The court heard this morning from Ralph Barnett. Mr Barnett testified first describing himself as a journalist with the Dundee Courier. He as then asked by Alex Prentice QC, for the Crown, if he had ever met the defendent Tommy Sheridan he said he had on two instances he remembered, one in 2001 when he interviewed him for an article and once again in October 2004 (the 11th October being his best recollection) at the home shared by his ex-partner Ruth Adamson and Katrine Trolle.
Mr Barnett stated that he had been spending an evening with Ms Adamson when Katrine Trolle arrived in a car with Tommy Sheridan. The witness told the court that Katrine Trolle had "put their heads around the door" and did "no more than say hello. They then went upstairs and he did not see them again for the rest of the night or the next morning. He was then asked to describe the three bedrooms in the house and stated one was Ruth's room one belonged to Katrine and one was a "box room" that was used for storage. He was asked if there was a bed in the room to which he replied there was not, although there may have been a "camp bed."
Mr Prentice then asked the witness if, as a journalist, he had written any story about this event, to which he replied no and if he had ever received payment from the News of the World, to which he responded "none whatsoever" He denied he was in court to "support his friends" and stated he was telling the truth. Mr Prentice then sat down and Mr Sheridan began his cross-examination.
Mr Sheridan began by questioning Mr Barnett's memory of events and put to him his testimony in the 2006 libel case that he had put the date of the event then in "August or possibly September 2004." He then asked why Mr Barnett had changed his account of the date. Mr Barnett replied that he had looked at work schedules and "given it some thought." Mr Sheridan then produced a statement the witness had made to police where he had said "In my mind I have narrowed it down to September/early October, it could't have been after the 7th October." Mr Sheridan then asked the witness about a trip to Los Angeles he took on the 12 October and if this was memorable. The witness replied it was a work trip but "different from covering Arbroath Sheriff court" Mr Sheridan suggested that if he had vistited the house the night before this trip Mr Barnett would have recalled it, this the witness denied.
Mr Sheridan then put it to the witness that he was testifying today to support his friends, this the witness denied. He also pointed out that in the 2006 case Mr Barnett was put up for 6 days in the Carlton hotel Edinburgh by the News of the World and this could have influenced him. The witness responded that it was no different from the "hospitality given to me by the Procurator Fiscal" putting him up in a hotel in Glasgow in this case. He denied lying and said "the truth is the truth" despite minor discrepancies.
Mr Sheridan then ended his examination and returned to the dock. Mr Prentice briefly re-examined the witness and sowed him a expenses claim form for the Scottish Parliament which had attached four train tickets. Mr Barnett was asked to read two of them and confirmed to the court that they were return tickets from Glasgow to Aberdeen dated 11 October 2004. With that the witness was allowed to step down.
The case continues.
Mr Prentice then asked the witness if, as a journalist, he had written any story about this event, to which he replied no and if he had ever received payment from the News of the World, to which he responded "none whatsoever" He denied he was in court to "support his friends" and stated he was telling the truth. Mr Prentice then sat down and Mr Sheridan began his cross-examination.
Mr Sheridan began by questioning Mr Barnett's memory of events and put to him his testimony in the 2006 libel case that he had put the date of the event then in "August or possibly September 2004." He then asked why Mr Barnett had changed his account of the date. Mr Barnett replied that he had looked at work schedules and "given it some thought." Mr Sheridan then produced a statement the witness had made to police where he had said "In my mind I have narrowed it down to September/early October, it could't have been after the 7th October." Mr Sheridan then asked the witness about a trip to Los Angeles he took on the 12 October and if this was memorable. The witness replied it was a work trip but "different from covering Arbroath Sheriff court" Mr Sheridan suggested that if he had vistited the house the night before this trip Mr Barnett would have recalled it, this the witness denied.
Mr Sheridan then put it to the witness that he was testifying today to support his friends, this the witness denied. He also pointed out that in the 2006 case Mr Barnett was put up for 6 days in the Carlton hotel Edinburgh by the News of the World and this could have influenced him. The witness responded that it was no different from the "hospitality given to me by the Procurator Fiscal" putting him up in a hotel in Glasgow in this case. He denied lying and said "the truth is the truth" despite minor discrepancies.
Mr Sheridan then ended his examination and returned to the dock. Mr Prentice briefly re-examined the witness and sowed him a expenses claim form for the Scottish Parliament which had attached four train tickets. Mr Barnett was asked to read two of them and confirmed to the court that they were return tickets from Glasgow to Aberdeen dated 11 October 2004. With that the witness was allowed to step down.
The case continues.
25 comments:
Wow, this Prentice guy is one slippery character, "train tickets from the Scottish Parliament to Aberdeen", well isn't Alex a clever boy. Every time I am in Waverly station I have to wade through "train tickets from the Scottish Parliament to Aberdeen", does anyone know if AP actually gets paid for this.
