After Tommy Sheridan had examined Rosemary Byrne, Alex Prentice QC the Advocate Depute, rose to cross examine the witness. Mr Prentice began by asking the witness if she had been been exicited by the formation of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) Mrs Byrne told the court that she had seen the party as providing a alternative Socialist voice that would "represent people who were struggling" Mr Prentice asked the witness if one if the "different" things about the SSP was that it rejected "hypocrisy and sleaze" Mrs Byrne answered "I didn't even think about sleaze to be honest" but agreed that integrity was important.
Mr Prentice then put it to Mrs Byrne that a "Sex scandal would be disastrous for the SSP" especially if it involved their leading figure, Tommy Sheridan. Mrs Byrne agreed it would have been, "if true." Mr Prentice then asked the witness if she was if she was "greatly relieved" when Mr Sheridan denied the allegations, Mrs Byrne agreed that she was. Mr Prentice then asked that if Mr Sheridan had denied the allegations one would think that the SSP executive meeting would have an atmosphere of "joy." Mrs Byrne replied that on the contrary the meeting was a "kangaroo court" and that she had found out later that there had been a "prior meeting" where it had been decided to find Mr Sheridan guilty, "no matter what he said." Mrs Byrne added, "sorry, no joy."
Mr Prentice then asked Mrs Byrne if Mr Sheridan had denied the allegations why then had the executive asked him to resign, a decision she had voted for. The witness replied that the decision was taken because the party did not want to have it's convener involved in legal action and that she had favored waiting to see if Mr Sheridan was going to sue the News of the World. Mrs Byrne stated that the "consensus" was to ask Mr Sheridan to step down now, so she had voted for it. The witness added that she now "regretted" that decision and stated again that the meeting was "very hysterical" and "nasty."
Mr Prentice then asked Mrs Byrne if she had seen Barbara Scott at the meeting as the minute taker. The witness stated she had, but was "not aware" is she had taken notes. The Advocate Depute then asked Mrs Byrne if she was calling Barbara Scott a liar, the witness replied that she believed Ms Scott was "wrong" adding that "it didn't happen" but when pressed added I have to say it as you put it to me [that Ms Scott had "lied"] Mr Prentice put it to the witness that this was not her testimony at the 2006 civil trial. Mrs Byrne responded that they had "all been in one party then" and the situation had been "horrid beyond belief adding that "since the split" (in the SSP) she had realised that there were "people out to get Tommy" and that they would "do anything" The Advocate Depute then asked the witness if the witnesses who have testified to Mr Sheridan admitting attending a sex club at the meeting were "all liars" Mrs Byrne responded that she did not hear any admissions and that "they were not telling the truth"
Mr Prentice then asked Mrs Byrne why it would be a "concern of the party" that Mr Sheridan was planning on taking a civil action against the News of the World. The witness replied that it raised "a lot of problems, financial problems" and that having a convener "fighting the News of the World was not the best position, but I regret that we didn't wait." Asked to explain the financial issues she referred to Mrs Byrne said that the party was in debt and indeed that both herself and Tommy Sheridan were "owed money." Mr Prentice asked if this had been discussed at the 9/11/04 executive meeting, Mrs Byrne said it had been "touched upon" but agreed there had not been a full discussion of the issue.
The Advocate depute then moved on to ask Mrs Byrne if she belived that "Socialists should always take sides against the News of the World" to which the witness responded "no, it would depend on the circumstances. Mr Prentice then produced an email from Tommy Sheridan, to which the witness was copied, that contained a copy of a motion, passed by the Cardonald branch of the SSP in May 2006, that resolved that the SSP should "if a record exists" destroy any records if meetings that had information about members "personal lives" Mrs Byrne told the court she was familiar with the motion which she described as an attempt to "get out of the woodwork" talk of minutes, adding that she had asked to see any minute of the 9/11/04 executive meeting "over and over" and had never been shown any. Mr Prentice asked "if" the minutes existed did she agree they should have been destroyed, to which Mrs Byrne replied "you can't destroy what's not there" but agreed that it would be "wrong" to do so if a minute was a "ratified minute" . Mr Prentice asked of she agreed with another section of the motion that stated "Socialists must always take the side of other socialists against scum and scab outfits like the News of the World. The witness replied that she agreed that the News of the World was a "scum and scab outfit," but added that "you don't take sides if someone is wrong."
Mr Prentice then returned to the question of the disputed minute and asked if the witness had not seen this document at the SSP executive meeting on 24/12/04. Mrs Byrne replied she had not and would have remembered if she had. The Advocate Depute then produced a hand written note, that he told the court had been made by Barbara Scott of the 24/12/04 executive meeting and pointed to the agenda that had as item two, "Minutes." Mrs Byrne again said she had seen no minutes at that meeting and, when asked about discussion of the minute stated that that no-one had objected to the minute as it had not been presented.
Mr Prentice concluded his cross-examination by putting it to the witness that "the truth is Tommy Sheridan did admit attending a sex club and you heard that" Mrs Byrne replied "he did not admit that on that day or on any other day in my presence." Mr Prentice stated that the witness was a "supporter of Tommy Sheridan" and that is why she had testified as she had. With that he returned to his chair.
Mr Sheridan then briefly re-examined Mrs Byrne asking first if she was a member of the Cardonald branch of the SSP or had voted for their motion. The witness said she was not and had not. Mr Sheridan concluded by asking Mrs Byrne if the events of the 9th November 2004 executive meeting were "clear in her mind" The witness replied "absolutely clear" and with that Mr Sheridan thanked the witness and returned to the dock. Mrs Byrne was then allowed to step down from the witness box.
The trial continues tomorrow with further witnesses for the defence.
52 comments:
The charges relating to suborning Colin Fox were dropped, presumably because they involved one man's word against another, with no corroborating evidence.
Isn't this whole trial just a lot of people's words against other people's wprds, with no corroborating evidence? In which case is there a chance the remaining charges will be dropped?
Or will the jury just have to decide somehow who are the most believable witnesses?
This is interesting, as there is no way this witnesses testimony can be reconciled with the testimony of the other SSP MSPs.
It is plain that the SSP is responsible for seeing either two, or four, serious criminals, i.e. perjurers, elected as democratic representatives of the Scottish people.
An organisation capable of fostering such a criminal subculture is not compatible with democratic values.
It's only a shame we don't have capital punishment for this sort of thing.
Rosemary Byrne was, as I recall, the only SSP member who testified in the 2006 civil case Sheridan Vs NotW that Sheridan had not admitted visiting Cupid's in Manchester.
Again, as I recall, four SSP members testfied, under protest at being called by NotW
I agree with firestarter who said;
...
in my opinion the difference in quality between the crown witnesses and defence witnesses is night and day. ie: no speeches,no soundbites, no self promoting and nothing to gain from their testimonies.just straight answers to questions asked.
However, remember Rosemary Byrne was on what was to be the winning side. The other four were to be vilified as scabs because they testified for the NotW. Not a happy position to be in.
Just because she gave straightforward answers, does not mean that R Byrne is telling the truth. The four SSP members who testified against Tommy Sheridan were in an invidious position of being dragged into court case that wanted no part of and ended up being called scabs. Now they have been dragged into another one.
I think that the testimony of those who were at the meeting at which Sheridan is alleged to have made a confession, an allegation denied by Bryne in her testimony and by Sheridan, may end up being the crucial matter in the whole case.
Just my thoughts.
Thought it was quite a combative performance by AP today, with Lord Brac for once stepping in to get him to move on.
Contrary to another comment, I thought Byrne was quite evasive and would not answer several of the questions AP put to her. All she seemed to recall about any of the '04 meetings was that TS denied everything at the 9/11 meeting, then could only speak in very general terms about other parts of the meetings.
Noticable that she could not recall Charlotte Ahmed objecting to the minutes - she seemed to really wobble over this then clammed up, trying to be as non-specific as possible to everything AP asked her after that.
Anyone being questioned by a prosecutor can be a tad nervous, nevermind somebody of her years. However as someone that has been a Trade Unionist and an MSP she should have been able to take this in her stride.
So why be nervous, not a dig or stirring trouble just wondering?
There are references to "the SSP executive meeting on 24/12/10"
Shome mishtake shurely?
What I honestly don't get is why people of previous good character, who plainly seemed to have principles, would get themselves in to this situation. If there are other witnesses who back up Rosemary Byrne's version of events, who are the jury meant to believe? And if they find the defendants, guilty/not guilty/not proven, are the people who gave evidence on the losing side all going to get charged with perjury? If not, why not, if the charges in this trial are anything to go by. In 2003 these people came to the Scottish Parliament like a breath of fresh air. What Happened?
Thanks anon, fixed now.
I agree with you Anonymous, the prosecution have a tape, and it will be up to the jury to decide the authenticity of the tape. Therefore I was surprised that the prosecution did not produce expert witnesses to authenticate the tape.
It must be possible to tell whether its real or not, and with the money spent so far on the case, it would have been no surprise if they had searched far and wide to find such experts.
I have no doubt that the defence must have looked for expert witnesses too, and I wonder if they will produce any?
The possible doubts I see are that parts of the tape have been wiped off and the figure who is meant to be TS doesn't ever show his face.
IMO it would have strengthened the prosecution case no end if they had produced an expert to say the tape is 100% genuine, and the fact that they haven't is because they couldn't find one to say so.
Therefore I have a reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the tape and I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the jury have too.
A P has this technique of trying to put words into witness's mouths and when they won't have it, he gets all stroppy. This is presumably aimed at making the jury think the witness is non-cooperative rather than that the prosecution is lost for ideas.
Can we get over this minute thing. A minute is not the word of God. It is not a test of honesty. Because, generally, Political Parties try not to fight with their own kind, they tend to be non-controversial eg John Thum attended the meeting of Soroptimists and said that it was good. Less often - but not uncommon - they are used as a political weapon. I have been handbagged by minutes myself. The secretary thought I was being tedious going over old ground and so put into my mouth a load of old codswallop. When I offered to correct the minute I was exposed to the five minute rage. Why? It was a small disagreement. I wasn't getting into line. That's what minutes are about - correcting those who don't stand to attention.
Because minutes are political the Legal establishment should not touch them with a barge-pole. At worst the legal establishment is attacking democracy, at best it is foisting naivety on a jury addled by the hypocrisy of self-serving power mongers.
Ah the tape! Suppose it is true? Suppose that Sheridan is putting on a theatrical performance for the lovely SSP?
I don't believe that for a minute. Sheridan's a better actor than to waste his time performing banal crap. But my suggestion is at least as real as all the other crap that is being pumped out here.
Powerful evidence?
I'm not sure I rate Law very much if this is all it can do.
I judge all Law Courts against Judge Judy's. Now there's a legal eagle.
A tape, which the Crown didn't even attempt to prove as genuine, and which you can't even see the person alleged to be Tommy Sheridan - which just happened tp earn a tidy £200,000 from the NOTW...
...hardly a game-changing piece of evidence.
@Denizen; "Can we get over this minute thing. A minute is not the word of God. It is not a test of honesty."
But an affidavit is an entirely different thing, a legal sworn document that would result in jail if shown to be false.
The minutes, the tape, the testimony of the witnesses is all crucial but the sworn affidavit is the key legal document.
It corroborates all the witnesses who testified that TS was removed by the SSP EC on 9/11/2004 because of the course of action he proposed to pursue in regards allegations about him.
I think the theory of the defence now is that the tape was performed by an actor. If that's their position there wouldn't be much point in in checking if the tape was genuine.
I guess it really is down to the jury to decide who they believe more, as far as the "9/11" meeting is concerned.
said...
I agree with you Anonymous, the prosecution have a tape, and it will be up to the jury to decide the authenticity of the tape. Therefore I was surprised that the prosecution did not produce expert witnesses to authenticate the tape.
It must be possible to tell whether its real or not, and with the money spent so far on the case, it would have been no surprise if they had searched far and wide to find such experts.
I have no doubt that the defence must have looked for expert witnesses too, and I wonder if they will produce any?
The possible doubts I see are that parts of the tape have been wiped off and the figure who is meant to be TS doesn't ever show his face.
IMO it would have strengthened the prosecution case no end if they had produced an expert to say the tape is 100% genuine, and the fact that they haven't is because they couldn't find one to say so.
Therefore I have a reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the tape and I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the jury have too.
December 8, 2010 10:06 PM
Regarding the authenticity of the tape it should be remembered that the NotW went to the extent of using lie detector technology on some of their commentators/witnesses.
The Lothian and Borders Police used systems usually used in major crimes in their own investigation and only concluded that it sounded like T.S .
Iam suprised that with the technology avaiable that this tape is still not established as uathentic?
Not when the jury was there up4it, I don't see what you have a problem with, it is a simple rule, jury not there, we cannot discuss it,
From whats written here, it seems that Rosemary Byrne came across as a credible witness. For me, this is a sharp contrast to Rosie Kane's testimony -when she made comments about "nipping" a tabloid journalist I started to think that the relationship between SSP elected members and the tabloid press was a bit too cozy for my liking. Rosie Kane sounded like a petulant school kid. Thats just my impression, did't hear the evidence first hand.
It stinks of desparation that with every witness once AP has finished with them TS runs back out to ask if they are giving false testimony on his behalf. I know he thinks he is keeping the defence fresh in the Jury's mind however it does reek a bit and looks rather desparate.
I think it would build confidence in his witness if he let the original questions do the talking.
This trial has divided opinion and has led to a bitter divide between those who used to be comrades in the SSP.
So I'm glad to report that it has also brought some unity to the world of the tabloid press. Those bitter rivals, The Sun and The Daily Record are practically related because of this trial.
These bastions of journalistic integrity, usually take any opportunity to have a pop at each other, trying to convince their readers that one of them is slightly less immoral than the other, (think two folically challenged men fighting over a hair brush, no one of them isn't TS!).
The Sheridan Trial has united the tabloid twosome in its coverage, in the person of Grant McCabe. He is the journalist who is covering the trial for both newspapers! His name appears on both. Which leads me to the questions?
Who is Grant McCabe?
What kind of journalist is he, that he can unite the newspaper equivalent of The Old Firm?
Does he really exist?
Could he be the actor in the video?
Is he a future policy maker for the Tories?
Or is he handily placed in the SSP?
Does he get paid twice?
Gies a job, I can dae that!
What makes no sense to me is that if Rosemary Byrne's account is correct why would there be any rancour in the meeting at all?
No one went to the meeting expecting TS to be named by the NOTW, speculation was surrounded on a Tory MSP. If TS came to say it wasn't him then there would be all round relief.
Indeed if he came to say that the NOTW were about to lie in order to screw over him and the SSP then the meeting would have been wholly different.
Its not a bout who the jury belive, if you are not sure, they have to acquit the accused, this is a criminal trial.
Its obvious that there wasnt much the porsecution could do re the tape. The fact that it was edited and that McNeilage and the Crown acknowledge this means that the most an expert could do is give an opinion on the parts of the tape that havent been edited.
Prentice obviously, quite rightly in my opinion, prefers to leave it to the insinuation rather than test whether the tape can be seen as "beyond reasonable doubt". The missing ten minutes is enough for doubt and he wouldnt want that established in court before it goes to the jury.
out if court at lunchtime and had to delete lots of comments. Could people try and avoid mentioning issues not discussed in court please.
Thanks
JD
What have the tabloid being saying Keith. I have to 'fess up and say that I haven't been following the regular media's coverage of this trial; I follow this trial only thorough attendance at court and this excellent blog. Maybe "Grant Mc Cabe" is "James Doleman" doing a spot of moonlighting.
One thing is does prove Keith, is that there is no real competition between newspapers; they all cater for there particular market; it's not unusual to see journalists float between the Sun and Record. A bit like Advocates really.
rosie kane nipped me in a pub - the tape is not edited, it's a 50 minute continuous recording with the final 10 minutes taped over, during the 50 section someone? TS? can clearly be heard confessing. Even if the Crown did prove that the tape was genuine, it wouldn't disprove a defence of there being an "actor" on the tape. Besides, there is a valid legal point as to why the Crown have left the tape evidence as it is. I have to say that I HAVE listened to the full 50 minute section and in my opinion it IS TS on the tape, but whether it really is is a matter for the jury to decide.
Anonymous
The tabloid reporting by Grant "we seek him here, we seek him there" McCabe stands up to the standard expected from the tabloid twosome, in other words its pretty poor. It is not a patch on James, Whatsy and this excellent blog. Which IMO sets a standard that journalists should at least attempt to aspire to.
Hello all, Grant McCabe is a full-time court reporter, and could I add was the first person to give me help on how to cover the case, something for which I am very grateful.
There is a lot to talk about in this case, I's suggest this subject is not the beat use of our time.
Kudos to Grant McCabe then, James. Well done that chap!
Hey James, it was just meant to be a bit of fun with Grant, as its unusual to have the same reporter on those two tabloids. But I'm glad he has been of help.
So how did everyone get on to Grant McCabe and The Tape on a Rosemary Byrne post?
Anyway, as one of the few people who made it into court yesterday (part-timers!), I saw a fairly weak witness for the defence. Too many "can't recall" answers, or repeatedly answering a different question to the one asked. It's rather hard to show from a written account that doesn't basically transcribe 90% of what was said, but there were some real evasions from Byrne, and Prentice was getting pretty annoyed by her, although it has to be said he was chasing her recollection of events at the Nov-04 meetings quite spikily.
I thought Lord Bracadale did her a big favour by stepping in when he did, as Prentice was getting her all aflustered, and it was mildly amusing when, on another occasion, TS objected that "If it was me on the stand, Your Lordship would have stepped in by now"!
Anyway, there were no great soundbites to take from Byrne's cross-exam, but from watching her, rather than relying on what pretty boring quotes make it into any account, she was not the best defence witness so far. Unlike today's witness, Pat Smith, but more on that when James posts...
Thanks Whatsy, it would be good if you included info on demeanour as well as just the words used, though I appreciate it may be subjective and possibly not allowed.
