At the conclusion of Andrew Coulson's testimony the presiding judge, Lord Bracadale, asked the jury to leave the court while a legal issue was dealt with. There then was a short break. When the court reconvened the next witness presented by the defence, Paul Holleran, took the stand. Mr Holleran told the court he was a Trade Union organiser with the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and had been for 16 years. Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Holleran if he knew previous Crown witness Anvar Khan, the witness confirmed that he did and Mr Sheridan asked Mr Holleran if he could tell the court the circumstances of how he knew her.
Mr Holleran explained that in his capacity as a Trade union official he had represented Ms Khan on a number of occasions. The witness then told the court that in 2004/2005 Ms Khan had asked the union to support her in her contract negotiations with the News of the World,(NotW) where she was employed as a freelance columnist and feature writer. Ms Khan had told Mr Holleran that she was "unhappy" about how she was being treated and had asked the NUJ for assistance. When discussing the issue Mr Holleran told the court that Ms Khan had told him that the mangement at the NotW were "pressing her to do things she was not comfortable with" which included being asked to sign an affidavit in relation to Mr Sheridan's action for defamation against the NotW.
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Holleran if he could be more exact about when this had occurred. The witness told the court that Ms Khan had approached the NUJ in November 2004 during the negotiations over her new contract. Mr Holleran described Ms Khan as "stressed out" and under pressure to get the stories the editor was looking for. The witness told the court that Ms Khan had said to him that the situation was a "farce" and "nothing to do with me" and that there was a threat to her new contract unless she "came up with information." Mr Holleran was asked again if he could be more specific and replied that Ms Khan had been told that her contract would not be renewed "if she didn't play ball. Ms Khan had also said she had "dumbly signed an affidavit" and had asked about her "legal rights." Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Holleran what advice he had given Ms Khan. The witness told the court that he had "supervised" the case but handed it over to a colleague to take care of the "day to day negotiations" to try and obtain a more "robust" contract for Ms Khan.
Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Holleran if there were any newspapers in Scotland that did not recognise the NUJ. The witness replied that there were two, the DC Thomson group and News International (publisher of the NotW) The witness added, however the union still had a "legal right" to represent it's members in any newspaper group, and had exercised that in relation to the negotiations on behalf of Ms Khan.
Finally Mr Sheridan asked Mr Holleran if the NUJ had a position on journalists using "illegal methods" to obtain stories. The witness replied that the union "frowned on this as it brought the industry into disrepute" Mr Sheridan then asked about relationships between the police and newspapers and asked if Mr Holleran was aware of circimstances under which police officers being paid for information by newspapers. The witness told the court that this was "not openly discussed" but there was an "understanding in the industry that it happens." Mr Sheridan then thanked the witness and returned to his seat in the dock. The Advocate Depute then rose to cross-examine.
Alex Prentice QC, for the Crown, opened by asking Mr Holleran if he had ever represented Tommy Sheridan, the witness replied "not at that time." Asked when he had represented the accused Mr Holleran told the court that this was "after the News of the World article" and Mr Sheridan had asked for advice about bringing a libel case. Mr Prentice then asked the witness who was representing Ms Khan at this time, Mr Holleran replied "Jim McCannally"
Mr Prentice then asked the witness if he had ever been subject to a formal complaint during his time working for the NUJ. Mr Holleran replied 'not to my knowledge" Mr Prentice put it to the witness that the NUJ had received a complaint about a "conflict of interest" from Anvar Khan. Mr Holleran said there was no conflict of interest as Mr McCannally was representing Ms Khan while he represented Mr Sheridan. Asked if there was an "inquiry" into this issue by the union Mr Holleran said "no". Mr Prentice asked the witness if he had been required to submit a report to the union about the case in 2006. Mr Holleran said there was nothing unusual on him submitting reports as the NUJ was a democratic organisation and "that's what I do."
Mr Prentice then asked the witness if there had ever been a "threat of litigation" against the NUJ from Anvar Khan. Mr Holleran responded that there had heard discussion about an article in the union magazine "The Journalist" which may have been the subject of a defamation complaint. from ms Khan. When asked by Mr Prentice is this had been "settled" Mr Holleran replied "I don't know." With that the Advocate Depute ended his cross-examination and Mr Sheridan rose to re-examine.
Mr Sheridan asked the witness if it was normal for him to produce reports on cases he was dealing with, Mr Holleran replied "I do it every week." Mr Holleran again stated that to his knowledge there had been no formal complaint laid against him. When asked about his involvement with "The Journalist" magazine Mr Holeram stated "none whatsoever." With that Mr Sheridan concluded his re-examination and the witness was allowed to step down from the stand.
Lord Bracadale then adjourned the case until Monday morning.
61 comments:
What is the implication of the testimony of this witness? Is he implying that the NOWT was pressurising Anvar Khan to lie, and that she came to the NUJ because she was resisitng that pressure? If so, that would would give credence to the claim that her testimony to this trial is true.
Have I missed something - this was a defence witness?
I can see an obvious conflict right away! How could he not? Intended or not it is a conflict.
This seems to me like another solid witness for the defence.
In start contrast to the winking, amnesiac, contradictory, and hostile/childish witnesses for the prosecution.
But then, thats up for the jury to decide eh.
Why would she also continue with this lie since she is not working for them now and is not on good terms with them and was going to make a case of it when they settled.
If she had lied for the NotW and feared prosecution she could have come clean and stated they pressured her to lie.
Also why embarass he husband and family for something that happened so long ago.
Unions often represent two people on opposite sides of a dispute, I've been in that position myself during a harrasment case. The union would do what the NUJ did in this case, have a different person deal with each party.
BTW I did almost laugh at the Crown yesterday, when Mr Prentice asked about the complaint and the witness said "there was none" he looked toally nonplussed and had nothing else to cross-examine about. I think someone in the Crown office may be having a wee word with someone about that this weekend.
I have checked James's transcripts of the evidence given by Anvar Khan. Even if we consider her one of the less cogent Prosecution witnesses; just why is it that TS does not seem to have put ANY of the allegations about her professional relations with the NUJ or The Journalist magazine to her in cross-examination?
If it was not part of his Defence case when Khan was in the box,how on earth is it now relevant?
If those are TS's allegations, he should surely have put them to Khan. Putting them to his own witness, without recalling Khan, means the Court only hears one side of the story!
Jaimsie, the Crown knew Mr Hollaran had been cited as a witnessm it is not up to the defence to help out the prosecution, if they fail to lead evidence to their own witness you can hardly blame the defence for using that slip.
They may know he's been cited but they won't have seen his witness statement so how are they supposed to know his full relevancy?
Look at it this way: is the Crown allowed to lead evidence without letting the Defence cross-examine the witness? No. Because that is unfair - it 'bulletproofs' the evidence because the other side (prosecution or defence) is deprived of the chance to explore the allegation with the witness who is the subject of it.
AK might totally deny the allegations. She might half accept them. She may totally adopt them.
But the Court does not get the whole picture when tactics (if they are not omissions by the Defence) like this emerge, seemingly with no other puropose in mind, other than to bulletproof evidence from proper challenge/s.
"hey won't have seen his witness statement so how are they supposed to know his full relevancy? "
Well he testified in 2006 so I would think that they might have an wee idea of what he might say.
"is the Crown allowed to lead evidence without letting the Defence cross-examine the witness"
No, and is the defence allowed to bulletproof witnesses, no. Alex Prentice cross-examined him with a clearly pre-determined line.
Methinks someone protesteth too much
James Cotter,Anvar Khan mentioned the union in her evidence i was there,she was also another paid witness who on oath denied being paid,she also said she only gave evidence at the libel trial because she was given another contract by the NOTW,CREDIBLE WITNESS NOT,hostile yes,and i,m just an honest observer,but the crown case is alot of pash
Just as a matter of fact, The issue of Anvar Khan and advice from the NUJ did come into evidence viz
Mr Sheridan produced another email, this time from Ms Khan to Bob Bird (with a subject line "the trial") In this message Ms Khan says "If I am happy with the new contract I am prepared to rethink my position relating to your QC." Ms Khan responded that she had only said this as she had been advised by the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) to "appear" to cooperate with the NotW to secure a new contract"
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/anvar-khan-cross-examination-by-tommy.html#uds-search-results
There was also evidence about "pressure" re the affidavit
He then asked if Ms Khan had given an affidavit to the News of the World giving the date as "the end of 2001" which she agreed she had. Mr McBride then read through that affidavit and asked the witness "this is a perfectly simple question, why 2001?" Ms Khan responded that she had felt under pressure to sign this document"
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/10/anvar-khan-cross-examination-by-paul.html
Given that I do have to disagree that this is new, unexpected evidence
OK thanks both, objection withdrawn!
