As mentioned below, today the court heard from the first witness for the defence Hugh Kerr. Mr Kerr told the court he had been involved in politics for may years, including a term as Labour party member of the European parliament from 1991 to 1999. Mr Kerr added that he had been expelled from the Labour Party in 1998 as 'Tony Blair didn't like socialists" and that he had joined the Scottish Socialist Party in 1999 and was one of the first two co-chairs of the party.
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Kerr about his role as press officer for Mr Sheridan at the first session of the Scottish parliament (1999 to 2003) Mr Kerr replied by telling the court about the achievements of that first term, including Mr Sheridan's successful private members bill to abolish warrant sales. Mr Sheridan then asked the witness about the "dynamic of the SSP" and how that had changed after the 2003 election with the arrival of another five SSP members to the parliament.
Mr Kerr told the court that before 2003 that in general "harmony" had existed in the party, although there had been signs of division during the 50/50 debate (a successful proposal that half of all candidates in elections should be women) he claimed that some of the new intake of MSP's were "more interested in power and money" than maintaining party unity and that this conflict had also spread to the staff of the party. When asked he named Frances Curran, Rosie Kane and Carolyn Leckie for this state of affairs and added that he had become isolated as he had been seen as too close to Mr Sheridan. The witness further stated that he had been "sent to Coventry" Mr Sheridan then asked the witness what the reason for this division inside the party was. Mr Kerr replied that people were "envious" of Mr Sheridan's public profile and "jealous" of him. He added that Alan McCombes had told him that "Sheridan would be nothing without me" and there was a feeling amongst some other MSPs that Mr Sheridan was "getting too big for his boots" and had to be "taken down a peg or two." Mr Kerr agreed that he had been involved in other political disputes but that the SSP was "remarkable for the level of intensity and hostilty." with "a lot of hate, visceral hate."
Mr Kerr then told the court that he had found this atmosphere intolerable so had resigned his position and moved to Denmark in November 2004. Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if he had "formed an impression of events that occurred after he left, at this point Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute, objected that this would be hearsay, Lord Bracadale agreed and the question was disallowed.
Mr Sheridan then moved on to events after Mr Kerr's return to Scotland in 2006. Mr Kerr informed the court he had returned to help Mr Sheridan in Parliament, and in that capacity was present in 2007 when a listening device was found in Mr Sheridan's car. Mr Kerr told the court that they "had received evidence from someone at the News of the World" that Mr Sheridan was being monitored and had called Lothian and Borders police to "get the car checked" The witness went on to tell the court that when they arrived with the car to meet the police, around forty minutes later" a press photographer was already in attendance, the news having been "leaked" to the media. Mr Kerr confirmed that the police had found a "bug" in Mr Sheridan's vehicle, going on to tell the court that the police had not found who was responsible for this.
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Kerr about a number of Freedom of Information requests he had made to Lothian and Borders police about their investigation into alleged perjury by Mr and Mrs Sheridan at their 2006 defamation case against the News of the World. Documents were shown to the court, from the Force support unit of L&B police which gave the number of police hours consumed by the case, as of 15/02/08 as around, 40,000 giving a cost in wages and salaries of approximately £1 million and additional expenses (overtime, transport etc) as £153,743.91. A further document was then presented giving figures for 24/09/08 giving a total cost in police hours as 54,216 with a salary/wages cost £865,060.72 and additional costs of £235,210.81.
Finally Mr Sheridan asked the witness if he was telling the truth, to which Mr Kerr replied he was. Mr Sheridan then asked the witness if he had a "Criminal record" to which Mr Kerr replied "In September 1961 I was in a sit-down in Trafalgar Square with Bertrand Russell" for which he was later fined £5. Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Kerr if anyone was paying him for his testimony, to which the witness replied "unfortunately not. I give is freely and on a voluntary basis." With that Mr Sheridan ended his evidence in chief and returned to the dock.
