 |
| Paul McBride QC |
The final session of the week was taken up with Paul Mcbride QC cross-examining Anvar Khan. He opened his questioning by going over Ms Khan's varying accounts of the date of the alleged visit by her and Mr Sheridan, to the Cupids club in Manchester. Mr McBride pointed out that the witness had told this court that the date of the trip was September 2002, while she had told the jury at the 2006 libel trial it was November 2002,. The witness agreed she had. He then asked if Ms Khan had given an affidavit to the News of the World giving the date as "the end of 2001" which she agreed she had. Mr McBride then read through that affidavit and asked the witness "this is a perfectly simple question, why 2001?" Ms Khan responded that she had felt under pressure to sign this document. Mr Mcbride put it to the witness that the affidavit must have been typed before she signed it and had been based on information "given by you" Ms Khan said that Mr McBride should" refer to her previous answer," to which the QC retorted "This is not the houses of Parliament Ms Khan."
Ms Khan then suggested that the date in the affidivit "might be a typo" to which Mr McBride responded that this was a sworn statement under oath. The witness replied she had not realised at the time she was under oath to which Mr McBride responded by showing the court that at the bottom of the document she had signed where it said "Sworn by Anvar Khan." Mr McBride asked what she had thought this meant, "a curse?" and warned her to be "careful as you are digging yourself into a perjury trial of your own." Ms Khan said she had realised in 2006 she had made a mistake and told the jury at the July 2006 libel trial that she had. Mr McBride then produced a police statement the witness had made in October 2007 where the witness stated "I signed the affidavit because it was the truth and I wanted to help Bob Bird" (Scottish editor of the News of the World.)
Mr McBride put it to the witness that she had lied in telling the libel jury the date was 2006 and then telling the police in 2007 her original statement was true. Mr McBride then walked over to the jury box and said to the witness "this jury are not stupid" and that "you do not know what truth is any more do you?" Ms Khan asked "was that a question" to which Mr Mcbride stated that his statement had "do you at the end...do you; question mark!" The witness replied that she was telling the truth. Mr McBride then said to the witness "we can't believe a word that comes out of your mouth Ms Khan, to which she replied "I thought we were not supposed to make jokes." Mr Mcbride replied "don't you be cheeky with me, the court has had quite enough of that from you."
Ms Khan was then questioned about her statement about taking condoms to the Cupids club and asked how many she had with her. When Ms Khan replied "a bag" Mr McBride asked if she meant a "bin bag" and asked again how many. The witness replied that she had a "small white paper bag" of condoms as she wanted to make sure she had "safe sex." Mr McBride then suggested that "walking about a sex club with a bag of condoms is something that would "stick in your mind as you don't do it often." The witness said she had remembered the event to which Mr McBride she had not, "in terms of a date."
Mr McBride then moved on to discuss Ms Khan's evidence previously (see Here ) about meeting Andrew McFarlane at Glasgow airport in September 2002 and a discussion she had with Mr Sheridan about how she would recognise him. Mr McBride put it to the witness that she had "reason to remember him as "the first time you met him you went to bed with him" to which the witness said "correct." Mr McBride then said "You had sex with him, so what was that all about?". Ms Khan repeated her earlier testimony that Tommy Sheridan had told her a friend of his, whom she had never met, might be picking her up, Mr McBride said "she had not mentioned that when asked" (in 2006) to which the witness responded that she was "trying to be succinct" Mr McBride said that the witness had affirmed to tell "the whole truth, not just the bits you happened to find convenient." Ms Khan insisted she had, and was telling the truth.
Mr McBride then turned to the evidence of Katrine Trolle (the other woman who gave evidence that she had visited Cupids with Mr Sheridan) and put it to the Ms Khan that Ms Trolle had also originally stated the visit to Cupids was in 2001 and then "came here and and said 2002, coincidence?" Ms Khan replied that she had no knowledge of that. He put it to the witness "a passing coincidence that you both make exactly the same mistake then correct it in exactly the same way, coincidence?" the witness replied "yes." Mr McBride said "if you and Katrine Trolle are not telling the truth it is easier to explain?" He then produced Ms Khan's CV (with which the Crown opened it's evidence on Wednesday morning" and asked the witness if the dates on that were correct, which she said they were." Mr McBride then said "35 dates all correct?' to which Ms Khan replied "yes" and added that the newspaper articles listed had publication dates so it was possible to check.
