The updated indictment in the case is below, sections that have been redacted have now been deleted and will not be considered by the jury.
THOMAS SHERIDAN, born 7 March 1964, whose domicile of citation has been specified as ****** and GAIL SHERIDAN, born 4 January 1964, whose domicile of citation has been specified as *********** Glasgow
you are indicted at the instance of The Right Honourable ELISH ANGIOLINI, Queen's Counsel, Her Majesty's Advocate, and the charges against you are that
Friday (2) on 21 July 2006 at the Court of Session, Parliament House, Parliament Square, Edinburgh you THOMAS SHERIDAN being affirmed as a witness in a civil jury trial of an action for defamation then proceeding there at your instance against the News Group Newspapers Limited, 124 Portman Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow as publishers of the News of the World newspaper did falsely depone: -
(a) that at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Scottish Socialist Party held on 9 November 2004 at 70 Stanley Street, Glasgow you had not admitted you had attended Cupid’s Healthclub, 13-17 Sutherland Street, Swinton, Manchester known as Cupid’s on two occasions in 1996 and 2002 and that you had not admitted that you attended there with Anvar Begum Khan c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh;
(b)/
(b) that at said meeting on 9 November 2004 Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara, both c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh did not state that they had previously raised the issue with you of your visits to a sex club in Manchester and that you had admitted to them that it was true;
(c) that at said meeting you denied having visited a swingers’ club in Manchester;
(d) that Allison Kane, Keith Robert Baldassara, Alan William McCombes, Allan Green, Colin Anthony Fox, Barbara Jane Scott, Carolyn Leckie, Catriona Mary Grant, Joanna Harvie, and Rosemary Kane all c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh had lied in evidence during said civil jury trial when each gave evidence that: -
(i) they had heard you admit at said meeting on 9 November 2004 that you had visited said Cupid’s in Manchester; and
(ii) they heard it being stated at said meeting on 9 November 2004 that Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara had previously raised the issue with you of your visits to a sex club in Manchester and that you had admitted to them that it was true;
(e) that you had not admitted in 2002 to said Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara that you had attended a sex club in Manchester ;
(f) that you did not say at the said meeting held on 9 November 2004 that you were not prepared to resign as convener of the Scottish Socialist Party unless there was proof that you had attended a sex club in Manchester and that you did not believe that there was any evidence to prove that you were lying about not attending said club;
(g) that in a pub known as the Golden Pheasant,2 Stepps Road, Kirkintilloch on or around Friday 12 May 2006 you were not given the minutes of the said meeting of 9 November 2004 to read;
(h) that said Alan Green lied during his evidence in said civil jury trial that in said pub known as the Golden Pheasant on or around 12 May 2006 he had shown you the minutes of the said meeting of 9 November 2004;
(i)/
(m) that you had not attended said Cupid’s in Manchester along with Andrew McFarlane, Gary Clark, Anvar Begum Khan and Katrine Trolle all c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh towards the end of 2001, or had ever visited a swingers’ club;
(n) that you had an affair with said Anvar Begum Khan in late 1992 for six months only and that you did not have a sexual relationship with her from 1994 to 2002; and
(o) you never had a sexual relationship with said Katrine Trolle and had never been with her in the house occupied by you at 2005 Paisley Road West, Cardonald, Glasgow or with her at Kingennie Court, Dundee;
the truth being as you well knew,
(A) that on 9 November 2004 at the Executive Committee meeting of the Scottish Socialist Party held at 70 Stanley Street, Glasgow you did admit to attending said Cupid’s in Manchester on two occasions in 1996 and 2002 and that you had visited said club with said Anvar Begum Khan;
(B)/
(B) that at said meeting it was stated by said Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara that they had previously raised the issue of you attending a sex club in Manchester and that you had admitted to them that it was true;
(C) that at said meeting you did not deny having visited a swingers’ club in Manchester;
(D) that said Allison Kane, Keith Robert Baldassara, Alan William McCombes, Allan Green, Colin Anthony Fox, Barbara Jane Scott, Carolyn Leckie, Catriona Mary Grant, Joanna Harvie and Rosemary Kane had not lied in evidence during the said trial when they each gave evidence that: -
(i) they had heard you admit at said meeting on 9 November 2004 that you had visited the said Cupid’s in Manchester on two occasions and
(ii) they had heard it being stated that said Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara had previously raised the issue with you of your visits to a sex club in Manchester and that you had admitted to them that it was true;
(E) that: -
