After the last witness of the day, Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute rose to address the jury. He informed the court that the prosecution was withdrawing all charges against Tommy Sheridan relating to the "Moat House chapter" of the indictment and also offering no further evidence on the first section of his indictment. Lord Bracadale then formally acquitted Mr Sheridan on the charge of suborning a witness (attempting to persuade someone to commit perjury)
The Advocate Depute also told the court that the Crown were withdrawing all but one charge against the co-accused Mrs Gail Sheridan.
Full report to follow.
80 comments:
There was no corroboration on the suborning charge. The judge would have thrown it out anyway at the end of the prosecution case on a defence motion of no case to answer.
I can't recall any evidence against Gail Sheridan.
Still can't understand why the crown dropped the moathouse allegations when there was still many witnesses to testify. Also why hasn't the crown called Andy McFarlane TS brother in law? He has been implicated by various witnesses.
They may not need direct evidence against GS. If sufficient evidence exists against TS on certain charges then that may by definition imply that GS was also untruthfull ?
Guilt by association is not how our legal system works Bunc. We have to assume the crown realised they could not prove the charges so they dropped them.
One acquittal and a third of the charges dropped before the defence case even begins?
Not quite what the Crown promised us is it.
Anon, there is in my opinion a VERY GOOD reason why the Crown dropped the Moat House charges, in fact I am in NO DOUBT as to why the Crown dropped the Moat House charges. If you pay attention, you may find out after the conclusion of proceedings. Saying anything further would lead to HMA v James Doleman, that is the way Contempt of Court works, well in my opinion and that's for the jury to decide.
@ Sceptic you are wrong. If you are a member of a household and say another member of the household is suspected of wrong-doing it is very likely that you will fall under the spot-light. The evidence may be thinner, but that won't stop a Prosecution being launched. And there is such a thing, as aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring. Alex Prentice has proceeded pretty much as expected.
Members of the jury, I present you with evidence from a CCTV camera at the nearest filing station to Tommy Sheridan's house. As you can see, from 19.32 to 20.32 there is absolutely no sign of Tommy buying petrol between these times. I put it to you that this conclusively proves that Tommy could have been being taped at this time, and that the tape is therefore genuine....
Aye, right!
Odd timing with that comment anon considering the vast bulk of the charges against Mrs Sheridan have just been dropped.
Did you read the post you are commenting on?
What charge is left for GS to defend
I 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"
I'll do a full post on today's events as soon as I can.
Alex Prentice is really just keeping the task for the jury as simple and as straightforward to digest, no unnecessary over-the-head techno mumbo jumbo to confuse things either, that's the way the Crown works.
I agree with Anon ( 5:18)
Looks like Prentice is going for those bits he feels he has the strongest case on and avoiding unnecessary complications. After all he only needs a guilty on one part and the prosecution wins.
Other thoughts - perhaps he cuts down the defence options to introduce spurious huffing and puffing across a range of issues if the evidence and charges start to concentrate on fewer key things?
Another advantage - he possibly increasingly makes a direct defence by GS more problematic and keeps PMcB more out of the picture? Depending on the defence witness list he maybe leaves it looking thinner depending on the charges that he is now choosing to pursue?
Just some thoughts - possibly entirely irrelevant !!
The parts of the Indictment being now put to the Jury are technically "proven" insofar as there has to be sufficient evidence in Law for a Conviction before the charges can be put to the Jury. It will then be for the jury to decide which evidence to accept/reject.
So Bunc and anon your argument is the crown all got together at the start of the case and said "lets shove lots of charges on the indictment we will not be able to prove, then at the end of our case drop them all so revealing that we put forward allegations we couldn't prove!"
If that was the plan I'd say it's mission accomplished, no doubt they will be cracking out the champers at the Fiscal's office tonight!
Agree, Bunc the Sheridan's defence should now really concentrate on countering the remaining points on the Indictment. Possibly an excellent tactical manoeuvre on the part of Alex Prentice, we'll see...
" Possibly an excellent tactical manoeuvre on the part of Alex Prentice"
Indeed getting Mr McColl to blow 1/3 of the prosecution case in a morning was a masterstroke of legal strategy.
Devilishly cunning these prosecuters.
No thats not what Im saying.
