The Sheridan Trial

Update

2011-07-06T23:07:00.001+01:00

We ended this blog just after the conclusion of the trial in January 2011. All of our reports can still be accessed either through the right hand menu or by using the search box.

While this blog is now closed you can find our latest pieces here

http://lefthooked.wordpress.com/

The Last Post

2011-02-04T13:41:00.010Z

Photo Duncan Brown

As it is now coming up to ten days since the end of the trial of Her Majesties Advocate vs Thomas Sheridan we have decided to bring the Sheridan Trial blog to an end. We will leave it online as an archive but, unless something dramatic happens, we will not be producing any further updates. We will leave comments open over the weekend to allow people to make their final contributions and then shut that down on Monday.

As people will doubtless be aware the first accused, Tommy Sheridan was found guilty of five charges of perjury and sentenced to three years imprisonment. While this is not the result they wanted Mr Sheridan's legal team would argue that the fact that fourteen of the original nineteen charges were either dropped or not found proven by the jury, shows that they conducted an effective defence. Mr Sheridan's lawyer Aamer Aanwar has already announced that he will be lodging an appeal. A defence campaign has been launched for Mr Sheridan, they have a website Here Mr Sheridan also has a blog which has an account of his first week in prison

The second accused Gail Sheridan was acquitted on all charges. Despite speculation to the contrary Mrs Sheridan has announced that she will not be seeking a nomination as a candidate in the Scottish elections. There have reports that she may stand for Glasgow city council in the Craigton ward.

A number of witnesses in the case will however be standing in the Scottish elections this May. Frances Curran, Colin Fox and Kevin McVey have already been announced as candidates for the Scottish Socialist Party. It is also expected that a number of defence witnesses will be nominated by Solidarity Scotland, however no formal announcement has yet been made on this.

Andrew Coulson, the former editor of the News of the World, has resigned his post as Director of Communications at 10 Downing Street. Some reports have cited his appearance as a witness at the Sheridan Trial as a factor in his decision to quit. The story around "phone hacking" by people associated with the News of the World has continued to develop since the case ended. The Metropolitan Police have announced that they have begun a new investigation into the allegations.

On a personal note I'd like to thank everyone who helped make this blog possible. The people at court who made sure I got in to observe proceedings every day and the staff at Glasgow High court for their assistance and the two legal teams. I'd also like to mention some of the journalists who helped me out and gave me advice on how to stay within the law while reporting, in no particular order I'd like to thank Severin Carrel Alison Campsie, Bernard Ponsonby, Raymond Buchanan, Yana Thandrayen, Catriona Renton, Audrey Gillan, Alan Taylor and Mark Daly and many others. Also I'd like to recommended the web sites of my unofficial legal advisors, Love and Garbage and Lallands Peat Worrier

I'd also like to congratulate "Whatsy" for their work, without that the site would not have managed to cover as much as it did.

Finally, after some thought I've decided not to accept donations for the site. I started this blog partly to see if it was possible to "blog a trial"and partly because it might be useful for the Scottish Left to have as an objective as possible account of events and testimony at the trial. Therefore it seems wrong to solicit money for this endevour. Some commentators have asked if we could nominate a charity, I'd suggest people could do worse than donate to Govan Law Centre

Thanks again to everyone

James

Update Monday 7 February

Comments are now closed. We can still be reached by email at sheridantrial@gmail.com

Andy Coulson Leaves Downing Street Job

2011-02-01T13:41:00.000Z

Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

The Guardian is reporting that Andrew Coulson, editor of the News of the World from 2003 until 2007 and a witness in the trial of Tommy and Gail Sheridan, has ended his employment as the Prime Ministers Director of Communications. They are also reporting that he will not receive any severance pay as "is in line with the standard contract for special advisers"

The full story is Here

"A revelation that gives hope to Tommy Sheridan"

2011-01-31T13:37:00.005Z

Bob Bird, Scottish Editor of the News of the World

The Independent has a Piece today, written by Cahal Milmo and Martin Hickman, on the news we linked to yesterday that the News of the World had recovered emails that the court in the Sheridan trial was told by Bob Bird had been "lost." (see Here for our report on that section of Mr Bird's testimony) The article states; "News International now says Mr Bird unintentionally misled the court, but insists that all the emails sought by the defence were disclosed to it either by the newspaper or the police. Sheridan's legal team suspects that more information should have been disclosed, and plans to launch an appeal in the hope of springing Sheridan from Barlinnie jail, where he has begun a three-Year Jail term"

News International finds 'lost' emails

2011-01-31T02:05:00.004Z

The Indpendent is Reporting "A "lost" hoard of emails sent by senior executives in Rupert Murdoch's newspaper empire at the height of the phone-hacking scandal has been found " The claim that emails had been lost was made by the News of the World's Scotland editor Bob Bird during the perjury trial of the former Scottish Socialist Party leader Tommy Sheridan in November. Giving evidence on oath, he said that many emails sought by the defence had gone missing while being transferred to India " (our reports about Mr Bird's testimony on this issue can be viewed Here and Here )

The piece continues

Aamer Anwar, Sheridan's solicitor, said: "This is unacceptable. We were told repeatedly by Mr Bird in these proceedings that this material was lost in Mumbai. Now we are told it is in the UK. My client would not accept an explanation that there was a misunderstanding. We will look closely at any response from News International and are considering a complaint to the police and the Crown Office. If there is evidence information was intentionally not supplied we would expect criminal proceedings. "Labour MP Tom Watson, who has campaigned for a new police force to look into hacking, said: "If the jury in the Sheridan trial was misled then there should be an urgent review of the case."

Sheridan solicitor: "newspaper hacked my phone messages"

2011-01-30T11:29:00.004Z

The Scottish Herald is reporting this morning that Tommy Sheridan's lawyer Aamer Anwar is planning to make a complaint to the police tomorrow alleging that the the News Of The World tried to "hack" his mobile phone. The article states; "The solicitor, who represented Tommy Sheridan during his perjury trial, said he was contacted by Vodafone shortly before the court case began last year, warned that there had been an attempt to access his messages and told he should change his PIN number.

You can read the full article Here

Tommy Sheridan's Statement on his Imprisonment

2011-01-28T14:55:00.000Z

This was posted on Tommy Sheridan's Blog yesterday:

Comrades,

By the time you read this I will be a guest of the Crown. Despite a tremendous fight against the combined forces of the state and the Murdoch empire, we have lost this round. But the fight isn’t over yet.

Though I have been in jail before, this time will be tougher because I will be separated from my family. But my plight is nothing compared to the families blown apart and torn apart by the horrors of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have friends whose husbands, sons and fathers have to go to fight wars in these places, some of them never return. My family’s troubles do not compare to the loss these people face.

Across the world there are migrants who have to leave their families and travel across the world, trying to earn enough just to eat, sometimes never seeing them for years, if at all. There are families who lose everything in natural and man-made disasters. In Haiti their lives are destroyed by Earthquake, in Australia by floods, in Gaza by Israeli Bulldozers.

These are the people who make us know that it is right to fight for a better and fairer world, these are the people who show the strength to keep going and fight back. When we fight back it can mean that we become a target of those in power. Right now, I am the target and I am being made to pay. I accept that and, inspired by students across this country, and my brothers and sisters in Tunisia and Egypt, know that it is right to fight on.

It may be some time before I can join you again on the picket lines, at the protests against war and weapons of mass destruction, at the marches and meetings to fight against the slash and burn policies of the Government coalition. But I will be there in spirit and, before long, will be back by your side, fighting the good fight.

I have been humbled and empowered by the strength of the support you all have shown to me and Gail, I am lucky to be supported by some outstanding and talented individuals and organisations, I will be alright. I urge you to give your support to trade unions in their struggle against the cuts, students in their battle for fair and equal right to education, ordinary families on benefits who face the brunt of the tory onslaught. They need you now, more than ever.

In Solidarity,

Tommy

"The women who refused to lie for Tommy Sheridan"

2011-01-28T12:53:00.002Z

Photograph by Murdo MacLeod

This morning The Guardian has published an article by Julie Bindel which contains quotes from Crown witnesses in the case, Barbara Scott, Carolyn Leckie, Pam Currie, Catriona Grant Rosie Kane and Katrine Trolle. You can read the full piece Here

Meanwhile the Scotsman is reporting that they have obtained "a copy of a letter from the Defend Tommy Sheridan campaign to the First Minister, demanding a probe into the "role, conduct and performance" of Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini in pursuing the case against the left-winger." That article is Here

Finally the Scottish Sun Newspaper has ran three stories that appear to have been based on interviews with Tony Cumberbirch these can be found Here. Mr Cumberbirtches testimony at the trial can be viewed Here

BBC Scotland Yesterday

2011-01-27T16:59:00.001Z

We thought people outside Scotland may be interested to view two BBC Scotland discussions about the sentencing of Tommy Sheridan. The first is from "The Politics Show" broadcast yesterday afternoon where Gregor Gall, John Curtice and myself discuss the implications of the trial for the Scottish Left. That debate begins 31.30 minutes into the Programme.

The second link is from yesterday evening's Newsnight Scotland where there is an interview with Mr Sheridan's lawyer Aamer Anwar. George Galloway and two witnesses from the trial, Francis Curran and Phillip Stott also discuss the outcome of the case and it's political implications. You can view the full programme Here

Kenneth Roy and Ian Mcwhirter

2011-01-27T13:46:00.002Z

Two of the best known Scottish political journalists, Kenneth Roy and Ian Macwhiter have articles published on the Sheridan case this morning that we thought may be of interest

Ian Macwhirter Writes
"This whole episode has been a farce - and an expensive one for the tax payers who have to pay most of the costs of the police investigation and the trial. Even the sentence was a joke. Sheridan will spent a year or so in Castle Huntly open prison, burnishing his anti-establishment image, then he’ll be back on the streets again, surrounded by cheering admirers. He will use his time in prison wisely, no doubt writing his memoirs - which is how disgraced politicians traditionally use such enforced leisure - and campaigning for penal reform. He may even be back on the campaign trail for the Holyrood elections in 2015. Well, why not? There is nothing to prevent a convicted criminal, even one who lied under oath, from standing for parliament after he has paid his debt to society."

Kenneth Roy meanwhile looks at The Scottish media's reporting of the case Arguing
" It was perhaps too much to expect that the humanity of Lord Bracadale – earlier demonstrated in his decision to continue bail for a month before sentencing – would set a rational example to the tweeting mob in and around the court. As it happened, it was the only exhibition of humanity on display as the prisoner went down. Elsewhere there was a viciousness quite breathtaking to behold" adding " The press coverage this morning is, of course, more cruel and horrible than anything of which the BBC, even in its present low condition, is capable. 'Daddy's Away to Work' screams the Daily Mail....'What lying Sheridan will tell his little girl while he's in a jail cell'. Journalists have been defined as people who make small children cry in the playground. It is difficult to say which is more repellent – the readiness to victimise children or the high moral tone in which it is done. "

Several readers in the comments have also mentioned this Piece from Kenneth Roy yesterday, which is very complimentary about the blog.

Gail Sheridan "Not standing in Holyrood elections"

2011-01-27T12:44:00.005Z

The Guardian's Scottish correspondent, Severin Carrell, has just reported, via Twitter, that Gail Sheridan has confirmed she will not be standing as a candidate in the 2011 Holyrood elections. More information to come when we get it.

Update 1pm
BBC Scotland's Raymond Buchanan has confirmed the story and has this quote from Gail Sheridan "I would have welcomed the challenge" of Holyrood but priority is caring for young daughter now husband in jail.

STV are quoting Mrs Sheridan as adding
"“I am flattered by those Solidarity members and members of the public who considered me good enough to stand for the Scottish Parliament.

"As a lifelong trade unionist and advocate of workers’ rights I would have welcomed the challenge. However, given Tommy’s imprisonment my priority is caring for our beautiful daughter."In the coming elections I will be supporting and voting for Solidarity and will be encouraging other to do likewise.”

Update 2pm
Solidarity Scotland have now issued a press statement on Gail Sheridan's decision not to stand for Holyrood:

After a period of deliberation, Solidarity member Gail Sheridan has today announced that she does not want to be considered as a candidate for the party at the forthcoming Scottish Parliamentary Elections.

We offer our full support and Solidarity to Gail and her family at this difficult time.

Solidarity continues to be involved in talks with possible coalition partners for the Holyrood poll and following the conclusion of these discussions we will meet as a party on February 19^th to make final decisions on our plans and election strategy.

Whether we stand on our own, or as part of a wider coalition, Solidarity members will put at the heart of the campaign our opposition to the scandalous cuts proposed by the main parties that ensure ordinary people have to pay the price for the bail out of the banks.

