This was meant to be an article about the Plum Roses and the George Crew, two bands of mercenaries who recently had a falling out resulting in one of the Plum Roses ending up in the harbour chained to a log. But alas, as I was sitting down to write that story I was informed Sid Howler wanted a word.
I had recently been told that his trial would take place on Sunday, but I had not been able to get more information than that. Talking to the man himself might give me the information I needed, so off I went.
I cannot actually write much about my meeting with Howler, mostly because he could not actually tell me much. But what he could tell me also tells a story.
I found Howler in the cellar beneath the Pig and Whistle, accompanied, as usual, by Old Town’s longest-serving residents: the rats.
Howler insists that the arrangement is mutually beneficial.
“They’re the district’s eldest tenants,” he explained. “It scarcely aligns with my mantra to force ’em out of their natural habitat.”
I remain unconvinced that a tavern cellar qualifies as the rats’ natural habitat, but that is an investigation for another day, preferably one involving someone else’s nose.
After the obligatory discussion of rodent tenancy, Howler confirmed that his trial is scheduled to take place this Sunday at the eighth bell.
That was the good news.
The bad news, according to Howler, is that the court has imposed new restrictions on what he may say before the hearing.
“They’ve managed t’convince the judge t’retroactively tack a gag-order onto my bail conditions,” Howler told me. “Means I’m presently prohibited from broachin’ the topic o’ my charges, as well as the topic o’ my defence.”
Howler claims that if he discusses either publicly, his bail may be revoked and he could be held in contempt of court.
This means that, despite standing trial in only two days, Howler cannot publicly explain the case against him or outline his defence. It also means that I cannot presently ask him to address new details concerning the charges, evidence, or arguments expected to be raised at the hearing.
That restriction is, according to Howler, retroactive. It was not originally part of the bail conditions under which he was released, but was added afterwards.
First red flag. Keep counting, there will be more.
A temporary restriction on discussing sensitive witnesses or evidence might be understandable. A blanket prohibition preventing an accused man from publicly discussing both the charges against him and his own defence is considerably broader, especially when the case has already involved disputed warrants, secret transfers, allegations of denied counsel, mercenary participation, and illegal magical interrogation.
However, it was the second piece of news that truly caught my attention.
According to Howler, Knight-Captain Bella Reed has successfully requested that access to the hearing be restricted.
More specifically, Howler claims that I have personally been banned from attending his trial.
“You’re banned from the courtroom” he said.
I asked whether he meant journalists generally, he did not. “You specifically.”
Nothing says openness and confidence quite like singling out a named journalist and ensuring he cannot see what takes place inside the room.
Howler says he attempted naming me as a witness for his defence.
There is some logic to that request. I personally witnessed both attempted arrests outside the Pig and Whistle. I observed the confusion surrounding the first warrant, the involvement of masked operatives, and the disagreement between military personnel and recognised guards over authority and procedure.
I also have direct experience of Reed’s methods.
Following the publication of earlier articles concerning the affair, I was approached under the pretence of having coffee and a civil conversation. I was instead taken through a hidden passage beneath a bookshop, searched, placed inside an interrogation room, and questioned about my confidential sources and possession of leaked documents. My notebook was taken and copied. Those present threatened me with Void-based intrusion into my mind and suggested that my memories could be altered or removed.
I have until now avoided describing that experience in full as I did not wish to turn an investigation into a story about myself.
Unfortunately, it appears that the matter is no longer entirely avoidable.
According to Howler, his request to call me as a witness was rejected.
“I was promptly told that I’m not ‘allowed’ t’have you as a witness o’ mine,” he said. “Ban ain’t lifted.”
To summarise the position as Howler described it: he is not permitted to discuss his defence publicly, I am not permitted to observe the hearing, and he is apparently not permitted to call me as a witness despite my having directly observed several relevant events.
It is possible that the court has sound legal reasons for these decisions. It would be useful to hear them.
Howler believes the restrictions are the result of Reed’s influence over the proceedings.
That remains his accusation, not an independently established fact. I have not seen the court order, the request used to restrict attendance, or the stated reasons for excluding me. I have also not received any communication from the court informing me that I am banned, though Howler warned that Reed’s personnel would intercept me if I attempted to approach the hearing.
A journalist who witnessed the raids and was later detained by Reed cannot attend. The same journalist cannot be called as a witness.
Meanwhile, the defendant is subject to a gag order preventing him from publicly discussing his defence.
Howler described the proceeding as being “rigged.” That is his word, and it is a serious accusation.
At present, I would instead describe the situation as opaque, which is the polite journalistic term for being unable to see what the hell is going on.
Everyone deserves a fair trial.
That includes people accused of bomb threats, organised crime, smuggling, conspiracy, rioting, and attempting to kill servants of the Crown. The seriousness of those accusations makes proper procedure more important, not less.
If the evidence against Howler is strong, it should survive scrutiny, it should survive witnesses and it should survive a journalist sitting quietly at the back of the room with a notebook.
Howler said he hoped to speak publicly about the hearing once the gag order no longer applied, though whether he will be in a position to do so naturally depends upon the judgement.