The court resumed this afternoon with the continuation of Mr Sheridan's cross examination of Anvar Khan. After Ms Khan had returned to the witness box Tommy Sheridan left the dock and took his position at the lectern. He began by presenting the witness with a copy of the News of the World dated 31st October 2004. He put it to the witness that this story was a lie to which she replied that she had made a decision to run the piece in a "heavily disguised" way. Mr Sheridan then read various statements from the story and asked Ms Khan to say if each part was true. These were; "I met him in a Glasgow bar"; "Two weeks later he called and we got drunk in my flat"; "we fooled around and had drunken sex" and "he enjoyed being spanked." The witness confirmed that these parts of the story were untrue.
Mr Sheridan then put it to the Ms Khan that this story had been designed to promote her book, "Pretty Wild" which had been released on the 21st October 2004. She agreed that that was the aim although in hindsight it had not helped. Mr Sheridan then asked Ms Khan a number of questions about her relationship with Bob Bird (Scottish editor of the NotW) and about what he called a "culture of lawbreaking" and "phone hacking" in the paper. Ms Khan said she had a good relationship with Bob Bird but that she had no knowledge of lawbreaking or phone hacking.
Mr Sheridan then produced an email he had received from a Yasmin Urquhart who he said worked for the News of the World under the name "Ruth the Truth, The Psychic Agony Aunt. The email read in part, "The News of the World have two prostitutes as witnesses in the case and witnesses from your own party..they have no doubt they will beat you." He then produced a second email from the same source dated October 2nd 2006 which said, "I would want to meet but you are under 24/7 surveillance as ordered by Rupert Murdoch."
Mr Sheridan then asked Ms Khan about a conversation she had with Bob Bird at a NotW Christmas party . The witness told the court that Mr Bird had informed her the paper was working on an expose about Mr Sheridan. Mr Sheridan then moved on to discuss various people who worked at the paper and Ms Khan's role there, before presenting to the court a transcript of a telephone conversation between the witness and Louise Bailey, a journalist at the News of the World. In this transcript Ms Khan is asked about the "sex club' story in her book to which she replies "Well it was actually at someone's house, I just said sex club." She is also quoted as saying "2001 is the real date, I had wanted it to read as a diary, it had to be consecutive." Ms Khan confirmed that she had done the interview.
Ms Khan was then asked about her evidence to the 2006 libel trial where she was quoted as saying "I am an independent witness... my contract was ended prematurely" Ms Khan challenged the accuracy of the transcript claiming there were words missing. Ms Khan insisted she had said "If my contract ends prematurely" There was then a discussion between the defence and prosecution over the accuracy of the "live note." of the 2006 libel case. Mr Prentice QC for the Crown told the court that the notes were produced by lawyers acting for the News of The World, and that these were being used now "on the grounds of cost." He told the court that the tapes of the 2006 trial were often hard to interpret and that there had been a number of discussions between the defence and the Crown on this issue.
Mr Sheridan then produced an email from Bob Bird to Anvar Khan. It read in part "Here is my brilliant idea, for one phone call you could double your dosh!!" The mail went on "we have another woman who is up north we are working with over Mr T. Same stuff, group sex, swingers clubs....she is totally barking (and married)...refused to do phone call to set up final proof." The message went on to suggest that Ms Khan call Mr Sheridan and get him to make admissions on tape. The newspaper could then "print the other woman's story and not have to worry because we would have the security of a taped confession hidden in the safe if we need it." The email ended "what do you reckon???" Ms Khan said she had no recollection of this email.
Mr Sheridan moved on to Ms Khan's previous testimony, where she had stated that she had not "negotiated with the NotW over cooperating with their lawyers in the 2006 libel case. Mr Sheridan produced another email, this time from Ms Khan to Bob Bird (with a subject line "the trial") In this message Ms Khan says "If I am happy with the new contract I am prepared to rethink my position relating to your QC." Ms Khan responded that she had only said this as she had been advised by the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) to "appear" to cooperate with the NotW to secure a new contract. Mr Sheridan then accused the witness of "throwing dirt around" and put it to her that she had "constantly lied for two days." Mr Sheridan added "you and the News of the World saw the truth as a nuisance if it came in the way of a good story." The witness denied this. Mr Sheridan then ended his cross-examination and returned to the dock. Mr Paul McBride then rose to question the witness of behalf of his client, Gail Sheridan, a cross-examination we will deal with in a subsequent post.
