This morning the court has continued to hear evidence from Andrey Coulson, ex-editor of the News of the World and now Director of Communications at 10 Downing Street.
Mr Sheridan, who is conducting his own defence, has concentrated his questioning on Mr Coulson's knowledge of "phone hacking" carried out by the newspaper under Mr Coulson's editorship and in particular his links with Clive Goodman, the paper's Royal correspondent and Greg Mulcaire, a private investigator, who were both convicted after pleading guilty to five charges of illegally intercepting telephone messages. The court has already heard that Mr Sheridan's name and the details of his mobile telephone were found in a notebook seized from Mr Mulcaire during a police raid. Mr Couson has continued to deny any direct knowledge of the activities of Mr Goodman and Mr Mulcaire.
Court has now risen for the lunch interval with Mr Coulson to continue his testimony this afternoon.
24 comments:
Difficult to understand where this is going, from Tommy's point of view.
We know the NotW used this illegal means of getting phone messages.
But the allegation is that Tommy was shagging a NotW journalist (amongst others).
They'd not need access to his phone messages to get this info.
He's going to have to demonstrate (at least) the possibility that:
a) they hacked into his mobile phone messages;
b) they found something there which implied the affair with AK and the various trips to Cupids etc
c) they were mistaken in the implication they drew from whatever messages they are supposed to have accessed.
Otherwise, he's just showing that the NotW are generally a bit dodgy, which we knew anyway, but doesn't really refute, or even cast much doubt on, any of the evidence against him.
Mike
This performance is TS attempt to sway the jury. The big bad capitalist press versus the poor down trodden socialist. Except in this case not only does the NotW call TS a hypocrate and liar but so does witnesses from his ex party, regulars from Cupids, former best friends (including best men at his wedding), a long term school friend who reluctantly confessed to accompanying him to a sex club and many others.
Absolutely agree with everything Mike said.
Cant understand why TS is bothering with all this nonsense about phone hacking when no evidence was brought by the prosecution to suggest this happened in his case.
@ Mike
Absolutely agree. NOTW may well be among the most odious of the loathsome Newscorp bunch, both in their methods and their message, but that's not the issue. The issue is - did TS and GS lie in court?
Even if the inference can be made that the NOTW printed a lot of b*llocks in 2004, that is irrelevant to the issues in the current trial - did TS lie about his alleged confession at the SSP meeting, and did he lie about his alleged visits to Cupids? Did GS lie about her alleged whereabouts on certain dates?
Trying to demonstrate how low and cunning these Murdoch guys are through cross examination does not cast doubt on any bit of the prosecution's case. It all seems very vague and obfuscatory, and irrelevant to whether the two accused lied or not.
Where this is going is giving TS publicity. The ego is being fed, long live the ego.
It's a complete sideshow and will do him no favours should it come down to sentencing.
TS may be trying to make the point that the NotW at times uses illegal methods such as phone tapping to obtain information to expose sleaze and hypocracy. However he has failed to show one piece of evidence that the NotW actually makes up stories about would be celebs and MP's etc. Why would they when they so often make such a show of themselves anyway? Tommy was a minor league MSP who wouldn't be worth their trouble. The defence position that a massive conspiracy theory involving numerous unconnected people and presumably costing a considerable fortune is in my view quite Ludicrous !!!!
Given what is being reported here I think that the trial judge is to be commended for the latitude he is giving Mr. Sheridan in the conduction of his own defence.
Whilst it's interesting (indeed quite enjoyable from my perspective) to see NotW types squirm and have to answer for their highly questionable behaviour, from what has been reported, Mr. Sheridan's approach appears to have very little evidential weight in this case.
I think a more unforgiving judge might well have required Mr. Sheridan to 'move on' before now.
A bit of related breaking news from the BBC News website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11930168
No charges in News of the World phone-hacking probe
No charges will be brought following a probe into phone hacking at the News of the World, prosecutors have confirmed.
The director of public prosecutions said there was no admissible evidence to bring a case in relation to claims public figures' phones had been hacked.
An ex-reporter on the paper refused to comment to police about claims made in the New York Times that his former boss Andy Coulson knew about the practice.
Tory communications chief Mr Coulson denies knowing anything about hacking.
Keir Starmer said former reporter Sean Hoare refused to co-operate with police over claims he made in the New York Times that the practice was more widespread at the UK newspaper than had been previously admitted.
He said: "A number of other witnesses were interviewed and either refused to co-operate with the police investigation, provided short statements which did not advance matters, or denied any knowledge of wrongdoing.
Royal targets
"Against that background, there is no admissible evidence upon which the CPS could properly advise the police to bring criminal charges."
The police investigation would remain closed, Scotland Yard said.
A Met Police spokesman said the advice it received from the CPS was that there was insufficient evidence to provide a "realistic prospect" of conviction.
Mr Coulson was editor of the tabloid newspaper when its royal editor, Clive Goodman, was jailed for conspiracy to access the phone messages of Prince William and Prince Harry.
Labour MP Chris Bryant - who believes he was also targeted by hackers - has said it was "inconceivable" Mr Coulson did not know what his reporters were doing.
The Standards and Privileges Committee is investigating claims he and other MPs may have ben targeted.
The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee is also conducting an inquiry into hacking and the police response to the claims.
Giving evidence in the perjury trial of former MSP Tommy Sheridan, Mr Coulson admitted his reporters did not "get it right" in Goodman's case.
But he denied his staff practised the "dark arts" of journalism, saying they worked within the law and the Press Complaints Commission code.
He also said he had never heard of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, who was jailed along with Goodman, until after the allegations emerged.