Anvar Khan a "paid witness". Yes, but only in her capacity as working as a journalist on the NotW.
Get Your Facts Right said...
Anvar Khan a "paid witness". Yes, but only in her capacity as working as a journalist on the NotW.
December 11, 2010 4:42 PM
She was paid £2ooo as i recall,to which she failed to admit
witnesses are precognised by both sides prior to trial. hugh kerr declined. i didn't think you can decline. only end up being precognised in court prior to giving evidence without the jury present.
the puzzling thing is when the witnesses have been giving evidence defence and crown have asked questions re statements given. yet i cant find any comments re the statements of gs or ts. i'm 99% that would have been led at least with the coppers gave their evidence. did anyone hear them refer to the accused's statements?
We heard how Gail Sheridan opted not to comment and I suspect there is a very good legal reason for us not hearing Tommy Sheridans comments to olice, the same reason as we didnt hear evidence on voice comparison, in my opinion.
Hugh Kerr said that he declined to give police a statement in the days leading up to him appearing as a witness. I would imagine that most if not all witnesses would decline this, it isn't obligatory and your testimony will be heard in court soon anyway. He wouldn't have been asked to give a statement in court in the absence of the jury.
i think your wrong on that. both sides have the right to precognise witnesses. try reading the precognition handbook on the copfs website.
if the witness declines they can be made to give the precognition on the stand under oath. then if the crown or defence decide they can put them back on the stand to give evidence infront of the jury.
you say very good legal reasons for not hearing ts's statement or evidence on voice comparison. what could that be?
So why would Khan keep on with this lie?
Does not work for the paper is on poor terms with them.
What does she have to gain? TD has not shown that she was paid a significant amount of cash and I think she would want a lot more than 2 grand to keep this charade up. If it is a charade. 2 grand is nothing.
Why put her husband through the grief of hearing her describe sex with another man. Nobody wants to hear about their partners ex-lovers, especially in this context as she was meant to be doing this with a married man, making her her to look even worse.
Can money and spite for TD really take that pain, grief or disgust away from her husband.
Even if the husband is very liberal on his outlook he will still not want put through this.
It was the cop that told HUGH KERR he didn,t have to give the pre cog,thats the reason he never gave it
2 grand is nothing????!!.... maybe not to you? TS? Bob Bird? or Anvar Khan?.... but for some poor folk its a FULL YEARS jobbie seeking allowance!!!!
anon 621, I dont need to look at the website, the Crown had ample time to precognise witnesses on the defence list. Any witness is well within their right and would also be advised to not give a police statement at this late stage.
If you don't know the legal reasons that link TS interview with police and a potential reason not to offer voice comparison evidence I wont bother to lead you there.
I am sure that those who are involved in out courts and justice system will recognise what I mean.
As I don't know for sure, I wont elaborate. But if I am correct it suggests a slack investigation by police in line with what we have seen re the 'cultural festival' and the last minute attempts to garner police statements.
The police and the Crown seem (to me) to have thought that they had an open and shut case and have missed some obvious things.
The McCombes affidavit and the questioning of Trolle by TS about the cultural festival left them in a spin.
The other thing I refer to should have been obvious to police well before the trial but not before they interviewed him in 2007.
On your point about TS and GS, the accussed have the right to "haud their weesht" as an old friend of mine used to put it.
Anon 610
Cadder
2 grand is nothing in the grand scheme of this case! Still can't see why Khan would go through this for a lie? Why would her old neighbour lie?
Do I understand this correctly?
It appears that TS is suggesting that Anvar Khan was forced to come up with evidence to help the NOTW against TS in return for a new contract with the NOTW. Initially she did not wish to do that and went to the NUJ for advice. Eventually she gave them what they wanted, and having maintained that what she said at the libel trial was true, has had to repeat those claims at the trial for fear of herself being done for perjury were she to retract her evidence now.
