tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post4680279031575981151..comments2023-06-26T15:18:06.600+01:00Comments on The Sheridan Trial: Grounds for Appeal?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger143125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-36880880306918821752011-01-09T09:48:27.665+00:002011-01-09T09:48:27.665+00:00Peter,
I'm being careful (as I don't actu...Peter,<br /><br />I'm being careful (as I don't actually know anything specific about the circumstances of this case) not to allege anything (in deference to the site rules.)<br /><br />As I said in the previous post - if I had been involved in the disclosure of the emails, I would have wanted to provide some explanation. At least to the lawyers at disclosure. If this was accepted, it might not make it to the court / jury. We just don't know.<br /><br />Emails about discovery issues - such as the ones you suggest - would normally be legally privileged, therefore not disclosable to the court.<br /><br />Of course the loss of the emails was not the fault of Tommy (or any of the defence team). However, do you give him the benefit of the doubt? Can you be permitted to assume (if you were on the jury), because an email was non-produceable, that it must contain exculpatory information? That is quite a leap. And, I suspect, if it had be raised in detail by Tommy, we would have seen objections from AP. Disclosure issues are normally sorted by the judge before trial.<br /><br />I'd note that as far as DPA Principle 8 transfers to India go, although it doesn't have an approved regime, what are called "binding corporate rules" or "model contracts" may be in place. I'd not want to prejudge any ICO investigation ...<br /><br />I'm not saying you are wrong to be skeptical - it is a useful and entirely sensible default position. I'm just pointing out that the losses are entirely technically feasible - from painfully gained experience - for this to have happened. You might impute ulterior motives - I certainly cannot refute that.Surreptitious Evilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393411103584747731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-47106271477784677172011-01-07T19:25:20.448+00:002011-01-07T19:25:20.448+00:00Thanks Surreptitious,
That was very lucid and to...Thanks Surreptitious,<br /><br />That was very lucid and to the point - makes me wonder why your other posts didn't make it past the watchtower :-) <br /><br />I take your point on emails sent on main servers in an organisation like the police and the NOTW.<br /><br />I would say that I still think it unlikely that the police would back up and lose emails in a major enquiry to make them beyond recovery. <br /><br />They (and the NOTW) seem from the trial record to have kept other emails. A coincidental, selective loss? Mmmmmm.<br /><br />My bull***t antenna are twitching.<br /><br />Maybe you could lose emails about the diner dance at the funny handshake club but not a major enquiry surely. <br /><br />How exactly the police lost them has not yet been publically explained as far as I am aware - maybe it is as you say, maybe not.<br /><br />As for the NOTW are possibly going to be asked to verify their testimony as to loss of their emails in the switch to India via the ICO - if Tom Watson MPS complaint about the matter is accepted that is.<br /><br />----------<br /><br />On the question of receipt by the Crown witnesses and NOTW libel witnesses to their personal computers.<br /><br />As I say when I lost emails that I had sent to a client I requested he did not delete any I had sent him as I may need them for disclosure.<br /><br />Luckily he had kept them for over a year on his hotmail account.<br /><br />Maybe that was not so lucky as he simply realised they were important emails. <br /><br />He wanted a record of what I had sent him and what he had sent me.<br /><br />I would think it a rather unusual set of circumstances if I were ever involved as a witness in a major libel case and a major police enquiry. <br /><br />I such circumstances I would want to keep my emails I sent to the police and the NOTW and those that they received. I wouldn't mind semding them back if the sender had lost their copy or letting them acess that part of my account to verify validity of the emails.<br /><br />Strange that Crown witnesses do not appear (from what we have seen so far) to have kept very important emails. <br /><br />I would tend to delete emails about Russian lasses and keep important ones abut major criminal enquiries - maybe that's just me !<br /><br />Also a bit strange that when the emails were lost (IT APPEARS) the police and the NOTW did not alert the recipients of the emails in the witness pool immediately to request they did not delete them from their computers.<br /><br />That of course would have led to an exchange of a new set of emails itself. Such emails would provide legitimacy to the "loss" story. Where are those emails? Lost also? Do we know?<br /><br />If you are being fair to Tommy do you not give him the benefit of the doubt on his concern about this?<br /><br />If the police and NOTW and the Crown witnesses have lost their emails and had nothing to hide we will now never know how innocent the lost emails all were. <br /><br />That is not Tommys faul, however, If there was a loss, even if honest, there must a consequence.<br /><br />Simply put - if there is not full and fair disclosure of important emails then it is not a fair trial in my view.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />PeterPeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-92119677671940341162011-01-07T14:59:21.735+00:002011-01-07T14:59:21.735+00:00(Hopefully this comment won't cause the blogge...(Hopefully this comment won't cause the blogger chaos the main one did.)<br /><br />Peter,<br /><br />In theory, no - although you wouldn't do it quite that way if the emails were to be introduced in to evidence. You'd want to recover the emails electronically from the receiver's email server, if possible, retaining as much metadata as is practical. <br /><br />Also the email sender address (and much else) can be trivially spoofed (for an email going outside an organisation, certainly) and the receiver can often edit the text. So it is certainly not 'reliable' when there is a dispute between the sender and receiver over content, timing etc (not this is relevant in this context.)<br /><br />I don't find it as impossible to believe (although if I were advising the lawyers looking at disclosure, I'd want to provide some explanation). If you consider my issue No 2 - mid-month emails - that is likely to happen to both sides independently. (Your weekly backup almost always happens on a Fri / Sat; your monthly is often either the last Fri / Sat of the month or the last working day). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor" rel="nofollow">Hanlon's razor</a> has undisputed pride of place in lots of "e-discovery" and disclosure issues. Admittedly, I generally paraphrase it with "It is dangerous too" rather than the original "Never".<br /><br />Also, if emails were sent to home accounts then recover can be quite hard - if I delete something from my gmail account (delete forever from Trash or Spam), I've got no way of recovering it. People might have deleted emails after the initial libel case finished. I'm not sure whether a Scottish court could or would order seizure of the computer(s) from a (potential) witness who is co-operating (apparently or actually) with the process to enable a forensic examination.<br /><br />We were certainly very reluctant (albeit as a public company) to even ask people who were targeted by fraudsters to allow us to examine their computers for evidence, on advice from lawyers.<br /><br />Perhaps TVoR or one of the other lawyers may be able to comment.Surreptitious Evilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393411103584747731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-84801165421353540122011-01-07T14:20:16.613+00:002011-01-07T14:20:16.613+00:00Surreptitious Evil,
Thanks for that.
Any explana...Surreptitious Evil,<br /><br />Thanks for that.<br /><br />Any explanation why the sender of the email (who has lost their email records) couldnot simply request that the recipients of the lost emails could not just send them back the email electronically and print a copy out.<br /><br />I find it hard to believe that the senders (ie the NOTW AND the police) AND the recipients (ie various Crown witnesses) would both lose the same sets of emails AND all apparently have no chance of recovery.<br /><br />Extraordinary odds - nearly as high as Woy holding the reigns at Liverpool come next season.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />PeterPeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-89248477827812705182011-01-07T10:37:03.529+00:002011-01-07T10:37:03.529+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Surreptitious Evilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393411103584747731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-37574565793258310102011-01-07T10:26:58.700+00:002011-01-07T10:26:58.700+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Surreptitious Evilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393411103584747731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-13160012418341433122011-01-07T10:23:17.441+00:002011-01-07T10:23:17.441+00:00James et al - thanks for all the time you put in t...James et al - thanks for all the time you put in to this, an excellent resource on an important case, especially given the dreadful reporting in much of the professional media.<br /><br /><b>Missing Emails</b><br /><br />Disclaimer: I have been involved in the disclosure of email evidence to courts in Scotland, England and (unfortunately) the US.<br /><br />It is actually quite easy to non-deliberately lose emails - especially if your email is stored on a corporate type system and there is no specific email archiving system. Forensic recovery, from the user's computer, is great for recent stuff - but older stuff is often partially or fully overwritten (this is much easier for home systems where, especially prior to widespread use of webmail and again with modern versions of Outlook, emails were downloaded in full, often as specific files to the user PC). Forensic recovery from high-usage servers is usually not that much help.<br /><br />If the user does not delete the email, it will be on the live system and recent backups - trivial to recover.<br /><br />If the user deletes the email, then the investigators will need to find a backup tape that was taken some time between the email arriving and the time of deletion (most email server software will allow you to set a "retain deleted email for <i>x</i> days" option, although this can significantly increase storage costs so 'x' is usually reasonably small (7 is quite typical but this option is also often not set.)<br /><br />There are then a number of issues:<br /><br />1. No backup may have been taken in the time frame - an email may have arrived, been actioned and then deleted.<br /><br />2. The particular tape may have been re-used. Many organisations run a daily / weekly / monthly backup routine with daily tapes being retained for a couple of weeks, weeklies for a couple of months and then your monthly backups are the long-term retention. So an email that hypothetically arrives on the 7th of Jan, is actioned on the 10th, deleted on the 14th and retained for 7 days is unlikely to be on the Jan backup tape which is all you'll have in a couple of years.<br /><br />3. You may have identified the particular tape but it may be lost or damaged - shipping all your stuff to India might not help here but I've certainly had issues with stuff that went from Edinburgh to Inverkeithing (including one set of tapes that were nicked out of the back of that van taking them - why, I've no idea!)<br /><br />4. You may have issues restoring the mailbox from the tape - this was a particular problem with older versions of Microsoft Exchange that would bork if you had a single error.<br /><br />Not saying that any of this is what happened in this particular case but you can have multiple parties agreeing that an email was sent, disagreeing about the contents and simply not being able to produce actual evidence. (It can be quite amusing if, provided you have no moral or personal stake in the case, US lawyers are involved at this point because it wrecks their world-view.)<br /><br />Happy to help if there are technical points that people are unsure of (although I've never worked for L&BP or News Group so I have no idea about their particular technologies.)Surreptitious Evilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393411103584747731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-41962450313161346662011-01-04T23:11:05.232+00:002011-01-04T23:11:05.232+00:00> Moderation <
@Sir Brian Hine
If you could ...> Moderation <<br />@Sir Brian Hine<br />If you could just change the very last part of that post to avoid accusations of deliberate destruction of evidence...<br /><br />;)<br />> Moderation Ends <Whatsyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08204921386892706588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-50966329066306863342011-01-04T18:44:54.373+00:002011-01-04T18:44:54.373+00:00Muleman revenge:
Your history of the "not pr...Muleman revenge:<br /><br />Your history of the "not proven" verdict is not quite correct.<br />Between the development of something vaguely resembling a modern prosecution system in 1672 and the nineteenth century, criminal indictments were very long and unweildy, giving rise to arcane debates on relevancy of points of law. For over fifty years, these ended in the drafting of a number of questions of fact to be adjudicated by the jury. Depending upon what facts if any were found proven, the judge would then pronounce a verdict.<br /><br />The system came up against a huge problem in the 1728 case of Carnegie of Finhaven, who had been engaged in a fight with Lyon of Bridgeton. Attempting to break up the fight, the Earl of Strathmore was struck accidentally a full blow with a sword from which he died two days later.<br /><br />As notions of self-defence and accident were not well-developed, the jury was presented with the difficulty that if they found it proven that (1) Strathmore died as a result of a blow from a sword, (2) that sword was wielded by Finhaven, and (3) that Finhaven was engaged in a violent quarrel at the time, those three "provens", none of which were in dispute, meant he would be sentenced to death, as the court had ruled that he had no defence in law, given his admission that he caused the wound.<br /><br />Defence counsel Robert Dundas, MP for Midlothian and later Lord President, argued that the jury had the right to make finding in law, namely "not guilty", which they duly did.<br /><br />Over the next 100 years, "not guilty" became more favoured, and by the time Sir walter Scott was Sheriff of Selkirk "not proven" was becoming unpopular. I still think it is an entirely appropriate verdict in any system where the duty on the prosdecution is to PROVE its case.the_voice_of_reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10179007944478552588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-135117387355641242011-01-04T17:53:12.909+00:002011-01-04T17:53:12.909+00:00Just to clarify a few points that have been argued...Just to clarify a few points that have been argued earlier in this comment section:<br /><br />1. The Not Proven verdict or 'Bastard's verdict' under Scottish Law describes a situation where a judge or jury feels that a person is not fully innocent and that throughout the trial sufficient evidence has suggested that there is a reasonable chance they committed the crimes they have been charged with. Until the 18th century the only two verdicts from a trial were proven and not proven, the not guilty verdict being introduced as a method of proclaiming the full innocence of the defendent, rather than using the not proven verdict which implies simply that the procurator fiscal did present a strong enough case to convict. To those who find the possibility of three verdicts in Scots law ridiculous I would suggest you look at the Scottish Law Commission's recent paper on changes to Double Jeapordy rules that will particularly affect Not Proven cases where new scientific evidence has come to light.<br /><br />2. Generally throughout this trial I have supported TS but the idea of a mass conspiracy against him seems utterly far-fetched. Ironically I have been reading a few of the biographies of Stalin throughout this period and his dismissing of old comrades as enemies and paranoia about collusion between NOTW and the state reminds me of pre-October Bolshevik speeches made by none other than Comrade Kabo (later nicknamed Stalin). This trial has been a farce, a waste of money etc but the fundamental problem remains - TS took the NOTW to court in the first place against the wishes and advice of almost all those he worked with politically. This, to me, represents a fundamental betrayal of the principles of political coordination and informal democracy that all politicians should adhere to.Muleman Revengenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-62643621886243135692011-01-04T17:48:50.415+00:002011-01-04T17:48:50.415+00:00V of r and anon
Thanks again for your explanations...V of r and anon<br />Thanks again for your explanationsknock knocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-40105497885874795892011-01-04T01:07:25.518+00:002011-01-04T01:07:25.518+00:00Anon, 9.32pm
A useful post from you that it woul...Anon, 9.32pm <br /><br />A useful post from you that it would be easier to reply to if you put an orginal user name (not Anon) in the box provided. <br /><br />It is the same deal as using "Anon" but just easier to follow who we are discussing with if you choose a witty/pertinent name.<br /><br />On the merits of your post.<br /><br />May I say you are a bit muddleheaded on the disentanglement of the Sheridan case from the NOTW activities.<br /><br />Sheridan was targeted by NOTW agents. That is proven by the testimony of the NOTW and the diaries of Mulcaire released in this trial. <br /><br />Sheridan has now for the first time got senior people from the NOTW on oath in court denying all knowledge of any illegal acts in relation to phone tapping etc.<br /><br />Well done to Tommy for eliciting that evidence and testimony on oath. It was an important first step. The net can now start to be closed on the NOTW.<br /><br />Whether any criminal and civil laws were breached in the targeting of him and others is now the main issue. <br /><br />The Met police do not want to look at it obviously so the civil actions are moving forward.<br /><br />Some celebrity targets have and will bring such actions and settle out of court.<br /><br />Sheridan is now therefore in a position (perhaps uniquely) of any of the main NOTW targets. He is effectively compelled by his dire current predicament to pursue this matter to a conclusion.<br /><br />He therefore has no interest as some celebrties may in an out of court finacial settlement from the NOTW. He needs his day in court against the NOTW if you like.<br /><br />If full exposure and disclosure in that civil process (from Mulcaire etc) could possibly secure the grounds for an appeal in this matter it probably cannot be passed up by him. <br /><br />NB: The Royals were a different kettle of fish and there were two jalings of 2 NOTW agents for the targeting of them.<br /><br />So from reprts it seems that Sheridan is going to go down that legal route and not go quietly.<br /><br />The reports in the press are of:<br /><br />- a class action (with Sheridan as a main party) being entered in London against the Met and the NOTW.<br /><br />- Tom Watson MP quoted as saying he has referred the NOTW to the ICO for a full investigation into the "loss" of the Sheridan case emails.<br /><br />It may be that, at the end of the day, the NOTW and its agents may still find cause to rue the day they targeted Tommy.<br /><br />Your attempt to separate ou Sheridan from the public and legal concern with the NOTW is rather hamfisted and also a bit errr .... out of date considering the above. IMHO.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />PeterPeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-67256637890506337952011-01-03T21:32:51.939+00:002011-01-03T21:32:51.939+00:00Peter - one benefit that could come out of the TS ...Peter - one benefit that could come out of the TS trial is a renewed focus on the covert actions of News International and who knew and did what in terms of accessing confidential info illegally. However this benefit can only be proprely gained if it's disentangled from TS's case and the rather fanciful claims of a a NOW-Police-SSP-Prosecution witness conspiracy that have been made about in and around the case and divert due focus from what the NOW has really done. <br /><br />Knock, knock - re TS appeal. If he's granted an appeal and loses the Court of Crimninal Appeal could increase his sentence if they believe the orignial sentence was unduly lenient. But for obvious reasons they can't increase his sentence just because he has appealed. As for order of civil and criminal cases I don't think there's anything set in law but usually criminal takes precedence. Imagine NOW lawyers will argue NOW appealed civil verdict immediately and have had to wait for four and 1/2 years already. TS/TS lawyers will argue conviction is unsafe and he needs to be able to challenge criminal conviction first both as his liberty is in question and that NOW will use fact of his conviction for perjury as part of its civil appeal case to court of session. If TS manages to get his appeal accepted for referral to Court of Criminal Appeal quickly, imagine he'll have a strong case to argue the NOW civil appeal should be delayed while it is heard. And yes it is a complete mess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-61848700877610032392011-01-03T21:29:34.321+00:002011-01-03T21:29:34.321+00:00knock knock:
Pleaase bear in mind that sentence h...knock knock:<br /><br />Pleaase bear in mind that sentence has not been passed yet. There may be an appeal ONLY against conviction, in which case the court has no power to vary the sentence. <br /><br />In any event, the court has np power to increase the sentence for "wasting the court's time". Firstly, the case only gets to court if leave is granted by a judge, which immediately means it is, by definition, not a waste of the court's time, and secondly the court can only increase the sentence if they feel the trial judge's sentyence fell outwith the appropriate range for the offence.<br /><br />I think the case you're thinking of is <i>Spence v HMA</i> in 2007 where the trial judge gave a discount in circumstances where the appeal court ssaid he should not have done so, and the appellant had two years added to his sentence.the_voice_of_reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10179007944478552588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-17990135170770347282011-01-03T21:24:41.976+00:002011-01-03T21:24:41.976+00:00Anonymous at 3.30pm