Im saying that Prentice will be aware of how his case is stacking up as it proceeds and will be making calculations as he goes along about where he has managed to establish a case and where he thinks he has been less succesfull. Im dounbtful that few cases ever proceed exactly like a prosecutor had anticipated before the trial. Dropping charges is fairly common as far as I am aware.
Not really, the parts of the Indictment that have been dropped help to "paint a picture", in my opinion no different from TS introducing evidence about Fiona McGuire "phone-tapping", endangering an unborn baby, the Wapping dispute etc. Except in AP's case they are uncorroborated points of evidence.
The McColl incident has to be left where it is at the moment, it will be possible to comment further after the proceedings are over.
In regard to the prosecution tactics - what I do find suprising is that (as far as I am aware) the prosecution witnesses would all have been precognised before the trial. Some of them haven't helped the crowns case so it makes you wonder what Prentice had been led to expect of them before trial. This doesnt strike me as the most masterful bit of prosecution ever.
Having said that it still seems to me that theres a wide range of evidence that is difficult to explain away. It will be fascinating to see how the defence proceeds.
I really hope that we get some decent evidence from TS, any more sitting through politicos ranting and I will tear my hair out.
Thing is me old china I have had the meter running for a while now since that hotel guy was up in the dock - is the guy in the wig going to get in now or what .... I had that guy from the News of the Screws in the back of me cab once ... Gor blimey Guvnor the stories he come out with - make your hair curl .... Don't believe half of 'em mind... tried to sell me a few DVDs
Is it not the case that at the end of the evidence for the crown the judge decides if there really is a case to answer and if so the defence may begin.
So with the defence beginning tomorrow does that mean the judge thinks there is indeed a case to answer! If Ts was home and dry the case would not proceed to defence.
The home straight beckons and either champaign and Ts's mum singing or prison Xmas dinner.
Re gs things are lookin good but she still to defend herself.
I'd have thought Mrs Sheridan would have wanted to explain the truth, thus clearing things up, while in her police interview.
How strange that she would simply stare at a fixed point and refuse to speak.
Well, it's fair to say that as thing's stand at the moment and legally speaking the Sheridan's do have a case to answer. If the Crown case was a crock Lord Bracadale would have thrown it out the courtroom and AP with it.
Personally if Paul McBride told me not to say anything at a police interview (as was stated in court) I'd do what he said. I'm pretty sure you would do the same "Clive"
staring at a fixed point an refusing to speak, eh!? what about "no comment"? that is what is usually said in police "interviews". But, you may have a point, especially over such a seemingly trivial matter.
Was Mrs Sheridan being represented by Mr McBride at that stage, "Sceptic"?
She doesn't need to sit and stare at a blank point - an "on the advice of my solicitor I have been told to make no comment" would have done. I can't speak for McB but this is what I usually advise clients to do, can't ever remember telling anyone to stay silent and stare at a fixed point.
Like all arrested persons the Sheridans until recently (in Scotland) won't have been entitled to legal representation. Besides, there is no way that a QC would be attending any police station.
Does any one know how many defence witnesses there will be,
will the judge ask TS tommorow how long he thinks the defence will be?
I believe he asked AP this once or twice
"You have the right to remain silent...etc". However, if you use this right, we will suggest that your failure to answer questions is a sign of your guilt.
I suspect any American friends reading this site will be amazed at this line of attack.
Anon 6:56 If this trial is going to end on time it will be how many defence witnesses can be called in say in two, maybe three days.
A right is a right - but this isn't America this is Scotland and in Scotland if you do not answer the accusations you are guilty by default. I challenge you to find one case where a person has been acquitted by remaining silent in the face of a case presented by the Crown, I think you will be hard pushed to find any.
i have read on a few of the posts in the last couple of days that this trial will finish within the alloted time by hook or by crook
surley the trial will finish when the TS legal team has questioned all there witneses
could any of you legal eagles clarify this
The police had the right to try to question GS, she had the right to remain silent. She stared in to space while holding her rosary beads, maybe she was praying, that's what people holding rosary beads normally do. I'm sure the situation was not one she was used to and could have been quite traumatic. But for a police officer to ask her if she had learned this technique from PIRA is stunning. He has connected Mrs Sheridan, her Catholicism, her rosary beads and her legally entitled silence to Irish terrorism...while investigating a Scottish perjury charge!!! Is it cos she is Catholic!!!!