If what she is claiming is true, why did she feel the need to seek NUJ advice? It is more logical to assume that the reason she sought advise was because she felt pressurised to 'make up' evidence to help the NOTW - I can understand why she would not be happy about getting involved in something like that.
I don't think we can disbelieve the NUJ official as the fact that Anvar Khan complained about a conflict of interest confirms that she had sought union advice.
This, then, leaves a huge question mark over the reliability of her evidence.
It doesn't really, though, does it? Leave a huge question mark over the reliability of her evidence, that is. It really doesn't.
Anonymous said...
So why would Khan keep on with this lie?
Hi Anon:
That is the central question of this trial.
Three women gave evidence under oath in the libel trial that they had various alleged exotic encounters with Mr Sheridan.
So far two of these women (Trolle and Khan) have come to this trial and repeated that. They claim again to have had individual and group sex with Sheridan at a range of locations across Scotland and England.
It has been established in testimony at this trial two women have over time made numerous alterations to their accounts - especially regarding the dates of some of these alleged encounters.
Essentially, however, they both maintained that they had (jointly and severally) various exotic sex encounters with Sheridan over a period of years - including after his marriage to Gail.
You ask essentially why would these two risk perjury to do this if their stories were not true?
They could of course be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The defence feels that is not the case.
As the defence considers these women are not telling the truth it is possible the defence considers these two women simply got themselves in a hole when first appearing for the NOTW .... and they have simply carried on digging.
I have indicated there may be an explanation for their possible perjury if that is what it is and we do not know:
a) if there was no risk of their prosecution (or the women were for good reason under the impression there was no risk) then maintaining their sex story here would not actually be a risk to them.
b) the alternative of openly admitting that their sex story (given in the libel trial under oath) was wholly untrue would be a greater risk than rolling the dice and maintaining their story now.
The stakes are arguably the highest for these two women than any other witness called by the Crown (except for McNeilage).
Others could possibly get away with altering dates, or misremembering or misunderstanding what Sheridan on the grounds they were "mistaken" in the libel trial.
Without going into gory detail you will uderstand that these two women could not get away with saying they were "mistaken" that they had sex with Sheridan.
Obviously when the jury recall the testimony of Trolle and Khan they must consider if it is beyond a reasonable doubt that these two women are telling the truth or not.
If they feel they are not (or may possibly not be) telling the truth the case is then Not Proven and the Crown case fails.
This I suggest is why McBride challenged Khan as vigorously as he did. He knows this is the central matter. He set out, apparently in a tour de force of cross examination, to expose what he alleges to be her lies and inconsistencies.
He therefore put it to the jury - can you believe anything Khan (and by implication Trolle as she stands with Khan) says about sex?
Not a pretty tactic of course but an appropriate one as this is not a game of tiddly winks. An effective tactic? Maybe. We will see.
Simply put IMHO if there was no sex with either Trolle & Khan then logically: the confession "minutes"; the confession "video"; the alleged sightings of Sheridan with them; the diary issue; and the numerous alleged confessions of Sheridan (supposedly to Uncle Tom Cobbley and all in the SSP) of these intimate sexual matters all fall away.
yes but why keep the lie going? it would be easier and safer to come clean. Especially for her family!
Anon said:
Why put her husband through the grief of hearing her describe sex with another man.
Nobody wants to hear about their partners ex-lovers, especially in this context as she was meant to be doing this with a married man, making her her to look even worse.
Can money and spite for TD really take that pain, grief or disgust away from her husband.
Even if the husband is very liberal on his outlook he will still not want put through this.
Hi Anon,
It appears from testimony in tthis trial that Ms Khans resistance to her sex life being published was worn down not by reticence to offending loved ones but by various offers of jobs and money - some of which she failed to tell the jury about in the libel trial and this trial despite being under oath.
Similarly Ms Trolle denied receiving any offers whilst under oath in the libel trial and this trial.
Mr Bird has revealed the payments to Khan and the offers to Trolle during his testimony at this trial (therefore amending his own earlier evidence on the matter given at the libel trial)
That perhaps leaving Ms Trolle and Ms Khan in a tricky position. But that will be for other proceedings if so.
As made clear in this trial Ms Khan's had various sex publications and sex shows (Wham Bam Married Man etc). All were published openly in her own name.
