When court resumed at 2.15 pm Mr Sheridan moved to the lectern to continue his cross-examination of Detective Sergeant Harkness (an account of the first part of the witnesses testimony can be found Here )
Mr Sheridan began by asking DS Harkness if he had received any "anti-terrorism training" which the witness confirmed he had. DS Harkness was then asked what the relationship between the News of the World and Lothian and Borders police to which he stated there was "no relationship." Mr Sheridan then asked what the witness understood by the phrase "force insiders" as used by some newspapers. DS Harkness replied that the term would mean "someone who said something to the newspapers" Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if an investigation had been held into possible leaks from this inquiry to the media. DS Harkness confirmed that the Lothian and Borders police professional standards unit had conducted an inquiry into media leaks and that four police officers had been interviewed, he added however that they had been given a "clean bill of health" Mr Sheridan premarked that in this case "Lothian and Borders police had investigated Lothian and Borders police"
Mr Sheridan then moved on to what, he claimed, were "inconsistencies" in the evidence of various Crown witnesses and asked DS Harkness if he had, in his investigation, taken any action on these. The witness stated that a report had been prepared for the Procurator Fiscal on the whole case. Mr Sheridan then brought into evidence an email from Detective Constable Grant Wilson to another police officer, (to which DS Harkness was copied), which said of Crown witness Katrine Trolle " As I said I am available to go and get her for court or for any other purposes......" Mr Sheridan asked the witness of he thought this was "inappropriate" DS Harkness said he could not comment but agreed it was "not what I would have sent."
Mr Sheridan then asked DS Harkness if he had been present when his home was searched in December 2007. The witness replied he had not as "I was detaining yourself" DS Harkness also told the court, when asked, that he was unaware who "tipped of the media" that the search was taking place. Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if he was aware the search had lasted for over five hours and had included a search of his child's clothes and room. DS Harkness replied that it was necessary for the team to check carefully as it was "amazing the places we find items. Mr Sheridan asked about the removal by the search team of his daughters "Christmas dress" and a set of "Rudolph antlers" DS Harkness said this was an "accident" due to items being placed in bags to avoid them being seen by the waiting media. The witness also stated that those items had been returned "the next day." Sheridan put it to DS Harkness that they had not been returned until the 24th December, to which the witness replied that he thought it had been earlier.
Mr Sheridan then turned to an police interview conducted by DS Harkness and others with his wife, and co-accused Gail Sheridan. He began by asking if the officer was aware that Mrs Sheridan was a practicing catholic, had no criminal record and had never been interviewed by the police before. DS Harkness confirmed he was. Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if he agreed with the right of silence and if he was aware that Mrs Sheridan's QC, Paul McBride had advised her not to answer any questions at this interview, DS Harkness said he did agree with the "right of silence and that Mrs Sheridan had told him of her QC's advice. He added that he believed he had a duty to establish the reason why Mrs Sheridan was remaining silent to confirm it was not for "the wrong reason." DS Harkness also told the court that she was being shown productions that "could be of benefit to her" and that instead she was "focussing on a spot on the wall.
Mr Sheridan then hd the witness read the common law caution which is; "You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do say will be noted down and may be used in evidence" Mr Sheridan then asked if Mrs Sheridan was searched and her jewelry and watch were taken from her. DS Harkness told the court that this was "standard procedure" and was partly for the detained person's safety. Mr Sheridan then put it to the witness that Mrs Sheridan had asked to keep with her a set of rosary beads, which DS Harkness confirmed. Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if during the interview, he had removed this set of rosary beads from Mrs Sheridan. The witness said he had as they were "distracting her" as Mrs Sheridan was "focusing on them." Mr Sheridan then had DS Harkness read from the transcript of the interview where he advises the witness he has removed the rosary and asks "what religion are you Gail." adding "Gail I must ask you who has schooled you to focus on the wall, I have interviewed people under the terrorism act and that is a recognised PIRA [P rovisional IRA] technique, who'se training you." A question Mr Sheridan describes as "pure intimidation, nasty." DS Harkness answered that this technique of focussing on the wall or part of the table "was hard to do, so I asked her" Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that "because she is a catholic you accuse her if being PIRA" and called the question "bullying and shameful." Mr Sheridan then put it to DS Harkness that Mrs Sheridan's questioning had taken five hours. The witness said this was not unusual and that Mrs Sheridan had been "afforded breaks" and could have been held for six hours.