Anonymous 7:28 PM
'surley the trial will finish when the TS legal team has questioned all there witneses'
Correct.
And please don't call me Shirley.
It's what the alleged PIRA used to do when they were hauled in by the cops though, bit below the belt mind you. Or maybe the DI is implying that the "Sheridan Empire" extends far and wide.
keith
were did the information come from regarding the questioning of GS and the rosary beads i havent seen this yet could you tell me were it is
THANKS
bear in mind that the defence will also be a calling a number of non legal eagle witnesses, and it'll be interesting to see how they perform. Bear in mind that the only 'pro tommy' witness so far was Jock Penman and he wasn't exactly forthright in denouncing the SSP witnesses (didn't he say they may have misunderstood?. I expect Pat Smith for example will be called as she was a witness in the last trial, as far as i know she also has a charge of perjury hanging over her (so do a couple of other witnesses) so it'll be interesting to see their body language and how they respond under pressure.
Some of the prosecussion witnesses have been less then helpful to their case, if the defence witnesses do the same to their case then it turns the whole thing on it's head again. On the other hand, i would suspect due to time constraints there will be far less of them so it is all rather hard to tell
lol A hospital? What is it? It's a big building with patients.
Anonymous. The information regarding the questioning of GS and the rosary beads was reported on the BBC Scotland evening news! It was Bob Bird's ex-wife that told us, which makes it even more surreal!!!
Keith,
of course Mrs Sheridan had the right to remain silent. I think a valid question come summing up will be why she felt the need to exercise that right.
"Clive"
In my opinion the TS mobile phone was probably on expenses and the Parliament have kept the billing records - not the mobile phone company!
Clive. As nobody else has been able to determine whether Mrs Sheridan was acting under legal advice or merely exercising her perfectly legal right to silence, I wouldn't hazard a guess. But I would be very surprised if anyone summing up, especially someone as experienced as Mr Prentice, would ask her "why she felt the need to exercise that right". It's either a right or it isn't, and if it is, it's nobody else's business why someone decides to exercise it. I wouldn't be surprised however if the police officer who asked Mrs Sheridan if she had been trained by PIRA might possibly get a mention.
from muffins (lothian
and borders) to humble pie(ap).another good day for the defence,in my opinion!!!
No Keith, a prosecutor is perfectly entitled to (and always do) what is to be made of an accused's silence, their failure to offer an explanation, answer police questions - that is the Law!
Keith,
I think it is probably the police's and the court's "business" why she did exercise that right.
I think it's naive to think that silence will not be mentioned.
"Clive"
If an accussed remains silent it is certain that a prosecutor will pass comment in their summing up, and the jury is entitled to draw a "reasonable inference".
TS should have taken a greater interest in and campaigned against the injustices in the criminal justice system in Scotland (some now being recognised as breaches of Human Rights such as no legal representation for arrested persons) when he has the opportunity as an MP. And to this day, the Scottish Parliament continues on with even more and more Draconian Legislation.
"I challenge you to find one case where a person has been acquitted by remaining silent in the face of a case presented by the Crown, I think you will be hard pushed to find any."
In actual fact, suspects who maintain their right to silence during police questioning, and who then subsequently stand trial at the High Court (or sheriff court before a sheriff and jury) and who choose NOT to give evidence on their own behalf (in so far as taking the witness stand), are acquitted on a fairly regular basis! It is not as uncommon as you might imagine.
Mrs Sheridan is a practicing catholic, has no criminal record and had never been interviewed by the police before. DS Harkness confirmed this. Mrs Sheridan's QC, Paul McBride had advised her not to answer any questions, DS Harkness also verified this. DS Harkness also said that during the interview he had removed a set of rosary beads from Mrs Sheridan as they were "distracting her".. He also asked "what religion are you Gail." and then "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 [provisional IRA] technique, who'se training you." While I agree that Mr Prentice may ask in the summing up, why Mrs Sheridan remained silent, I am merely pointing out that he may not want to draw the jury's attention to a situation that does the prosecution no favours at all.
But this is the way that Police always interview suspects - to get under their skin. GS was treated no differently to how thousands of other suspects are treated. You can only imagine the abusive that goes on with suspects charged with more serious crimes. And why was TS not campaigning against these abuses of human rights when he was an MP? There is a world of difference from voting for a daft bill in a wee pretendy parliament and the actual application of the law in the real world, something which MPs appear to have little experience of.
