The final two witnesses to appear for the defence were Carol Allen and Gillian McFarlane. Ms Allen, Tommy Sheridan's sister, testified that she had been residing at Mr and Mrs Sheridan's house for a week in December 2000. Mrs Allen stated that she been there on the night of Thursday 14 December 2000. a date she remembered as Gail Sheridan had been on her way to a christmas night out and had seen Mr Sheridan return from football training. The 14th of December is the date that the prosecution have suggested Katrine Trolle visited Tommy Sheridan at his home. (see Here )
Gillian McFarlane, the wife of yesterday's witness Andrew McFarlane, testified that she had been at home with Mr McFarlane on the evening of the 27th September 2004. This is the night the Crown had alleged that Mr Sheridan, Mr McFarlane and others attended a "sex club in Manchester. In addition Mrs McFarlane also told the court about her recollection of Mr and Mrs Sheridan's home being raided by police in December 2007.
After the witnesses were heard from, Mr Sheridan then read the jury a "joint minute of agreement." Lord Bracadale, the judge presiding, explained to the jury that this showed evidence not presented to them but that both sides in the case agreed was true. It was therefore considered "proved." The joint minute had nine points, the main ones being that both Fiona McGuire and Glenn Mulcaire had been cited in the case but had produced medical certificates that stated they were not fit to attend court, that Andrew McFarlane had been operated on at Gartnavel General hospital on 20/08/2002 and had been certified as unfit to work by a medical centre on 26/09/2010, and that various phone numbers did belong to the people and organisations stated. With that Mr Sheridan formally ended his defence.
Lord Bracadale then called on Paul McBride QC to open his case for the defence in relation to the co-accused Gail Sheridan. Mr McBride rose and stated "we do not intend to lead any evidence." Lord Bracadale then called on Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute. Mr Prentice told a packed court that "he would like to advise you and the jury of the position in relation to the second accused Gail Sheridan." He reminded the court that after the evidence of witness Matthew McColl (see Here) the Crown had dropped all of the charges relating to the "Moat House hotel" chapter of evidence. Mr Prentice went on to say that he had now had an opportunity to review the whole case and while he believed there was "sufficient evidence" to put before the jury he had concluded it was no longer "in the public interest to proceed" and he was "withdrawing the libel against Mrs Sheridan." The gallery then erupted in cheers and a clearly emotional Tommy and Gail Sheridan hugged each other in the dock.
Lord Bracadale then addressed the jury informing them that the decision to take or drop a prosecution was entirely in the hands of the Crown, he then said that under section 95 of the Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) act he was "acquitting the accused."
Lord Bracadale then told the jury he was adjourning until Monday adding that the timetable for next week would be the Advocate Depute summing up on Monday morning, Mr Sheridan summing up on Tuesday morning and that he himself would make his summing up on Wednesday. The court then rose until Monday
Outside the court Mrs Sheridan's lawyer made a short statement on her behalf to the waiting media, that can be viewed Here
54 comments:
Were the last two witnesses for the defence cross-examined?
Hello Steve, this is only a summary and as usual with summaries of the day's proceedings we report what the witnesses testified to, a full report including the cross-examination will follow.
Steve said...
Were the last two witnesses for the defence cross-examined?
If you could call it that,funny stuff
I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'cross examination'
More a desperate, and failed attempt, to find non- existent flaws in the witnesses testimony.
I was actually embarrassed for the prosecution, it was toe curling
I have read in a few of the media websites this afternoon that AP made this decision regarding GS by taking into acount her "personal circumstances"
Has GS "personel circumstances" changed in the last 24 hours.
Anon @ 5.23
The only change in her circumstances is that her husband and the case for his Defence has now finished....
So Glenn Mulcaire was unwell and sent in a medial certificate.
I may be a little sceptical but I feel that this reason for non attendance should have examined further.
This is from the Independent - 8/9/2010
The private investigator jailed in the News of the World phone tapping scandal, Glenn Mulcaire, planned to write a book which would allege that the hacking of voicemails took place with the knowledge of senior staff.