Did the witness know about these tickets before being shown them by the Advocate Depute. What I am getting at was he "given" this date (11th October 2004), was it "suggested" to him, or did he "pull it out of a hat"?
is there any prizes for guessing whose names are on these train tickets?
11 October 2004 - a Monday, hmm.
Aren't you confusing September and October in Sheridan's cross examination? This seems to make more sense of the questions you state were asked.
He was certain that it was not after 07 October "it couldnt have been" and now, he insists it was after that and coincidentally fits with a train ticket to aberdeen. Is this a joke? Surely the prosecution can do better than this?
Ah yes - not I see why his memory recalls 11th October...that is the date of the train tickets.
I wonder if perhaps he was informed by the Crown that these tickets existed, dated 11th October?
This is interesting as Ralph is the second witness to have nothing whatsoever to do with the original trial.
He has no obvious axe to grind, especially considering it wouldn't be good for his career if he was caught lying. reports have suggested a different tone to court in the last few days, is this the case
Thanks Stevo, fixed now.
"Wow, this Prentice guy is one slippery character, "train tickets from the Scottish Parliament to Aberdeen", well isn't Alex a clever boy. Every time I am in Waverly station I have to wade through "train tickets from the Scottish Parliament to Aberdeen", does anyone know if AP actually gets paid for this."
He means they were claimed under parly expenses, read carefully.
The Advocate Depute has presented this like a magic trick, her asks the witness for a date (number) pulls a ticket (playing card) from is magic hat, and lo and behold the same number is on the card. That to me is pretty convincing, unless of course it is a trick and the witness is a Stooge (been told beforehand), in that case it all falls apart, well, for me anyway.
"different tone", yes a bit, things have calmed down a bit since the political contingent have left. it's been a wee bit more serious and measured, like it's getting dwon to business.
Why did the Advocate Depute not produce the ticket during his original examination, why did he wait for re-examination? For effect?
"Why did the Advocate Depute not produce the ticket during his original examination, why did he wait for re-examination? For effect?" yes, this doesn't make sense, since TS wasn't given a chance to question it. How can the Advocate Depute introduce a piece of evidence that can't be challenged, especially something like this just slipped in with the potential to make such a big impression, talk about crafty.
"Why did the Advocate Depute not produce the ticket during his original examination, why did he wait for re-examination? For effect?" These tickets may re-appear at some other point in the trial, on the other hand it may be the last that we have heard of them.
A pair of tickets from Glasgow to Aberdeen mean nothing, all Alex Prentice has done is left them hanging in the air, so that people will make all sort of assumptions about them... "expenses from Scottish Parliament"... until we know better they could have been bought by Bill & Ben for their trip to the Flowerpot Men Festival.
Trip to LA sounds a bit dodgy fpr a journalist for a local daily
Yes, I was thinking that too, a "work trip", what possible interest could the Arbroath Daily have in Los Angeles?, especially given the budget of local papers, I'd reckon he'd have been lucky to get the bus fare to the local courthouse.
Anything to back up the Ralph Barnett LA story, you'd think that he would still be writing about it - Our Man in LA lol
With respect to Mr Barnet he worked for DC Thompson not just the local paper you mentioned.
`With respect to Mr Barnet he worked for DC Thompson not just the local paper you mentioned.`
You never know, he might, one day be working for a much bigger outfit?.
I stand corrected, James. DC Publisher of the Beano and Dandy, and Oor Wullie as well as a good few newspapers. My apologies.
Several people here do not understand either the system for lodging productions, or the restricted use that a prosecutor may make of re-examination.
The train tickets could not be "produced" for the first time in re-examination, as they must have been lodged as productions by the Crown four weeks before the start of the trial.
The Crown having elicited from examination in chief that the witness thought the date was about the 11th of October, that was sufficient. When this date was specifically challenged in cross-examination, the Crown was then entitled to clarify the m,atter raised in cross-examination. As the tickets must by law have been disclosed to the defence it may be the case that their significance was not grasped when cross-examination was undertaken, but the AD's action was entirely proper; happens in trials all the time.
I dont think that the defence failed to realise the significance at all. Throughout Sheridan's cross of Trolle he referred to being in Aberdeen on those dates. The key nthing from this witness is clearly the fact that he insisted in a previous statement that it couldnt have happened after 07 October but now has a date that coincides exactly with Crown evidence.
"As the tickets must by law have been disclosed to the defence it may be the case that their significance was not grasped when cross-examination was undertaken", yes that's what some commenters didn't get, why even draw attention to the date if you knew that the Advocate Depute has train tickets up his sleeve to back up the Crown's story?
Anyway, thanks for clearing that up; it's always good to hear your expert opinion.
Post a Comment