2002 so that it could be passed on to the police to protect Neil’s integrity in the wake of some false allegations that were circulating in the matter at that time.

Unfortunately, the Inverness solicitor was also representing the first accused at that time and Neil’s statement was by some accident put into the file of the first accused and it landed in your office when the first accused shifted his defence work to your office.

We regard the statement as Neil’s intellectual property and something that he never intended should get out of his control.

When challenged on the issue recently, the Inverness solicitor alleged that the statement was a precognition. However. While the substance of the statement might very well help to constitute a precognition statement and mitigate the Inverness law firm from a suggestion of conflict of interest in the matter, the evidence of the fact that Neil had his sister present throughout the whole interview would render such a precognition statement illegal. You will remember how Neil’s sister also gave evidence for The Crown during the trial and endorsed Neil’s statement that had been made in court.

Under the circumstances, we would be very obliged if you can return the statement to us along with a note stating how and when it went into your possession.

Looking forward to your reaction.

Yours Faithfully Brian MacGregor

CC brianmacgregor.com

------End of Letter ------

On 20-7-04 Jim Friel Solicitors replied saying, “we do not have the statement of Neil MacGregor.” Going on to say “we were not surprised when we did not find it, this is not a statement that we would have retained, had this been forwarded to us by mistake or otherwise it would immediately have been returned to the solicitor working on behalf of Neil MacGregor. We would not have shown any interest in such a statement.

It may be that the original solicitors, if the statement was prepared and typed for example on computer, they would be able to obtain a copy from their hard drive. We trust that it would still be in the computer memory.”

On 20-7-04 Bogbain wrote to Craig Wood solicitors advising them of the developments in correspondence from Jim Friel and asking for a copy of the statement that might be in their computer records.

On 21-7-04 Craig Wood wrote Bogbain saying. “ We have your fax 20-7-04 and note what you write. As already indicated we are not prepared to correspond with you further on this matter”.

As a result of the position adopted by Craig Wood it is understood that the best means of retrieving the statement from the law firm is to mount a civil court action for damages and enable an application to be made to the Court for a Commissioner to be appointed to gain a Specification of Documents from Craig Wood.

Is there a solicitor out there who can do this on a NO WIN - NO FEE basis?

Alternatively, Craig Wood can apply to the court for an interim interdict taking action against this web site. Either way we all land in court and have an opportunity to expose to the media the injustice that has been visited upon Bogbain, and as one commentator has suggested, maybe gain a Royal pardon.

On 15-08-04 this website joined forces with asearchforjustice the team involved in investigating cases of questionable Police work.