A detailed synopsis of the memoirs, seen by The Independent, reveals that Mulcaire was prepared to implicate others at the newspaper by stating that, as well as taking instructions from the royal correspondent Clive Goodman, he was also routinely commissioned by executives.
The book, provisionally titled Hear to Here: The Inside Story of the Royal Household Tapes and The Murky World of the Media, was never published because Mulcaire signed an £80,000 confidentiality agreement with the News of the World after he sued for wrongful dismissal following his conviction. But Mulcaire, who was was paid more than £2,000 a week by the newspaper, did write a five-page synopsis with a would-be author. Due to the gagging order, the document is the only time Mulcaire has explained his actions in his own words.
Max Clifford was bought of for a million pounds. Mulcaire was silenced for 80,000. However he would have to had answered under oath at this trial had he been well enough to attend.
I hope that someone whose phone was allegedly tapped by instruction from NotW will sue and will not be silenced by a large pay off. We may learn more about the practice of phone tapping by NOTW and how much management might have been involved.
T Sheridan would certainly have made the valid assertion that the police went softly into the investigation of the NotW.
I feel robbed, as a taxpayer. The cost of this trial was almost justified, if it could lift thelid on what went on at the top at NoTW, something the police failed to do.
I wonder whether there will any sightings of Glenn Mulcaire. I'd love to see that medical certificate.
All this is only a side issue in the current perjury trial. It has very little to do with the charges of perjury.
Hi James, thanks for all the hard work you have put in over the past few months with this blog. i know you are really busy but I would really like to read Thomas Montgomery's cross examination. thanks
Hello anon, should have that one done by tomorrow. We also have two other reports to complete Ryan Sloan and Phil Stott
Best Regards
James
Hey - I just realised.
Prentice knows he has got crap all of a case but he thinks he is OK as has got Barley On* first.
I presume Tommy's looking so happy as he knows he has got Double Barley**.
Gail obviously had Stand On One Leg Double Barley*** all along.
---------------------------
*Fingers crossed
**Two Fingers Crossed
*** That's a fond memory from my youth not a Cupids thing by the way.
----------------------------
Remember what the SUN (working with the black ops unit at West Yorkshire police) said about the Hillsborough Disaster. The TRUTH they said then - but it was ALL lies. The SUN never recovered down here.
Hopefully the equally perceptive people of Glasgow can also spot a (what the defence claims is) stitch up by the Murdoch press and Lothians police when they see one.
Murdoch's people do what they want, when they want and will try and destroy anyone who gets in their way. Sheridan was in their way. The time is now ripe as it was in August 2006 for some payback.
After hearing the Crown "case" and the end of the defence it's now fingers crossed from the people of Liverpool that Murdoch does not get away with pulling the wool over the eyes of Glasgow people.
But that of course is a matter for the jury.
-----------------------------
How was Sheridan in Murdoch's way, Peter?
Peter 8.31 PM
"After hearing the Crown "case" and the end of the defence it's now fingers crossed from the people of Liverpool "
And since when did you speak for the people of Liverpool?
Well, well, well..
So the deal has been done (as I predicted) with Christmas approaching.
I think I'll renew my lottery numbers tomorrow
;)
Hello Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan1
I would counter, lets not.
all the best
James
Hi James, I read on another news site that Prentice said:
"Gail Sheridan's QC has accepted there was a sufficiency of evidence to proceed" but that blah blah blah.
Was this said?
If so, do you have an idea of what it means.
I looked it up in a legal dictionary and "sufficiency of evidence" seems to mean more "than a scintilla".
Paul McBride. apparently, accepted that the Crown had a "sufficiency of evidence" to put the charge to the jury but Alex Prentice decided not to bother as it was not in the public interest.
I am confused – and not for the first time.
Why did McBride accept there was a "sufficiency of evidence"?
Was this because of the diary as no evidence specifically pertaining to Gail had been led?