Spot on Anon 9:28, clever stuff by TS. Now IF GS elects not to give evidence, then if AP makes any references to "silence" he will be drawing attention to the "police interview" when he really wants to draw attention to her silence in the dock. If that is TS's intention, then I have to hand it to him for a nifty piece of foot-work.
Bringing the PIRA was in my opinion a bit "sectarian".
Keith,
I don't think silence in a police interview does a defendant any favours at all.
"Clive"
Re: the right to silence.
There is a distinction between the prosecutor's statutory right to comment on the failure of an accused to give evidence (which is allowed, although must be done with restraint), and commenting on the failure of a suspect, not yet charged with any offence, to answer police questioning at a stage when they have no idea of the strength or weakness of the case against them.
It is important not to confuse them. In practice it would be remarkable for the Crown to refer to silence in the police station, unless the accused came up with a quite startling alibi or explanation in their evidence at trial. That, of course, would be surprising in a perjury trial.
Clive,
Taking rosary beads from a woman, then asking her if she has been trained by the Provisional IRA doesn't do the prosecution any favours at all either. Especially when she is being questioned about possible perjury charges in Scotland not Ireland. Where is the link there? I fail to see it. If the prosecution bring up her silence, the defence will bring up the rosary beads and PIRA, who will benefit from that?
TVOR,
I think you are seriously mistaken if you think silence during the police interview will not be referred to during the summing up.
"Clive"
Silence in a police interview/station is mentioned EVEN if the Accussed has already given an explanation in evidence. i.e to give the impression that they "needed time to make up a story."
I still don't get all the stuff about rosary beads and staring at a wall, surely a competent solicitor/QC would just have said that if you don't want to answer any questions just say I told you not to.
Clive
I think that you are seriously mistaken, that I am seriously mistaken! I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.
Gail was under interrogation for 5 hours anon.
Clive & Bunc,
I have made a note of your criticisms of the defence.
Now that it has ended was there any part of the Crown prosecution that you consider to be weak?
Maybe to save time just list in your opinion the three weakest parts of the Crown case but more if you wish.
Thanks,
Peter
@ Sceptic - what 5 hours of staring at a wall without saying ONE word - seriously?
I doubt that anon, I assume she said "no comment" or whatever. Perhaps we will hear from Mrs Sheridan herself?
Peter,
I'd rather not play. Sorry.
"Clive"
Former SSP, I think the sister of TS might turn up on defence witness list as TS claims she was there when Dr Nick McKerrell had a meeting with him at Caledonian University when he alleged that TS discussed visit to cupids. Dr Nick says only TS and himself were present.
Peter said...
Clive & Bunc,
I have made a note of your criticisms of the defence.
Now that it has ended was there any part of the Crown prosecution that you consider to be weak?
Maybe to save time just list in your opinion the three weakest parts of the Crown case but more if you wish.
Thanks,
Peter
December 2, 2010 10:50 PM
I doubt that anon, I assume she said "no comment" or whatever. Perhaps we will hear from Mrs Sheridan herself?
December 2, 2010 10:56 PM
"Clive" said...
Peter,
I'd rather not play. Sorry.
"Clive"
December 2, 2010 11:00 PM
Ok Clive duly noted,
How about you Bunc?
I will give you the first one to get you going.
The police stating a Catholic detainee may be in contact with terrorists for exercising her legal right to silence.
That is in my top three. Could you pick the other two Crown disasters and see if we agree?
Thanks,
Peter
I wonder how the defence witnesses will stand up to cross-examination by AP, will be interesting to watch.
Peter , check James's report again. Police Officer did not STATE she may be in contact with terrorists, he compared the tactics she was using to avoid answering questions with those used by the IRA.
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?
Quite a few on here last week were trying to convince the rest of us that Lord Bracadale was going to stop the trial and tell the defendants that they had no case to answer. Nutty theory #1 out the window......Next???
In my opinion neither TS or GS want to be cross-examined, GS in particular. In my opinion it is very telling. In my opinion if both TS and GS stood up to AP and came away intact I would be voting for an acquittal. Side-stepping the issue just leave a lingering doubt in my opinion. I am really not interested in nowt bugging operations. I want to see BOTH TS and GS take the stand, I want to hear their responses to the allegations that have been made against them. In my opinion, this is what this case hinges on.