The Advocate Depute then rose to cross-examine Mr Kerr. Mr Prentice opened by asking the witness if he agreed that perjury was a "serious crime' which he did and if "perjury is committed justice suffers" a statement to which Mr Kerr also agreed. The Advocate Depute then asked of Mr Kerr was committed to freedom of information and that witnesses should "co-operate" with both sides in a trial to ensure a correct verdict was arrived at. Again the witness agreed. Mr Prentice then asked if this was the witnesses position why had he not been prepared to provide a statement to the police when asked on the 18th November this year. Mr Kerr responded that a police officer had called him and asked him to make a statement and had also informed him that he was not obliged to do so. Mr Kerr stated that as he was due to give evidence in the case he had decided to decline to do so. Mr Prentice then ended his cross-examination and after a brief re-examination from Mr Sheridan Mr Kerr was allowed to step down from the witness box.
31 comments:
Well this witness really blew a hole in the prosecution case, didn't he?
I have no idea why this person was even called.
I also hope (for Mr. Sheridan's sake) that all his witnesses haven't similarly refused to provide statements to the police when requested. That would look terrible.
"The witness went on to tell the court that when they arrived with the car to meet the police, around forty minutes later" a press photographer was already in attendance, the news having been "leaked" to the media. "
I presume Mr Kerr didn't say that he had leaked it to the media? Or am I wrong to presume that?
What we seem to have established here is that police officers have to be paid to do their jobs.
"Clive"
OK, £1,000,000 divided by 40,000 hours gives a £25 per hour charge out rate.
Say an officer worked a 40 hour week and had seven weeks holiday leaving 45 working weeks, that would be £25 X 40 X 45 = £45,000 per officer per year, which would give you 22.2 officers full time for a year for £1 million.
Boomerang...
I suspect TS is seeking to use HK to prove what a nasty lot the SSP are and how much money the Polis spent in trying to get something to stick.
TS quite entitled to call Kerr or anyone else as a 'character witness'. How far such 'for he's a jolly good fellow' evidence will take him is debabtable.
This first witness seems to have been used to set the scene so to speak: we have a party where Alan McCombes, for one, is jealous of Tommy getting all the attention, believing that he himself was the brain behind everything. We also have detail of the degree of hatred that was around, especially from certain leading women in the party - one of whom was Alan McCombes partner.
Though this evidence does not disprove anything, it provides evidence that will support the defence that the United Left faction within the SSP hated Tommy, and wanted him out of the way. Perhaps this hatred and hostility lead to Duncan Rowan's girlfriend approaching the NOTW with a story, and then Duncan himself being caught briefing the NOTW with the name of another woman for them to investigate. Then on the 9th November, 2004, the 'faction' used the press allegations to force Tommy to resign. They did't want him to sue the press (perhaps it would show the stories were false, and even SSP involvement in those stories appearing in the first place.)
So we end up with the United Left faction giving one version of what happened at the 9th Nov meeting, and several others giving a different version.
Reasonable doubt?
the united left network did not exist until 2006
@ Thinker,
Duncan Rowan testified Tommy went to the sex club, not only was he not in the united left but he left the SSP in late 2004 and is not a member of either the SSP or Solidarity. It's up to a jury to decide where his factional axe to grind is, especially as NOTW did betray his trust.
Advocate Depute then asked of Mr Kerr was committed to freedom of information and that witnesses should "co-operate" with both sides in a trial to ensure a correct verdict was arrived at. Again the witness agreed. Mr Prentice then asked if this was the witnesses position why had he not been prepared to provide a statement to the police when asked on the 18th November this year. Mr Kerr responded that a police officer had called him and asked him to make a statement and had also informed him that he was not obliged to do so. Mr Kerr stated that as he was due to give evidence in the case he had decided to decline to do so.
Yes give evidence FOR the defence, notquite co-operating with both sides. Hypocritcal?
How could Duncan Rowan testify Sheridan went to a sex club? was he there?
I wonder if we will hear from Alice Sheridan (Tommy's Mum).
He could testify to his confession. He was present at the EC which forced TS' resignation.