Yo may not be able to answer this but I just don't get it.
It sounds as if McBride has said "yeh, you have evidence that could convict my client" but Prentice – perhaps as part of some sort of deal – has then said "we don't really care anyway so off you go Gail."
Please edit this appropriately if it infringes on legal rectitudes I am not aware of.
Genuinely confused!!!
Peter said:
The people in Glasgow now have an understanding of how the machine works. They have seen it up close attacking one of their own.
Peter, you may claim to speak for the people of Liverpool but please don't try the same for Glaswegians.
Peter can speak for this Glaswegian and many others if he likes. Why is this a problem independent thinker?
Not many independent thinkers are supporters of Murdochs rags.
Paw, thanks on the info re. sicknote Mulcaires non appearance at trial. I await with baited breath from all those medical experts ,similar cynical comments re. his wellbeing as that directed at Andy McFarlane . I anticipate a rather long wait however.
'sufficiency of evidence' means that we think that we can defend any action for false arrest and harassment.
I write this to annoy people who want to make yet another case out of this protracted attempt to defend the Murdoch Empire.
it does no such thing Denizen, that would be a separate question altogether.
sufficiency of evidence means nothing other than a courteous nod to Prentice that he wasnt been vindictive himself.
If I claim that you slapped me, you say that you didnt, my friend says that you did, that would be suffiency of evidence to put to a jury. Whether or not it represents evidence enough to pursue a case through the courts is a different question.
Their would be no question of 'false arrest' in my opinion, and harrassment wouldnt go very far either. The police did act in an over the top manner but well within their rules.
However, a separate question of whether we should see women put through this to pressurise their partners and some internal questions from Angilioni to her minnions about what went on here would be worthwhile in my opinion.
The importance put on this by the Crown Office and they precedents set merits a fuller explanation than we have seen so far.
And don't see why people try to make out that there is a sexist element to the Proseccution against GS - "poor wee woman", the the Sheridans were (TS still is) Indicted at that the Instance of the Lord Advocate Elish Angilioni - a woman! AP is merely one of her "minions".
Not a Sun Worshipper,
Of course it is your right to be happy for Peter to speak on your behalf. Not quite the same as speaking on behalf of the 'people of Glasgow' though who are not one big like-minded community with the same opinions and ideologies. Mind you, neither is the population of Liverpool I'd imagine.
@ Tommy Trial addict, yes he did - and that's according to Bernard Ponsonby.
Tommy Trial addict, for the avoidance of doubt:
From the Herald, STV and other media outlets.
AP said:
In court yesterday, Mr Prentice said: “I want to address your Lordship and ladies and gentlemen of the jury in relation to proceedings against the second accused.
“The ladies and gentlemen are aware that, following the evidence of Matthew McColl, I withdrew paragraphs two and three in relation to the chapter of evidence known as Moat House.
“I have also now had the opportunity to consider and review the whole of the Crown case against Mrs Sheridan now that all the evidence has been led.
“It is accepted by Mr McBride that a sufficiency of evidence has been led. I have considered that and measure it against the evidence given by Mrs Sheridan at the civil trial, which included the Moat House chapter.
“I am of the view, as I have not proceeded with that chapter of evidence and taking into account her personal circumstances, it is no longer necessary in the public interest to proceed any further in respect of Mrs Sheridan.”
Thank you for your diligent and fast work James- we are hooked on your blog!
I am enjoying everyone's analysis in the comments- what I am starting to think about is
1) why Lothian and borders cops pursued this case with such vigour?
2) who gave the instructions to pursue Tommy and Gail so maliciously (IMHO) and approved the blank cheque to the tune of 2 mil- (much higher figure now with trial costs).
Basically, how high does it go?
We know Murdoch was totally raging after Tommy's civil win, he has friend in no. 10 and many other places. Why did it matter so much for Tommy to be brought down?