Indeed Ms Khan promoted her sex book (Something Wild - a stocking fillers this Chrimbo?) on the frontpage of the NOTW which perhaps leads us to where we are.
I suggest after that publication perhaps her husband (as was the rest of the country after publication)possibly aware of her impressive sexual CV well before this trial.
@thisissignificant:
did we not just read that she sought advice as she was being screwed over contractually being a freelance columnist?
Just checking, will fuller reports of Gordon Morgan and Pat Smith's evidence be published? Or was it so uninteresting that it's not worth it?
Hello Smokey, those reports are pending, should be completed by Sunday.
They are certainly "worth it"
Sorry, but seems to me like more smoke screen. I am a T U rep, and I advise my members to seek advice/representation as early as they feel it may be needed, no matter the merits of the case. I've also been in the odd position of being in a dispute ,having one of my members sitting opposite, er, one of my members - such is modern trade unionism.
After it all, still not sure what this adds to the key question - did TS and GS lie in court?
Peter
'The stakes are arguably the highest for these two women than any other witness called by the Crown (except for McNeilage.'
The stakes are highest for law academic Nicholas McKerrell who risks reputation, career and livelihood by committing perjury at this very high profile trial. His affiliation to SSP members, in my view, would not begin to explain why a person with so much to lose would take such a risk.
TS’s constant attempts to vilify the NOTW is in danger of undermining his defence not only in relation to Anvar Khan, but also in relation to his former SSP colleagues.
Those who have testified, in this trial and in the libel case, that he confessed at the 9/11 executive meeting have also testified about being very uncomfortable about giving evidence in support of the NOTW and that they share TS’s detestation of the NOTW.
The question arises therefore why they were willing to give evidence in support of the NOTW? For SSP members this must have been equivalent to supping with the devil.
NOTW cash cannot be the reason in their case.
TS has alleged that they were “out to get him”. But if they were out to get him, why did they not use all the weapons at their disposal, and freely release internal SSP documents? Why was Alan McCombes willing to go to jail rather than release the minutes of the 9/11 meeting (the fact that he was willing to go to jail for them also rather supports the claim that they are genuine)?
Aye Neckhlyudov Nicholas McKerrell would have to be a deluded smart-ass, nuts or something to commit Perjury in this trial - that guy is like risking ruin. Supposing that he slipped up on the stand, it would be HMA v N McKerrell before Nicky could flip a burger in my opinion.
1.58.
It's not more difficult to explain why defence witnesses would lie, for well publicised reasons.
Duncan Rowan went to the NOTW for personal, not polical reasons. Winessses have given testimony that his girlfriend had just tried to commit suicide and he was in a state of great agitation. It is clear that in naming Katrine Trolle he was trying to protect his girlfriend, not to damage TS.
Further significant evidence is the testimony by AMcC that he had believed before the libel case that appearing in court would be very damaging to the party. By the time of the libel case TS had stood down and Convener of the SSP and had been expelled from the party. What further political damage could his erstwhile colleagues do by lying in Court? He was already history as far as the SSP was concerned.
So Critical-eye you think that McCombes and the gang could just have decided to stop lying (if that is what they were doing) after TS had left the party?
That would have looked rather foolish now would't it.
Hello Wullie, I have deleted that comment, thanks for pointing it out. Sadly had to delete your post too as it quoted it.
cheers
J
A "clown" that has gained a Phd (Doctorate) as well as obtaining a cushy position as a lecturer of Law?
And point being,i watched him you never,he was a hostile witness,and i never seen any PHD SKILLS IN HIS DEMEANER
Yulfae
Your 3:36 post isn't a model of clarity I'm afraid.
Nae bother.
For your information Yulfae, I watched Dr Nick McKerell give evidence too and in my opinion he came across as a very reliable and credible witness.
Critical Eye 11.25am
'Those who have testified, in this trial and in the libel case, that he confessed at the 9/11 executive meeting have also testified about being very uncomfortable about giving evidence in support of the NOTW and that they share Critical EyeTS’s detestation of the NOTW.'etc
You have to consider that once the story of the minutes was circulating and people took sides they were becoming hostages to fortune. They werent able to predict the outcome but those clamimg the admission by Mr Sheridan may have assumed that he would capitulate in the face of the numbers gainst him. That he did not and that they became aembroiled in the fight with the NOTW in the court case of 2006 and this trial might not be a dilema for them but something they have to see through having set the ball in motion. Their motives therefore, whether good or bad, cannot be devined from the act of taking the stand against MR Sheridan. That remains for the jury to weigh up and decide upon.
