Craig Murray Is a Free Man

The activist, blogger and former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, who was imprisoned for his journalism, walked free from Saughton Prison in Edinburgh, Scotland on Tuesday.

Craig Murray was released from Saughton Prison on Tuesday after serving his sentence. This is what he was imprisoned for:

Murray Sentenced to 8 Months in Prison

Craig Murray, the former British diplomat, was sentenced to 8 months in prison for contempt of court during the 2020 trial of former Scottish first minister Alex Salmond.

Craig Murray. (Vodex/Flickr)

By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News
Published on May 11, 2021

Craig Murray, an ex-British ambassador and blogger, has been sentenced to eight months in prison after being found guilty in March of contempt of court during the 2020 trial of former Scottish first minister Alex Salmond.  He was given three weeks to turn himself into police, pending his appeal. Judge Lady Dorrian issued the sentence, she said, despite Murray’s health issues. 

Murray faced up to two years in prison and unlimited fines. 

Murray must surrender his passport making it impossible to travel to Spain on May 20 to testify in the case of UC Global spying on WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange in the Ecuador embassy in London.  The court heard that remote arrangements to testify to the Spanish court would have to be made. 

Murray was charged with contempt for allegedly revealing the identity of four anonymous accusers indirectly; of writing about the exclusion of two jurors in violation of a court order and of allegedly prejudicing the case in Salmond’s favor.  There was no pronouncement of guilt on the latter two charges. Salmond was acquitted at trial of 13 sex charges in March 2020.

Murray was found to have contravened an order by the Crown prosecutors to stop writing about the matter. Representatives of the Crown say Murray was warned of this in January 2020 and in August 2020. 

Murray was charged in April 2020 with writing two articles on his website that led to the alleged prejudice in the Salmond case and to possible “jig-saw” identification, despite a court order of anonymity, of the women who alleged sexual assault against Salmond. The accusers’ identities were to remain anonymous by order of Lord Justice Clerk Lady Dorrian, who presided over both Salmond’s and Murray’s trials. 

The 1981 Contempt of Court Act applies to “a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.”  In the sentencing hearing on Tuesday, which Consortium News had direct access to online, Dorrian called Murray’s contempt “grave” and on a “substantial” scale.

“Action in clear violation of the court even in a coded way needs to be treated as contempt in a grave way,” she said.

“He knew of jigsaw identification and relished in revealing it, thinking it was in the public interest,” she said. “In this he failed.”

Explosive Testimony

Murray testified in his case that he had evidence of a scheme against Salmond that involved Sturgeon’s chief of staff.

Murray’s sworn testimony outlined the alleged plot to silence himself and to apparently prevent Salmond from reentering politics.   

Murray’s affidavits, if true, exposed deep corruption and collusion between the SNP, Crown prosecutors, Police Scotland and parts of the mainstream media.  

Citing unnamed, insider sources that he says were in a position to know, Murray testified under oath that the sex crimes allegations against Salmond were an orchestrated attempt to destroy Salmond’s political career by rivals inside the Scottish National Party. 

Murray testified that after reading of the allegations against Salmond in August 2018 he “made no attempt to discover the identity of the civil servant involved, but I did make strenuous efforts to discover who had leaked the story to the media.”  After conferring with his contacts he “discovered with a high degree of certainty that the leaker was Liz Lloyd, Chief of Staff to Nicola Sturgeon.” 

Murray testified that he called in an article for the sacking of two civil servants found in Salmond’s judicial review to have abused the process and that “if Nicola Sturgeon failed to act against them, it might indicate that she was herself involved in the campaign of false allegation against Alex Salmond.”  Sturgeon’s spokeswoman accused Salmond of “spinning false conspiracy theories” to deflect attention from the accusations, even after he was acquitted.

Scottish Cabinet in 2007, with Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond in foreground. (Scottish government)

After this article appeared Salmond asked to meet Murray at the George Hotel in Edinburgh. “Here, for the first time, he told me that Nicola Sturgeon had been behind the process designed to generate false accusations against him,” Murray testified.  He said that Salmon won his judicial review case because, “It was on the day that witnesses from Nicola Sturgeon’s private office were due to give evidence as to her own knowledge and involvement, that the Scottish Government suddenly conceded the case rather than have this evidence heard.” 

Murray went on: 

“Mr Salmond further told me that there was a massive police operation underway to try to get accusers to come forward against him. This was going to ludicrous lengths. He showed me an email from one woman to him, in which she stated that she had been called in and interviewed by the police because many years ago Alex Salmond had been said by another person to have been seen kissing her on the cheeks in a theatre foyer. The woman stated she had told them it was a perfectly normal greeting. She wished to warn Alex of the police fishing expedition against him. He understood that over 400 people had been interviewed by the police.”

