After this was read the presiding judge, Lord Bracadale, asked the jury to retrieve their copies of the Indictment against the two accused (you can find a copy of the indictment Here ) Mr Prentice then told the court that he was withdrawing charge one against Tommy Sheridan (that he attempted to subourn Crown witness Colin Fox to commit perjury) The Advocate Depute told the jury that the charge was being withdrawn only because the evidence came from one source, Mr Fox. and therefore there was no corroboration. Mr Prentice went on to say that this was not a reflection on the credibilty of Mr Fox but a matter of "Legal sufficiency "
Mr Prentice then listed a number of other portions of the indictment of Mr Sheridan that were to be deleted and were all references to the "Moat House hotel chapter" On the issue of the indictment of the co-accused, Gail Sheridan, Mr Prentice proposed to remove all parts of the indictment except for one portion : "that you had checked your diaries and the diaries of said Thomas Sheridan for November 2001 and November 2002 and that the entries confirmed that you had been at home overnight during every weekend in November 2001 and November 2002"
The judge, Lord Bracadale then asked Mr Sheridan to rise, which he did, and then told him that he was "acquitted" on charge one of the indictment. Mr Prentice then formally ended the Crown's case and court adjourned until tomorrow morning.
28 comments:
I thought corroboration was only necessary in the Sheriff Court, not in the High Court?
Not at all, Jessica. The laws of corroboration are the same be it the District, Sheriff or High Court - no distinction.
I thought the rule was to get a convicion you needed collaboration, no?
I think you mean corroboration, but, no, all the Crown has to do to get a conviction is persuade the jury to return a guilty verdict. That's what it all boils down to.
Yes, Tony you need corroboration. Not in England though.
In theory you need corroboration, but not really in practice.
You can find an interesting essay on the meaning of the term corroboration in Scottish law here
http://www.hingstons.co.uk/laws-Corroboration-no.html
james
The jury was then read a joint minute, made up of evidence not in dispute by either side in the case. This evidence is deemed "proved" and is part of the evidence the jury must consider when reaching a verdict.
If the evidence is deemed proved and is part of the evidence for consideration by the jury, is this evidence that TS can no longer contend?
Yes.
That's what it means, TS cannot contend it. It's not as if the tape is in there, is it?
this is stuff tha Sheridan has never disputed anyway, it wont be contended, it never has been
which is what? as he seems to have contended everything so far. Does anyone know what this evidence is that has been left for the jury to decide on?
The prosecution has rested and there is no new evidence. All that police time and money and we have the same evidence we had at the previous hearing plus the tape.
However certain things did change, the date Tommy went to Cupids moved forward a year. The News of the World did pay for the information it received. The police asked Gail if she was trained by the IRA, tthey took her rosary beads because they were distracting her and didn't return Gabrielle's christmas dress and antlers till christmas eve, you couldn't make it up could you.
Can anyone say why the prosecution ever brought the suborning charge to court? What presumably happened was that Colin Fox volunteered his evidence to the police.
With no corroborating evidence and no witnesses, it was just one man's word against another. How could they possibly have hoped to prove to a jury that the event took place, or if it did what was said?
Seems to me it was an own goal for the prosecution.
Where is the corroboration going to come from for the remaining charge against Gail??, they did not call the Aunt.
Unless I am mistaken Bracadale should have stepped in there, but then again he has more worries I see megrahi is launching a muti million law suit according to the papers today
Bunc said...
Do you have any experience of the police Peter?
You really think that most suspects who refuse to talk just get handed a nice cup of tea and a biscuit and that the police don't see if they can find a "button to press"?
What do you expect them to do just sit in silence for an hour or two twiddling their thumbs. They tried to rattle her - so what?
And yes I do think there were problems with some of the prosection witnesses. But I think the prosecution still has a robust case overall that TS will now have to try to answer - and I personally have no reasonable doubt about where the truth of this case is to be found. The jury will make of it what they will.
It will be interesting to see if TS and GS are prepared to to expose themselves to cross examination wont it?
December 2, 2010 11:37
Thanks Bunc,
Could you let me know which of the Crown witnesses it is that you had a problem with?
I agree with you there were a number of Crown witnesses that there were problems with.
Just to get you going I thought there was a problem with Katrine Troll.
It was established that she broke her oath to tell the full truth by denying the contract offers from the NOTW and changing the date of the alleged sex sessions.
That coupled with the "not normal" contacts with police officers and journalist during the investigation is a concern as she is a crucial Crown witness.
Put it this way (unless you believe Khan and McGuire which I presume is unlikely) Troll is the only one who can give testimony of sex with Sheridan.
Do you have any concerns with Troll or any other witnesses?
Anonymous Bunc said...