Mr McBride then again moved to stand beside the jury box and said to the witness "my problem is that someone might stand up here in the future and ask this jury to believe you." and added "you can't reconcile the dates, they can't all be right, only one can" to which Ms Khan replied "September 2002." At this the defence QC stated "What is it going to be next week? the first thing that pops into your head? Mr McBride concluded by stating that Ms Khan was "like a fish on a hook wriggling every time someone tries to pull you in by asking for a straight answer." He then finished his cross examination and instead of returning to his seat walked out of the court (as did a good portion of the public gallery.)
The Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC then briefly re-examined Ms Khan and showed the court a statement she had made to the police in 2006 where she clearly stated the 2001 date was a mistake. He also showed the the witness a transcript of the 2006 trial where she had identified Andrew McFarlane. He then concluded his questioning and Ms Khan was allowed to step down from the witness box.
Just before court concluded for the day the presiding judge, Lord Bracadale, asked the Adocate Depute how much longer he expected the prosecution case to last. Mr Prentice told the court he would consider this over the weekend and answer on Monday. With that the court rose until Monday morning.
The case continues.
55 comments:
No mention of McBride asking Anvar Khan if she was "the sort of woman who carries around bags of condoms"?
I can't put everything in Shug, He actually said "you are not the kind of woman who usually carries round a bag of condoms in a sex club?" and went on to suggest it was the sort of thing that "would stick in your mind" but as this was nothing new evidentially (in thst it was still part of the date issue) I edited it out.
I'm open to putting it back if people agree, just didn't think it added much.
I'd put the bag of condoms back in - it may not be new evidence, but it gives an even clearer tone of McBride's (very) cross-examination.
I've edited the post to add the section suggested by Shug.
I don't get why tommy Sheridan mentions race relations and Peter mullan the actor to khan in his questions the day before. Was there more to it than you put inJames? Sounded weird the way you wrote it.
Hello Jools, that's how it happened. TS said "did we ever discuss racism in the media" she said "no" he then said "did we ever discuss remarks made by my friend Peter Mullen" AK then talked about someone else, TS then asked if they had discussed "Cannabis cafes" she said no and then they moved on.
Not exactly riveting stuff so I summarised it.
This is like the Trolle questioning, it really makes me hope Tommy is telling the whole truth, if he's not then he's just ritually humiliated another woman in the most disgusting way possible
If he is lying then that 'do you often carry a bag of condoms' line of questioning is truly deplorable behaviour
It was Paul McBride who opened that line of questioning Anon, not TS.
What's Paul McBride doing questioning AK anyway? I know he is representing GS, how does the allegations against GS relate to AK?
TS had just spent a couple of hours questioning AK, and then PMcB pops in for a finale. TS's efforts are largely irrelevant as it wont be what TS said that will leave a lasting impression, whatever that impression was. And why the leaving the courtroom - was that for dramatic effect? What the hell is going on here?
This is true james but I find it very unlikely that Sheridan was taken by surprise by it and if he was then I rather doubt he objected. If has been lying then he has an awful lot of repentance to do and so do all of the people who have aided him in doing so- if he is lying then I would especially have expected better from Aamer Anwar than to be assosiated with this seedy mess
If he is telling the truth then Khan should have a word with herself
"What's Paul McBride doing questioning AK anyway"
I assume it is to do with the question of dates Anon.
That reference to racism in the media & Peter Mullan were indeed puzzling, but were mercifully brief in Khan's cross-examination.
I have very mixed emotions towards McBride's cross examination of Khan. On the one hand, it was a great example of how to control a difficult and uncooperative witness, and the case could have benefitted from such an approach early on in her testimony in the interests of clarity and brevity.
On the other hand, it was a brutal attempt at destroying a witness through rhetorical brilliance, selective use of testimony and evidence, and was theatrical to the point of pantomime for the benefit of the public gallery and press as much as the jury.
I didn't think it added much if anything to Khan's testimony that had not already been wrestled out of her in the past day and a half by Tommy, but was certainly more memorable. Prentice very quickly got Khan to reiterate the key parts of her testimony to combat McBride's accusations, but I don't think many people were listening.
I may not have liked it, but I would never want to be cross-examined by him, yet I look forward to more of McBride's performances.