And in stark contrast, the failure to investigate and inform the victims of a serious invasion of privacy re phone tapping Sienna Miller, by police down south. Surely it is all linked????
Something is rotten here- but with Mulcairne not giving evidence, and other witnesses not being recalled in light of Guardian Sienna Miller article, will be more questions to be answered after this trial.
Blogaholic:
You mean Rupert Murdoch? How do we know he was raging?
"Surely it is all linked?" The evidence in the case so far has not established that, in my opinion.
I really think that Rupert Murdoch has got bigger fish to fry than the Sheridans; I can just imagine him stomping up and down in rage at Tommy's "victory" lol
Hello Neckhlyudov you made a number of excellent points but I'm afraid you were a bit, in my opinion, "conclusive". Could you possibly rephrase with that in mind and I'm be happy to post your contribution.
Best Regards
James
Thanks for the replies Denizen and Perry.
You both seem to be saying the same thing about "sufficiency of evidence" and yet Perry is saying you are wrong.
I take it you are both right in your own way but for different reasons and at least I kind of get the drift now.
This legal language is hard work!
tommy trial addict.
Denizen is wrong because it is not the juridiction of a defence QC to decide on those matters, no matter what he concedes in court.
He isnt wrong on the point of false arrest or harrassment not being brought, I dont think that is a possibility. He is wrong to think that Prentice's statement about 'suffiency of evidence' is the reason for that
Perry Free Mason, the scenario you are describing would never be put in front of a Jury; it is not legally competent.
exactly anon, it wouldnt make it that far, but if it did it could be said to have "suffiency of evidence".
As we are talking about Gail's remaining charge which has less evidence than my scenario. If Gail had been the only accused the charge wouldnt be at this stage.
As the prosecution didnt enter evidence on this it doesnt even have a witness or any corroboration
Look at the Fox subornation charge, anyone can see that this wasnt competent, yet they brought it to court.
I really think that Rupert Murdoch has got bigger fish to fry than the Sheridans; I can just imagine him stomping up and down in rage at Tommy's "victory" lol
not being a fly on the wall at Fleet Street (or wherever) i can't imagine old Rupert was delighted by the 2006 verdict. Rupert Murdoch's bread and butter has been smashing left wingers/ the working class for his whole career!
This is only my opinion of course, right or wrong. For me it is more important who has been pushing this investigation, and ignoring the other allegations of phone tapping.
Others here may have more knowledge about how the police work, but I imagine if allegations were made involving one of the wealthiest and well connected companies in the UK breaking the law, I doubt it was the head of Lothian and Borders police made the decisions how to investigate the case alone. IMHO,i think input has come from the highest levels of government. These questions will not be answered whatever the jury decides but hope the court cases down south get some answers.
Perry,
Why did McBride accept there was a "sufficiency of evidence".
The diaries were entered into evidence and accepted by both sides as "proven".
GS's diary and TS's diary did not corroborate Gail's claim at the defamation trial that she had "checked her and her husband's diaries" and that this showed she was with her husband every weekend at the dates in question.
The indictment stated that: "You had recorded in your diary that you had travelled to Miami on Tuesday 20 November 2001 and you were in Miami on the weekend of 24 and 25 November 2001 and that said Thomas Sheridan had recorded in his diary that you were away between 21 and 28 November 2001;
"You were in Miami (as the PROVEN diary shows) on 24 and 25 November 2001 and you did thus not spend every weekend in November 2001 with said Thomas Sheridan."
Was this "sufficiency of evidence"?
It looks pretty sufficient to me.
To a non-legal person it appears that McBride has basically said: "Yep, you had grounds to go to the jury with this and they may well have convicted my client."
But, and I know I have already asked this, why would he do that?
Why not say – 'No, I don't accept it'.
If I was on the jury I would be perplexed by this aspect of the case.
I get what Deniizen says about the Crown protecting their butt but I feel I am missing something important.
