tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post5813049692084476735..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: A numpty's guide to appealling Tommy Sheridan's conviction...Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-49145233562386108962012-05-31T12:53:41.851+01:002012-05-31T12:53:41.851+01:00this argument is pointless the important question ...this argument is pointless the important question is about the politically motivated investigation and prosecution in the first place. A civil jury in Edinburgh heard substantially the same evidence and came to a completely different conclusion. This in itself should be enough to create reasonable doubt.The decision to start an investigation of perjury in such circumstances can only be described as politically motivated and oppressive. The facts emerging in the Leveson inquiry about the close relations between News International, the political establishment and the police make it clear that this persecution was unethical and contrary to the principles of justice rather than the narrowly defined legal points being argued here. It was rather a cunning trap that Tommy set for Andy Coulson, rather ironic that Coulson's been charged with perjury in a perjury trial and as Coulson will no doubt be reflecting his loyalty to the Murdoch's has not been reciprocated as they hang him out to dry.euannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-65141446922995822382011-08-07T10:15:41.884+01:002011-08-07T10:15:41.884+01:00I'm enjoying the view as those who told us how...I'm enjoying the view as those who told us how serious perjury is and how much public interest was at stake in sending Sheridan to jail now rush to tell us how the perjury of others doesn't matter. Comedy gold, widely available in Scottish pubs and internet forums.<br /><br />At times like this I'm so glad we're not independent. As England holds senior police officers to account for collusion, we seem incapable of even grasping the concept, and that's despite us having the most obvious case to answer where millions of pounds of taxpayers' money was spent to help the News of the World overcome a setback at a civil trial. Honestly, you couldn't make it up.Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-61553226564310371872011-08-07T00:43:39.643+01:002011-08-07T00:43:39.643+01:00A response or two to some of the points you raise....A response or two to some of the points you raise. Firstly...<br /><br /><b>John_b</b>,<br /><br />I haven't written anything about it yet, but the definition of perjury in Scots Law is not <i>simply</i> lying under oath. According to the case law, for lies under oath to found a perjury charge, they must be "material", "relevant" to the trial in which they are solicited. I haven't had time to look into the jurisprudence of the High Court on this in any detail - and <i>prima facie</i> I find them a bit unclear. However, this much is definitely true. Lying under oath, in Scots law, is not always perjury, and it will depend on what you lie about, and what proceeding you give that false evidence in concern. I cannot say, with any confidence, at this point whether any of Coulson's testimony - if knowingly falsely given - would be perjury in law or not. It does raise interesting questions similar to those I was discussing about a new evidence appeal, since Sheridan himself conceded that Coulson's evidence was peripheral to the issues dealt with by the jury in the indictment.<br /><br /><b>Albalha,</b><br /><br />Although I've heard the rumours about Paul McBride and Coulson - I know nothing about a Bird connection. What sort of ethical issue did you have in mind?<br /><br /><b>terrence, shuggie,</b><br /><br />I can't really understand where you are coming from. By all means, if you find the reasoning compelling, identify and argue some aspect of the procedure was unfair. However, it is just daft to be making predictions about what the Court of Criminal Appeal would do, without engaging with the standards they apply - and that isn't just a question of my opinion. Shuggie, you are likely correct that juries do not make decisions in the strict manner in which the law ascribes to them. However, here we're talking about what a Court will do, not a jury. And I'll tell you this for nothing, no Scots Court will allow a criminal appeal, based on the argument that "juries aren't interested in legalese but go by instinct". Judges are profoundly interested in legalese - and it is judges who will make any decision in any further Sheridan appeal which might be undertaken.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-51953238610705854582011-08-06T23:30:03.797+01:002011-08-06T23:30:03.797+01:00Indy,
I'm not sure why you're ignoring my ...Indy,<br />I'm not sure why you're ignoring my main point. That juries aren't interested in legalese but go by instinct. Their instinct about the NOTW wasn't tainted by dead children hacking or police bribery so they took what they said as probably true. Subsequently we've seen that NOTW hacked phones etc so it was easy for them to splice Tommy's hacked voice onto the video of the bloke in the infamous confession video. The BBC regularly splice people into videos to further their agenda so the NOTW would feel able to do the same.shuggienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-69352213953591326852011-08-05T19:20:52.670+01:002011-08-05T19:20:52.670+01:00Incidentally I know quite a few people around the ...Incidentally I know quite a few people around the Tommy Sheridan circle who have never even pretended that the truth mattered. All that mattered to them was that it was about getting one over on the News of the World, as if that was an excuse for committing perjury.<br /><br />I have even heard people saying it is outrageous that Tommy was prosecuted for perjury when other people tell lies in court and don't get done for it. They overlook the fact that there is a big difference between people involved in a criminal lifestyle and members of parliament - or at least there should be!Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-55263059111463596772011-08-05T19:09:51.542+01:002011-08-05T19:09:51.542+01:00No Shuggie I am not wavering - I believe that Tomm...No Shuggie I am not wavering - I believe that Tommy told lies because of the number of his ex party colleagues who testified to that effect.<br /><br />My personal opinion from the start was that he was lying for the simple reason that I did not believe it was possible that three quarters of the SSP NEC would engage in a conspiracy which involved lying to the police and then lying in court in order support a story published in the News of the World. <br /><br />Given how strongly very left wing people feel about the NoW that seemed to me to be so impausible as to be impossible - besides which the chances of a conspiracy involving so many people actually succeeding would always have been slight, the more people there are involved in a conspiracy the less likely it being that said conspiracy will come off.Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-22589447911583478372011-08-05T01:11:40.054+01:002011-08-05T01:11:40.054+01:00However even if Coulson did lie and perjure himsel...However even if Coulson did lie and perjure himself and the emails were "lost" unless they had evidence that Tommy hadn't done what he was accused of like planning a conspiracy with the witnesses (of which I was one) how does it help TS?<br /><br />TS may be able to seek damages of News International if they illegally hacked into his phone - good luck to him if he does but it doesn't change the fact that he was convicted of perjury on evidence with nothing to do with Coulson and hacking phones. <br /><br />TS should just put his head down and he'll be out for Xmas on a Home Detention Curfew.<br /><br />I think it is safe to say regardless on what position we find ourselves on about Mr S that the News of the Screws did not cover themselves in glory and have been quite dastardly but even in their dastardliness it doesn't take away from the fact that Mr S lied in court.<br /><br />Sometimes its just best to be a bit contrite and live with the consequences and build a bridge and get over it.<br /><br />Mr S should accept his conviction and look to the future as should others.Ms Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01488172624713157756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-66580602439713756162011-08-04T23:20:41.207+01:002011-08-04T23:20:41.207+01:00My 2c of respectful disagreement
http://lefthooke...My 2c of respectful disagreement<br /><br />http://lefthooked.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/hacking-pppeals-and-video-tapes-pt-1/James Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-27487625542188904802011-08-04T19:55:54.249+01:002011-08-04T19:55:54.249+01:00Thanks for the comments, folk. I intend to respond...Thanks for the comments, folk. I intend to respond more meaningfully anon to some of the points you raised. However, you will all likely be interested to hear, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14412354?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter" rel="nofollow">via the BBC,</a> that Sheridan's appeal against conviction has apparently been rejected by judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal, upholding Wheatley's rejection of the case in the first "sift".Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-58379001114425354182011-08-04T16:06:49.481+01:002011-08-04T16:06:49.481+01:00Holebender said..
"I thought the source of t...Holebender said..<br /><br />"I thought the source of the evidence that Tommy had told lies was members (or ex-members) of the SSP! LPW was even at pains to stress this in his article - that whether or not NOTW people lied may not have had any significant bearing on the jury's deliberations."<br /><br /><br />It's just LPW's opinion holey. I followed the trial and saw the NOTW video getting more interest than anything his ex friends in the SSP said. Plus the 'missing' NOTW e mails would have been handy to the defence.shuggienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-48665184208942697592011-08-04T16:00:10.563+01:002011-08-04T16:00:10.563+01:00Shuggie,
"Did Tommy's defence team menti...Shuggie,<br /><br />"<i>Did Tommy's defence team mention the 2003 inquiry where Coulson and Brooks admitted police bribery?</i>"<br /><br />This is, of course, subject to the fact that Tommy dismissed his defence team and represented himself. And that he didn't raise the subject of the inquiry.<br /><br />"<i>The 'proof' that Tommy told lies was from a source that failed to tell the jury it had previously bribed police officers and had hacked dead people's phones to help sell newspapers. Do you not think the jury would have come to a different verdict if they had known this ?</i><br />The 'proof' came from a number of sources. Yes, the NOTW video was one but, as Holebender states, so were his ex-comrades from the SSP Executive. That would not prevent the jury being swayed of course.<br /><br />I would note that despite my ocassional breaches of the Road Traffic Act, and even the one conviction, that doesn't mean that I am guilty of masterminding an establishment and media conspiracy to chuck the leader of the Dodgy Tan party into the nearest oubliette.Surreptitious Evilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393411103584747731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-19952734073640181692011-08-04T15:26:19.774+01:002011-08-04T15:26:19.774+01:00I thought the source of the evidence that Tommy ha...I thought the source of the evidence that Tommy had told lies was members (or ex-members) of the SSP! LPW was even at pains to stress this in his article - that whether or not NOTW people lied may not have had any significant bearing on the jury's deliberations.Holebendernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-73210691889733219952011-08-04T15:09:43.923+01:002011-08-04T15:09:43.923+01:00Indy said..