Regarding the bag of condoms, a highlight James hasn't gone into in full went pretty close to:
PM: Are you the kind of woman who goes around carrying a big bag of condoms?
AK: I don't know what kind of woman you mean.
PM: Answer the question.
AK: [to judge]Your lordship, I don't know how to answer this question
Bracadale: I direct you to answer the question
AK: I don't usually carry round a big bag of condoms.
PM: This was your evidence, that you were offering condoms around a sex club from a paper bag. How many?
AK: Bags or condoms?
PM: Condoms! How many condoms! ... [sotto voce]How many bags???
It was so cruel, but it was also painfully funny.
I agree with lots of that Whatsy, however I don't agree that Mr Prentice refuted all of P McB's points. While his allegation that she had changed the date 4 times might have been a stretch (based as it was on one line from the 2006 statement) she admitted to giving three different dates for the Cupids visit.
"I would especially have expected better from Aamer Anwar than to be assosiated with this seedy mess" - but Aamer Anwar won't know for sure, he no doubt has formed some sort of opinion, I dare say more informed that random bloggers, but solicitors NEVER ask their clients if they "did it" - it's just "and your position is Mr/Ms so and so?" "It wisnae me, I didnae dae it, the witnesses are aw lying."
What is ritually humiliating about trying to find out about what she actually said and pointing to its contradictions as well as the lies she admitted and the lies she hid until she was caught out by the emails between her and the Scottish Editor of NOW?
So few people get it! In the wind-up all her evidence amounted to was 'we had a shag'. Yes they did. But time, place, details? Anyone can say things that we can never disprove. Hi you with the funny face, I saw what you did and I'm going to make money out of the NOW by being a tell-tale-tit. You did it any time any place. Don't expect me to account for the fact that you were in Cambodia when I said you were doing it in the Calton - If you'll tell me when you were last in the Calton, I'll just change the date. Can't prove you didn't! So there!
James - agreed - the dates she gave do indeed vary, which McB pointed out. This was certainly not refuted, but Prentice prompted her to clarify that she had indeed admitted previously getting the dates wrong to the police, and also that when in 2007 she said her affidavit was the truth, she was referring to the central allegation of going to Cupid's rather than the incorrect date contained in that affidavit.
McBride's defence of his client may very well be "all about the dates", but the greater accusation against Tommy of lying about actually going to the club is of wider concern. I think McBride has done very well in highlighting reasonable doubt regarding these dates which may serve his client's defence well, but may not be as effective for TS's own defence.
oh come off it, if Sheridan is lying then he is every bit as reposible for this vile line of questioning as Mcbride is, i highly doubt that he would have told him he went too far and i highly doubg he would have objected when Mcbride told him the direction he was going to take the questioning in.
as for Anwar, he has been too close to all of the witnesses both personally and professionaly to have not figured out in his own mind what he belives the truth of the matter to be. He was in and around SSP and leftie events for years before this trial and the least we can say is that he has political sympathies with all of the witnesses.
if it turns out Sheridan has lied then i will have lost a great deal of respect for a man who i once held in the highest regard
@Anon 8:38, people are being to jail for a very long time all the time, solely based on testimony about events that (allegedly) occurred 30,40... years ago.
From anon:
"but solicitors NEVER ask their clients if they "did it""
That's not true.
I'm sure it's rare, but I'm also fairly sure that it happens.
No offence anon but I very much doubt Paul McBride consults Aamer or Tommy about his line of cross-examination.
"I'm sure it's rare, but I'm also fairly sure that it happens." - JF P.I.
OK, Jessica it does happen, but only in el cheapo, daytime TV detective dramas, but not in real life which is what we are dealing with.
All that "lawyer knows his client is guilty and is trying to get him off" is just bull, lawyers just proceed on the basis off whatever position their client states. All it does it add to dramatic effect, but nothing more.
Magnum P.I.
i dont doubt that paul would have consulted Tommy, not necessarily on the questions he asked but at least on the ground he would cover and probably the tone he would take. Tommy is also acting as his own lawyer and in that circumstance i would find it very odd if they didn't at least coordinate their attack.
It's possible he may have told him former SSP, but I very much doubt that TS has a veto.
But the Judge has a veto. If TS had an issue with any "legal matters" he would have raised them with the Judge.
I read the "are you the sort of woman to carry round a bag of condoms remark" as McBride's retort to AK flippancy in not directly answering a question just as him asking how big was the bag of condems and AK being non specific (yet again) so Mc says "was it a black bin liner" so that she is urged to be more specific. I don't doubt AK when she said she went to Cupids several times. I just don't believe her that she went with TS.
AK book wouldn't have been anywhere near as salacious had it not been for the mystery MSP Cupids visit.
I learn from both TS and Mc cross examination that there was a plan already on the way by NoW Bird to hatch a story fingering TS as that mystery MSP. All AK needed to do was to keep to the story as the "batty" Trolle (implied in Birds email). Thing is they couldn't get their dates right. As a feminist, I have no problem with TS and McBrides questioning of AK whose self interest Ka$$$$$hing, greed motivated the NoW anti socialist sleaze story in the first place.
I very much doubt TS can interfere with P McB's strategy.
I can understand some of the reservations people have about P McB's strategy on Friday, I share some of them. However blaming TS or AA for is is a bit of a step beyond reality IMHO.
But at the end of the day, PMcB is supposed to working for the acquittal of GS. If TS went down even as "collateral damage" - then so be it, it's not a concern of PMcB. TS is NOT PMcBs client. Some people genuinely are concerned that whilst being helpful to GS it PMcB's "strategy" could have actually harmed TS. Going back to the original Defamation action TS actually apologised profusely to the Court for the behaviour of his Representative. In that instance he dispensed with his services, or sacked him if you prefer; this time round TS it appears moot as to whether TS has any say in the tactics of Counsel.
What AK is really doing by visiting (or not) Cupids is "research", it's to glean some "background" to add some meat to and "flesh out" a "story", she has done the same with club, STD clinics etc. She is a journalist for crying out loud.
With someone like AK it's hard to tell where fact ends and fiction begins. It's perfectly probable that she did go to Cupids, well she has admitted as such; it's also perfectly probable that she has had sex with TS, or so she says. But if that's all you've got, it's not going to sell many papers is it?
Re: Anon "If TS went down even as "collateral damage" - then so be it, it's not a concern of PMcB. TS is NOT PMcBs client. Some people genuinely are concerned that whilst being helpful to GS it PMcB's "strategy" could have actually harmed TS. "
I am starting to believe this more. McB will be interested in maintaining his formidable reputation, and may see great advantage in decoupling his client's defence from TS's.
As a feminist too, I have no doubt that AK has visited Cupid; I'm still not convinced that TS was with her though.
Journalists write stories; they don't report facts - get it?
surely the reference to "a batty woman" would be more likely to refer to fiona mcguire. they werent given katrine trolle's name until after the ak story was run.
To say that PM has no professional interest in the aquittal of TS is plainly wrong; that is to say that any advocate or solicitor has a duty to act in the best interests of their client. So to suggest that PM would 'sell out' TS is just wrong i.e. GS would be devastated i.e no husband for a cpl o years.
So stop talking rubbish on what you perceive to be the professional duties of Counsel. Please Refrain from Daftie Talk.
"So to suggest that PM would 'sell out' TS is just wrong i.e. GS would be devastated i.e no husband for a cpl o years." Nonsense, PMcB is an Advocate NOT a Social Worker.
The questions Sheridan asked about racism etc will be linked to witnesses or productions that will emerge later. All of the questions in any examination will not all seem relevant at the time, as they are introductions to further evidence.
Another example from this week would be the question Prentice asked Khan about her house smelling of paint when she claims a friend met Sheridan there. We will see something later about that, most likely be the person in question appearing as a witness and having evidence to do with this paint line.
So, do not look at Sheridan's questions about actors, cannabis, football training or racism as strange or out of place, they just havent been linked to the information yet.
Personally I dont see what the discussion is about Sheridan and McBride. We are in danger of building a story from nothing. It reads to me like McBride listened to Sheridans cross, then went for what he thought were either the strongest points to focus the jury on, or whatever he thinks Sheridan either missed or didnt push strongly enough. I can see no evidence from the proceedings so far to even suggest this (growing) story, on these pages, that McBride is working contrary to Tommy Sheridan's interests.
The date thing is very important to stress. The jury must be absolutely sure that they have seen evidence to convict. If people ahve conflicting evidence that were both under oath, then it does raise the exact question that McBride asked. If we come back next year would be saying something else. His suggestion to the jury is that they cant take any single one of the testimonies as the 'real' true one.
