Court resumed this afternoon and the Advocate depute made a motion to recall a third witness the court had already heard from, Alison Kane. (accounts of her previous testimony can be found here and here) Mr Prentice QC for the crown had no questions to ask the witness so the jury then heard from Mr Sheridan.
After informing the witness that he did not intend to go over "old ground" and then began by asking her if she recalled the Scottish Socialist Party's "People's festival" held on the weekend of the 27th of September 2002 (the date, the Crown claims, of Mr Sheridan's trip to the Cupids club in Manchester) Ms Kane responded that she did recall the event "considering I organised it." At that point Mr Sheridan again showed the court his 2002 diary which has an entry for the 26th November "SSP people's festival..must attend"
Mr Sheridan then moved on to the pivotal SSP executive meeting of November 9th 2004 (the "9/11 meeting") and asked if Ms Kane had made a phone call during this meeting. She replied that she had tried to call Duncan Rowan (who had left the meeting in distress) to check he was ok. Mr Sheridan told Ms Kane that he had evidence she called Gordon Morgan not Mr Rowan. The witness said she did not recall that.
Mr Sheridan them asked Ms Kane about a SSP National Council on May 28th 2006 and the discussion of the SSP's defiance strategy (a decision not to give internal party documents to the News of the World) held at that event. He asked her is she recalled that Alan McCombes (a leading SSP member) was being held in jail at that time for contempt of court. She said she did and Mr Sheridan then read out an article from the SSP newspaper from that period which said Mr McCombes was "putting his loyalty to the party before his duty to the court." Mr Sheridan asked the witness if she agreed with this position to which she responded "I do." Mr Sheridan then asked the witness why she had supported this defiance of the court to which she replied that the SSP was a socialist party that "stood for the overthrow of the state, well not now." and added that they did not hand over documents partly "to protect you Tommy, something you conveniently forget."
Mr Sheridan then moved on to discuss a newspaper article from the Sunday Herald that appeared on the same day as the National Council. The article quotes a "Top SSP official" and states that the paper has a "secret record of the meeting in a signed affidavit." The witness was asked if she knew who signed the affidavit (in her previous testimony she had stated she had "an idea" but did not know for sure) She said she had thought the person concerned was Duncan Rowan but after reading newspaper resports of Rosie Kane's testimony realised the source of the statement was Alan McCombes. When asked if she was "surprised" by that news she replied that she was initially but could understand why he did so as Mr Sheridan was also talking to the press and Mr McCombes could have wanted an "accurate historical record." When asked if this was "appropriate" she responded that these were "exceptional circimstances."
Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if she thought Mr McCombes actions were cynical. Ms Kane argued that Mr Sheridan had "known he was going to lose" his action against the NotW so he wanted the minutes released so he could "blame the executive for bringing him down." Mr Sheridan then put it to Ms Kane that her statement "proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you co-ordinated your actions with the bourgeois press." The witness responded that he was talking the "out of context" and was ignoring the "background of the situation." Mr Sheridan again put to Ms Kane that Alan McCombes actions were "cynical" in "scurrying off to a national newspaper revealing private meetings" The witness responded "he did the same as you did" and "if Alan is cynical so are you."
Mr Sheridan then asked the witness how much money this "defiance strategy" had cost the Party. She replied it was around £ 25,000. He then asked "do you think this was money well spent" to which she replied it was not. Mr Sheridan then quoted from the affidavit where Mr McCombes states he "consulted senior party members" before going to the Sunday Herald. Mr Sheridan asked Ms Kane if she had been consulted, which she denied. He then asked the witness if she would be surprised to find out that the affidavit contained no reference to any admissions by him that he had visited a sex club. The witness replied "yes."
Mr Sheridan then turned to a reply Ms Kane had given Maggie Scott QC in her initial evidence. he put it to her that her statement that she had said she had "no role" in the formulation of the strategy of defiance. After a testy exchange, involving the production of various minutes of meetings Ms Kane acknowledged that "in hindsight I made a mistake" and that the documents had "jogged her memory" She further agreed with Mr Sheridan that she had "not liked" the results of the 2006 libel trial as it had made her out to be a liar. Mr Sheridan then asked if she had ever been cautioned by police for perjury in that case. She said she had "never been cautioned in her life."
