A woman who tried to cite 500 defence witnesses, including sheriffs and the chief constable, has been found guilty of threatening to torch dog kennels.
Kimberly Baff represented herself during a five-day trial at Aberdeen Sheriff Court.
The 35-year-old, of Jute Street, Aberdeen, had denied a charge of resisting, obstructing or hindering police by tensing her arms, clenching her fists, raising her arms in a bid to avoid arrest and struggling with officers.
She also denied behaving in a threatening or abusive manner by threatening to set fire to kennels, repeatedly shouting and swearing and making threats.
It is not known which kennels the threats related to, but it revolved around a dispute about a dog’s ashes.
But Baff was found guilty of both offences, which happened on August 9 2022, following the heated trial during which she clashed with various court officials.
After taking to the witness stand herself to give evidence, Baff began listing other defence witnesses she wished to call.
After reaching eight names, including police officers, kennel staff, the chief constable and sheriffs, Baff declared that her full witness list extended to more than 500 people.
She told Sheriff David Clapham: “I’m going to be calling the chief constable of Police Scotland and I’m also calling every sheriff that’s had involvement in this case.
“There will be witnesses missing from this list.
“I had duly already notified the PF of the witnesses, I duly notified yourself, I’ve duly cited all my defence witnesses and I have consistently asked for warrants for the witnesses not attending.”
Sheriff Clapham replied: “If I’m to make a decision about which witnesses I allow to be called and which witnesses I do not allow to be called, this is not a movable feast.
“I have to know what the list is so that I can ask the procurator fiscal for his comments on the name of every person involved in this list.”
‘You must hear all 500’
Baff, turning to fiscal depute Andrew McMann, said: “Would you kindly assist the sheriff in providing the full list of defence witnesses? I believe there’s over 500 defence witnesses.”
The fiscal did not have the list and so was unable to provide it.
Sheriff Clapham said: “I think the position, Ms Baff, is that you’ve had ample opportunity.
“You knew very well that what I was going to do today, once you had concluded your evidence, was…”
Baff interrupted the sheriff before he could finish.
He responded: “Please, Ms Baff. I show remarkable patience to you when you’re speaking and I therefore please request that you respect me sufficiently to allow me to complete my sentence.”
Baff apologised and he continued, asking her to confirm that the list of names of witnesses she had verbally provided in court, totalling eight names, was correct.
She replied: “It’s not correct because I do not have the paperwork to show the 500 people that need cited in this case.
“They all have relevancy.”
The sheriff said: “So, what you’re saying is that I should hear evidence from 500 people?”
Baff replied: “Yes, certainly, sir. In the interest of justice if they’ve got something to bring to this case then certainly, you must hear all 500.”
Mr McMann objected to the witnesses being called, stating they were “not relevant to the charges before the court”.
As the fiscal continued, Baff became agitated in the dock and started shouting over him.
The sheriff intervened: “I’m sorry, I will not have people interrupting while other people are speaking.”
The court adjourned while the lively debate between Baff and Mr McMann continued.
‘How can you possibly uphold that?’
After a longer-than-planned adjournment, the trial resumed and Mr McMann went through the list of eight defence witnesses he had, explaining why each of them was not relevant to the case.
Sheriff Clapham upheld the fiscal’s position and ruled that Baff would not be allowed to call her 500 witnesses.
The aggrieved Baff exclaimed: “How can you possibly uphold that?”
In his closing statement, Mr McMann highlighted key parts of the evidence from the trial and invited the sheriff to find Baff guilty.
In hers, Baff said: “I wholeheartedly refute everything the PF has said.”
She added that her initial arrest was “completely unlawful” and the entire case had been “nothing but oppressive”.
The sheriff found her guilty of both charges.
He deferred sentence for background reports and a psychiatric assessment.
Baff reacted by exclaiming: “Are yous ripping the utter p**s?”
She is due to return to court to be sentenced next month.
For all the latest court cases in Aberdeen as well as crime and breaking incidents, join our Facebook group.