Murray testified that he asked Salmond what the motive against him could be. “Alex replied that he did not know; perhaps it lay in King Lear. He said that he had genuinely intended to quit politics and had lined up a position as Chairman of Johnstone Press, which had fallen because of these allegations. But he had retired from the party leadership before, and then come back, and perhaps Nicola had concluded he needed a stake through the heart,” Murray said. 

Sturgeon’s Scottish National Party (SNP) came up one seat short of a majority in last week’s Scottish elections, but with eight Green Party seats will have a majority to call for a second independence referendum. She remains as first minister. Salmond’s Alba Party failed to win any seats. 

In his testimony, Murray said that a source who had been present at a meeting with Sturgeon and some of her ministers told him that multiple charges had been brought against Salmond so that if just one conviction could be won Salmond would be destroyed as a sexual predator.

Armed with this information, Murray testified that he was faced with a dilemma. He wrote:

“To expose that it was Nicola Sturgeon who masterminded the conspiracy against him would be a real blow to the Independence movement. But to watch a plot to imprison an innocent man potentially for the rest of his life unfold before my eyes was also horrifying. Particularly as the most cynical part of the plot, to use the court anonymity granted to accusers of sexual abuse, to disguise who was actually behind the allegations, appeared to be working.”
Murray went on:
“The Crown can release salacious detail about attempted rape while lying naked on top of somebody in bed, and the media can echo this to the heavens. But from that moment, nobody can publish anything to contradict the Crown without being in contempt of court. It seemed to me that, in these circumstances, the Crown ought to have been a great deal more restrained in the amount of salacious detail it was making available. Certainly, there was nothing in what was happening which would contradict the information I had been given of the Crown Office being party to a political plot to destroy Salmond.”
Murray said he became knowledgeable of a meeting in which women were being pressured by SNP leaders to accuse Salmond.
“In or around March 2019, and from time to time over several months thereafter, I became aware of information tending to show that senior members of the SNP had sought improperly to involve themselves in the Salmond case. This included meeting with women to urge them to make or persevere with complaints to the police, coordination of complainers and their stories, liaison with the police over charges and attempts to persuade individuals other than the complainers to come forward as witnesses to allegations, which attempts were unsuccessful.” 

The Trial

High Court building in Edinburgh. (Scottish Courts and Tribunals.)

The Crown alleged in Murray’s one-day trial on Jan. 27, conducted entirely online and observed by Consortium News, that identifying characteristics Murray provided in his articles could be pieced together to reveal the identity of four of Salmond’s nine accusers, all of whom on March 10, 2020 were ordered to remain anonymous.

The prosecutor, Alex Prentice QC, advocate depute for the Crown, told the court Murray’s writings, as well as reader comments on his site, allegedly led to a “risk of prejudice” in the Salmond case, even though he admitted prosecutors never warned the court until after the Salmond trial was over. Murray’s articles in question were published in August 2019 (“The Alex Salmond Fit-Up”) and in January 2020 (“Yes Minister Fan Fiction.”) 

Lady Dorrian, who is leading the tribunal in Murray’s case, asked Prentice why the court was not informed before Slamond’s trial of the possible prejudice by Murray’s writings. “If the Crown was of the view that these articles pose a substantial risk to the proceedings it seems strange that the Crown did not take any action at that time, or even bring it to court?” Dorrian asked.

“I accept that,” Prentice replied. “There were a number of considerations, but the Lady is right and I recognize that is a factor the court can take into account in assessing this.” 

Dorrian replied: “I understand that material written after the order may attract a certain shading in conjunction with an earlier article. My difficulty is that those earlier arguments could breach an order that wasn’t issued until March 10.”

“At the time it didn’t apply, but [the articles] are still available so they can be taken into account,” Prentice argued. 

Lady Dorrian also challenged that putting identifying characteristics of an unnamed accuser in a search engine would bring up different results over time. Prentice maintained that Murray’s writings must be seen together, not in isolation, acting as “magnet” to draw together “needles in a haystack” to identify the anonymous accusers.

Murray’s counsel, John Scott argued before the tribunal that Murray’s response to the Crown’s letter in March was to seek press accreditation to cover the Salmond case, which he was denied. Instead Murray relied on the reporting of other journalists to write analyses of the trial. Murray had redacted the names of the anonymous accusers, Scott argued. 

On the jig-saw matter, Scott said “it is clear that he was aware of the names of the complainers and his sworn evidence is he was aware of them before the court order, but that it would not be responsible journalism to name them. …If he had wanted to do what the Crown says he did he could have done so.”

On the issue of prejudicing the trial, Scott said that if the Crown was “worried about the case they ought to have brought this to the attention of the court. … It is too late after trial. …  They can’t wait to see how it developed and after acquittal then say there was prejudice.”

On the matter of the juror, Scott said Murray’s article only speculated on why the jurors were excluded and did not report the actual reasons. The Crown called Murray’s speculation  “bizarre and unfounded,” while at the same time saying it violated the prohibition on mentioning the actual “issues raised by the Advocate Depute” in support of removing the the jurors.