The Trials of Tommy

2011-01-27T11:36:00.003Z

BBC Radio Scotland yesterday broadcast a thirty minute programme, "The Trials of Tommy" which has actors recreating key parts of the trial. This can be heard Here

The three commentators on the case are Raymond Buchanan of the BBC, Alison Campsie of the Herald and myself,

Tommy Sheridan Mitigation Speech in Full

2011-01-26T21:37:00.002Z

The BBC have posted a full transcript of Tommy Sheridan's speech of mitigation.

It can be found Here

Tommy Sheridan's Statement in Mitigation Summary

2011-01-26T20:31:00.006Z

As court resumed this morningm Lord Bracadale, the presiding judge in the trial of Her Majesties Advocate Vs Thomas Sheridan, warned those attending not to engage in any "inappropriate behavior," Tommy Sheridan rose from his seat in the dock of court number four to begin his plea in mitigation.

Mr Sheridan began by thanking the court workers, including the canteen staff, for their assistance in what had been a "long trial." Mr Sheridan then told the court that he "recognised the jury had carried out a difficult task" in a case that was "long and arduous." He then stated that the court would be aware "by fair means or foul" that he had been convicted by "the narrowest of majorities." adding that while he agreed that perjury was a serious crime that "strikes at the heart of justice" it was important to look at the context in which he brought his case against the News of the World.

Mr Sheridan asked Lord Bracadale to recall that he had originally taken action against the News of the World over an article they had published on the 14th November 2004 that alleged he had a four year affair with Fiona McGuire, an article Mr Sheridan described as "grossly offensive and and defamatory" Mr Sheridan claimed that these allegations had been printed "without a shred of foundation" and were a "paid for packet of hurtful lies." Mr Sheridan then asked Lord Bracadale to ignore the "hype and publicity before, during and after the trial" and to "pause and reflect" on the circumstances of that case. Mr Sheridan stated to the court that "No-one had been killed" due to his offence and that "no-one had been falsely imprisoned"

Mr Sheridan then asked the court to consider that there was no precedent in Scotland for a perjury trial arising from a civil case so therfore he would draw on the precedents of cases heard in English courts. He pointed out that Jonathan Aitken received a sentence of only 18 months for suborning a witness (his daughter) in a libel case and that Jeffrey Archer had been given a prison term of four years for a series of offences that were far more serious than those he had been convicted of committing. Mr Sheridan also asked Lord Bracadale to take into account the case of Regina Vs Fieldman were a 55 year old man of "previous good character" had been sentenced to nine months for three counts of perjury in an English Crown Court, adding that in his case the "fact of imprisonment" may be seen as "punishment enough" irrespective of the length of that imprisonment.

Mr Sheridan then told the court that while he accepted that a custodial sentence in this case was "inevitable" the length of the sentence he should be given was a matter of "serious debate." Mr Sheridan then made reference to what he called the "armchair lawyers" and the "vindictive media" who had been calling for a sentence of "four to five years." These articles Mr Sheridan described as being produced by "journalists with agendas" who had, in his words, "already announced my fate. Mr Sheridan stated to the court that his lawyer Aamer Anwar had assured him that Lord Bracadale would be "above such speculation."

Tommy Sheridan then asked the court to consider that his "his history" showed that financial gain had "never been a motivation for me" pointing out that fact that while he was a Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) he had donated half of his salary to the Scottish Socialist Party. Mr Sheridan then went on to cite statistics from the English Crown Courts which showed that between 1991 and 2000, 830 people had been convicted of perjury of which 437 had received prison sentences. Mr Sheridan then stated these sentences were:

1 person was sentenced to between 5 to 7 years
3 people were sentenced to between 4 to 5 years
3 people were sentenced to between 3-5 years
11 people were sentenced to between 3-4 years

Mr Sheridan then asked Lord Bracadale to consider a particular case, again in England, where 30 defendents had been convicted of perjury in connection with, what Mr Sheridan described as "Trial fixing" yet had only received 18 month sentences. Mr Sheridan then brought into consideration the case of two defendents , who were convicted of committing perjury in a trial connected with the "Ice Cream Wars." A perjury that had led, in Mr Sheridan's words, to an innocent man "Serving 12 years of a life sentence." In these cases, Mr Sheridan told the court, those convicted served only 6 and 5 years and invited the court to take into account that while he "inevitably faced a custodial sentence" a sentence of more that four years would be "inconsistent with precendence.