Mr Sheridan asked Ms Kane if she had discussed her evidence with anyone else. She said she had not and had not even seen her "best friend" (Katrine Trolle) while she was in Glasgow. Mr Sheridan asked the witness if "she had seen her best friend on TV last night punching the air as she left court." Ms Kane said she "didn't see it."
Mr Sheridan concluded his cross-examination the by suggesting Ms Kane that she was "lying" and "putting a gloss on the cynicism of Mr McCombes. He said it was "simply beyond belief" that she would defend his conduct. The witness insisted that she had only ever "tried to give honest answers" and with that Mr Sheridan returned to the dock.
The Advocate Depute then asked Ms Kane if she had ever seen the affidavit in question, which she said she had not, Mr Prentice then said "lets correct that." and the affidavit was displayed on the court video screens.
I do not have a copy of the document, only notes I made when it was displayed. To summarise it indeed does not have any reference to admissions by Mr Sheridan, however it does contain a reference to "certain information" that the party has. In the document Mr McComes also states that the statement is being made to "give information to our supporters in the public" and that he understands it will be used as the basis of newspaper articles. It also states that Mr McCombes understands that his name will be kept private as the source of the document unless there is a court action and that he has received no payment for the information.
Finally the Advocate depute discussed with Ms Kane the "people's festival" first discussed above. He had the witness look at the timetable for the event and asked when she had seen Mr Sheridan. The witness stated that he was not in attendance on the Friday night and she had not seen him until the Saturday evening.
With that the court adjourned for the week, the case resumes on Monday.
79 comments:
Sheridan came off worst. Kane was unflappable while he got more and more irate and angry.
well, that's your opinion - and you're entitled to it. on the contrary, I found TS to very composed and patient in his questioning contrasted to the witness who appeared both hesitant and evasive.
...Mr Sheridan then quoted from the affidavit where Mr McCombes states he "consulted senior party members"...
Does anyone know if Mr McCombes has been on the witness stand yet? I'd like to see him asked who these senior party members were.
"he was not in attendance on the Friday night and she had not seen him until the Saturday evening."
Should that not read for sake of accuracy...I don`t know if he was there on the Friday night. I did see him on the Saturday evening.
She will now have to prove he was not there on the Friday night, can she do that?, For her own sake, I hope she can?, as it will come up again in this trial?.
anon # She will now have to prove he was not there on the Friday night
she wont have to prove anything she is a witness, he wont have to prove anything, he is a defendant, the Crown will have to prove it.
"the Crown will have to prove it."
Not so. She has made a statement in court. She said...."he was not in attendance on the Friday night"...If it is proved he was, what has she done?. Think about it!.
OH NO...
Why I am getting a sense of deja vu?
If the Crown brings a load of witnesses who say Tommy was not there on the Friday 27th September, and Tommy calls a load of witnesses who say he was, will the Judge call for the police to investigate for witnesses committing perjury at the end of this trial as well?
As this has come up I've checked my notes and, according to them, and my recollection, Ms Kane said "not at Friday night event" not I didn't see him. However if anyone has a different note\recollection I will consider changing the post.
Lets remember Tommy, then a Member of Parliament chose to take the NoTW to court and made statements in the witness box, which the jury appeared to concur with, netting himself hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Alison Kane had no choice about appearing in the witness box, and stands to make nothing from this case.
That is why the two situations are entirely different....
"Tommy, then a Member of Parliament chose to take the NoTW to court"
He had no choice in the matter. To let it go would have ruined his whole life/marriage. You are trying to put a nasty spin on all this, stop it, people can see through it.
I totally agree with the last contribution and Tommy has not 'netted' a penny yet from NoTW despite a jury finding them guilty of lying about him. He had ever right to take them to court.
To let it go would have opened the floodgates...
He had every right, but it was still his choice. Do you think anyone would still remember the story now if Tommy hadn't taken it to court?
Casual observer - certainly anyone committing perjury during a perjury enquiry faces severe punishment.
Let's see if anyone comes forward to testify that Sheridan was at the festival.
I note that he refrained from saying he was there on the Friday night, instead asking others whether he'd be expected to be there.
Like I said, though, perjury during this trial will mean a straight to jail card for any witness foolish enough to lie.
Anonymous said - "Lets remember Tommy, then a Member of Parliament chose to take the NoTW to court and made statements in the witness box, which the jury appeared to concur with, netting himself hundreds of thousands of pounds".
I may be wrong, but I don't think Sheridan has actually seen any of the money he won yet, has he?
I heard from someone in the public gallery today that the affidavit said Tommy had resigned because the party EC had asked him to, because of how he was going to deal with certain allegations (but did not go into detail what these allegations were or detail any admissions). Does anyone have an actual text of the affidavit?
It if was not for the anti T faction and their so called 'minutes' they would not be in court.
For the sake of accuracy in this trial, Ms Kane should have said...could not recall him in attendance on the Friday night. lol.
"He had no choice in the matter."
Oh rubbish, that's the retort of a toddler! He chose this course, which, whatever your perspective on who is telling porkies, has set the Scottish left back decades. Where would we be if Tommy had said a dignified "no comment" way back then? Fighting Tory cuts from a position of strength that's where.
"better red than bed"
So if you are married and someone tells your partner you are upto no good, you would not take any action against them!!!. Somebody sets out to get you sacked from your job, you would not take any action against them!!!. I don't believe one word of your post and no one reading it will.
...has set the Scottish left back decades...
Whichever side is telling lies are responsible for setting back the left. Let's hope the jury comes to the correct conclusion or we could end up blaming the wrong people for a very long time!
`blaming the wrong people for a very long time!`
blaming the wrong person for a very long time!
So if you are married and someone tells your partner you are upto no good, you would not take any action against them!!
Ever heard of 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me'...
Anon 9.55 pm #
said
"Let's hope the jury comes to the correct conclusion or we could end up blaming the wrong people for a very long time!"
It has reached a point where the "truth" is an irrelevance as is the outcome of this trial, the SSP will survive and the SWP will continue on its merry way, I can even see temporary alliances including if not between the two groups in the future, the CWI (Militant)may have painted themselves into a corner and and their best option may be to re-unite with their English and Welsh comrades, but truth and lies are an irrelevance in the politics of the Left in Scotland.
The whole thing is very very sad. Tommy Sheridan had many choices to make suing the NOTW was only one choice and on reflection not a very good one. How many working class people sue the Murdoch Press, very very few. TS didn't get the money because there was an appeal. If TS is acquitted he will get the money.
You can't re-write what Ms Kane said it court even if it wasn't grammatically correct. Ms Kane does not have to prove anything, the Prosecution is presenting a whole case around that TS has commited perjury, they will probably present evidence around this. It will be TS who will need to prove he was either there and if he wasn't at the event, then where was he?
Let's hope the trial will finish soon, its turning into a soap opera. Are the only witnesses from the SSP? Does anyone know if there are any more witnesses?
Does anyone know if there has been any resignations from the SSP since this trial began?. I would think some must have been disgusted at the behavior of some in there leadership.
`I can even see temporary alliances`
Tell me your joking!. This lot couldn`t fight Murdoch together and they were in the same party. You now think they will get together with others on the true left and fight the tories. L and LoL.
@Anonymous; "Does anyone know if there has been any resignations from the SSP since this trial began?"
Not that I'm aware of.
As SSP Assistant National Secretary I can say that over the past week there has been 9 applications to join the SSP via our website.
Here is an interesting thought.
Where did the NotW first get hold of the rumour/gossip of an MSP visiting Cupids club in the first place. Where did that come from?.
`Not that I'm aware of.`
Is that another way of saying you can`t recall?.
When I left the SSP, after THAT meeting, I just cancelled my standing order at the bank. I didn`t write them a letter of resignation as I didn`t think they deserved it. So, give it time to feed through.
Anon 1207 am.
I am sure I indicated no direct working together but supporting the same national and local campaigns against the cuts, if I didn't blame the Stella. As for Eddy Truman's statement I know of people that have joined or are considering joining the SSP, Eddy knows my stance on the the National question differs from the SSP's but that does not alter the fact that at ground zero the SSP are the only functioning left wing party in Scotland and Solidarity is 99.9% propped up by the SWP, and technically the SWP are a political organisation, not a Party. Confusing.
cant see the SSP and Solidarity ever reuniting whatever the outcome of the trial. These splinter groups are going to go on hating each other for a generation. The far left in Scotland is a dead duck and they might as well join the left wing of the SNP
Once Tommy Sheridan had unwisely embarked upon a libel action against News International, then those witnesses summoned to give evidence had to do so, and speak according to their conscience, telling the truth as they saw it. Members and former members of the SSP gave evidence on both sides in that case.
However, no one was under any obligation to voluntarily go to the police. The libel action had already left a legacy of bitterness, a police prosecution could only make things much worse.
I joined the SSP in 2000 and was active until the split, when I left to join Solidarity. I still agree with 99.9% of what the SSP stands for but, whatever the outcome of this trial, I can not imagine I could ever be part of the same organisation as some of the people who are appearing in the witness box.
The future of the left in Scotland will have to rest on the shoulders of the next generation - people who were not involved on either side of this divide.
On the earlier debate on what Alison Kane said, the Herald quotes".
"The witness said: “Ironically, Tommy Sheridan was one of my staunchest supporters and we worked closely together. He wasn’t at the Friday night event, nor on Saturday during the day, but he was at Saturday evening and the Monday; I remember that because that is my birthday.”
"He wasn’t at the Friday night event, nor on Saturday during the day, but he was at Saturday evening"... what's that supposed to imply...? that Tommy was travelling up from Manchester Friday night/Saturday morning? Why don't these witnesses just spit it out? And what she mean by "he wasn't"? is this from her own "recollection" or is it a second/third hand "recollection"?
If Tommy says "must attend" a political event it means "must attend", that's the kind of hard working, dedicated politician that Tommy is.
Ask them to name everyone that was there on "Friday night" "Saturday during the day"
Answer would be...I can`t recall.
Has it occurred to anyone that Sheridan may have been trying to avoid them, that may well be why they didn`t see him. Although I can`t imagine why he would want to do this, lol.
Re: "He wasn’t at the Friday night event, nor on Saturday during the day, but he was at Saturday evening"... what's that supposed to imply...? that Tommy was travelling up from Manchester Friday night/Saturday morning? Why don't these witnesses just spit it out? And what she mean by "he wasn't"? is this from her own "recollection" or is it a second/third hand "recollection"?"
It is what it is. A witness testimony. True or not, it's what Kane said. It would be ridiculous for her to say what you suggest, whether she is lying or not.
Anon@1.31pm
Where you there on the Friday evening or Saturday morning?
"Anon@1.31pm
Where you there on the Friday evening or Saturday morning?"
I can`t recall.
"I can`t recall." - is that a true and accurate recollection?
Wait a minute who can recall everything they have ever done. TS has a diary entry that says 20 people supported him at the EC meeting on 9/11/04 yet his witnesses in the last trial stated mostly that they couldn't "recall"!!!
Anon 22nd 08.44
"I note that he refrained from saying he was there on the Friday night, instead asking others whether he'd be expected to be there."
Thats because TS can't give evidence at the moment. He's already been pulled up for doing that. I'm not sure how that is going to be dealt with if he does give evidence on his own behalf. Will he lead himself through the evidence? Could cause some interesting legal challenges.
He gets to go through his defence which he did before at his last trial but he won't have a QC leading him, when being cross examined he wont have a lawyer to object however t
he judge ne eds to be more responsible. When Thomas Muir defended himsslf against sedition it took four hours however I would imagine Sheridan will take a lot longer than that.
Anonymous said:
"Here is an interesting thought.
Where did the NotW first get hold of the rumour/gossip of an MSP visiting Cupids club in the first place. Where did that come from?."
If memory serves it was Anvar Khan who first raised it in NOTW in he then capacity as a sex columnist.
My understanding is that when you are defending yourself you do not, sadly, question yourself along the lines of
"I put it to me that in fact I was at another event all day" *runs back to witness box "I agree with me totally..."
Instead the accused makes a statement and then is cross examined on it.
Of course the fact that Trolle has moved the date of the alleged visit to Manchester from her original testimony in the libel trial in 2006 to fit in with this festival weekend just appears so, so convenient for the prosecution case but hey I am not at the trial just hoping that those who collude with anti-socialist forces NEVER prevail.
"If memory serves it was Anvar Khan who first raised it in NOTW in he then capacity as a sex columnist." - correct, it was Anvar Khan.
This whole business really originates from Anvar Khan's attempt to promote her book - Pretty Wild - one year in the sex life of Anvar Khan. Did anyone mention Bridget Jones?
Anvar Khan later admitted that "Pretty Wild" as made up.
It was in KT's own diary that the "cultural festival" was first mentioned. She said it was code for the trip to Cupid's, although it is puzzling why she felt the need to hide the fact she went there in her own personal diary. Why not 'Manchester' or just 'Cupids'?
yeah... anvar khan is like the Big Bang - where this all leads back to. never mind political factions, Alan McCoombes, Rosie Kane, Katrine Trolle, etc, if it wasn't for ANVAR KHAN, the original libel trial wouldn't have taken place, and neither would TS and GS now be sat in the dock of the High Court. No doubt someone will be along to suggest that TS was in league with Anvar Khan to blow this whole thing up lol A conspiracy too far lol
it was the Anvar Khan column that mentioned "the well-known scottish politician with bad breath that she visited a swingers club with and had an affair with", a promo vehicle for Pretty Wild, kind of ironic that Anvar Khan has subsequently admitted to the book being a work of fiction. Cue the speculation, the emergency meetings... a truly hellish time for the Sheridans...
Pretty Wild review:
"If you've ever had the misfortune of encountering this irritating bloater on her fatuous (and hastily cancelled) Channel 4 programme or her equally ludicrous appearances on radio you won't be surprised that this horribly written and, frankly, absurd book has all the insight of a slightly backward first form schoolgirl."
This pompous, self-important and laughably uninformed idiot attempts to shed light on sexuality (actually sub-Sunday Sport attempts at titillation) in a series of nonsensical monologues that are about as erotic as being smacked round the back of the head with a soiled nappy. She frequently sprinkles her turgid prose with words that, clearly, she doesn't understand and attempts to add a patina of erudition by adding a hokey version of psychobabble to the whole thing. How anybody published this drivel is beyond me. The. Worst. Book. Ever." - and this is the starting point to where Tommy and Gail are now. Can anyone imagine Gail Sheridan stopping this low? - I don't think so.
But Anvar never named him. He named himself by taken out the libel action and telling the mirror he had a relationship with her. Not the other way round. She only named him in court because of his libel action , the same with katrine. Some people only see what the want to see.
True, Anvar Khan may have never named Tommy outright (at least in her "sex" column), but Anvar Khan is wholly responsible for setting the ball rolling - all roads lead back to Anvar Khan.
may have never named Tommy outright - aye, but she did leave plenty of clues lol
it's nonsense to think that Tommy had any choice once these "hints" appeared in the Anvar Khan column, it was only a matter of time before he was named, better to throw the first punch.
"had a relationship with her" - having a brief affair before TS was married, not the same thing as having an extra-marital affair and visiting a swinger's club - or is that journalistic license?
And it wasn't just the one mention in the Anvar Khan column, it was week after week, she just couldn't let it go and was determined that it would up. The only reason that she didn't name Tommy outright was because she couldn't - that would be Defamation, so in instead she let the grapevine do her dirty work for her.
looking at the leadership of Scottish Left they seem naive at times, the company that they chose is beyond belief,
yes, naive is putting it mild... I mean Anvar Khan, a "journalist", who'd have thought that she was above board with no hidden agenda. anyone with half an ounce of common sense avoids "journalists" like the proverbial barge pole' these people would sell their granny for a "scoop" or book deal.
anvar khan is a well known wacko. she was always writing weird stuff in her columns about guys looking up her skirt in stuff. when i lived in the west end n i say her coming in one of her pink mini skirts i used to cross the road to avoid her. the other commenter is right. she is like a schoolgirl in a womans body. totally weird. poor tommy.
anvar khan - one to avoid - most defo.
Having had the misfortune to meet Anvar Khan and the good fortune to meet Gail Sheridan I can honestly say that you won't find a more diametrically opposed pair of women - Anvar Khan is the chalk to Gail Sheridan's cheese.
This is fast becoming another argument within the far left, very few people are now commenting on the report on the blog. And as everyone is now posting as 'anonymous' it's impossible to follow. Might it be time to consider stopping comments that are clearly just SSP and Solidarity having a go at one another?