Accusers’ Identity

Murray’s attorney told the court that mainstream media had reported details of the accusers. The BBC reported, for instance, in April: “The women who made the allegations against Mr Salmond included an SNP politician, a party worker and several current and former Scottish government civil servants and officials.”  In his affidavit, Murray testified:

“If they genuinely thought my article might influence a jury, given they were well aware of the article and wrote to me about it, the Crown Office had an obvious public duty to act before a trial to prevent that evil. I would have happily turned up in court and argued my case. To wait until long after the trial, after it is far too late to avert the evil they purport to be concerned about, and then make that allegation against me, is plainly pointless and vindictive and, again, sinister.”

Murray may have been a Crown target for the contempt conviction because he was among few writers defending Salmond and was vindicated by Salmond’s acquittal. Murray’s writings and his affidavits also revealed the troubling evidence of a conspiracy against Salmond, possibly including Scotland’s top political leader. 

Murray has been a thorn in the Establishment’s side since he blew the whistle on Britain’s acquiescence of torture in Uzbekistan in 2002. He later testified about it to a parliamentary committee.

Since then, Murray has been a fierce advocate for his friend Julian Assange, the imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher, whom the United States is trying to extradite from Britain. Murray’s accounts of Assange’s extradition hearing appeared on Consortium News. Murray is also a strong supporter of Scottish independence, which the British establishment vehemently opposes. 

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former UN correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times.  He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @unjoe  


15 comments for “Craig Murray Is a Free Man

  1. Jan Wiklund
    December 3, 2021 at 00:33

    But why was he released? I didn’t find anything about that in the article.

      December 3, 2021 at 01:07

      He served his sentence.

  2. Robert Wursthaus
    December 1, 2021 at 09:36

    Here’s a video of Craig’s speech as he leaves prison:
    Name any politician who can speak so eloquently ?

    December 1, 2021 at 08:20

    Sadly if anyone crosses the Establishment or exposes their lies and corruption they will be pursued with malice and hatred until they are destroyed.

  4. Ian Stevenson
    December 1, 2021 at 04:37

    I was one of the 2000

  5. William Wrigley
    December 1, 2021 at 02:08

    There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
    Charles de Montesquieu

    Enjoy your freedom with a dram and renewed vigour.

  6. The mountain hare
    November 30, 2021 at 16:36

    Very happy for him today !!

    …..hope Julian is next

    • Wendy LaRiviere
      December 1, 2021 at 17:31

      Yes! I long for both men to be free and walking among us before the end of the year!

  7. David Otness
    November 30, 2021 at 13:04

    Seeing this announcement brought tears to me. Such good yet bittersweet news in this ongoing cauldron where the martyrdom of heroes becomes more and more common. We are bearing witness to gathered dark forces wreaking their havoc on civil society; on good men and women; and indeed it’s “Step out of line, the Man comes, and takes you away.” God bless Craig Murray, Julian, and all of the rest who continue to pay for the sins of our times.

    “We carried you in our arms on Independence Day
    And now you’d throw us all aside and put us on our way
    Oh, what dear daughter ‘neath the sun would treat a father so
    To wait upon him hand and foot, yet always answer no?

    Tears of rage, tears of grief
    Why am I always the one who must be the thief?
    Come to me now, you know we’re so alone
    And life is brief

    It was all pointed out the way to go and scratched your name in sand
    Though you just thought that it was nothing more than a place for you to stand
    Now I want you to know that while you were watched, discovered that there was no one true
    That I myself really thought
    It was just a childish thing to do

    Tears of rage, tears of grief
    Why am I always the one who must be the thief?
    Come to me now, you know we’re so alone
    And life is brief

    It was all very, very painless when you ran out to receive
    All that false instruction which we never could believe
    And now the heart is filled with gold as if it was a purse
    Oh, but what kind of love is this which goes from bad to worse?
    Tears of rage, tears of grief
    Why am I always the one who must be the thief?
    Come to me now, you know we’re so alone
    And life is brief…”
    ~ Bob Dylan

    • November 30, 2021 at 22:10

      @ David Otness ?
      Well said David Otness? Craig Murray did not deserve the dark shame of such a miscarriage of Justice. Indeed, there is no better homage to the plight of Craig Murray, or his friend Julian Assange, than the prose of Bob Dylan.
      “The public good before private advantage.”
      As Usual,

  8. Alex Cox
    November 30, 2021 at 12:59

    And he was freed on St Andrews Day!

  9. Nina Felshin
    November 30, 2021 at 11:44


  10. November 30, 2021 at 09:28

    The definition of a “free man” in this age of the absurd seems oxymoronic. Sadly, that is too often the case.

    • Anonymotron
      November 30, 2021 at 18:26

      Tnx Guillermo.
      Big Bux Trumps US Const 1mo x!

  11. Nathan Mulcahy
    November 30, 2021 at 08:33

    Murray is an admirably courageous man.

Comments are closed.