Part Two to follow.

Scottish Television Interview with Tommy Sheridan

2011-01-26T19:14:00.000Z

Bernard Ponsonby

Shortly before his sentencing Tommy Sheridan conducted an interview with Scottish Television's Bernard Ponsonby

The full video of that interview can be viewed Here

Sheridan vows to fight conviction

2011-01-26T14:33:00.004Z

Via the Press Association

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/disgraced-tommy-sheridan-jailed-for-three-years-2194651.html

Disgraced socialist politician Tommy Sheridan vowed to keep fighting as he was jailed for three years for perjury.

The former MSP described his punishment for lying to the courts during his successful defamation action against the News of the World in 2006 as "heartbreaking".
After being sentenced, he announced his intention to appeal against his conviction.
In a statement read outside court by his solicitor, Aamer Anwar, he said: "This multi-million pound prosecution will separate me from my wife and child and that will be heartbreaking. But I will continue to fight a system that protects the real criminals - the rich and powerful."
After a three-month trial at the High Court in Glasgow, Sheridan, 46, was found guilty in December of lying about the newspaper's claims that he was an adulterer who visited swingers' clubs.

Sheridan's wife Gail, who has vowed to stand by her husband, was also accused of lying to the jury at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, but she was acquitted when the Crown dropped the case against her last month.
Mrs Sheridan sat in court, as close as possible to her husband, as the judge Lord Bracadale delivered his sentence. She led the former Celebrity Big Brother contestant's family, friends and comrades in a one-fisted salute as he was led, handcuffed, to the cells.
Outside court, Mrs Sheridan said: "Tommy has dedicated his life to helping others. The real reason why he's been imprisoned today is because he has fought injustice and inequality with every beat of his heart.

"But it won't be long before Tommy is back stronger and continuing the fight."
Before he was sentenced, Sheridan, who conducted his own defence for most of the trial, said: "I remain a passionate socialist and am determined to put to positive use my time in custody."
Copyright © 2011 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
Related articles

News of the World Statement on Sentence

2011-01-26T13:19:00.002Z

"This is a just outcome to a long and complex criminal case. Today's sentence also provides closure for the many witnesses who very bravely exposed their own lives to public scrutiny when they testified to Mr Sheridan's guilt.

"Mr Sheridan has been jailed for lying to a court to secure victory when he sued the News of the World for defamation in 2006. At the time he was an elected member of the Scottish Parliament. As we have made clear, we have an appeal lodged against that defamation verdict and we now look forward to that appeal succeeding in Scotland's Court of Session."

Scottish Socialist Party Statement on Sentence

2011-01-26T13:17:00.002Z

The Scottish Socialist Party has now issued a statement on the sentencing of Tommy Sheridan.

"Today's proceedings at Glasgow High Court finally end the ill advised action Tommy Sheridan initiated 6 years ago in suing a tabloid over allegations he knew to be true. The jury found him guilty and the court has now passed sentence.

He alone is responsible for where he sleeps tonight, no one else.

He pursued legal action full in the knowledge he would lie in court. He asked his closest political allies and friends to join him in that crazy strategy and then turned on us because we refused. He still shows no sign of taking responsibility for his own actions.

More widely this affair is a stark warning of the dangers of allowing personal celebrity to displace political principles.

The economic and social challenge faced by the people in Scotland are however much more important.

The political injustices they face day in day out is of greater concern to us and can only be solved with socialist policies on jobs, wages, homes and wealth redistribution.

The SSP fully intends to put such policies to the public across Scotland as part of our Holyrood election campaign for a democratic Scottish socialist republic.

Now as never before Scotland needs a party of integrity and clear socialist principles. Holyrood needs socialist MSP's offering socialist policies more than ever as a clear alternative to the cuts sackings agenda being pursued by the current gang of complacent, out of touch politicians.

Solidarity Statement on Sentence

2011-01-26T13:07:00.002Z

"Scottish justice has notched up another political miscarriage of justice alongside that of Al Megrahi and Muir of Huntershill”

Ian Hamilton QC

Solidarity condemns as barbaric and draconian the sentence imposed today on Tommy Sheridan.

We believe the lengthy jail term imposed by the judge is vindictive. It will reinforce the widespread view that this is the culmination of a brutal vendetta carried out by the rich and powerful against Scotland ’ most prominent socialist. A socialist who has earned their hatred for his uncompromising defence of working class people for the last 25 years.