@Steve
I think it goes against the grain of court reporting, and the standard James has set on this blog, which is generally very neutral and sticks to what is actually said, with basic descriptions if they help to explain what is said.
However, I'm all for a bit more colour added in the comments! Without being prejudicial, in contempt or just, well, nasty, of course.
Did I mention Coulson didn't look happy to be in court today?
>Moderation<
Anonymous
1 - pick a name
2 - "blatantly him" - not allowed. Come on, you must know that.
"I think it sounds like him" - OK.
>Moderation Ends<
anon 145 the tape IS edited, the last 13 minutes were edited out of the tape, this was established in court and was not contested by the prosecution.
If I tape over any part of a tape then I have edited it.
The editing of the tape is not in dispute, only the reasons for editing it. McNeilage explains his reasons for editing the tape by saying that Sheridan went off on a rant.
James, I would say that anon 145's assertion that Sheridan can be heard confessing would cross the line re contempt rules.
Whatsy, I disagree about Rosemary Byrne, I dont think she was evasive, I think it was down to Prentice having only one question and just repeating it in different ways, that is why the judge stepped in.
For a woman in her 60's who has only recently recovered from cancer, I thought she was very strong, and refused to back down to Prentice's badgering, he had nothing to say and clearly was trying to break her by keeping her in the stand for a long time with no real point.
Compared to the SSP witnesses, she was far less evasive. They refused to answer questions, avoided any question with a political rant. Byrne was trying to answer the questions, even though they were absract and annoying. Bracadle was right to intervene, Prentice was going nowhere.
@mcneilage tape redux
Re: "McNeilage explains his reasons for editing the tape by saying that Sheridan went off on a rant."
McNeilage says it was himself who went on the rant, not Tommy, then copied over it as he mentioned lots of people he didn't want brought into it. That was my understanding, anyway.
@Anonymous 12:26pm
"Whatsy, I disagree about Rosemary Byrne, I dont think she was evasive, I think it was down to Prentice having only one question and just repeating it in different ways, that is why the judge stepped in.
For a woman in her 60's who has only recently recovered from cancer, I thought she was very strong, and refused to back down to Prentice's badgering, he had nothing to say and clearly was trying to break her by keeping her in the stand for a long time with no real point.
Compared to the SSP witnesses, she was far less evasive. They refused to answer questions, avoided any question with a political rant. Byrne was trying to answer the questions, even though they were absract and annoying. Bracadle was right to intervene, Prentice was going nowhere. "
I take your point about Byrne standing up to Prentice - she kept it together under the most aggressive questioning I've seen from him so far. You could be right about him wanting to keep her on the stand for as long as possible, and his questioning was indeed abstract and annoying at times for Byrne - he's not there to be nice to the defence's most important witnesses, after all.
However, I still thought it was fair and she didn't answer the questions very well.
Whatsy 6.52PM:
"Unlike today's witness, Pat Smith, but more on that when James posts..."
If he ever does - bit of a Ritchie Venton part two coming on here I fear.
I will be doing it Steve, probably be tomorrow as I have 30 more pages of Mr Coulson to go through.
As for Ritchie Venton part 2, I did write it, in full it was "there were a number if further angry exchanges which were of little evidential value"
Happy now?
;)
No need to wink at me Mr Doleman!
I agree there was little evidential value, to judge by reports, but some telling words were exchanged, such as from the bbc:
"Mr Venton replied that Mr Sheridan's tactic was "to throw muck about the courtroom and hope some sticks".
He said:" I have nothing to be ashamed of, I'm not lying.
"I know this court is near a fish market, but some of the red herrings you're throwing about are overpowering.
"What you have attempted to do today - but more fully at the previous trial - is sway the jury with your oratory and your charm and persuasiveness."
[...] He said Sheridan's persuasive ability was a "curse" when used for the "wrong things"."
I do have 15 pages of that type of rhetoric from that particular afternoon Steve, forgive me if I save it for the book.
:)
Put me down for a copy!
Frances Curran Testimony
Para 4
TS asked how they knew it was him.?
She said 'because you told us last night'
From her answer it is clear that 'they' to which TS was referring to, were her and Colin Fox who was with her.
In saying this Frances Curran has effectively said that the day after the 9/11 meeting TS is unaware of having made a confession the previous day to the EC. This suggests strongly to me that those who were in the anti-tommy camp already had there minds made up about the 'truth' about the NOTW stories which were seized upon as an opportunity and that the the UL 'secret' meeting that preceeded 9/1 meeting had as its objective the preparation for a 'kangaroo' court. In the overall scenario the stories can be viewed as a means of fueling the anti-tommy UL and starting the ball rolling of 'character assasination'.
Post a Comment