If both TS and GS are telling the truth their is nothing, absolutely nothing, no matter how hard he tries that AP will be able to do to convince anyone otherwise.
Bunc, i have quite a bit of poloice experience, when it is clear that a wiyness is not going to comment, in the vast majority of cases, police will let them go wihotu waiting the full time, unless there is something to be gsimed from intimidating or pressurising the witness, usually when it iks urgent like if someone is missing. In this case it just looks like it is vindictive
TS has already tried to convince the trail that the police were effectively acting on behalf of the NOTW.
His stance is that this is a political prosecution.
I don't think it says anything about GS guilt that she refused to talk to a police force which the defence believes was acting in collusion with the NOTW.
From the defence perspective it makes sense for GS to say nothing to the police. Not only are they part of the alleged plot to get the Sheridans but anything said would also be leaked through a "source" to the NOTW.
From the prosecution perspective it is a massive own goal that the cop used the PIRA line especially when the evidence shows she was concentrating on her Rosary beads.
Bullying a Catholic mum in modern-day Scotland just won't sit well with many people – especially women. What is the composition of the jury again?
GS is not a murderer or a terrorist. She is an air hostess who likes tanning machines.
She is for all intents and purposes accused of lying in court to protect her man, which is not seen as such a hideous crime by many people.
As I've said before. I don't think facts are as crucial in this case as normal. Emotion often gets in the way of the truth, especially when the truth is difficult to discern.
In my opinion, from an emotional viewpoint, the zealous cops don't score well. The Crown, which keeps dropping charges despite spending millions on the case, doesn't come out well. The NOTW were dire, the SSP held their own and TS is damaged goods at the moment and is treading water. GS gets plus points for various reasons.
There is still some way to go though and things may change especially if Sheridan mounts a convincing case and casts real doubt on the veracity of the tape.
You have to remember as well that if we accept the narrative that the police had studied the evidence and seriously concluded that Tommy Sheridan and Gail Sheridan amongst others had told a whole power of lies in the libel trial, they will have really been hoping to persuade Gail Sheridan to do some sort of deal in order to catch the bigger fish, so to speak. Like high profile drugs cases where they put pressure on low level dealers, put them in uncomfortable (but legal) witnessroom situations in order to pin down the really powerful, violent ones with the supply links - in exchange for lenient treatment. That's clearly exactly why they held Gail Sheridan for 5 hours despite her saying nothing - they hope you'll crack, confess when you see how horrible having to deal with a hostile police/court service/prison is. It's neither unusual nor is it specific police intimidation - it's just policing as it's done in this country.
Whatever you think of the police, think that they're too heavy handed in general and have a general authoritarian agenda - it's pretty absurd to claim that they intimidated the Sheridan's in this case or marked them out for different treatment. I don't know if any of you have ever been inside a police station being questioned about breach of the peace, but let me tell you they are horrible and ask leading questions and attempt to pressure you - aye it should change (via system change) but it's nothing special or unusual. It may not be very pleasant to experience, but then again neither is being slandered and lied about in court, so it seems fair to act within the law to do what is necessary to officially redeem the reputations of whichever side is proven to have been lying in this case - holding someone in a room trying to persuade them to talk when they won't for 5 hours is normal police practise, particularly for serious (ie in the eyes of the law, High Court-headed) crimes like perjury.
On an entirely separate point, the jury must be really bloody bored by now. Probably wise for them to cut the flab out of their indictment, if they want to jury to be clearly focused on the actual evidence that has been presented when push comes to shove, pity they didn't do it sooner, for every witness, juror and defendant involved. Although I'm sure Tam didn't mind - he's been doing his best to stretch his questioning to extraction from the moment he took over. Very, very tedious, and no doubt Prentice was getting mindful of that in the jury's eyes as winter dawned upon us in all its icy crapness
Anonymous 11.59 said
'If both TS and GS are telling the truth their is nothing, absolutely nothing, no matter how hard he tries that AP will be able to do to convince anyone otherwise'
Well if I was on the jury I'd like to hear where TS says he was the night of the alleged Cupids visit. I think an SSP cultural weekend was mentioned but witnesses say he didn't turn up at that until the next night.
Do jury members take notes during the trial?
Jury members are allowed to take notes during a trial. So is the Accused.
Post a Comment