Mr Sheridan ended his cross examination by putting it to the witness that the investigation was "biased" to which DS Harkness responded "I strongly disagree." Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that while "Katrine Trolle got coffee and muffins my wife was denied her Rosary beads and called a terrorist" DS Harkness replied that he "reported the facts as we found them" and again said he "strongly disagreed" with Mr Sheridan's assertion that there was a "vendetta" against him. Mr Sheridan then ended his cross-examination and returned to the dock.
Alex Prentice QC, for the Crown, then briefly re-examined the witness. He first asked if DC Harkness had accused Gail Sheridan of being a terrorist. DC Harkness said he had not but stated she was "acting like terrorists act, focussing on a spot on the wall" and continued "that's hard to carry out for five hours," There was then a brief adjournment and when court reconvened Mr Prentice had DS Harkness go through the process of how the police reported to the Procurator Fiscal's office, drawing out the point that it was that office that decided on prosecutions not the police. With that the Advocate Depute ended the examination of the last prosecution witness in the case and asked for a five minute adjournment. This was granted and the court rose.
41 comments:
The questioning of GS by lothian and borders police could be a game changer as far as the jurys perception of whether it is a genuine case of " out to get the sheridans"
TS states that PMcB advised his wife to remain silent? Where? In Scotland a person is detained (then arrested) they don't see a solicitor until they are in the cells of the Sheriff Court. A solicitor - not a QC. A solicitor instructs a QC before a case goes to Trial. In my opinion is TS confusing the "right to remain silent" in a police interview with the "right to remain silent in court"?
In my opinion is it reasonable to assume that there is a strong likelihood that GS will not give evidence. Is this what all this "right to silence" is about?
Sorry anon I should have been clearer. Mrs Sheridan attended the interview voluntarily after taking legal advice.
Thanks James, that makes sense now.
The police asking who has trained you and linking the use of rosary beads to membership of a terrorist group, is just another weapon in their arsenal, this is a method used in an effort to antagonise GS to make her speak.
I doubt that the media covering this trial will relay the rosary bead incident though
We can not have the police showing religious bias, as this does not exist within the force.
Someone attending a police station "voluntarily" actually has less rights than someone who has been detained arrested. It's really best practice no to attend a police station "voluntarily", as if the police have enough grounds to arrest someone they will. (But try ignoring a polite request to attend voluntarily.) It appears that TS was "detained" i.e not enough grounds to arrest him, but more than to "request" that he attends "voluntarily".
Does anti terrorism training equate to anti Roman Catholic
This evidence may not show a vendeta against the Sheridans it does show IMO a biased view though.
It is not, in fact, unknown for certain QCs to offer advice to high profile suspects prior to a voluntary attendance at a police station. I am aware that in the period before this trial started Paul McBride gave advice to a well-known figure who was under investigation for a serious offence, that eventually was not prosecuted, so there's nothing unusual in him having tendered cetain advice to Gail before she attended the interview
9.43.
No, TS was arrested.
So what exactly is the evidence against GS?
Have I missed it?
DemandamirandaI believe the only charge left against Gail Sheridan is
"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"
James posted that the following charge remains:
So how does AP intend this charge against GS to "stick"? What is the reasoning, corroboration?
What if AP proved that TS was somewhere else when GS checked her diaries, would that be enough?
She could be 'mistaken' but then Tommy hasn't accepted that from any of the crown witnesses.
11.03. That is the essence of what is left. It appears the Crown case is now entirely centred on the alleged Cupids trip and the SSP EC meeting.
If the Crown proves Sheridan was at Cupids, Mrs Sheridan's previously testimony that he was home with her would be proved wrong.
