Ex-diplomat denies publishing 'hints' designed to reveal identity of Salmond accusers

A former British diplomat on trial for contempt of court has denied dropping a series of “hints” designed to reveal the identities of women who accused Alex Salmond of sexual assault.

Craig Murray, who served as the UK’s ambassador to Uzbekistan and is now a self-styled human rights campaigner and journalist, was charged last April over articles he published online about the criminal case against the former First Minister.

At his trial on Wednesday, held virtually, three senior judges were invited to conclude that the 62-year-old had published information on his blog that would allow readers to learn the identity of complainers in Mr Salmond's case by means of 'jigsaw identification' in contravention of a court order.

He is also accused of publishing material that risked causing “substantial prejudice” to Mr Salmond’s trial, held in March last year, at which the former SNP leader was cleared of all 13 sex assault charges. Mr Murray denies contempt of court, and his lawyer, John Scott QC, said his client's articles had been an honest attempt to redress what he saw as unfair coverage of Mr Salmond’s case in the mainstream media.

An ambassador between 2002 and 2004, he has been vocal in his belief that Mr Salmond was the victim of a conspiracy. A supporter of Scottish independence, Mr Murray stood for the position of SNP President at the party’s conference in November, winning 20 per cent of votes in a three-way contest. If convicted, he could face up to two years in jail.

At Mr Salmond’s trial, orders were passed which prevented the media from reporting on information that could lead to the identity of complainers - a common occurrence in hearings concerning alleged offences of a sexual nature.

Mr Scott said: “The Crown’s position appears to be that what has been presented to the court must be a deliberate campaign to drop enough hints so that the complainers can be identified.

“[But] this is not someone who is fixated on the Alex Salmond trial or dropping enough hints so the complainers could be identified.”

He claimed that Mr Murray could have published the names of the complainers before the court made its order, but had decided not to do so.

He added that his client had been attempting to highlight a “bigger picture” through his coverage. “He sees and has reported on the courts as a beacon of integrity,” Mr Scott added. “He sees the mainstream media coverage as biased and one-sided, what he tried to offer was a more balanced account of a high-profile trial with aspects, as he saw it, of great public interest."

Lady Dorrian, who presided over proceedings and was also the judge for Mr Salmond's trial, said it “seemed strange” that the Crown had taken no action in relation to two articles written by Mr Murray in advance of the trial, only to later bring charges on the basis that they had risked compromising proceedings after they concluded. No-one had complained that Mr Salmond's trial had not been fair, the court heard.

Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute, acknowledged the passage of time was a factor the court could take into account, but argued the earlier articles pointed to the “attitude of the respondent in maintaining [the complainers’] anonymity.”

He said the Crown had concerns about three articles in total - two written in advance of Mr Salmond’s trial and one written shortly after his acquittal.

Referring to one article, entitled ‘Yes Minister Fan Fiction’, Mr Prentice said it raised “a number of issues.” “One, the substantial prejudice prior to the trial, and secondly, the possible jigsaw identification leading to the identification of some of the complainers,” he said. “The respondent was written to by the Crown with the view expressed that it might constitute Contempt of Court. The respondent did not accept that.

“The Crown could of course have brought formal proceedings at that stage to draw the matter to the attention of the court, but after careful consideration, decided not to do that.

“It is nevertheless relevant now because it demonstrates the attitude of the respondent in maintaining anonymity and there are detailed submissions on why that article in itself could lead to substantial prejudice and later to the identification [of complainers].”

Lady Dorrian said she and her colleagues would issue a verdict soon.