There doesnt seem anything unusual in the way Sheridan and McBride are working together.
If we are not careful we will end up like the faculty of advocates or other similar gossip shops.
11:19 Anon - the interest of McB's client may not always be the same as TS.
If the choice comes down to your client going to jail for lying in court to protect a guilty husband, or admitting it and avoiding jail while sinking said husband's case, where does your client's interest lie?
It's certainly true that TS's interests are that his co-accused sees her interest being the same as TS.
Who knows if that's the case behind the scenes, though.
Good stuff, Victor English. You make the rest of us look like a bunch of amateurs.
ah Whatsy, you seem to have picked up on my point about gossiping advocates?
Good point, Whatsy. Because his sort of thing happens all the time in trials: when it's obvious that the co-defendant's case has sunk they then "do a deal" i.e drop the other co-accused in it in exchange for leniency.
GS would not accept any deal at the beginning though, she is obviously very loyal to her husband and irrespective of either their innocence or guilt they are both in it together. If part of PMcB's strategy is for GS at some point to "turn Crown's evidence" which would well and truly sink TS PMcB has to seriously undermine TS's case. For GS to give evidence against her husband would be extremely distressing so TS's would have to be sunk without trace before this sort of pressure was applied. Anyway, this is all conjecture as the Good Ship TS at the moment is sailing well above the water.
PMcB has political ambitions too - Elish Angilino has just resigned her position as the Lord Advocate.
Nice one Victor English
Re: Elish Angiolini, she is due to stand down after next years Holyrood elections.
I hope that Tommy doesn't read this, otherwise he might get the impression that he is the victim of an Establishment set-up.
So far this trial has been (more or less) a re-run of the "Defamation Trial" with much the same witnesses and basically the same argument of Tommy Sheridan's - the majority of the SSP leadership perjured themselves in Court as part of a conspiracy against him.
What might be more interesting is when the Prosecution deal with the charges against Gail Sheridan and telephone evidence against her husband. I quote from Gail Sheridan's charge sheet below.
"that you had recorded in your diary that you had travelled to Miami on Tuesday 20 November 2001 and you were in Miami on the weekend of 24 and 25 November 2001 and that said Thomas Sheridan had recorded in his diary that you were away between 21 and 28 November 2001;
that you were in Miami on 24 and 25 November 2001 and you did thus not spend every weekend in November 2001 with said Thomas Sheridan; that on 23 November 2001 you were not present on the occasion when said Thomas Sheridan phoned directory enquiries and said Cupid's in Manchester;"
This was reproduced from here -
http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2010/10/tommy-sheridan-on-trial.html
James, I must confess I'm intrigued about the reference to conversation about Peter Mullan. for two reasons. firstly, why does Tommy S mention Peter Mullan at all? it seems hardly relevant. Secondly, is Mr Mullan's other half not firebrand human rights campaigner Robina Qureishi who called Khan a hoor, or words to that effect, according to Khan's testimony in 2006. If what Khan says is the truth, though she has now admitted to lying on two occasions, then I commend Ms Qureshi for her restraint. And why is Mullan not seen supporting Sheridan?
I have no idea Kenny, sorry.
@Victor English, Thank you for clarifying to readers the line of questioning Tommy Sheridan is taking. It will be most interesting to see where the Peter Mullan subject rears it's head again. @Kenny, I agree. Robina Qureshi should be congratulated for exercising restraint in referring to that awful, awful excuse of a woman Khan as a "hoor". Was it a term of abuse or endearment? In some parts of North East Scotland it's a term of endearment. James, regarding the reference to race relations. I am slightly confused now. Did Tommy Sheridan mention it in relation to Peter Mullan and Robina Qureshi. Would Lord Bracadale not have queried the obtuse line of questioning? Intriguing whatever the answer. It's sad the left has come to this.
Former SSP "as for Anwar...
if it turns out Sheridan has lied then i will have lost a great deal of respect for a man who i once held in the highest regard".
That is really not fair- a criminal defence solicitor's job is to defend the accused, prepare the case for the advocate etc. This is the accused's human right, whether you are TS, a shoplifter, a Lockerbie Bomber or whatever. Are you saying that you think less of solicitors whose clients are found guilty? It happens every day of the week, so get real!
Post a Comment