Cost of an investigation should not impede justice, and l broadly agree with that. However this is not about events that are imperative to public order concerns and raises the question of why so many millions of Council Tax money {to be recovered from the tenants and residents of Lothian and Borders} has been spent in a dispute that is effectively between two private parties.
Worse there are now indications that a police investigation may have commenced during the original libel court case, possibly before evjdence had been heard.
More than twenty police officers and other personnel have been engaged in this for over four years and many cases would have been shelved during that period due to lack of resources. Assaults, Burgleries, ect.
"oh ffs said...
the united left network did not exist until 2006"
Technically correct - they only announced their existence publically in 2006. But we all know, as Hugh Kerr testified today, that the key members of the faction were acting as a faction when they acted to force Tommy to resign as leader of the SSP in 2004.
No,no,no,no,no. This was a dreadful start. Real party-litigant-by-numbers stuff.
My head can't (and doesn't want) to get round the SSP/Solidarity/United Left stuff so I will leave others to muse on that but this guy's 'I'll no talk to the polis' schtick is unbelievably bad . The reason why you should always be prepared to provide an informal statement is because if you do and you're potentially credible and reliable the other side might back down and concede elements of their case. Or both side can at least agree elements and work on a Minute of Admissions. By doing so, like most normal folk, you can avoid the grinding pointlessness of being called as a witness.
'I will have my day in court, come hell or high water, Sir' merchants like this usually come dressed in a blazer, have a 'small tincture' in the Lodge before court and arrive in the box with their Daily Mail tucked ostentatiously under their arm before giving evidence in some crapfest over an unpaid £11.50 dry-cleaning bill.
Add the angst about taxpayers money bit and early doors the defence strategy looks to me like getting in committee members of a suburban golf club to denounce folk who've defaulted on their subs. Total green-ink brigade stuff.
This is not a good start. Please Tommy rethink and get a good Silk on the case.It's not too late. It's the least you could do by your wife and child.
Anonymous Say it ain't so Joe said...
No,no,no,no,no. This was a dreadful start. Real party-litigant-by-numbers stuff.
My head can't (and doesn't want) to get round the SSP/Solidarity/United Left stuff so I will leave others to muse on that but this guy's 'I'll no talk to the polis' schtick is unbelievably bad . The reason why you should always be prepared to provide an informal statement is because if you do and you're potentially credible and reliable the other side might back down and concede elements of their case. Or both side can at least agree elements and work on a Minute of Admissions. By doing so, like most normal folk, you can avoid the grinding pointlessness of being called as a witness.
'I will have my day in court, come hell or high water, Sir' merchants like this usually come dressed in a blazer, have a 'small tincture' in the Lodge before court and arrive in the box with their Daily Mail tucked ostentatiously under their arm before giving evidence in some crapfest over an unpaid £11.50 dry-cleaning bill.
Add the angst about taxpayers money bit and early doors the defence strategy looks to me like getting in committee members of a suburban golf club to denounce folk who've defaulted on their subs. Total green-ink brigade stuff.
This is not a good start. Please Tommy rethink and get a good Silk on the case.It's not too late. It's the least you could do by your wife and child.
December 3, 2010 8:45 PM
That's actually quite witty - get your tanks off my lawn!
You appear to be a Scottish person could you help me out.
Approximately how long would it take to drive at night an average engine 5 seater saloon from Hamilton back to Glasgow for couple of pick up stops, onto the motorway in Glasgow rest & petrol break on the motorway and then on to Salford.
I say 5 hours minimum if you were under the speed limit. Anymore would lead to photos being taken.
He was MEP until 1999, not 2008
Peter,
I was once told:-
"Litigants are printmakers, advocates are expressionists and jurors prefer to look at cartoons."
A quote from a defence agent who has gone on to win the odd jury trial in their time.
TS is in danger of supposing that a trial is about getting to 'The Truth'. Times taken exactly to/from Hamilton/Glasgow/Salford are, I fear, irrelevant.
On the matter of photos taken - for all we know there may have been but Joe Bloggs' speeding rap is not available to the Crown in J.B's subsequent High Court trial.
Cheers
SIASJ
My comment from a few hours ago hasn't appeared yet, so will try again.
@one time ssp:
"the key members of the faction were acting as a faction when they acted to force Tommy to resign as leader of the SSP in 2004."
Except that the executive voted UNANIMOUSLY to request Sheridan's resignation, including members who were in factions (eg the SWP) who went on to back him and leave the party to form Solidarity after the civil trial. Notably this includes witnesses who went on to testify on Sheridan's behalf, and Sheridan has suggested he will call them again this time round, presumably to say "TS didn't admit to anything at the executive meeting", as they did in the civil case.
It will be interesting to see if those witnesses are asked why they voted for Sheridan to resign if he made no admissions regarding Cupids and so didn't intend to lie in court and defraud the NotW...
(NB. I'm happy to have you edit anything you feel is inappropriate, James - eg. adding an 'allegedly' where you desire).
Say It Ain't So Joe said...
"Litigants are printmakers, advocates are expressionists and jurors prefer to look at cartoons."
That's absolutely brilliant.
Can you name who came up with it?
Go on...
Thinker: Nobody can read the mind of a jury.
In the court of public opinion I would wager that TS was at one time held with higher regard than your kanes and leckies.
That has no bearing on what did or did not happen in manchester.
I'm sure there were the splitters in the SSP. The evidence of Tommys best men, Anvar Khans neighbour, Katrine Trolle's flatmates is also before the jury.
The jury will also reflect on Tommy's decision not to give evidence in his own defence, whilst dragging everybody elses personal life over the coals. As is his right.
We all know the way the NOTW work.
Andy Coulson can confirm or deny this. Doesn't alter if what actually happened is as reported or not. Believe it or not, the SSP and the NOTW are actually pretty irrelevent in all of this, it's all theatre.
People took the oath at the civil case Tommy instigated and some of them didn't tell the truth, clearly.
FWIW - Glasgow to Hamilton is 11 miles.
Hugh Kerr's comments about tensions in the party are a pretty weak defence. All parties have personality clashes, usually exacerbated in political parties by ideological issues. The United Left seems to have been such an ideological faction. What TS needs to show is not just faction, but a plot: and not just a plot to remove him, but a conspicary to lie. But if the NOTW story gave rise to an opportunity to remove him, it did not generate any need for a collective lie that TS confessed at the SSP meeting after story appeared. After he had resigned, why would the members lie about what he had said?
Tommy Trial Addict
Agree that is a great quote, can't find the origin. Here is oe of my favourites that is also quite relevant.
Circumstances are beyond human control, but our conduct is in our own power.
Benjamin Disraelia
The printmaker/expressionist/cartoons line came from a Sol/Ad who still practices from Carlton Place and who'd be mortified if I named names. It was a remark made in the passing at the agents' caff at the High Court over a hurried sausage sarnie and one of about twenty similar gems you're guaranteed to get if you're ever privileged to have a five minute chat with the gent in question.
Anon said:
FWIW - Glasgow to Hamilton is 11 miles.
December 4, 2010 10:34
Hi Anon
Not from Scotland but I do know Salford / Wigan area well.
The times I used were from google maps.
What do you think is a more accurate timeline from your own local knowledge?
Or of course there is the POSSIBILITY that timings between Hamilton and Glasgow and Manchester don't matter - because there's a POSSIBILITY that Alan Brown is making up a load of nonsense. You have to consider these things.
Anonymous said...
Or of course there is the POSSIBILITY that timings between Hamilton and Glasgow and Manchester don't matter - because there's a POSSIBILITY that Alan Brown is making up a load of nonsense. You have to consider these things.
December 5, 2010 5:52 PM
There is a POSSIBILITY that Alan Brown may not be alone in making up a load of nonsense. You have to consider these things.
11.16.
Indeed. We're still to hear from other defence witnesses. Who can guess what they might come up with?
Rolo, same rule as usual, that particular book is not evidence,
Post a Comment