A Perverting Of The Law – And Criminality In High Office

Previous reports, published in the last six months, have provided detailed analysis of extraordinary events that took place in Scotland some 20 years ago – events that had (and continue to have) important implications throughout the UK.. That analysis uncovered criminal behaviour, by officers of The Crown, to pervert laws intended to protect young people from serious abuse and exploitation.

Actions By The Crown Office of Scotland (1991)

In late 1991 officers of The Crown gave Directions to the prosecution service in Scotland that effectively sanctioned criminal acts contrary to Law – of allowing young teenage boys to be sodomised by older men.

Those Directions, issued by the (then) Lord Advocate, were contrary to Section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (the statute, then in force). This was therefore a deliberate attempt by officers of the Crown to subvert the will of Parliament in a serious neglect of duty and an abuse of power.

Irrefutable evidence of this is contained in the official documents – Directions 2025 and 2025/1 – that show senior officers of the Crown Office manufacturing and imposing amendments to a particular statute, according to their own personal convictions and opinions.

In a letter dated 30th August 1991, Sir William Sutherland (then Chief Constable, Lothian and Borders Police) specifically warned The Crown Office of Scotland against taking action on this particular issue, given that such action would clearly be outside its authority (that properly belonged with Parliament).

Unfortunately the above events were only recently discovered during the close examination of a 20-year old Crown Office report on an Inquiry, conducted by the Crown Office in 1992. That internal Inquiry addressed allegations of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice within

The Crown Office

The Inquiry was commissioned by The Lord Advocate (and conducted in accordance with his own remit) and was completed on the 15th December 1992.

It is also clear from information contained within that 1992 Inquiry that the intention of the Crown Office was to avoid having criminal charges brought under Common Law (of ‘breach of the peace, shameless indecency and lewd and libidinous practices’) – for fear that guilty verdicts might be returned.

The Directions therefore drew upon a preference for “the use of statutory provisions rather than common law charges wherever possible”, and with such statute being effectively undermined and undone by means of the Directions (instructions) from The Crown Office, to the Crown Office Procurators Service (COPFS).

Parliament is Misled

The Crown Office report – fully exonerating the Crown Office – was presented to Parliament on the 26th January 1993. In presenting his report, the Lord Advocate assured The House of Lords that “the [Inquiry] report makes it clear that there is no evidence of irregularity in the conduct of business in the Crown Office or procurator fiscal service”.  That statement was false. Parliament was being misled.

Prior to the Lord Advocate’s statement, Honorable Members were allowed just twenty minutes to read the 110-page Inquiry report. Had they been given more time to both study that report, and to reflect upon its contents, then those Honorable Members might well have seen that officers of The Crown had, indeed, been indulging in extreme “irregularities” – of criminal behaviour, intended to pervert the rule of Law.

It is therefore very significant that, in his submission to the Honorable Members, the Lord Advocate chose to remain silent regarding the issuing of the two Directions to the COPFS, in 1991.

A Serious Crime at Common Law

So – what is the Law in regard to this matter?

A wilful failure of duty (for example, by an officer of the Crown, the Judiciary, or the police) to uphold the law as it stands, is a crime at Common Law in Scotland:

It is a crime at common law for a public official, a person entrusted with an official situation of trust, wilfully to neglect his duty, even where no question of danger to the public or to any person is involved.

This is therefore not a matter for nuanced interpretation – the position in Law is quite clear, and has obviously been recognised and accepted as such by the police throughout Scotland (including the Scottish Police Federation).

The conclusion is that a serious and criminal breach of duty, by officers of the Crown Office of Scotland, occurred in 1991. The effect of the Directives issued to the COPFS in 1991 will have been to allow pederasts active in Scotland to exploit and abuse teenage boys with relative impunity. It will also have enabled the criminal rent-boy industry (in Edinburgh, especially) to grow and prosper – and again, with little fear of intervention by the local police service.

Most notably, much of the effort by Edinburgh police to protect teenage boys from being drawn into that ‘industry’ will have been thwarted by the extraordinary intervention of the Crown Office of Scotland.

The Police Refuse to Investigate

It was as a result of the discoveries within the Lord Advocate’s Inquiry report (of December 1992) that on the 6th July of this year (2012) a formal complaint was made to Lothian and Borders Police against former officers of The Crown Office of Scotland. The complaint, against three named individuals, was that in giving such Directions those officers of The Crown had committed a serious criminal offence at CommonLaw.  That complaint included a request for a police investigation and a crime report number.

It is assumed that officers of Lothian and Borders Police will be very aware that of the three individuals named in the complaint, two are now members of Her Majesty’s Privy Council.

Those particular individuals have therefore been granted positions of considerable influence within the UK legislature and executive,the judiciary and The Crown.

A week after the complaint was submitted, Lothian and Borders Police responded, saying:

Crown Office Circular 2025 was issued by the Lord Advocate on 28 November 1991 and gave direction to Procurators Fiscal in relation to the prosecution of persons who participated in consensual homosexual acts. … On the information provided I do not find evidence of a criminal act and therefore I see no grounds for a police investigation into the matter at this time. I have copied your letter to [the] Area Procurator Fiscal for his information and comment on the issue you raise and I will write to you once I receive his response.

Therefore the immediate response of the police has been not to investigate the complaint, nor to issue a crime report number. The offer of obtaining “information and comment” from the COPFS is considered (in the circumstances) to be an especially extraordinary suggestion. The Lothian and Borders Police have been informed that such a decision is unacceptable, and that the original complaint still stands.