" It would appear that both side...Indy said..<br /><br />" It would appear that both sides told lies in court"<br /><br />You're wavering from your previous position ( Tommy deliberately told lies ) and accusing us of equivocating ;)<br />The 'proof' that Tommy told lies was from a source that failed to tell the jury it had previously bribed police officers and had hacked dead people's phones to help sell newspapers. Do you not think the jury would have come to a different verdict if they had known this ?shuggienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-22408438408208546442011-08-04T14:40:14.127+01:002011-08-04T14:40:14.127+01:00I am sorry but you are both still equivocating.
...I am sorry but you are both still equivocating. <br /><br />This is not about whether you are for Tommy Sheridan or for the NoW.<br /><br />It would appear that both sides told lies in court. And both sides should be treated equally. <br /><br />If anybody lies on oath that is perjury - and they should be punished for it.Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-26367345974645938602011-08-04T14:22:34.766+01:002011-08-04T14:22:34.766+01:00Indy no-one is equivocating or conflating.
A cabal...Indy no-one is equivocating or conflating.<br />A cabal of witnesses, with an illegal agenda, both unknown to the court, raises the question of contempt.<br />NOTW witnesses either side may have dispelled this suspicion.<br /><br />Outwith the legal niceties there is disquiet that a media organisation can wield such power.<br /><br />That evidence against Sheridan may have been obtained illegally, no matter by whom, warrants investigation.<br /><br />The state cannot subcontract its way around these legal niceties.<br /><br />What is suspicious is the desire of so many to keep the lid firmly closed on this one. And the facile arguments put up to ensure this.terrencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15075471706398555654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-11730821898443795872011-08-04T12:14:53.538+01:002011-08-04T12:14:53.538+01:00Indy said...
"The fact that the News of the ...Indy said...<br /><br />"The fact that the News of the World are scum does NOT make it OK for an elected member of the Scottish Parliament to deliberately tell lies in a court of law."<br /><br />He was found guilty because the full scuminess of his accusers wasn't known by the jury. Was the jury told that the NOTW editor bribed police officers ? Would that not have swayed them to see the whole NOTW story as a pack of lies and Tommy told the truth ? You say Tommy told lies because a jury found him guilty of telling lies. That jury wasn't aware of all the facts and may have decided that he wasn't telling lies after all if they had been made aware of the facts.shuggienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-88117025949274713422011-08-04T11:25:26.062+01:002011-08-04T11:25:26.062+01:00Oh. My. God.
The fact that the News of the Worl...Oh. My. God. <br /><br />The fact that the News of the World are scum does NOT make it OK for an elected member of the Scottish Parliament to deliberately tell lies in a court of law.<br /><br />Two wrongs do not make a right.<br /><br />It makes me sick to see so many people trying to equivocate on that issue.<br /><br />The whole system surely depends on citizens believing that they have an obligation to tell the truth when they are in a oourt of law. <br /><br />And we are surely entitled to expect that a member of parliament, a person occupying a responsible and respected position in society, feels under that same obligation.<br /><br />If that is grounds for anyone leaving the country then God help us.Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-77543871572612800342011-08-04T09:15:44.069+01:002011-08-04T09:15:44.069+01:00Terrence.
Yes hopefully he will at least get a re ...Terrence.<br />Yes hopefully he will at least get a re trial. Jurors are just normal citizens so you can imagine the outcome of the trial being different if the NOTW / Dowler/ Palin etc story had been in the public domain before the trial started.<br />There should also be an inquiry into the role of BBC Scotland and their hour long 'documentary' ( attack )on Sheridan on the day he was found guilty. They've refused to explain how they obtained confidential police interview tapes of Tommy and his wife or how they managed to make an hour long documentary just hours after the trial. They must have had the tapes before Tommy was found guilty. This is a criminal offence punishable by prison. Failure to bring the BBC to account has emboldened them and allowed them to defame Ally McCoist where they admitted splicing a smirking Ally from a previous interview into an interview about Sectarianism. It tried to show that Ally didn't care about the subject. Indeed the bbc man said 'Well Ally might not care but others do'. Only when Ally refused to speak to the BBC did they relent and apologise for their 'mistake'. They also admitted splicing a smirking Alex Salmond into a speech by John Swinney making it appear that Alex was mocking him. There are hundreds of other examples of BBC media manipulation used by them to further their agenda. All paid for by us mugs on threat of prison.shuggienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-31832683140589942862011-08-04T00:41:26.452+01:002011-08-04T00:41:26.452+01:00Shuggie thinking along your lines a re-trial must ...Shuggie thinking along your lines a re-trial must be on the cards.terrencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15075471706398555654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-41112437936225650922011-08-03T17:52:39.238+01:002011-08-03T17:52:39.238+01:00It's unlikely that Tommy would have been found...It's unlikely that Tommy would have been found guilty if the jury had known that the editor in charge of all the stories about him was a liar who had no problem bribing police officers and committing perjury. They would have looked at the case in a different light. More likely to take Tommy's side. Did Tommy's defence team mention the 2003 inquiry where Coulson and Brooks admitted police bribery ? This might have swayed the jurors who voted in favour of News International.shuggienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-3016620974213146802011-08-03T14:59:54.010+01:002011-08-03T14:59:54.010+01:00Wow you're not just a pretty face, Sir. Indeed...Wow you're not just a pretty face, Sir. Indeed you have laid out the main issues with clarity and precision.<br /> Living at some distance from Scotland and not a NOTW reader my knowledge of this case came from the usual sparse BBC National News coverage of Scottish affairs.<br />However I was in Glasgow a few weeks after the latest court case and was informed on several occasions that there remained a very bad smell from this affair. It was being said that the 'lady journalist' involved had been under considerable 'pressure' from NOTW to testify. There was also some concern about police behaviour. Could NOTW have had a similar relationship to Glasgow police as they seem to have had with the Met ?<br />I assume you are not a Glasgow solicitor and thus have no knowledge of these concerns<br /> <br />PS I appreciate that your use of your mother's opinions was to help establish your own impartiality.<br />Sadly her views only served to remind me why I fled Scotland many years ago and sought sanctuary south of the border!Grannygalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-46666156999650914342011-08-03T07:51:30.366+01:002011-08-03T07:51:30.366+01:00I'm not in the legal profession so apologies i...I'm not in the legal profession so apologies if this sounds like a dumb question but what are the ethics regards McBride representing Coulson and Bird? I appreciate QC's take on the work they want but is there nothing that would raise issues over this situation?Albalhanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-72605342041396740552011-08-03T00:10:21.832+01:002011-08-03T00:10:21.832+01:00It takes the most astonishing IT skills to lose so...It takes the most astonishing IT skills to lose so many emails.<br />A man of this gargantuan carelessness will always be in demand.terrencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15075471706398555654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-28665750444820827942011-08-02T19:13:05.235+01:002011-08-02T19:13:05.235+01:00John b - you'll find some thoughts re Mr Couls...John b - you'll find some thoughts re Mr Coulson and perjury charges here - http://bit.ly/mYtzd6. If I was a betting man, and thankfully I am not, I think there is more likelihood of Mr Bird from the NotW witnesses facing such a charge rather than the other two, and this in respect of the "missing" emails.<br /><br />LPW - an excellent analysis as always. Recent cases at the High Court have shown that, as Lord Hope commented, it is very hard to get over the "new evidence" "miscarriage of justice" hurdle.<br /><br />Whilst I would not be quite as dogmatic as Mr McBride QC (although he did in fact have the benefit of seeing all the evidence in court as Mrs Sheridan's counsel) I think that, in the absence of an email being a "smoking gun" as you suggest, then the appeal has little or no prospect of success. <br /><br />Whilst a failure to get through the first sift is not fatal, there are, as far as I am aware, not a huge number of cases which, having failed at first sift, get through at the second.<br /><br />From a political point of view (and clealry politics have no bearing on the Court's deliberations) the best way for the appeal to be disposed of is by it failing to pass the sift. Mr Sheridan might then allege that he has been denied justice, whilst avoiding the further humiliation of having the whole matter re-hashed at the Appeal Court, where I am sure there would be adverse comment on the capabilities of Mr Sheridan in representing himself at the trial (and indeed at the appeal should he choose to act for himself there).<br /><br />In fact, if Mr Sheridan's counsel had conducted the trial in the manner which he did, then he might well have an "Anderson" appeal open to him on the grounds of defective representation. I do not think however that one can found an appeal on defective representation by oneself!<br /><br />Regarding Patrick Hadfield's point in connection with a damages action by Mr Sheridan, then I think this might be a card in respect of the NotW appeal against his damages award. I think the appeal issue in the civil case provides even more juicy legal meat for us to get our teeth into, which I am presently chewing on.Paul McConvillehttp://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-23524086748313768122011-08-02T15:25:53.727+01:002011-08-02T15:25:53.727+01:00Your mum sounds like a very sensible lady. I am w...Your mum sounds like a very sensible lady. I am with her all the way!Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.com