Do you have any experience of the police Peter?
You really think that most suspects who refuse to talk just get handed a nice cup of tea and a biscuit and that the police don't see if they can find a "button to press"? What do you expect them to do just sit in silence for an hour or two twiddling their thumbs. They tried to rattle her - so what?
December 2, 2010 11:37
Hi Bunc,
Actually Bunc it was not tea and biscuits but Troll did get coffee and muffins - as well as allegedly flirty and "not normal" emails from and to the police officer.
It was Gail who got her religeous observance and legal right to silence attacked but that's for another time.
Even handed police investigation mmmm don't think so.
The irony is that the police knew and we now know now that it was actually Trolle who gave incorrect evidence at the libel trial about NOTW payment offers and the dates of sex sessions.
An even handed police investigation mmmm really?
Bunc said...
Do you have any experience of the police Peter? You really think that most suspects who refuse to talk just get handed a nice cup of tea and a biscuit and that the police don't see if they can find a "button to press"? What do you expect them to do just sit in silence for an hour or two twiddling their thumbs. They tried to rattle her - so what?
December 2, 2010 11:37
Here's a tip Bunc don't answer the question of my personal experience for me. Just wait for an answer lad.
I don't want to tell you of all my handcuff experiences (cough/wink) but proud to say that I am personally 2-0 up in terms of Not Guilty. Also had 6 interviews under caution. All matters related to political activity I hasten to add. Many hours in the cells and custody suites etc. Stayed silent.
If you have a long and active history in the labour movement at the sharp end ie. organising demonstrations, pickets etc that is not unusual. Getting on a bit now and cannot run as fast so not been pulled for the last few years - let the young ones earn their spurs now!
One of the prosecutions was in the Liverpool Docks dispute - it was instructive. The police arrested us and produced statements from police officers of our alleged severe public disorder.
The police statements were very detailed but if you looked closely you could see the joins. Kids stuff really.
They Crown told the judge the police had compelling CCTV evidence and witnesses but were just trying to locate it and them. Adjournment after adjournment followed.
We had a decent solicitor (who had a set) who agreed with us that if the CCTV evidence did not turn up or was not conclusive we would walk or have a fighting chance.
The CCTV evidence turned up on the day of the full trial at risk of contempt if it was not presented. Guess what it did not show anything the police said it showed. The opposite in fact! Do the police lie - err yes they do.
The Crown abandoned the case.
I also have a Brother in Law and a friend who are police who I admire greatly. I disagree with them, however, as I see the need for a fully democratically controlled police and feel the bobbies don't get paid enough. They only agree on the latter!
The important point is that you should not fall for kids stuff like the dodgy videos (and non-existent) GPS tracking evidence as you did. Gail it appears did not. Good on her.
Did I mention that we had the resolve to resist the police as we were innocent?
For the inexperienced detainee it is actually easier to sit there and say nothing. If you are Guilty you are more tempted to present an excuse or come up with some silly story.
If Gail was guilty it is more likely that she would have broken down. Her resilience, even in the face of an apparently upsetting sectarian provocation, is instructive of her likely innocence rather than her guilt IMHO. But that is for the jury.
Cheers Peter
Seems to me there was a wheen of new evidence - the SSP witnesses like Dr Nick who never gave evidence at the defamation trial; Anvar Khan's neighbour, the sweet old lady; the Cumberbirches and Pam Tucker's eye-witness testimony to the gang of 5's visit to Cupids; the Dundee couple, with no apparent axe to grind, claiming to have seen Tommy in the flat they shared with Katrina T; George McNeilage talking to the tape and who really is on it.
With the exception of McNeilage, the NoTW did not pay any of these witnesses, and many of them probably think as little of that rag as most folk do. So why would they do what they did? There is no single unifying thread, other than that they are just telling it as they saw it, as duty bound to do in a court of law.
Sorry - comment above in reply to Keith79 stating there was no evidence.
RT
Rolo good to see you back but not quite right I am afraid:
a) Louise Cummerbirch did not clearly identify Sheridan.
b) Was it not Pam Tucker who was (cough) a bit "confused" about her (apparently non-existent) relationship with Tommy's father
c)It was winkled out of Mr Cummerbirch that he has a series of convictions as a "common" criminal. Tommy does not. Also the defence has already said that his employer, the owners of Cupids, have stated that Sheridan was not at the club. We will see if they appear. Most importantly the Crown have NOT presented any forensic evidence eg. G.P.S tracking, credit cards, CCTV etc that links ANY of the infamous 5 to the alleged trip to Manchester never mind Tommy.
d) How sure are you about Crown witnesses not being paid money? In the libel trial various people put forward as honest salt of the earth types said they were not paid or offered money - only for it to now emerge they were! The Crown dropped some of them from this case! So how sure are you? Sure enough to put a man in jail? This is the problem with the contamination of the witness pool by the NOTW. We simply don't know who was paid and therefore we don't know which of the Crown witnesses to believe.
e) The defence has explained other possible motives for the close friends of Trolle and Khan to back them up. Essentially if Trolle and Khan cannot be backed up by their friends they are potentially in serious trouble. NB: the dates when these incidents supposedly occurred have shifted like the sands of the Sahara.
f) As for the United Left why, in the absence of independent evidence, accept the word of one group of SSP witnesses over the other SSP witnesses who say no such confession was made? Cancel each other out don't they. The jury appears to have felt that in the libel trial.
g)The McNeilage video is simply not supported by forensics. As the NOTW say themselves they are "chancers". The video was most likely simply a chancers tool to get a perjury investigation off the ground which would support the NOTW appeal. Quite a successful strategy for the NOTW (so far) as it turns out.
The remaining main question therefore for me remains is do I believe Khan, Trolle and McGuire. If not then all the other matters fall away. If there was No sex then there can be No confession to sex.
Trolle and Khan were less than convincing and altered their evidence and were caught out on changing the dates, payment from NOTW and the sunbed issue etc.
McGuire was not even called by the Crown as even the police agreed in court yesterday that she probably was not telling the truth.
I am politically in favour of a Not Guilty as you know but I would not convict my worst opponent on this evidence. We need to maintain some standards of justice. A reasonable doubt so far surely.
I didn't say there was no evidence, I said there was no new evidence. A slight difference. The police spent £1.1m and came up with a new date for the visit to Cupids and a handful of new witnesses. No cctv film of the car at petrol stations, no credit card payments, etc. Personally for that amount of money I was expecting a little more.
Peter - why would Gail Sheridan a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, a MOTHER OF A BABY and with NO CRIMINAL RECORD have such a negative view of the Police, indeed appear terrified of the Police. I understand it is every LAW-ABIDING citizen's duty to help the Police in their enquires. Say you are pulled over in your car, stopped in the street? What do you do? Well, me personally speaking, I would just answer their questions show them my documents and being my way. I wouldn't just stare in to space for 5 HOURS!
Rolo Tomasi said...
"Seems to me there was a wheen of new evidence - the SSP witnesses like Dr Nick who never gave evidence at the defamation trial; Anvar Khan's neighbour, the sweet old lady; the Cumberbirches and Pam Tucker's eye-witness testimony to the gang of 5's visit to Cupids; the Dundee couple, with no apparent axe to grind, claiming to have seen Tommy in the flat they shared with Katrina T; George McNeilage talking to the tape and who really is on it."
Some of these examples of new evidence are not as straightforward as they might be.
As far as I remember Pamela Tucker claimed to recognise Sheridan because she had worked with his father, then said she could be wrong and apologised. When asked if she had been approached by the News of the World she said "i knew nothing about this trial until I saw it on the telly then I was approached." (It wasn't made clear in the report who by.)
Mrs. Cumberbirch could not identify any of the people in the group who allegedly visited Cupid's that night, and Mr. Cumberbirch admitted to having lied in court in a previous, unrelated, trial.
Anvar Khan's neighbour, Elizabeth Quinn, gave evidence that seemed to be not entirely consistent with information about the date her house was painted.
Also she claimed to be angry with TS for allegedly being in her house, in a bedroom, with Anvar Khan, but did not seem to be angry with Anvar Khan for allegedly inviting him in, which seemed odd. For a "sweet old lady" she also seemed pretty sanguine about Anvar Khan having told her all about visits to Cupid's Club.
I can't remember the other testimonies Rolo Tomasi mentions, but I'm left with the impression that few, if any, of the prosecution witnesses have been totally convincing.
But obviously it's the impression they've made on the jury that matters.
Admittedly the Crown case is a bit patchy, but the way that TS defends himself (on instruction?) in my opinion makes him look less than innocent; in my opinion it is complete and utter tripe aimed at the level of a NotW reader, the lowest common denominator. And what if TS is acquitted would he do the decent thing and show some humility. In my opinion, it is not the SSP, NotW or Police, but TS that is his own worst enemy.
"Mr. Cumberbirch admitted to having lied in court in a previous, unrelated, trial." - as an accused person trying to "get off", not put someone else away, of defame a person(s) for money.
In fact anon Mr Cumberbirch agreed that he had lied in court by taking the blame for something he claimed he had not done (receiving stolen goods iirc)
@ Spectic, taking the blame for their "mates" is usually something that naive teenagers do. It doesn't make someone a "bad" person, on the contrary.
Post a Comment