The court has heard from two witnesses this morning, Gordon Morgan and Patricia (Pat) Smith.
Mr Morgan has testified, in his capacity as assistant treasurer of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) in 2004, about the financial crisis the party faced, and about large loans the party took out from himself, Rosemary Byrne and Tommy Sheridan.
Ms Smith, who attended the pivotal SSP executive meeting on the 9th of November 2004, has told the court that Tommy Sheridan denied any allegations that he visited a sex club at the meeting and that the minute shown to the court that states he did is incorrect. Ms Smith is now being cross-examined.
There is a larger than usual press contingent at court today, presumably there to cover the expected testimony of Andrew Coulson, previously editor of the News of the World and now Downing Street director of communications, later this afternoon.
32 comments:
Me thinks Sheridan is trying to avert attention from himself by trying to make this sleazy saga into a national issue !!!
Just a question? If TS can call Andy Coulson, presumably against his will, to testify. Why cant the prosecution call Tommy Sheridan, Gail and her brother-in- law Andy McFarlane to testify.???
Tommy and Gail are defendants and have legal rights, including the right not to give evidence.
I presume Andy McFarlane could be forced to give evidence by the prosecution. But he may be seen as a hostile witness. This means that the prosecution wouldn't know what the answer to the question would be. Something barristers try to avoid, if they can.
@ Good question, Legal Quest. But one we never seem to get an answer to.
keith79, and we all no what happens to "hostile witnesses", still all a bit telling in my opinion.
What I've wondered about is - it's a two tier trial, two defendants. Could the prosecution not have called TS to be a witness in the trial of GS, and vice versa? If they were having seperately conducted trials that would presumably be the case.
Could this be the last witness for the defence then? Verdict by tomorrow afternoon?!
It is a National issue if newspapers uses private detectives to hack into peoples phones and deny it. It is an issue for us all.
anon 4.30pm
Only a good question if you are a person with no legal knowledge. To the rest of us it is another irrelevant question.
Whether the anti TS supporters like it or not, he is a defendant with the same rights as any other defendant. The main one being presumption of innocence.
Legal Quest & Anon 4:30
Are you suggesting that people should be forced to testify as witnesses for the prosecution against themselves?
Help ma Boab!
Andy Coulson was the cheque signer,the crown should have been calling him not doing as they always seem to to do call the people they think are of use to them
This tactic should not be allowed the case should be heard fairly
I'd appreciate some details on the cross examination of these two people, if that is possible.
Give me a chance Steve!
@Steve
Gordon said they shouldny of had that meeting and it sounded like it was a lynch mob, although he wusnae there himself, then Pat said Tommy never said them things.
OK?
Or would you like the full transcript streamed live as every word issues from the mouths of the witness?
Yulefae
This is a perjury case nothing whatsoever to do with Andy Coulson Why the crown should have called him is beyond me and as for calling those who they think are of use to them is what they are supposed to do
If this tactic was not allowed the case would not be heard fairly
Sounds like Tommy's let him off lightly
Annon,get real COULSON paid McNeileige,why then should he not be called?is he above the law like his ex paper seem to think they are,another point it was on his word this tape was real the story was run,as he said in evidence
Whatsy 5.46 PM said:
"Or would you like the full transcript streamed live as every word issues from the mouths of the witness?"
Yes, if it was up to me I'f have it televised, like in the USA.
In the meantime, I appreciate the time and care you are taking.
Yulfae: It was Tommy who called Coulson, not the Crown.
>Moderation<
Anonymous - best not to speculate on what witnesses will be called.
>End Moderation<
whatsy
Thank you for pointing that out. My apologies
Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan said...
Yulfae: It was Tommy who called Coulson, not the Crown.
I know who called who,AP should have been calling him it was him that bought the tape not bob bird,but seeing as he WAS Murdochs belboy and is now working for Cameron the crown were hardly going to call him were they??
Yulefae,
is it your argument that the Crown should not call only witnesses that it feels will best serve their case?
Ballyhoo
What Coulson being Cameron's bellboy, Clegg being Cameron's fag, Alexander being Osborne's fag got to anything? In my opinion all this political talk is nothing but a smokescreen.
'So spake the Fiend, and with NECESSITY, The tyrant's plea, excused his devilish deed.' Milton anticipates ConDem govt.
Sorrry James I know you are a busy lad but what about the two other witnesses to-day
Sorry anon, will hopefully get those reports out tomorrow. As you mention busy day.
Thanks James excelent work
It would be crazy for the Crown to call MacFarlane, that doesnt make sense!
I would guess that the defence will call him but why would the porsecution want to call a witness that is hostile to their case?
James.
Will you be posting a full report on these witnesses? Andy Coulson is interesting, but so are these two.
I think it's important that we hear as much from the defence witnesses as we did from the prosecution ones.
Apologies if you're working on it. Not meaning to hassle you.
Great blog, thanks very much. It would have been awful only to have had the mainstream media reports of the trial.
Hello Avid, I have three witnesses to cover this weekend, Paul Holleran (which I've nearly finished) the Pat Smith and Gordon Morgan. Should have those done today.
Thanks for the kind words
J
Thanks James. Looking forward to reading those.
Your hard work is much appreciated.
Post a Comment