tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post406490767305356415..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: Solidarity party litigant...Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-54110958701973208922010-10-13T15:31:51.769+01:002010-10-13T15:31:51.769+01:00In fairness to the legal lady, Am Firinn, Megrahi ...In fairness to the legal lady, Am Firinn, Megrahi did drop the appeal in question so she didn't get the chance to make the case. As I recall, she did don her wig during the High Court hearing requesting bail pending the outcome of his appeal but given the stage of his condition, the Lord Justice General declined to liberate him.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-6616454235010012072010-10-12T22:20:18.100+01:002010-10-12T22:20:18.100+01:00Still, you can't blame him for sacking Maggie ...Still, you can't blame him for sacking Maggie Scott. The question is why, in the first place, he hired someone who signally failed to get Mr al-Megrahi off, even though the SCCRC evidently thinks he had a respectable case!Am Firinnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-89086882131157261642010-10-12T22:12:00.568+01:002010-10-12T22:12:00.568+01:00Incidentally, as Amer Anwar does not have rights o...Incidentally, as Amer Anwar does not have rights of audience in the High Court, he cannot question Tommy Sheridan.<br /><br />Inciodentally, should he exercise his right not to give evidence, he cannot be questioned at all, although since April 1996 the Advocate Depute is no longerprevented by statute from commenting on his failure to give evidence.the_voice_of_reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10179007944478552588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-2806771266436688272010-10-12T21:58:07.679+01:002010-10-12T21:58:07.679+01:00Ah well, I was looking forward to Tommy having to ...Ah well, I was looking forward to Tommy having to run from witeness box to lectern while posing questions like "I put it to me that I'm not telling me the truth"James Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-63221274506039805492010-10-12T21:50:05.365+01:002010-10-12T21:50:05.365+01:00Speak of a lurking legal savant, and one shall app...<i>Speak of a lurking legal savant, and one shall appear!</i> Many thanks for that most helpful clarification, Voice of Reason and in particular the emphasis you put on that second relevancy aspect. <br /><br />However entertaining posing questions to oneself in the third person might have been, the approach you describe seems rather more practical!Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-22453414011364309452010-10-12T21:40:36.658+01:002010-10-12T21:40:36.658+01:00You go into the witness box, are placed on oath (o...You go into the witness box, are placed on oath (or affirm), and may then state your evidence. in practice, the trial judge will offer some very limited guidance as to what the witness (as he is at that point) may or may not say, and may ask questions to clarify any ambiguities or obscurities. <br /><br />He will then be cross-examined by counsel for the co-accused, by the Advocate depute, and may then (in theory) respond by re-examination, although that is a little impractical in this situation. Lord Bracadale's role is to ensure that a party accused does not stray into areas of inadmissible evidence, or make statements of fact about witnesses that were not prefaced in cross-examination.<br /><br />For example, if Tommy were to suggest in his own evidence that witness X, who gave evidence on day Y, was misleading the court by reason of having concoted a story along with witness Z for financial or political gain, but this was not put previously to either witness, the statement would be disallowed. Likewise, if Tommy suggests in evidence that a witness lied about an uncconnected matter at a meeting about which nothing had been heard before, that would be ruled irrelevant to the issue of whether Tommy committed perjury on a separate specified occasion.the_voice_of_reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10179007944478552588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-27649979571202467392010-10-12T21:32:24.241+01:002010-10-12T21:32:24.241+01:00In all honesty, James, I haven't a clue. Perha...In all honesty, James, I haven't a clue. Perhaps some wise lurking legal practitioner might speak up and resolve the dubiety. <br /><br />A few pertinent thoughts, however. In many respects, taking on your own defence has the potential advantage of permitting you to address the jury without doing so under oath or submitting to the cross-examination of opposing counsel. I note this merely in general terms.<br /><br />That said, as I recall my Scots law, the offence of perjury is only competent where the accused person has taken an oath or affirmation to tell the truth in an earlier court proceeding. In this case, it means that Sheridan must have "entered the witness box" in his civil trial when he was conducting his own case - otherwise the current criminal charges wouldn't be competent. <br /><br />Commonsensically, I imagine that if the accused person decides to give evidence on their own part - they make a sort of statement before being cross-examined by the Crown and in this case, potentially by counsel appearing for the co-accused. That's just a guess, however.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-86603070541959343172010-10-12T20:47:57.427+01:002010-10-12T20:47:57.427+01:00How does it work when you defend yourself in a Sco...How does it work when you defend yourself in a Scottish court, do you make a statement then get cross-examined or do you have someone else question you? (McBride sayJames Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-87998600743684480502010-10-12T20:26:32.037+01:002010-10-12T20:26:32.037+01:00How does it work when you defend yourself in a Sco...How does it work when you defend yourself in a Scottish court, do you make a statement then get cross-examined or do you have someone else question you? (McBride sayJames Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.com