As such this sentence will be met with anger by tens of thousands of working class people across Scotland and beyond. Solidarity shares that anger.

At a time when Britain ’s rich bankers are raking in billions in bonuses while working class communities and trade unionists are facing the most savage attacks in generations, the millions of pounds spent on the persecution of Tommy Sheridan is a disgrace.

Solidarity regards as outrageous the continued cover-up of News International and the News of the World’s illegal activities by the police and the legal establishment. What a contrast to the lengths that Lothian and Borders police and the Scottish Crown have been prepared to go to try to ruin a working class socialist.

They will not succeed. Solidarity appeals to all those angered today by this action to join us today and help us build a socialist party worthy of the name.

Solidarity will continue to give our full support and backing to Tommy and in particular to Gail Sheridan and the family at this difficult time.

We also send out this guarantee today. Neither Tommy Sheridan nor Solidarity will be broken. We will continue to build our party, offering a real alternative to the despair and brutality offered up by the ConDem government and the other parties of the rich and big business.

We stand, as always, in Solidarity.

Tommy Sheridan sentenced to Three Years in Prison

2011-01-26T12:34:00.007Z

Lord Bracdale

After hearing Tommy Sheridan's plea in mitigation, about which a full report will be posted later today, the presiding judge Lord Bracadale sentenced Mr Sheridan to three years in prison.

Lord Bracadale stated that Mr Sheridan was a "highly effective and hard working politician" and that he had "supported individuals in the community both in parliament and in the street," However the judge added that by pursuing a defamation action against the News of the World Mr Sheridan had "brought the walls of the temple crashing down not only on your own head but also on the heads of your family and your political friends alike."

You can read Lord Bracadale's full statement Here

More to follow.

Sentencing

2011-01-25T19:08:00.001Z

Tomorrow morning, 26 January 2011, will see the trial of Her Majesty's Advocate v Thomas Sheridan reconvene for sentencing after the jury returned a majority verdict of guilty against Mr Sheridan on the 23rd December last year. Mr Sheridan will deliver a plea in mitigation before we hear the sentence and the judge's statement. Lord Bracadale has advised Mr Sheridan to expect to be sent to prison.

As we have a great deal of preparation to do before tomorrow we will be closing comments until after the conclusion of tomorrow's proceedings.

Operation Caryatid

2011-01-24T13:27:00.012Z

With the resignation of Andrew Coulson over alleged "phone hacking" at the News of the World during his editorship of the paper, political and media attention is now turning to the Metropolitan Police investigation of the case ( for example see Here )

During the trial of Tommy Sheridan, the High Court of Glasgow heard testimony from the Senior Investigating Officer on the inquiry, Detective Chief Superintendent Phil Williams. Given the interest in this issue we thought readers would be interested in a summary of DCS Williams' evidence in response to questions from Mr Sheridan, who was representing himself

For background Mr Sheridan was exploring the issue as his name and details had been found in a notebook belonging to Glen Mulcaire, who was later convicted for illegally accessing voicemails,. Mr Mulcaire was later cited as a witness in the case but was excused due to illness.

Detective Chief Superintendent Williams told the court that Operation Caryatid, the police code name for the inquiry, was launched after a complaint had been received from the "Royal Household" in December 2005. Despite a long investigation however the only evidence that "reached the level of proof" was that there was only "one victim" who DCS Williams named as James Pinkerton, a "private secretary in the Royal Household."

DCS Williams was then asked if he he knew of any involvement in the offence beyond Glen Mulcaire (a private investigator) and Clive Goodman (the Royal editor of the News of the World) He stated he was "not aware" of any.

Asked about Mr Mulcaire's relationship with the News of the World, DCS Williams replied "he was paid by them, that's all I know"

DCS Williams denied a suggestion that he had "taken direction on who to focus on" during the investigation from the Crown Prosecution Service, but had taken advice from them due to the "complexity of the law" in this area.

DCS Williams agreed that 2978 telephone numbers had been recovered from Mr Mulcaire's notebooks but told the court "the mere presence of a name and address does not mean anything unlawful has gone on." adding that this had also been the view of the Crown Prosecution Service when they had reviewed the case last year.