(i) on 3 November 2002 in the course of a journey between Glasgow and Edinburgh you did admit to said Keith Robert Baldassara that you had attended a sex club in Manchester;
(ii) on an occasion between 4 November 2002 and 31 December 2002, at the City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow, you did admit to said Alan William McCombes that you had visited a club for swingers in Manchester and
(iii) on 1 November 2004 at the City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow, you did admit to said Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara that you were the MSP referred to in the News of the World article published on 31 October 2004 and that you had attended said Cupid’s in Manchester with said Anvar Begum Khan;
(F) that you did state at the said meeting held on the 9 November 2004 that you were not prepared to resign as convener of the Scottish Socialist Party unless there was proof that you had attended the said Cupid’s in Manchester and that you did not believe that there was any evidence to prove that you were lying about not attending said club;
(G)/
(G) that on 12 May 2006 at the premises known asThe Golden Pheasant, 2 Stepps Road, Kirkintilloch said Allan Green did show you the minutes of the said meeting of the 9 November 2004;
(H) that said Allan Green had not lied during his evidence during said civil jury trial that on 12 May 2006 he had shown you the minutes from the said meeting on 9 November 2004 at said premises known as The Golden Pheasant, 2 Stepps Road, Kirkintilloch;
(M) that on 27 September 2002 you did attend said Cupid’s in Manchester with said Andrew McFarlane, Gary Clark, Anvar Begum Khan and Katrine Trolle and that you had visited a club for swingers;
(N) that between 1 January 1994 and 28 September 2002 you did have a sexual relationship with said Anvar Begum Khan; and
(O)/
(O) that between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2005, both dates inclusive, you did have a sexual relationship with Katrine Trolle, that she had been in the house occupied by you at 2005 Paisley Road West, Cardonald, Glasgow with you and that you had stayed overnight with her at16 Kingennie Court, Dundee;
Monday (3) on 31 July 2006 at the Court of Session, Parliament House, Parliament Square, Edinburgh, you GAIL SHERIDAN being sworn as a witness in a civil jury trial of an action for defamation then proceeding there at the instance of Thomas Sheridan, MSP, your husband, residing at 2005 Paisley Road West, Cardonald, Glasgow against News Group Newspapers Limited, 124 Portman Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow as publishers of the News of the World newspaper did falsely depone: -
(b) 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;
(c) that you could recall that you spent every weekend in November 2001 and November 2002 with said Thomas Sheridan;
the truth being as you well knew,
that you did not see or speak to said Katrine Trolle at the Scottish Socialist Party Conference held in Perth between 11 and 13 February 2005 and that the said Katrine Trolle did not tell you that the News of the World had been at her door asking her if she had an affair with Tommy Sheridan and had offered her money and said Katrine Trolle did not hug and kiss you and touch your “tummy”;
- that you had recorded in your diary that you had travelled to Miami on Tuesday 20 November 2001 and you were in Miami on the weekend of 24 and 25 November 2001 and that said Thomas Sheridan had recorded in his diary that you were away between 21 and 28 November 2001;
- that you were in Miami on 24 and 25 November 2001 and you did thus not spend every weekend in November 2001 with said Thomas Sheridan;
that on 23 November 2001 you were not present on the occasion when said Thomas Sheridan phoned directory enquiries and said Cupid’s in Manchester;
that your aunt, said Annie Healy arrived in Scotland from the United States of America on 12 June 2002;
that you were not with said Thomas Sheridan during the whole of the evening of 14 June 2002; and
that you were not in the company of said Thomas Sheridan, Andrew McFarlane and James McManus within 216 Tweedsmuir Road, Glasgowcontinuously between 10pm on 14 June and 1am on 15 June
2002.
30 comments:
"that you had recorded in your diary that you had travelled to Miami on Tuesday 20 November 2001 and you were in Miami on the weekend of 24 and 25 November 2001 and that said Thomas Sheridan had recorded in his diary that you were away between 21 and 28 November 2001;
that you were in Miami on 24 and 25 November 2001 and you did thus not spend every weekend in November 2001 with said Thomas Sheridan"
I don't get this bit. The Crown have not led any direct evidence about this as far as I am aware.
"The jury was then read a joint minute, made up of evidence not in dispute by either side in the case. This evidence is deemed "proved" and is part of the evidence the jury must consider when reaching a verdict. The minute consisted of... diaries belonging to Gail and Tommy Sheridan."
So the Sheridans accept that the diary accurately states Gail was in Miami and not with Tommy?
Surely this issue will need to be addressed with some urgency by the defence or am I missing something?
They've got to walk now.
This is a farce within a farce.
This comes down to whether or not sex took place between consenting adults and whether some of those involved lied about their involvement!?!
OK so theres questions of morals, political integrity and megalomania, but this is political sectarians performing soap opera, it's not the business of law.
I hope for a not guilty on all charges.
The Crown and NOTW should pay for their own mistakes - this case should never have been brought.
The police questioning of Gail swung it for me.
More to this than meets the eye.
TS is right, it's a nasty little vendetta of a case that should never have made it to court.
...imho :O)
Eraserhead,
this is nothing to do with sexual morality. It's about whether people lied during a court action.
"Clive"
If all evidence going to the jury is undisputed does that mean the tape is no longer evidence? That was disputed.
Gail had the opportunity to apply to exclude evidence of any interview conducted in an oppressive manner. McBride QC has not sought to do so.
But I don't somehow expect the lack of oppression to stop Tommy trying to use the interview, the house search and the unborn wain as part of his defence (as far as I can discern it from his advocacy during the prosecution evidence)that the whole thing is a conspiracy against him.
If the police actions were so oppressive and violated the Sheridan family's basic human rights, I am at a loss as to why neither of the Defendants have challenged the Prosecution case on human rights grounds.
Clive is absolutely correct.
THIS IS ABOUT WHETHER MR. AND MRS. SHERIDAN LIED AT THEIR TRIAL IN EDINBURGH AND NOTHING ELSE.
Are the by "hook or by crookers" right then and we can expect a verdict round about next Friday 10th December?
Eraser head
If the issue was just about consenting adults why did TS take court action in the first place. Are you really saying that it is ok to go to court commit perjury and call a lot of other people liars? Then proceed to make a lot of money from damages and stories printed in other tabloid newspaper (DR). Never mind the cost this trial has cost the Scottish public.
Eraser head,
The police interview lasted so long because GS stared at a blank wall for 5 hours. Why? If what she said at the defamamtion trial was true then she could have simply stated that and left. Maybe some of the prosecution witnesses should have brought along their rosary beads - although a catholic myself i can only say, in my opinion, this routine seems designed to illicit jury sympathy.
In the light of Thursday's testimony, as reported here and by the BBC/STV, I can now attribute believable motives to everyone involved.
It will be interesting to see what the defence can do to change the cast of things thus far.
Eraserhead -
It would indeed be solely a question of private morals IF TS had not chosen to take the NOTW to court for defamation.
However by doing so HE made it a matter for the court. Perjury is one of the most serious offences because without a reasonable assumption that people will tell the truth in court ( even if it has to be wrangled out of them) then there can be no functioning court system.
Some accussed people in criminal cases of course tell lies and of course they don't all get charged with perjury.
The reason this case is different is that the system expects people to defend themselves in criminal cases and if they are found guilty ( ie disbelieved) then they get punsished anyway.
However, this case started as a civil case brought by TS himself and he stood to gain financially from a succesfull outcome.
Thta is also why so much energy has been expended investigating the case and bringing it to trial.
To suggest that all this hapened somehow because of TS's profile as a leading socialist refelects an o'ermighty sense of self importance from some quarters I woudl suggest and a need to wear the tin foil hat a little more regularly.
Alleged perjury for the sake of winning a defamtion case is a very significant matter - full stop.
It has sweet hee-haw to do with morals and to suggest that it has demostrates a complete lack of understanding of what is going on here and completely misrepresents the case ( not intentionally I assume).
TS was (allegedly) warned about all this by his party at the time - now wonder that (allegedly) so many of them are (allegedly) pissed of at him for his alleged perjury.
Staring at a wall for 5 hours, does well, in my opinion seem a little bit ummm strange. What did the police want to know? Where was she on a specific date? Why not just tell them and get to hell out of there, if after all according to the Sheridans they have nothing to hide. You would expect a law-abiding citizen with NO CRIMINAL RECORD and a WEAN would want to clear a trivial matter up as quickly as possible. I can't even imagine a hardened criminal staring at a wall for 5 hours - that is some feat.
Steve - can your spell your opinions out a bit clearer. We are all entitled to express our opinions.
Totally agree Bunc.
The tragedy of this is that it all could have been avoided. Even if acquitted, somehow I don't see much of a comeback. Some may be old enough to remember Jeremy Thorpe, the Liberal politician tried on charges relating to harassment of his alleged lover Norman Scott. He was acquitted, but his political career was over. The court of public opinion is less constrained by rules of evidence and procedure than the one in the Saltmarket.
Anon 1:14
It seems very odd indeed, and I would like to hear an explanation for it.
But what is even more disquieting is that the interrogating officer treated her strange behaviour as a pretext to suggest contacts with the IRA. In the present political climate, that's scary!
Whatever the Sheridan case may be about, it surely (even in the mind of a policeman) can have nothing whatever to do with terrorism.
There is a huge difference between an accused person telling lies (to "get themselves off") and someone telling lies with a view to securing a conviction against an innocent person; likewise, a person defaming an other(s) solely for monetary gain.
Anon: 1.14pm
Why not choose a User name and put it in the Name/URL field so it is easier to continue and follow the debate. it is still anonymous. Try Papillon.
Any heard the one about: The innocent man stays awake at night but the guilty man sleeps soundly.
I think it likely that Gail was upset and holding her rosary beads as she is innocent.
Catholics get a lot of comfort from holding them in stressful situations and in my distant past it gave me some comfort. It has a kind of meditative, soothing effect.
Bit of legal advice for free.
If you are a socialist, Catholic, Black or Irish then stay silent as you can come across some very nasty bigoted types in police stations.
Also.
a) If you she was innocent (as the Crown indicate Gail may well be as they have so far dropped most of the charges against her) then not speaking for 5 hours is exactly what she should have done. Saying anything just gives the police a chance to approach other witnesses who they can intimidate and create a narrative (make stuff up) on the back of.
b) If you are Guilty but dim don't say anything either.
c) If you are Guilty but a genius you could make a few stories up to get them off the scent. But you need to be an evil genius Moriarty type before I would advise it.
I'm not defending anything that Tommy Sheridan did or did not do in hotels, seedy swingers clubs, his own home, other people's homes, or evenlying in the court of session during the last case. I have my own personal views on all of that and none of it is supportive of TS. I've absolutely no time for the man, personally or politically.
But I draw the line at queueing up with the rest of the 'comrades' at two court cases to say, "Aye ye did..." and "Naw ye never..."
This case is a monumental waste of time and money. That is become ing clearer. There are no great legal, noral or politica;l principles being fought out here. You are deluding yourself if you really think that.
The NOTW and the Crown could have saved themselves a mountain of cash if they'd called it quits at the libel trial and saved us all from this farce of a case.
The grand total of the costs would have been the NOTW losing £200.000 plus legal expenses and whatever they paid for witnesses to live it up in Edinburgh hotels.
This a minor sectarian bunfight being played out in a court of law.
It's an embarrassment.
All sides in this case have done irreperable damage to the cause of the left in Scotland.
...imho :o)
Good legal advise that, Peter. Without prejudice to GS I am of the opinion that the best approach for any suspect in a police station is to remain silent (for some of the reasons that you state) and especially so for an innocent person. The Police CANNOT be trusted. Period. Here is a (hypothetical) question say you were arrested and detained in a police station by knew the location of a CCTV that was recording at the time that would PROVE your innocence, would you tell the Police of it's location? You may have even heard press reports suggesting that you should, but would you?
At least in England where suspects are given legal representation all the need to do is say that "on the advise of my solicitor I am making no comment". No need to stare at a wall for 5 hours.
There is no doubt about the Court of Public Opinion's Verdict on this one. TS's political career is well and truly over. It will take a generation at least to repair the damage that this sordid saga has caused. Very sad!
Hello again anon, sorry if I misunderstood, I've deleted my reply and the comment you mentioned.
Fair does. You really need to check out what happened to the Sunday Herald with George Robertson. They paid him 20 grand because some bampot left a comment defaming him on their site. If someone comes after you, you'll need a lot of money to defend yourself - why risk it?
Cheers
Well in that case anon step 1 would be for the aggrieved party to contact me and ask for the offending comment to be removed, which it would be. I understand the issue in the case you mention and another case in London was the failure to remove comments after problems had been pointed out not that they were there in the first place.
In my view that surely means that the worst outcome for Gail is a slap on the wrist. In fact even if Gail was wrong with the diaries, I have heard nothing that shows intent, so how can it be perjury?
> If someone comes after you, you'll need a lot of money to defend yourself - why risk it?
Cheers
Hey, isn't TS training to a lawyer? He might do it for free if he's cleared. And if not you might him personally inside...
Sorry to be a pest but has GS not now, in my opinion, admitted that her diary states that she was in Miami on one of the weekend's she says she was with Tommy and that Tommy's diary affirms this?
Please see my initial post for the indictment and the evidence accepted by both sides as "proven".
Can someone with any legal knowledge help me with this? I would much appreciate it as I don't get this but at all.
Am I missing something obvious?
Post a Comment