Watched Coulson today this man should have no place in any Government dept,his evasiveness in answering questions was beyond reproach and as well as the judge letting TS away with certain things he also let this rat away with too much,because you say i wasn,t editor idont know
then say you only read articles in the press,will be seen through by any half educated person
I reluctantly have to agree with Mike. I don't think Sheridan laid a glove on Coulson and even if TS was bugged that's not relevant as to whether he lied in the original libel trial.
Robert said...
I reluctantly have to agree with Mike. I don't think Sheridan laid a glove on Coulson and even if TS was bugged that's not relevant as to whether he lied in the original libel trial.
December 10, 2010 4:47 PM
Get your point Robert but TS,S defence is based on the collaboration of these witnesses and the NOTW,HENCE THE REASON HE HAS TO PROVE IN MY OPINION THAT THEY ARE CORRUPT,HE MADE THAT POINT TODAY IN HIS EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS sorry for caps
@yulefae
Agree with you re Coulson - for an editor of an extremely popular tabloid, he seemed incredibly ill-informed about, well, everything TS put to him, having either no knowledge, saying "I think I'm right in saying" on things he would surely be certain of, only knowing what he'd read in the papers, and referring to things he didn't know, or hoped were true, as "matters of record".
But then, this is the guy who learned from the press reports that he'd just lost an employment tribunal action, which he had not attended, that awarded £800k to a sports journalist on the basis that he had been bullied by Coulson.
The whole prosecution case seems to be breaking down. Every week the charges seeming to be melting away faster than ice on the M8 ice.
All the witnesses as to whether Tommy Sheridan said one thing or another at meeting (at which a large sections of the attendees had met to discuss and plan beforehand - all seem to belong to one small faction) all those who were not part of this anti-TS United Left faction heard absolutely the opposite. No reliably approved minutes exist. Given the obvious personal hatred and animosity they have shown in court - I think I know who rather believe. The whole thing is a crazy waste of taxpayers money - we could probably fund a hundred doctors, teachers and nurses for the same. Or at at least spend the money on students who are out protesting on those freezing streets.
I wouldn't buy a used car from some of the individuals who after to being in contact with NOTW claim to have seen him in a sex club.
The bit that got me was that McCombes guy who sat and watched a hotly contested video of Tommy in his flat then went to prison apparently as part of ruse to hide the fact he had passed on his own party secrets to a newspaper. I don't think the evidence can be relied upon.
I also think that the The Right Honourable Elish Angiolini, Queen's Counsel, Her Majesty's Advocate should be asked to resign for allowing such a waste of working people's hard earned money to have been spent on bringing these charges. How many millions of pounds of taxpayers money was wasted on bringing the charges that have already been dropped? Taxpayers deserve better - it is clearly time for Angiolini to move on. If she was serious in her role as public servant she should be focussing on those organisations that dodge legislation - how much do Vodaphone owe the people in umpayed tax? Would the university funding crisis not be wiped out in one stroke if more appropriate cases that were for the good of society were brought to court.
@Boomerang
"Whilst it's interesting (indeed quite enjoyable from my perspective) to see NotW types squirm and have to answer for their highly questionable behaviour, from what has been reported, Mr. Sheridan's approach appears to have very little evidential weight in this case.
I think a more unforgiving judge might well have required Mr. Sheridan to 'move on' before now. "
To be fair to Lord Bracadale, he has been intervening, particularly today, to stop going over old ground and to focus areas relevant to the witness. TS has had a few fairly large potential areas of inquiry cut off by Lord Bracadale, and not always as a result of the Advocate Depute's objections.
Anon 5.29PM
"I also think that the The Right Honourable Elish Angiolini, Queen's Counsel, Her Majesty's Advocate should be asked to resign for allowing such a waste of working people's hard earned money to have been spent on bringing these charges."
I completely disagree. This is the best use of my tax money that I can think of - and that is whether the accused is guilty or not.
Completely agree too with Mike, Claire T and Chumpo.
You can't put a price on justice, all this silly nonsense about squandering tax-payers money is in my opinion just nonsense. No-one is above the law - and that includes the Sheridans - if they are indeed guilty of lying in court for financial gain then they should be convicted and sentenced accordingly. People who think that they are smart and can make fools of the law make fools of all of hard-working taxpaying citizens.
I agree with anon 6:32 better to spend tax payers money on this type of case before the banks get in trouble again but i do feel so sorry for a jury forced to sit through this farce.
Anon 6:32
Price of Justice.
On balance do you consider that hard working taxpayers could be better served if the costs involved in this would of best use in direct police work, ie. break ins,muggings car crime etc, which affect numerous victims, or is it more justified in nailing an alleged lying polititian?
All lying politicians (alleged or otherwise) should be 'nailed'. If we can't trust people who are being paid to make decisions that affect the people who elected them, we are doomed. This applies to everything they do in public life, not just fake expense claims, and I don't grudge one penny if it sends this message to anyone hoping to enter politics for prestige or egotistical reasons.
Why were some people not so concerned about the cost of the trial when it was Archer or Aitken who were the lying politicians?
Anonymous said 8:43
All lying politicians (alleged or otherwise) should be 'nailed'. If we can't trust people who are being paid to make decisions that affect the people who elected them, we are doomed. This applies to everything they do in public life, not just fake expense claims, and I don't grudge one penny if it sends this message to anyone hoping to enter politics for prestige or egotistical reasons.
Once this is over can we nail the Bold Tony Blair not only involved in an expenses controversy but being involved with WMD controversy,now that would be worth the money IMO.
Tony Blair is in my opinion a war criminal, but it is not T Blair that is on trial on this occasion. This trial is about whether or not the Sheridans lied in Court, let's not obfuscate matters.
Post a Comment