CRUSTY you have your opinion i have mine let the jury decide,as far as McKERRELL goes what was his imput?no one to verify his version,only called as he has a phd wal
Just curious, Yulfae, but do you have a PhD. What is your level of educational attainment?
Hello all, could we cut out the personal stuff please?
Sorry Dr Who,iv,e only 5 o,grades but i know the difference from swearing on the bible and affirming,Apoliges J wasn,t trying to get into a slanging match just giving my opinion
well said yulefae.for a law lecturer to claim he swore on the bible because he "was'nt offered the affirmation"just shows how much he lacks commonsense,in my opinion.MR mckerrall had several of his students in the public gallery,presumably to demonstrate how clever he was,and ended up making,in my opinion, a total A--- of himself.Just shows you what a university education can do for some people eh!
There is a difference, but it is pedantic and not everyone is going to be as educated as the poster on this blog. In social situations it is normal to gloss over such pedantries out of common courtesy, why make a palaver out of it, get in to an embarrassing and awkward station? In my opinion Nick McKerrell's action was akin to a vegetarian tucking into a steak at a dinner-party, no big deal.
embarrassing situation
There is actually a whole thread on Nicky McKerrill's testimony
Why not take this debate over there?
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/11/nicholas-mckerrell.html
re Anon at 4.38pm
small correction lines 6/7
should be
'this trial might be a dilema'
Posters will be aware that the defence consider that the creation of the "confession" minutes and the McCoombes affadavit were factional tools by a group around McCoombes to force Sheridan out and also prevent his return to the leadership of the SSP.
It is illuminating to read the "confession" minutes again and compare them to the Crisis in the Party - the fight for the Truth - article (written by Alan McCoombes after the libel trial in AUGUST 2006) and the testimony of various Crow witnesses in this trial.
McCoombes in his article (and the Crown) deny factionalism against Tommy. If that is so can posters help me with the following.
a)McCoombes in his Truth article says he and others were always very concerned after the executive meeting in Nov 2004 that the media should be deflected from pursuing the "real" story behind the Sheridan resignation out of a genuine desire to protect Gail and Tommy's confidentiality.
Why therefore did Alan give a secret affadvait to the media specifically stating that a party record existed that held the secret of that resignation. If Alan as his defenders claim wanted a record of events for posterity he could have stored it with a notary rather than the Herald.
b) If there was no MCoombes group plot then why was the authorship of the affadavit kept from the SSP membership throughout the McCoombes leadership bid in 2005. Why was it kept secret during the "strategy of defiance" in 2006. Why even after the libel trial (and even after Sheridan and his supporters left the party) did McCoombs not come clean.
Why, as this trial has shown, was the McCoombes authorship of the affadavit kept from party leader Colin Fox.
c)If (as McCoombes says in his article they were) the "minutes" were formally ratified in Nov 2004 then why do Crown and defence witnesses say they were not. Indeed Fox (according to his evidence here) was not shown any minutes until 2006 never mind in 2004.
e)McCoombes says in his article that after the Nov 2004 exec meeting regional/area briefing meetings were held across Scotland. Members were supposedly briefed at these meetings about the "real" reasons for Sheridans resignation but asked to keep them confidential.
I certainly would remember such a startling briefing but one has come forward yet to back McCoombes up on that.
Interestingly if Fox had not stood and won the leadership then McCoombes affadavit and fake minutes plan (if that is what it was) may well have won him the leadership.
I,m not being facetious, Peter, but I can't help you.
@Critical-eye Sheridan wasn't expelled from the SSP - he resigned and founded a new party.
Hello Anon There was no comment removed at 1.58 that I can see.
Secondly we only publish things discussed in court, the "public domain" argument is, with respect, nothing to do with it.
hi james:
Dec 12, 1:58. it was a comment relevant to, and an inference drawn from (in the nature of the other inferences drawn here) what was discussed in court, as to the nature of the conflict of interest- ie that the official had counselled ak in confidence and had then reported the details of that meeting to the defendant.
cheers
Post a Comment