Mr Sheridan then asked about a particular meeting held in October 2004, which Mr Harper called a memorable event. The witness explained to the court that this meeting had been held on his last day at university, adding that it as his "final act as a student." He also recalled it because his then girlfriend had organised a "special meal" to celebrate the end of his studies and that there had been an argument between them when he forget to tell her to postpone the meal due to the meeting. Asked for more details of the event Mr Harper told the court that it was held at the Music Hall in Aberdeen and the meeting had been called to oppose the continued presence of British troops in Iraq. He also told the court that at the meeting Mr Sheridan had spoken about a visit he had made earlier in the day to Camphill School in Aberdeen, that had been threatened with closure.
Mr Harper went on to tell the court that after the meeting finished, at around 9pm, he and Mr Sheridan had talked with various other people before walking to a flat, occupied by the brother of Duncan Rowan, the SSP organiser for the North East region, Andrew Rowan. The witness stated that Andrew Rowan was away at the time and Mr Harper had been given the keys to the flat by Duncan Rowan to allow Mr Sheridan to spend the night there. Mr Harper stated that he had shared a cup of coffee with Mr Sheridan before being picked up by his girlfriend at between 10.30pm and 11.00pm.
Mr Sheridan then asked the witness what had occured the next day. Mr Harper told the court he had picked Mr Sheridan up at Andrew Rowan's flat at 10.30 or so the next day. The had then walked together to Aberdeen University where there had been another meeting. After that had concluded Mr Harper accompanied Mr Sheridan to the train station where Mr Sheridan had boarded a train, "possibly to Dundee,I'm not certain."
Mr Sheridan the produced his diary from 2004, which is a Crown exhibit. Mr Sheridan had the witness read the diary entry for the 11th October which stated "10:42 train" "1.13 Camphil school, Steiner, troops out public meeting Aberdeen 7.30 to 9pm" "stay and Duncan's brother Aberdeen." Mr Sheridan asked the witness if this was the "same meeting" that he had referred to, the witness reponded he was "certain it was."
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Harper about his relationship with Duncan Rowan. The witness replied that he was more of an "acquaintance" of Mr Rowan that a "friend" but they talked at least weekly, mostly about political matters. Mr Sheridan asked the witness if he recalled the last time he saw Mr Rowan to which Mr Harper replied "unfortunately I do." The witness went on to tell the court that he had met Mr Rowan in a cafe on the 13th November 2004, the day before the first News of the World story naming him in connection with Fiona McGuire. Mr Harper told the court he had asked Mr Rowan about the 9th November SSP executive meeting at which, the crown alleges, Mr Sheridan made admissions of visiting a "Sex Club." The witness stated that Mr Rowan had told him the meeting was "distressing" and that "they had got you out, achieved their aim." The witness further told the court that Mr Rowan had stated to him that the whole meeting was a "screw job." and Mr Sheridan had admitted having a relationship with Anvar Khan "many years ago" but "denied anything else." Mr Harper said that Mr Rowan had looked "nervous and anxious" and further told the court that he had never seen him after that day, despite calling and texting Mr Rowan.
Mr Sheridan concluded his evidence in chief by asking Mr Harper if he was aware that it was a "serious matter' to not tell the truth in court. Mr Harper replied that he "valued and cherish my career" and that he sat on the Aberdeen foster care panel and that he would never "risk" that by lying in court. With that Mr Sheridan thanked the witness and returned to his seat in the dock.
Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute, then rose to cross-examine the witness and asked if Mr Harper considered himself, "open, honest and transparent." The witness replied "yes" Mr Prentice asked if this was so why had the witness refused, when asked in November this year, to provide a statement to the police about his forthcoming testimony. Mr Harper told the court that while he worked with and had respect for individual police officers, with whom he worked regulary he had no trust for the police as a whole who he called "no friends of the socialist left." The Advocate Depute asked again if the witness considered himself "open and transparent" to which Mr Harper responded "you must have heard, I don't trust the police, I have good relations with the rank and file but Tommy Sheridan is being set up" adding that while he had taken advice on the matter "nobody makes decisions for me." and that it was his "legal right" not to make a statement if he did not wish to. Mr Prentice put it to the witness that the prosecution had "no idea what you had to say" to which Mr Harper replied that he believed Mr Prentice was "trying to play a game" adding that the Crown could "question me all day if you want."
Mr Prentice then put it to Mr Harper "it was in fact the case that Mr Sheridan did not spend that night in Aberdeen" and "you are just here to assist Tommy Sheridan" Mr Harper replied that "the left in Scotland has already been destroyed this won't make things better, I've nothing to gain." Mr Prentice then ended his cross-examination and returned to his seat.
Mr Sheridan then rose to briefly re-examine the witness and asked the witness again why he had not given a statement to the police. Mr Harper stated that he "respected the role of the police" and that he "was not anti-police" but that he "did not trust the state in this case." Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that "if the Crown wished they could have ordered you to make a statement" then returned to his seat. Lord Bracadale thanked the witness for his testimony and allowed him to step down from the stand.
Mr Prentice then put it to Mr Harper "it was in fact the case that Mr Sheridan did not spend that night in Aberdeen" and "you are just here to assist Tommy Sheridan" Mr Harper replied that "the left in Scotland has already been destroyed this won't make things better, I've nothing to gain." Mr Prentice then ended his cross-examination and returned to his seat.
Mr Sheridan then rose to briefly re-examine the witness and asked the witness again why he had not given a statement to the police. Mr Harper stated that he "respected the role of the police" and that he "was not anti-police" but that he "did not trust the state in this case." Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that "if the Crown wished they could have ordered you to make a statement" then returned to his seat. Lord Bracadale thanked the witness for his testimony and allowed him to step down from the stand.
31 comments:
James. Refreshing to get info on what is actually said and how things can get skewed with the scant space this is getting in the Scottish news.
A defence witness? Maybe until the tongue twisting about the police and the reasons for not giving a statement.
Sheridan needs better than this Citizen Smith felly.
I see that anon does not get the significance of the date 11 oct 2004. I'll leave it to him to work it out.
I get the significance. I understand what Mr Harper did.
Particularly impressive witness by the sounds of things. Good reasons for his remembering the dates of the meetings - there is no doubt that TS was at those meetings - and it would have been odd for TS to have left Aberdeen by train late that evening, only to return the following morning. Therefore the explanation that he spent the night in Aberdeen is perfectly logical as well as being vouched for by Brett.
Did Alex Prentice attempt to suggest that Brett was lying, or merely mistaken in his recollection of events?
The prosecution had no idea what he was going to say? The prosecution had Tommy's diaries, you would have thought with all money and personnel, the police would have checked who organised the meeting, did Tommy attend and whether he stayed with Duncan's brother. The more this goes on, the more I wonder what the police spent the money on.
It is unfortunate that he would not speak to the police prior to giving evidence though, as it might put another slant on the date of the alleged stay in Dundee, which the Dundee couple seemed uncertain of, though not of the fact that it had occured.
As it was, AP was reduced to using TS's line about 'here to help a friend'.
I don't understand 11th Oct 2004 - I thought Ms Trolle suggested a date of 24th Oct. Did she claim 11th Oct?
Also worth remembering the train tickets that AP produced when Ralph Barnett was in the stand.
The train tickets were dated 11 Oct, but all that would be doing was confirming that TS was in Aberdeen except he is suggesting that he was not with Katrine Trolle but elsewhere.
James could you please check the dates. In your report from Ms Trolle's evidence you quote the 24th. The report of Tommy's cross,w ritten by Whatse (have I got that right) says Tommy was in Duncan's brother's flat the same night. Your report of Brett Haperper's testimony says the 11th, a slip of the pen?
It is kind of obvious that if you don't give a statement to the Police it does hamstring the Crown somewhat since the effectively have to cross-examine on the hoof.
I think you are getting your events mixed up Keith, see here
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/26-october-ralph-barnett.html
This not giving a statement though is a bit like the right to remain silent, you are well within your rights but can rightly or wrongly be used to suggest an ulterior motive, and indeed some, rightly or wrongly, may draw a negative inference.
It's on the 24th of NOVEMBER 2001(2) that Katrine Trolle alleges that she had sex in the city chambers with TS.
James, thanks for that the date in question is the 11 th. Did Ms Trolle really say it was the 24th, as that is what you have written down when asked by the prosecution?
Regardless of the ins and outs of this trial in my opinion the Police have a bloody cheek coming round (knocking your door 3 times a day for a fortnight) before the trial in order to obtain a statement to aid the Crown. The same Crown that NEVER supply, unless forced to (the a judge/sheriff), precognition statements by Crown witnesses.
The danger with giving evidence to the prosecution, such as dates, is that if they see that you have an alibi for an event, they can simply move the date they are alleging against you to a different date to nullify your alibi evidence. Had Brett told them what his evidence was, I bet the date 11th October would bot been raised as significant by the prosecution.
Have any of the defence witnesses given a statement to the Crown/Police?
You can assume anon that other the ones asked why the did not they did. Mr Gonzales was asked about his today.
Anon said...
This not giving a statement though is a bit like the right to remain silent, you are well within your rights but can rightly or wrongly be used to suggest an ulterior motive, and indeed some, rightly or wrongly, may draw a negative inference.
December 13, 2010 8:11 PM
It is not a statute that requires you to provide statements to the police, you are however compeled to attend court if cited as a witness.
I beleive that Mr Harper has simply exercised his right in this regard and nothing else.
You may be forgiven in the belief that Socialists will stampede over each other in an effort to support the state, given that so many in this case have appeared to do just that, there are others who will exercise their rights not to Mr. Harper IMO is one who has exercised that right.
From my reading of this blog he appears to be another witness who has a different view around certain events than other witnesses.
What I can't understand about the way TS is going about presenting his evidence is all we have at the moment is one side saying something and the other countering it.
If TS was speaking at a meeting in Aberdeen you would have thought there would be a booking form for the hall, a leaflet advertising the meeting etc etc. Did he present any of this as evidence?
Anonymous said...
What I can't understand about the way TS is going about presenting his evidence is all we have at the moment is one side saying something and the other countering it.
If TS was speaking at a meeting in Aberdeen you would have thought there would be a booking form for the hall, a leaflet advertising the meeting etc etc. Did he present any of this as evidence?
Why should he, he has a witness who stated he was present.
I can not remember any Crown witnesses having to provide such back up to their statments.
As for "one side saying something and the other countering it" I believe thats what happens in courts most days.
It is up to the Jury to work through this issue.
It's about convincing a jury that your are innocent especially when you have the NOW etc against you! If this evidence is available TS should presented it.
This, like Ms Trolles story about the 'cultural festival' seems to be another example of police just accepting her story without checking the events.
I hope that they didnt get too cosy over coffee and doughnuts to remember what they were supposed to be doing.
And the guy from the Met highlights a very different attitude to pursuing the NotW than Lothian police had to pursuing Sheridan.
Another good day for the defence.
I heard today that we can expect the defence to finish on Friday with Prentice summing up for the prosecution on Monday, Sheridan summing up for the defence on Wednesday next week.
What about Lord Bracdale's summing up, where would that fit into the time-line, then allowing time for the jury's deliberation. Going to be tight to get out of there for Xmas.
Lord B will charge the jury after the defence do their summation.
How long that will take I have no idea. Usually, it would be quite short - an hour maybe, but for this case, who knows?
If say Lord B doesn't begin his Charge until Friday I can't see the Jury beginning deliberations on the Friday - that could be construed as "rushing the Jury into a verdict" before Xmas/Luncheon.
This person could have been a very strong witness for Mr. Sheridan - especially with regards dates/times etc.
That said, I can't help but think that the refusal to give the police a statement and the comments attributed to him regarding the state's intentions towards Mr. & Mrs. Sheridan could well undermine his value.
It could well be that he is interpreted as being unduly partisan.
If Steven is correct, LB will probably iNstruct the jury and summarise on the same day as Sheridan, I don't think the jury will take long on this.
Boomerang said...
This person could have been a very strong witness for Mr. Sheridan - especially with regards dates/times etc.
That said, I can't help but think that the refusal to give the police a statement and the comments attributed to him regarding the state's intentions towards Mr. & Mrs. Sheridan could well undermine his value.
It could well be that he is interpreted as being unduly partisan.
December 14, 2010 10:08 AM
That may be the case however the Jury could interpret that other witnesses have been unduly hostile. There seems to be some confusion in exercising a right that is legally yours, to someone being proactive in supplying statements.
Post a Comment