Mr Sheridan then produced an email from Bob Bird to Anvar Khan. It read in part "Here is my brilliant idea, for one phone call you could double your dosh!!" The mail went on "we have another woman who is up north we are working with over Mr T. Same stuff, group sex, swingers clubs....she is totally barking (and married)...refused to do phone call to set up final proof." The message went on to suggest that Ms Khan call Mr Sheridan and get him to make admissions on tape. The newspaper could then "print the other woman's story and not have to worry because we would have the security of a taped confession hidden in the safe if we need it." The email ended "what do you reckon???" Ms Khan said she had no recollection of this email.
Mr Sheridan moved on to Ms Khan's previous testimony, where she had stated that she had not "negotiated with the NotW over cooperating with their lawyers in the 2006 libel case. Mr Sheridan produced another email, this time from Ms Khan to Bob Bird (with a subject line "the trial") In this message Ms Khan says "If I am happy with the new contract I am prepared to rethink my position relating to your QC." Ms Khan responded that she had only said this as she had been advised by the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) to "appear" to cooperate with the NotW to secure a new contract. Mr Sheridan then accused the witness of "throwing dirt around" and put it to her that she had "constantly lied for two days." Mr Sheridan added "you and the News of the World saw the truth as a nuisance if it came in the way of a good story." The witness denied this. Mr Sheridan then ended his cross-examination and returned to the dock. Mr Paul McBride then rose to question the witness of behalf of his client, Gail Sheridan, a cross-examination we will deal with in a subsequent post.
20 comments:
ping
James
I think the Subject Line of the e-mail from AK to BB was "Court Case", not "the trial".
A brilliant account of what may be one of the defining days in the history and nature of Scottish Justice.
As an aside, I note that Anvar Khan said that when she received her advance for her novel from publishers Black and White (£8000 I think) she did not have to pay back any of it - even if she did not sell any books??
This is the kind of deal I have been waiting for. Black and White, prepare to be inundated by proposals for my ten novels, twenty plays and poetry. Given that poetry does not earn the cost of the paper it is written on, I think I should still be able to retire on over £100,000 - Unrepayable.
Anon - that's how advances work, it's the publisher that takes the gamble on whether something will sell when they commission a work.
This comment covers comments from the overerall cross examination of this witness.
Once again we have a ‘witness’ whose memory appears to be clearer now than 4 years ago! By all accounts this witness was discredited by both TS and McBride. In a criminal trial the onus of responsibility it on the shoulders of the prosecution to establish their case 'beyond reasonable doubt', the defence need prove nothing. Given the comments from the judge, I would assume Mr. Prentice has a lot of thinking to do over the weekend!
No, actually Prentice got up at the end and clarified that Khan did in fact state in her original police statement that there was another man in the car with Andy McFarlane, that she also told the police an affadavit had been completed incorrectly by the scribe and that she had always maintained the date to be 2002, and that she had not seen any photos of Andy McFarlane before and had in fact identified him in court in 2006.
I imagine that much of the press isn't reporting that though since many people left the court today before hearing Prentice's final questions.
Yes they did leave straight after McBride, rather than stay the extra 5 minutes between 3.55 and 4pm when the Prosecution established that McBride's two main lines of questioning (that AK hadn't told the police she'd made a mistake with the date in the affidavit and that she hadn't mentioned that Gary Clarke was also in the car at the airport in the libel trial) were both based on very easily disproven falsities, as she had in fact mentioned both - just not at the particular points in the transcripts that McBride was referring to. It was ridiculous. Clearly neither Sheridan's cheerleaders nor Bernard Ponsonby actually care about establishing the truth.. they're only there because they get sick pleasure out of watching two powerful men try to destroy a woman. I don't give a crap what these people in the gallery think of Anvar Khan, but they made it plainly clear that they do not wish for the truth to out and that they think that this is a game. It is not a game, this is people's lives.
lol why do people do that - leave just before Alex Prentice is just about to make the closing remarks of the day, almost as if he is an irrelevance, - this is not a cinema where you get up and leave just as the closing credits roll - as if only what TS and PMcB say counts lol anyway, it was only the public gallery that left, the judge, jury, clerk, the accussed and the advocates all waited around for the closing credits.
watching two powerful men try to destroy a woman.?! - leave Bernard Ponsonby out of it.
I was one court watcher who left before the Crown's re-examination of Anvar Khan - but unlike some others on here, and in court, I do not have a vested interest in the outcome. Despite 20% of the court's seating being reserved for ‘mainstream journalists’, none of these chocolate fireguards appear capable of producing anything like the quality of transcript found here. I have read this blog following each of my four visits to the High Court and found it to be an accurate, unopinionated account of proceedings. So let’s hope that continues…
With regard to a previous poster’s criticism of the AK cross-examination, they would do well to remember that this experienced journalist admitted fabricating an account of a spanking/sex session with Sheridan, which then appeared on the front page of a national newspaper and grossly mislead hundreds of thousands of people (if my memory serves me correctly the front page headline appeared on news reports and Newsnight).
anvar khan didn't "fabricate" anything lol, in her own words the article was "heavily disguised".
"the Prosecution established that McBride's two main lines of questioning (that AK hadn't told the police she'd made a mistake with the date in the affidavit and that she hadn't mentioned that Gary Clarke was also in the car at the airport in the libel trial) were both based on very easily dis-proven falsities", this is an irrelevance, since it came AFTER both TS and PMcB had between them DEMOLISHED AKs "testimony". She looked so shell-shocked after McB had ripped her to shreds that I *almost* felt sorry for her. AP was doing little more than offering some comfort, relief, what you will to a thoroughly de-moralised and defeated contestant. Pity the poor woman for being so deluded.
The fact that AK's story appears to have been "sexed up" doesn't mean there's no substance to any of the NOTW's allegations against Sheridan.
This knee jerk feminist defence of AK is a tad wearisome. Would it have been any better if it had been a woman QC doing the demolition job on her fairy story? The issue is whether or not her testimony is true and in a criminal case witnesses can expect to be grilled.
McBride has only questioned women thus far. And the majority of what he said to Anvar Khan was just sexual jokes at her expense.
"this is an irrelevance, since it came AFTER both TS and PMcB had between them DEMOLISHED AKs "testimony". She looked so shell-shocked after McB had ripped her to shreds that I *almost* felt sorry for her. AP was doing little more than offering some comfort, relief, what you will to a thoroughly de-moralised and defeated contestant. Pity the poor woman for being so deluded. "
Eh, no, Prentice got up at the end at corrected inaccuracies McBride and Sheridan had insisted were true.
Only she isnt a "contestant" she's a witness. Legally obliged to answer any questions that the defence put to her. As the case rests on sexual activity, she, like Trolle, is being questioned over her sex-life.
Being "ripped to shreds" and looking "shell-shocked" once the defence finish with her is a common experience of court for many female witnesses and aggressive questioning on sexual matters is tactic used by the defence to undermine their testimony. The only substantive difference between this case and most others is that in this case the alleged sexual activity was consensual.
"The only substantive difference between this case and most others is that in this case the alleged sexual activity was consensual." - never thought of that. One of these "women" could have turned round and did an "Ulkira Johnson".
Why the quotes on "women". Is there some question AK or KT's gender?
As for "doing an ulrika johnson", I'm not quite sure i understand - alleged that someone raped them but refused to name them? I fail to see how this is related, the case for the prosecution is that they had consensual sex with an identified person; the case for the defence is that they did not have consensual sex with an identified person. Suggesting that they had non-consensual sex that they could identify but chose not to, would
a. hold them in contempt of court (horrifying but true).
b. be completely irrelevant to the case, unless they were suggesting that this caused some kind of trauma which led to them believing that they had sex with the named person when they did not.
Strange comment
Just a thought: AK admits much of the stuff she gave to the NOTW were lies (spanking etc) but insists that the affair (which TS denies) was true. Is it technically possible that TS goes down for perjury (because he denied the affair in the libel trial) but still wins his libel (because the spanking etc lies are libelous on their own)?
Post a Comment