'there are also questions...Anonymous at 3.30pm<br /><br />'there are also questions about the openess and conduct of the defence here: defence witnesses hardly came across as open in that many refused to give statement to police in advance so prosecution didn't know general tenor of their evidence.'<br /><br />So, do questions about the police behaviour not figure in your analysis/thinking?<br /><br />despite,<br /><br />1)An unprecedented (given nature of alleged offence) raid on a family home<br />2)An eight hour search by 9 policemen in flak jackets etc (see Lynn Sheridans<br />testimony) <br />3) A callous disregard for the trauma visited upon a child.<br />4)An apparent police refusal to allow her (Lynn Sheridan) to enter and remove the child.<br />5) Leaking of the raid by the police to the media which would appear to have had the objective of prejudicing public opinion against the Sheridans<br />6)A bogus theft charge against Gail Sheridan leading to suspension from her job.<br />7) And then the question to Gail Sheridan as to whether she had received terrorist training when she chose to pray with her rosary beads.<br />8) The removal of her rosary beads.<br /><br />You feel that the defence witnesses should have just ignored all the malice and prejudice that these actions appeared to manifest, swallow their rage at such treatment and in particular the effect it could have on the Sheridans young daughter and meekly oooperate with what could be viewed as a 'vendetta'.?<br /><br />Coooperation would have been the last thing in my thoughts and I can only admire Gail Sheridan for her silence given the provocations.<br /><br />If suspiscions of political or religious prejudice or both are to be exorcised, a full investigation by an independent body needs to be made into the aforementioned police actions.<br /><br />In addition there is of course the loss of potential e-mail evidence addressed in previous posts that could have had a bearing on the deliberations of the juror.Maxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-70726783978727313422011-01-03T18:53:28.915+00:002011-01-03T18:53:28.915+00:00regarding any appeal. what are the possible outcom...regarding any appeal. what are the possible outcomes?<br /><br />1. verdict overturned and aquitted. NO CHANCE<br />2. Verdict overturned and retrial. SLIM CHANCE but the expert witnesses re validity of video tape will come in. <br />3. Verdict stands. LIKELY bad part is they might stick on a year or two for taking up their time.<br /><br />remember chris donald's murderers gave up their appeals because the appeal court went through a phase of rejecting appeals and adding to the sentence that was initially imposed. <br /><br />Mr S is possibly again embarking on another high stakes game. there comes a time when its best to just give up as the odds are against you.<br /><br />does an appeal re the criminal conviction "cyst" the civil case until the appeal is dealt with? the only benefit i can see is to use a criminal appeal to take him by the finishline to protect the house but then again that is at a cost of possible further TIME in prison. I'm sure the civil appeal, no matter what is done will ultimately cost the family home.<br /><br />when one stands back and looks at the whole mess this is, it is quite unbelievable that it got to this.knock knocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-33937505383165635862011-01-03T18:41:36.523+00:002011-01-03T18:41:36.523+00:00@Peter said
"Re: Grauniad:
Put it this way ...@Peter said<br /><br />"<i>Re: Grauniad:<br /><br />Put it this way Whatsy I had read the McKenna article before posting what I posted. Dwell on that</i>"<br /><br />I'd struggle to make anything stand up on the basis of McKenna's article, never mind dwell on it.<br /><br />Regarding the missing e-mails - without getting into the grounds for appeal, the fact that the e-mail body is missing but the header remains seems to me to make it more likely that there was an archiving error rather than a deliberate attempt to delete any data. The header and body of e-mails will be stored in different database tables, so if both header and body went missing, that would suggest more than just a slipshod bit of archiving.<br /><br />However, > <i>Dons IT Head</i> <<br />I it should be possible to find some or all of the missing e-mail body text - the question would be how much time and effort should be committed to doing so. There should be backups of the database on tape somewhere from any particular date, depending on how regular backups were done - can be pretty laborious and expensive to retrieve this, but should be 100% recoverable.<br /><br />If this isn't available - shame on the archivers and the NotW IT people. <br /><br />You then would have to go into individual pc memory and look for old e-mails.<br /><br />If that drew a blank, you'd be looking for e-mail fragments on parts of the disk that hasn't been overwritten with something else. I'm no expert at this, but I'd imagine this could be very tedious and potentially only partially successful, or even fruitless.<br /><br />If anyone really wanted to retrieve these mails, they should do, or have already done, all of the above, plus any other smart moves I don't know about.Whatsyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08204921386892706588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-72317676147841464102011-01-03T18:09:34.881+00:002011-01-03T18:09:34.881+00:00Re: Grauniad:
Put it this way Whatsy I had read t...Re: Grauniad:<br /><br />Put it this way Whatsy I had read the McKenna article before posting what I posted. Dwell on that.<br /><br />Re: Appeal Grounds - Closeness of Verdict and Problems with Disclosure.<br /><br />My point was not that it is not a head of appeal in itself but that it needs to be considered in the context of the disclosure appeal ground - which I posted on earlier.<br /><br />I agree with those who posted - a verdict is a verdict. I have said I fully respect the jury decision but disagree with it.<br /><br />In particular I feel the jury should have been allowed to see the NOTW and police emails sent to key Crown witnesses especially Trolle. <br /><br />The Trolle emails, for example, were a major feature on the trial.<br /><br />Trolle continued to deny any offer of payment by the NOTW - despite others including the NOTW testifying that such offers were made. <br /><br />The process in which Ms Trolle came to court and denied (twice) that she was apparently offered money is an intriguing issue. <br /><br />The process by which she fixed upon a new date for the alleged Cupids trip (and other matters) is also a matter that the missing emails may or may not cast light on.<br /><br />It is in the context of any lack of disclosure that the fact that it was a majority verdict is relevant. <br /><br />In framing an argument it will (I consider) be raised as background that the Guilty verdict was not unaminous. <br /><br />The exact lack of unaminity may be relevant (if it is very close) but is not key - disclosure is key.<br /><br />NB: I would like to know. When the jury deleted some of the charges was that unaminous or majority?<br /><br />Re: Tom Watson MP. <br /><br />His actions in referring the NOTW to the ICO (and his acknowledgement that he and his colleagues should have done more to chase down the NOTW) have been exemplary in my view. <br /><br />Unfortunately he is now a target of the machine himself.<br /><br />I will write to him at the HofC to let him know that I value his role in this matter. Others may wish to also. <br /><br />That Watson is a political opponent of Sheridan may help convince some here that this matter of emails is not being pursued out of desperation by "Tommy lovers" (if such things exist ouside of the fevered imagination of the NOTW and the SSP).<br /><br />NB: As well as the difficulty with proving perversity (referred to earlier) I cannot see the NOTW libel appeal succeeding in the absence of those emails. Oh dear.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-25729258438109247842011-01-03T17:42:06.738+00:002011-01-03T17:42:06.738+00:00Ah, I see Neil B and I were typing at the same tim...Ah, I see Neil B and I were typing at the same time...Whatsyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08204921386892706588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-26199152354054397352011-01-03T17:41:44.407+00:002011-01-03T17:41:44.407+00:00Re: "Lost" Emails Ground of Appeal
Some...Re: "Lost" Emails Ground of Appeal<br /><br />Some say this is not a ground for appeal as Sheridan (they say) did not pursue it.<br /><br />There are reasons (also hinted at by some here) I can think of why the defence would not pursue the emails issue. <br /><br />The suggestion appears to be that maybe it was better for the defence to have the appearance of a cover up rather than to actually pursue the missing emails - as it may turn out there with nothing to them of any concern.<br /><br />As the defence raised the concerns about the emails (see court reports)in the course of the trial I do not see it is as reasonable to consider that the defence did not pursue the issue of the missing emails. <br /><br />I suggest also that the judge and the Crown would have raised an objection in the course of the trial, and in the summing up, if this was a matter that had not been raised appropriately by the defence.<br /><br />If emails are found that are relevant and therefore should have been disclosed then that is an appeal ground. <br /><br />That was the case in the (now vacated) Megrahi appeal in which the full extent of the discussions regarding payments to Crown witnesses (by third parties) were only revealed after conviction. <br /><br />No (intelligent) poster here has yet disputed that the non disclosure of relevant emails by the police (or the Crown) would be a legitimate ground for appeal. <br /><br />If they do please come forward and let us have it out here. <br /><br />The more complicated appeal matter is that as (apparently) the emails are "missing" we don't know if they are relevant or not. <br /><br />In the Megrahi appeal the information was eventually found so his team were then able to use it as an appeal ground.<br /><br />That may mean Sheridan has in wait in jail until the emails are recovered; assessed to check relevance; lodge an appeal etc<br /><br />Of course IF smoking gun type email information emerges from the ICO investigation (ie. either the emails themselves turn up or there is evidence that the emails were deliberately "lost") then he could be released pending the appeal verdict. <br /><br />There is another glimmer of light.<br /><br />The headings of some of the emails already indicate that the materials within them could be relevant.<br /><br />Arguably then the question for the higher courts is not really to assess relevance. <br /><br />I suggest also they cannot be regarded as new evidence (which is a complicated appeal ground) but simply relevant evidence that existed but was not disclosed.<br /><br />The matter surely then will centre on disclosure.<br /><br />The higher courts will assess the likelihood of the police and NOTW testimony that they could have been "lost" accidentally and were not avalable for forensic recovery and therefore GENUINELY not available for disclosure.<br /><br />On the likelihood of any "loss" (by BOTH the sender and the recipient being accidental) and that loss ALSO being permanent (again in BOTH the sender and the recipient) I refer posters to the entries I made earlier.<br /><br />In calculation of those odds the higher courts can ask themselves (as Laurence Olivier hissed at Dustin Hoffman.) <br /><br />"Is it safe?"<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />PeterPeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-63690833519303806542011-01-03T17:41:16.495+00:002011-01-03T17:41:16.495+00:00@Anon 3:30pm
I couldn't find anything apart f...@Anon 3:30pm<br /><br />I couldn't find anything apart from Kevin McKenna's article, which does mention eight jurors voted to convict, but was such an unimpressive article generally, from someone whose usual efforts I enthusiastically read for a sense of sick fascination at how bad they are, and from someone I didn't see at the trial, I wouldn't give much credence to.<br /><br />Hopefully this is not what Peter referred to as "The Guardian" saying the vote was 8-6, but I'm as fascinated as anyone to find out what the jury vote actually was. Here's the Graun/McKenna quote in full:<br /><br />Kevin McKenna<br />"<i>Eight members of a 14-man jury had decided that the man standing beside her had visited a sex club in Manchester with two other women and that on a separate occasion had indulged in three-way sex with other women</i>"Whatsyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08204921386892706588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-57678962878697543192011-01-03T17:36:47.359+00:002011-01-03T17:36:47.359+00:00I think the reference to eight jurors voting for a...I think the reference to eight jurors voting for a Guilty verdict is from Kevin McKenna in the Observer (26 December):<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/26/tommy-sheridan-perjury-politics<br /><br />Suspect this is not conclusive about the voting however - more stating the obvious that at least 8 out of the 14 jurors must have voted that way.Neil Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00356518753361567255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-7768573983874216032011-01-03T16:53:29.742+00:002011-01-03T16:53:29.742+00:00knock knock
Not sure the exact cost, but the appl...knock knock<br /><br />Not sure the exact cost, but the application fee, exam fee ansd expenses of the training course must now be somewhere around £1500-2000. Payment is made to the Law Society, but the main expense is the payments to the QCs who come in on a weekend to hear the presentations and mark them.the_voice_of_reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10179007944478552588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-68648806770758942212011-01-03T16:18:58.688+00:002011-01-03T16:18:58.688+00:00James
Point taken.
The essence of my post was in ...James<br />Point taken.<br /><br />The essence of my post was in Anonymous 3.30pm post, so I will leave it thereCritical-eyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798989173047492175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-500792161594913167.post-16452370858979795612011-01-03T16:11:44.480+00:002011-01-03T16:11:44.480+00:00Hello Critical Eye, sorry but there are still laws...Hello Critical Eye, sorry but there are still laws of libel which make me reluctant to publish some of the statements in that last post.<br /><br />Any chance you could tone it down a bit?<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />JamesJames Dolemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774046346905734191noreply@blogger.com