The witness confirmed that the police investigation had recovered the contract between Mr Mulcaire and the News of the World, and when asked if this "was worth £105,000 per annum" replied that this "sounds like the right amount." Asked if the contract had been signed on behalf of the News of the World by Greg Miskiw responded "that sounds right"

DCS Williams confirmed that the inquiry had not questioned Mr Miskiw as he believed he "would have no legal basis to arrest or interview" him. The investigating officers also did not question Andrew Coulson, then editor of the News of the World. DCS Williams also told the court that Mr Goodman had "refused to answer" any questions from the police. The inquiry had also asked solicitors for the News of the World for any relevant information but were told this could not be provided as "they did not have it."

DCS Williams had not sought a "court order" as the News of the World had cooperated he was "not entitled to get a court order." Asked if the solicitors for the News of the World had had been cooperative, DCS Williams replied he had "no reason to think otherwise and had been advised by a Queens Council and the Crown Prosecution Service over the process he had followed. The witness added that he had asked questions of the News of the World's solicitors and had been told that no relevant documents existed. DCS Williams told the court that he had "no reason to doubt the solicitors."

DCS Williams concluded his testimony by stating that he had found "no evidence of a conspiracy at the News of the World." at denied a suggestions that he had treated the newspaper or it's executives with "kid gloves."

Our full reports on DCS Williams' testimony can be found Here and Here

Scottish Newspaper Roundup

2011-01-23T14:27:00.002Z

As many of our readers are not in Scotland I thought it would be useful to round up some articles from the Scottish press relating the trial that have appeared this weekend.

The Daily Record has this story, "Tommy Sheridan trial provoked resignation of top spin doctor Andy Coulson" Which quotes an "insider"as saying of Andy Coulson's resignation "having to give evidence at the Sheridan trial was the tipping point for Coulson, adding "He had to take a week off before Christmas to prepare and give evidence in the Tommy Sheridan trial and was then being filmed and photographed arriving and leaving the court. He was right at the centre of the story instead of trying to manage it and he knew then that he had to go."

The Scotsman has a similar piece, "Sheridan helped bring down No10 spin doctor and it's Sunday stablemate Scotland on Sunday has a fine analysis piece "Sheridan: Will he be a hero behind bars? which discusses possible sentences in the case and the prison system Mr Sheridan faces entering this Wednesday. Last weekend Scotland on Sunday ran a long interview with Rosie Kane, the former MSP and friend of Mr Sheridan who testified against him during the trial, that can be found Here

Finally The Sunday Herald has a story by Paul Hutcheon, "Doubt over Gail Sheridan’s candidacy" which states that paper " has learned Sheridan has told friends that his wife will not be a Solidarity candidate. One close associate said: “Tommy is saying that Gail cannot cope with the fact that he is going to jail, and that she won’t be standing. She’s in no fit state.”

Andy Coulson's Testimony, Key Points

2011-01-21T16:56:00.005Z

In the light of today's news of Andy Coulson's resignation (see Here ) We thought that readers might like to read an summary of Mr Coulson's answers to some of the key questions put to him during the Sheridan trial about his knowledge of "phone hacking" during his time as editor of the News of the World.

On his resignation as editor of the News of the World
Mr Coulson told the court that he had left after one reporter on the paper was convicted of a crime and he had "taken the ultimate responsibility and stepped down." Asked what this crime was the witness stated that it involved "illegal phone hacking" and that he had "no knowledge of it."

On Glenn Mulcaire (convicted of phone Hacking)
Mr Coulson told the court that he had never had any contact with Mr Mulcaire and had not even known his name until Mr Mulcaire had been arrested. Mr Coulson aslo told the court that he had been aware that Mr Mulcaire's company, "Nine Consultancy" had been used by the NotW as the witness had once asked a head of a department to reduce the money the paper was paying the company. He insisted however that this was his only knowledge of Nine consultancy and that, in relation to Mr Mulcaire, " I never met him, spoke to him or emailed him."

