Alexander Mercouris says the conviction of former British diplomat Craig Murray undermines the right of the media to report cases, which is vital to protect the right to a fair trial.

Tower Bridge in London. (FlyingShrimp, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
In the last Letter from London, I discussed the background to the contempt of court case against the historian, journalist and former diplomat Craig Murray for his reporting of the criminal and civil proceedings against Scotland's former first minister, Alex Salmond, on allegations of sexual assault, for which
he was acquitted on all charges at trial.
I also discussed in that letter the political situation in Scotland: the rise of sentiment favoring independence from Britain, the power struggle within the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and
the alarm that the growth of pro-independence sentiment in Scotland is causing in London.
The case against Murray has resulted in a judgment convicting him of contempt of court. He is now at serious risk of up to two years in prison with sentencing set for May 7.
Before discussing the judgment itself there is a point to be made about one aspect of the Court's conduct
that is seriously worrying.
There was an
eight-week gap between Murray's trial and the announcement of his conviction.
The trial lasted only one day, the evidence was limited in its extent and it was largely agreed by the prosecution and defence lawyers. It is not clear why the Court needed two months to deliver its judgment. Normally after such a trial, judgment would be delivered in a few days or a week at most. The delay seemed
both cruel and unnecessary to Murray and his family.
It is useless to speculate about the reason why, but Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights requires that determination of a criminal charge should take place at a "fair and public hearing within a reasonable time." For the record, eight weeks in a case like this
does not seem like a "reasonable time."
Comment: See also: