Tuesday, December 21, 2010

The Crown Summing Up, Conclusion

After the showing of the "McNeilage Tape," Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute, suggested to the "ladies and gentlemen of the jury" that they should "reject the proposition" that the "McNeilage tape" (see report below) was concocted by the News of the World stating that if that this was true it was "pretty poor." The Advocate Depute then suggested that as well on the voice on the tape that the jury "consider the content," and additionally ask themselve's "why the tape is so long." Mr Prentice stated that the jury should consider that if a "concocted" tape was required why one was not produced that "showed a short event" as anything other than that risked "exposing the conspiracy." He also queried why Bob Bird, the Scottish editor of the News of the World, would give details, "including the details of his boxer shorts" unless he was giving a true account, and asked why, if Mr Baldessara and Mr McCombes knew that Mr Sheridan did not swear, did they include swearing in any script for the tape.


Mr Prentice mentioned the evidence of Susan Dobbie and the miniature bottles of wine, stating that this may seem small and insignificant by itself, but that the jury should "bear in mind the link to an airline".

The Advocate Depute then turned to the matter of "phone hacking" that had been raised in the case, suggesting it was irrelevant to the charge. He reminded the jury of the testimony of Detective Chief Superintendent Williams who had told them that there "was no evidence" that Mr Sheridan's voicemail had been accessed illegally. Mr Prentice went on to suggest that there was no information contained in the McNeilage tape that had been gathered from any alleged illegal voicemail access, that there was no evidence of phone or voicemail interception, and in particular, there was no evidence of what could be gained by this. 

Mr Prentice also took issue with the suggestion that the Lothian and Borders Police inquiry into had been "biased", while the jury might consider the actions of Officer Grant ill-advised,  the Advocate Depute invited the jury to "reject that" suggestion of bias.

Mr Prentice concluded by asking the jury to wonder why Barbara Scott took the minutes to the police, and that they should conclude that Mr Sheridan did commit perjury in the 2006 trial, that they should "convict Tommy Sheridan on the charge of perjury" and asked them "when they are in the jury room" they should "think about the testimony of Barbara Scott". The Advocate depute then ended his summing up and court was adjourned.

21 comments:

Effra Lottavum said...

Well done James and the blog team. Up until 2 am hacking this together? You deserve a medal.

Steve said...

Two in the morning - now that's dedication!

Anonymous said...

Worth pointing out that Alex Prentice described defence witness Thomas Montgomery as the worst witness he'd ever seen in a court.

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan Dial-A-Verdict said...

Thanks for your fantastic efforts - reporting long into the night.
Just thought you should know that this morning the Lord Chief Justice published guidance on live reporting from Court via Twitter and other text based services.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications-and-reports/guidance/lcj-interim-pracr-guide-text-based-comms-20122010

Does not apply in Scotland but we might expect similar Guidance soon, perhaps not in time for you guys to take advantage and make legal history into the bargain. You deserve that opportunity after your ordeal!

Skippy said...

I am writing from Australia. I have been following this blog from the beginning. I have never seen a trial reported like this before, and I don't think that your comments section could happen here, our laws being as they are.

Of course Rupert Murdoch used to be an Australian, before he turned into a yank, but I have refused to buy a Murdoch paper since 1975, when his outrageously biased "newspapers" helped turn the tide against the great Gough Whitlam, I dabbled in left politics as a youth (long ago) and I am interested in justice, having once been arrested and falsely charged at the behest of a vindictive ex-employer, so I know how your life can be turned upside down even when the charges are thrown out,

(Having said that, I've read every word of this blog, including the comments, and I still don't know what the verdict should be. I'm glad I'm not on the jury.)

However, the main reason I came to this blog, knowing nothing about the protagonists, Scottish politics or the Sheridan trial, was salacious curiosity - I thought it would be a laugh,

The reason that I'm still here all these weeks later (apart from needing to find out what happens next) is because of the quality of the blog. This is what court reporting should be! How poor is the detail in reporting in mainstream media? You have shown them up as mere hacks. This has been a victory for citizen's journalism.

I'd like to thank the commenters, from the committed to the comical, for hours of amusement and the excellent reporters for a great achievement. Well done, and thank you.

Bunc said...

The emphasis by Prentice on Barbara Scott's evidence is interesting.
Reading your account of her evidence again what strikes me now is that she in fact gave three strands of evidence each of which supports the other.

She testified to what she had seen and heard at the the critical "confession" meeting, there was the evidence of her handwritten notes of that same meeting and then there is the typed "disputed" minute of that meeting.