Has it been proved that the diaries are accurate?
According to this blog the diaries are not disputed, they are accepted by both parties as "proven". So whatever is in the diaries is cast-iron evidence.
11.38. It is not cast iron evidence. What is accepted is that the diaries exist in their present form.
If I could clarify. What the minute establishes is that there is no dispute that the diaries belong to the parties stated, Tommy and Gail Sheridan. As everyone accepts this the jury can take it into account without specific evidence on that subject having to be presented.
Sorry if it was not clear in the original article.
A protracted investigation and millions of pounds spent leads us back to where we were 2004.
That the case is now entirely centred on the alleged Cupids trip and the SSP EC meeting.
What has how much an investigation cost got to do with anything. Those kind of statements, in my opinion look too much like bluster, a smoke-screen.
Anon
December 3, 2010 12:26 AM
I think it to be a very expensive smokescreen as to how much an investigation cost got to do with anything.
I would suggest that you ask someone in the public sector who are targeted for job cuts that question.
What have job cuts in the public sector got to do with this trial?
What have job cuts in the public sector got to do with this trial?
We are in an area of Austerity at the moment perhaps this was not the best way to use public funds IOM.
High profile perjury case, not a good use of public money?
Hmmm. Yeah, perjury is ok. Yeah lets not pursue and investigation into a case where somebody has obvioulsy committed perjury (that is, somebody in the original case was lying, somebody was telling the truth)
We are only in the courts thanks to one man.
It has long been part of Solidarity's argument against prosecuting the Sheridans for perjury that it is an unnecessary cost to the public purse, A bit like a speeding driver telling the constable that they shouldn't be persecuting motorists as there are sex fiends running about.
"Let justice be done though the heavens fall!"
As previously stated, I came to this trial as a member of the public and not as a member of the SSP or of Solidarity or as a friend of the Sheridans. ( Sorry that seems to make someone think I `protest too much` - it is simply stating facts, even if some people may not like to hear those facts. ) So we reached the last day of the Crown Case, with 2 investigating officers of Lothian and Borders police giving evidence and I don`t believe things got any better for the Prosecution`s case. Again it was established that D. C. Wilson had a conversation with a Crown witness in front of a journalist. Not good ! E mails between the same DC and Katrine Trolle were deleted ( lost/ deleted e mails seem to figure a great deal in the case. ) Wight`s denial at the last trial about payment to witnesses was not acted upon( testimony which could have proved incredibly important in the last trial.) The treatment of Gail Sheridan, for me,emerged as appalling. She remains silent on the advice of her QC.DS Harkess says it is his duty to establish she is silent not for `the wrong reason`. The interview goes on for 5 hours. Her rosary beads are removed from her. She is at one point asked what religion she is. Why is this? She is told she is using a PIRA technique and is asked who is training her ! This is bullying in the extreme and a total disrespect for Mrs Sheridan. It is a pity we only heard the interview read out and did not hear or watch a video. I think her vile treatment would have been even more obvious. This investigation stinks !
Anon 1:16. You really should know better peddling myths about the The Age of Austerity. The Age of Austerity is just a pretext for attacks on the poor. Are you now going to tell us that "the country is skint, there is no money, all the money has been spent."?
Spot on Romy Schneider, its the old "why are you persecuting real criminals", "(blah, blah is a "victimless" crime", "I am only a simple money launderer, it's not as if I have murdered anyone", "you should be out there hunting down sex fiends and leaving me alone".
The police have acted shamefully in the questioning of Gail Sheridan, this is guantanamo bay stuff, what was next waterboarding ??. I cannot believe Prentice called this witness ?? another own goal and gave Tommy the chane to bring in to evidence 'rosary beads' and 'terrorists',.
This Prentice is supposed to be clever, there is something wrong here he is constantly making mistakes in calling people, this is the one that will get them off, a west of scotland jury wont stand for this stuff.
Another strange point why did Prentice not call Tommys brother in law if he was supposed to be going to put the boot it in..
Dont underestimate Tommy, I remember him at Law school he aint no fool...
Well said anon and it shows that there was/is a vendeta against the Sheridn's - other witnesses were not treated like that. When Tommy was arrested the police had blue flashing lights and handcuffed him - a simple phone call asking him to come to the police station would have sufficed. The media were also there surprise surprise - the whole thing stinks and yes the momey this stupid case has cost could have been much better spent elsewhere.
Re the questioning of Gail: It's what the police do to suspects, try to needle them to get them to say something in reaction which harms their defence (hence the importance of the Cadder ruling). But the questioning techniques in her case ain't no different to what is done all the time in interview rooms all over Scotland, and it might not be edifying to see/hear about, but it is not illegal. Comparing it to Guantanamo Bay, a lawless zone devoid of human rights, due process and the rule of law, is an insult to the people who have suffered and continue to suffer there, an insult to the lawyers who have been chipping away at it for years, and indeed an insult to our own system of justice.
Re the cost of all of this... Prosecutions are taken in the public interest, and guess what - upholding justice costs money. The evidence must have suggested a realistic prospect of conviction, for an alleged crime which involved lying in court for money. If it was J Archer or J Aitken in the dock, would critics be decrying it on the basis of cost? If it is use of taxpayers money one is worried about, why not - in the event of a guilty verdict - lobby for costs to be awarded against the convicted (as happens in England)?
As one of those taxpayers whose job is under threat thanks to cuts, even so I am happy to pay my bit towards maintaining the justice system by tackling those who allegedly come to court to lie for their own purposes. It is the most direct form of disrespect for the rule of law, and needs to be dealt with seriously, since the rule of law is the only thing that separates us from despotism.
Anonymous said...
Anon 1:16. You really should know better peddling myths about the The Age of Austerity. The Age of Austerity is just a pretext for attacks on the poor. Are you now going to tell us that "the country is skint, there is no money, all the couhtrythe money has been spent."?
No Iam not a believer that the money has been spent I do believe however there is an idological attack on the public/ public sector.
As for my use of "Austerity" that is what is been banded about by those who wish to attack us, Imo the monies spent on this debacle is an ubsurb waste,however I can see that such thoughs an be construed as support for T.S.and not a simple observation of money wasted that may have been better used to serve the public.
It should also be noted that not everyone who posts contrary views is a T.S. fanboy/girl.
Anon 1:16
And what about those MPs acussed of fiddling their expenses, how much is the "witch-hunt" against them costing? I think we should be told how much taxpayers money is being wasted on persecuting MPs especially in this Age of Austerity. The mony could be better spent on employing nurses.
Rolo Tomasi said...
Re the cost of all of this... Prosecutions are taken in the public interest, and guess what - upholding justice costs money. The evidence must have suggested a realistic prospect of conviction, for an alleged crime which involved lying in court for money. If it was J Archer or J Aitken in the dock, would critics be decrying it on the basis of cost? If it is use of taxpayers money one is worried about, why not - in the event of a guilty verdict - lobby for costs to be awarded against the convicted (as happens in England)?
As one of those taxpayers whose job is under threat thanks to cuts, even so I am happy to pay my bit towards maintaining the justice system by tackling those who allegedly come to court to lie for their own purposes. It is the most direct form of disrespect for the rule of law, and needs to be dealt with seriously, since the rule of law is the only thing that separates us from despotism.
December 3, 2010 1:16 PM
First of all Iam sorry to hear that your Job is under threat.
However in the reading of this blog it would appear to me that more than a few witnesses statements have been deemed as misleading.I presume for your post that you would be happy to see these people tackled for coming to court and lying for their own purposes.
From the BBC: "She was failing to engage at all. She did not look at us or productions. Focusing on something else is a technique used by people in that regard” - Stuart Harkness
Lothian and Borders Police What "productions"?
Anne - witnesses are questioned, accused are questioned then arrested hence only the accused got the handcuffs and polis car treatment. See the difference?
I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF A FIVE HOUR INTERVIEW,WHAT THE FECK WERE THEY ASKING HER????????????
Post a Comment