Perry Freemason,on your point re. the subornation charge re. Colin Fox. Yes it was dropped due to lack of corroboration. However many doubtless believe that TS did try to get him commit perjury,just it couldnt stand up in Court. I think i am correct that Sheridan admitted asking Fox not to support (in his opinion) an incorrect minute which had been drafted in such manner as to frame him. That ,IMO, is a far cry from attempting to suborn Fox and i humbly suggest that had the charge proceeded it may have fallen anyway. However as this is now accademic we will never know what the jury might have decided.
the evidence from Fox was that Sheridan was in a hotel in Edinburgh that morning. We have seen in court that he was actually in Cumnock. Why didnt the police check that out as it was in Sheridans diary. there was no evidence for the subornation charge other than Fox's word. that should never have made it to a court
Tommy Trial addict - in a criminal trial an accused is primarily and immediately concerned with "getting out the front door". Why would you want to take the risk of being "vindicated by a jury" when there was an escape route open?
"To a non-legal person it appears that McBride has basically said: "Yep, you had grounds to go to the jury with this and they may well have convicted my client." - spot on Tommy - and that's from a legal person!
I think McBride allowed Prentice to keep some dignity, imagine what he would have said if the Crown had dared put that pile of nonsense in front of a jury?
Will all due respect, Sceptic you couldn't be further from the truth. Tommy the Trial Addict has got is sussed.
legal macaw, you cannot assume all of that from Prentice's statement, McBride knew that it couldnt stand up to a jury as no evidence against this charge was presented in court. He was being kind to Prentice, probably on a nod and a wink. McBride would have known that this was getting dropped well befire it happened.
For a jury to consider it, they would have had to introduce Mrs Sheridans diaries during their case. From what I can see, they didnt.
They may have had 'suffiency' but they didnt use it. That tells this legal person that the deal was done some time ago.
Anon 12:37 I would be really surprised too if McBride hadn't anticipated this "surprise move" a while back, maybe like 10 weeks ago for all we know... nod, nod... wink, wink
If GS had wanted to know when she would be released all she had to to was read this excellent blog.
anon 1249, I agree, McBride and, by extension, both Sheridans qould have been aware of the 'downs' from at least the end of the prosecution case, possibly before that.
Anon 2:12, I agree too. I also find it odd how GS burst into a flood of tears as if it has come as a complete shock to her. A complete shock to someone DIRECTLY involved in the case but not to readers of a blogging site?
For goodness sake a woman in cleared in court after 44 days and you find it "odd" she was moved to tears?
That really is desperate stuff, what could motivate anyone to say that?
"After the witnesses were heard from, Mr Sheridan then read the jury a "joint minute of agreement." Lord Bracadale, the judge presiding, explained to the jury that this showed evidence not presented to them but that both sides in the case agreed was true. It was therefore considered "proved." The joint minute had nine points, the main ones being that both Fiona McGuire and Glenn Mulcaire had been cited in the case but had produced medical certificates that stated they were not fit to attend court, that Andrew McFarlane had been operated on at Gartnavel General hospital on 20/08/2002 and had been certified as unfit to work by a medical centre on 26/09/2010, and that various phone numbers did belong to the people and organisations stated".
James would it be possible for you to give us the rest of what else was on the "Joint Minute"?
Hello Kojak, not much really. We also heard that the number you use for accessing voicemail of vodafone is 121, that Tommy Sheridan had raised an action against the News of the World in 2004. That was about it.
Best Regards
James
Thanks James.
This thread is a fascinating example of the CSI effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
(Yet another) Anon @ 5.26 wrote:
This thread is a fascinating example of the CSI effect.
Well, that's 2 minutes of my life I won't get back.
Interesting thing is Anon, it will be for the jury to decide if there is really ANY evidence from the Crown, other than the "tape".
Thankfully we're not talking about a serious and/or vicious crime against a person here - where forensic evidence is often used to secure a conviction.
But the 'tape' appears to be the central production - no forensic evidence has been offered by either side, as far as I know. So it will be for the jury to decide using their ears.
Post a Comment