Three strands of evidence which, it would appear, Prentice wants us to see as mutually corroborating.

Edwin Moore said...

It's been excellent - many thanks!

beyond reasonable doubt... said...

Barbara Scott's evidence - is this the bit when she claimed that she had had the notes in her handbag while on the witness stand at the 2006 libel trial, but decided not to hand them over at that time?

Is she supposed to be a compelling witness?

Interesting that the Advocate depute should choose to end his summing up with her.

Neckhylyudov said...

beyond reasonable doubt... said

Barbara Scott's evidence - is this the bit when she claimed that she had had the notes in her handbag while on the witness stand at the 2006 libel trial, but decided not to hand them over at that time?

Is she supposed to be a compelling witness?

Very definitely - the hand-written note is compelling, as is the reason she gave for not wanting to
producing it in court, namely, she did not want to support the NotW's case. Just as compelling is the reason she went to the police with these notes after the first trial. Who would accept being branded a liar when you have the material to refute this at hand?

The fact that B.S took these notes to the police unilaterally knowing the serious consequences that could follow is probably what impressed A.P.

ANNABANANA said...

james take comfort,you were not alone at 2am for I was with you.as I have been since day one...our pappers should be ashamed.your work and dedication have been first class together with whatsy and bill davidson @ the (p.f.) who has spent 2yrs on this....A.C.

Tambo said...

Well I mean, logically, given how much people like Paul McBride focused on that, if you were part of a conspiracy why would you say something like that that doesn't really serve your purpose?

Claire G said...

During the evidence did TS address the question of why he called Katrine Trolle and Gary Clark after leaving the 9th November meeting? Interesting to see if he addresses this in his closing speech.

Chumpo said...

@Claire G:

As Tommy declined to give evidence himself, he didn't have to answer any questions like this.

Anonymous said...

I think this is one of the most innovative blogs that really does illustrate how trial reporting could be done if the will is there.
The interactive comments are fascinating, as the case has progressed
If the Law Lords reject twittering I would respectfully suggest burning this trial coverage blog to a CD and sending it to every High Court Judge in London and Edinburgh
It took many years to bring in the Live Note innovation
Dare to persevere you never know your voice may be heard?

keep your head down said...

James, another scandal in the offing, you claimed to be working until 2am, but infact you spent the night with AnnaBanana(11.26) :)
With her confession in black-and-white, just wait until the crown prosecution get hold of you!

Peter said...

Anon 3.48 said:

"I would respectfully suggest burning this trial coverage blog to a CD and sending it to every High Court Judge in London and Edinburgh"

------------------
Hi Anon,

From what I can gather I think James has had a few suggestions in that regard already - not all of them unfortunately from people as well meaning as you :)

But the fourth estate is important and these knockers should be disregarded.

This blog has set the bar very high.

It is reasonably doubtful due to the specific nature of this case and the politcal background to it - a history that goes back near 30 years now - that another blog will reach the level of comments this case has attracted.

However, I would think for other high profile cases James may well have found a new, niche career with a bit of backing. Perhaps the Dragons Den awaits.

Anonymous said...

Thanks so much guys!! Your hard work is really appreciated from an ex-pat in California. THANKS!!!!!! Where can I send a Christmas card? :-) Haha.

Whatsy said...

@keep your head down
Re: "James, another scandal in the offing, you claimed to be working until 2am, but infact you spent the night with AnnaBanana(11.26) :)
With her confession in black-and-white, just wait until the crown prosecution get hold of you!
"

That's if you take anabanana's word for it. Maybe James claims never to have met her, or maybe she's been paid by the NoW to discredit James's honest reporting?

That will be for the jury to - oops, no, force of habit. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, eh?

Heather said...

Re: Barbara Scott's evidence.

I remember after Tommy Sheridan won the case against the NoTW in 2006, the general understanding was that it was those who gave evidence AGAINST him who were at risk of being charged with perjury.

I think that might explain Ms Scott's production of handwritten minutes that even Colin Fox hadn't seen before.

Imho she was trying to cover herself incase proceedings were brought against her - not because she didn't want to side with the NoTW.

Peter said...

Anonymous said...

Worth pointing out that Alex Prentice described defence witness Thomas Montgomery as the worst witness he'd ever seen in a court.

December 21, 2010 8:11


Was Prentice not there for Anvar Khan then?

(there you go that was short and sweet wasn't it)

Iain Mc said...

@ Heather

A good point - and surely one that Sheridan would have been expected to raised in his summation to try and counter/neutralise what AP said about this?

What of the fact that he didn't do this? (He may well have done, of course, but am only going by the reports on here, obviously).