This really is wasting the blog from being the interesting and informative space it was earlier in the trial.
On the affidavit in court - there is no mention of a confession, this was clear and shocking on the day. Instead there is the statement that Sheridan will be denying and contesting the stories that will appear in the paper and that is alongside the statement that the party have "certain information" that would contradict Sheridan's denial.
As it has now been established that the minutes were never "ratified", that the original notes had information that didnt make it to the minutes about "a gun" and a prostitute in a hotel, and now an affidavit that doesnt mention a confession, the whole story of the minutes etc is finished as a conclusive piece of evidence that could be "beyond doubt" and send someone to jail.
The affidavit has forced most people to rethink what they thought to be the truth on this and is the most significant piece of evidence so far. A whole host of witnesses that were senior members of the party have declared that they didnt know about this, so the affirmation in the affidavit - that it was done in consultation with SSP members - means that we will see a small group acting outside of official party committees and pursuing their own agenda. That much is clear now, what we dont know is exactly who they were and exactly what their agenda was.
A major part of Sheridan's indictment is the confession at that meeting and this now relies on the jury's take on the Video, which remains now as the only credible evidence of a confession. And I say credible meaning that it hasnt been challenged sucessfully yet, in my opinion.
Hello Linda, I do see your point on the SSP and Solidarity arguments, however I post what comes in (unless it breaks the rules) and I don't really want to become a censor.
A very well written ,clear, well-thought out and reasoned post, Linda. You are probably expressing what a lot of the commenters/snipers on here are trying to articulate, expect that they are unable to articulate.
Just for clarification, didn't Tommy sue the NOTW for printing the Fiona McGuire story rather than the Anvar Kahn article?
The NOTW claimed he had a series of sexual encounters with McGuire which he denied. He sued and any resonable assesment of the liable trial would conclude that there was no evidence to support the papers assertions.
However, once they got wind of the SSP meeting, the "minutes" et al, the paper changed their arguement at the first trial to say their story was "substantially true."
I think it is wrong to suggest Tommy Sheridan sued NOTW over the Manchester allegations.
This is true, anonymous, the original allegation for which Tommy sued was over the Fiona McGuire story, and the other allegations came into play come the actual court hearing.
Have people not being following the trial? It is alleged that TS stated he was going to sue the NOTW at a meeting on 9/11/04. The Fiona Maguire story did not come out until 14/11/04. Whilst it may appear that the FMc story was a pile of the proverbial (this part is not part of the perjury)the problem was that the NOTW had other information of TS including the alleged sex club and Moat House Hotel, which he continued to deny. Unfortunately for it to be libellous it has to be libellous i.e. saying untrue things about someone's character and lifestyle e.g. he is a loyal and monogamous husband. His lawyer should have told him that but he went with a pal who was backing him on a "no claim no fee" basis. The inditement against TS includes the Moat House and the Sex Club not FMc.
Do people really believe that the members of the EC are lying and making up what was said at the EC meeting? - which seems bizarre to me, why are so many saying that? Or are they mostly angry that they did not back TS no matter what, again quite a dangerous precedent.
The whole thing baffles me.
Didn't Carolyn Leckie say under oath that she wasnt aware that Sheridans libel case included the Sex Club story until 2 years later, she thought that it was just the other story.
And there's a point actually, if that story about the McGuire woman isnt featured here in this trial, does that mean it was lies? If so where are the perjury charges for the people who said it ws true in court 4 years ago?
Burke or hare, the first written account of that meeting came out in court on Friday and it didnt mention tommy confessing. Are you not following the trial?
It's clear that people are angry that members of the SSP executive did not take to court the first time and state that Sheridan was telling the truth. Had they done so, of course, those people would now be facing jail, too.
It's easy to sit behind a keyboard and attack, Far braver to do the right thing.
It doesn't matter what precisely the case that Sheridan brought was, as this is not a rerun of the defamation action (though obviously much of the evidence will overlap) - the Sheridans have been charged with lying in court. He's not being charged with 'bringing a false defamation action', he's being charged with 'lying in court', which is pertinent to any lies he told in court, if he told any
No anonymous, it is only pertinent to the specifics of the indictment.
Post a Comment