It was then suggested that the News of the World had paid Nine Consultancy around £105,000 per annum. Mr Coulson that it was "about that" but added that this was for what he called "legitimate work" adding that the judge in the "Goodman case" had accepted this. Mr Sheridan asked about other payments made to Mr Mulcaire, the witness told the court that there were other payments but these had happened "without my knowledge" Mr Sheridan then put it to the witness that, as the NotW was paying Nine Consultancy £105,000 a year he should have known more about the company than he appeared to Mr Coulson answered that the NoTW had a large budget (around £35 million per annum) and paid out large sums of money to journalists and for stories

Mr Sheridan then produced into evidence a copy of a page from a notebook, that the court has previously heard was seized by police on a raid on the home of private investigator, and convicted phone hacker, Glenn Mulcaire. This shows Mr Sheridan's name, address, telephone number and what appear to be "PIN" numbers for accessing mobile phone voicemails. There is also a date on the notebook, 14/09/04. Mr Coulson denied that he had any knowledge of this or that the News of the World in London and instructed Glenn Mulcaire to "hack" Mr Sheridan's phone. Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that Mr Mulcaire had an "exclusive contract" with the NotW but again Mr Coulson denied any knowledge of the matter.

Steve Whitamore
Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that another private investigator involved in phone hacking, Steve Whitamore, had a "blue book" which listed journalists who used his ser vices and that it listed Twenty one NotW journalists, over half of his news staff. Mr Coulson replied that a long list of newspapers and other media outlets had used Mr Whitamore for legitimate services and the NotW journalists he listed may not have been full-time reporters but perhaps freelancers and contractors. Mr Coulson also told the court that he had never had any dealings with Mr Whitamore. or asked anyone else to deal with him.

Mr Coulson said he did not know the specifics on individual journalists and indeed had not thought about the issue for "quite some time." Mr Coulson then challenged Mr Sheridan's figure of 21 journalists which he called "not right" although when asked for a specific number he stated that he did not know. Mr Sheridan asked Mr Coulson if Steve Whittamore had been used by the News of the World "while you were boss" The witness again said he did not know. Mr Sheridan then said that Steve Whittamore had been convicted in 2005 and this had happened "under your watch" Mr Coulson said he had not been involved with Mr Whittamore "in any way, shape or form" and added "in relation to you Mr Sheridan there was nothing untoward." Mr Coulson also stated that Mr Whitamore's services were used "across the industry, including the Guardian group."

Relations with the police
Asked about the NotW's relationship with the police, Mr Coulson said that it could be "difficult" however the NotW exposed "wrongdoing and criminality" and sometimes worked with the police on that.

Asked if the witness was familiar with an Andy Hayman. Mr Coulson told the court that Andy Hayman had been the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police and sometimes wrote for the Times. Mr Sheridan asked if Mr Hayman had been in charge of the investigation into "phone hacking at the News of the World" the witness replied "he may have been"

Mr Coulson told the court he once had a meal with Mr Hayman but their relationship was "entirely proper" and he thought that "every editor on Fleet Street" had done the same. Mr Sheridan asked if the NotW held any information on Mr Hayman that could have been used to intimidate him into not carrying out a proper investigation. Mr Coulson denied the NotW held any personal information on Mr Hayman

Mr Coulson if he was aware that at the time of the investigation into alleged phone hacking at the News of the World Mr Hayman had resigned from the police force, the witness replied "he may have" Mr Sheridan then asked Mr Coulson if he was aware of what Mr Hayman was doing now. The witness replied that Mr Hayman "writes occasional pieces for the Times," which he agreed was part of the same newspaper group as the News of the World. Mr Sheridan then asked "The former police officer who investigated the News of the World got a job with News International?" Mr Coulson replied :"if you are insinuating there was a deal, there was none." Mr Sheridan responded "just answer the question, he got a job with News International" to which the witness replied "Yes, but first I don't know if he has a job or is a freelance and second it happened long after I left so I can't help you." Mr Sheridan put it to the witness that this "stinks of corruption" Mr Coulson replied "I absolutely disagree Mr Sheridan"

A culture of hacking?
asked about a House of Commons committee report which had claimed that the NotW "turned a blind eye" and "at worst actively condoned" bugging and hacking in the newsroom. Coulson replied: "I don't accept there was a culture of phone hacking at the NoW. There was a very unfortunate, to put it mildly, case involving Clive Goodman. No one was more sorry about it than me; that's why I resigned."

Andrew Coulson Resigns

2011-01-21T12:51:00.006Z

Andy Coulson outside Glasgow High Court

Andy Coulson, a witness in the trial of HMA vs Gail and Thomas Sheridan has resigned from his role as Director of Communications at 10 Downing street. In his statement he gives the reason for stepping down as "Unfortunately, continued coverage of events connected to my old job at the News of the World has made it difficult for me to give the 110% needed in this role.

As regular readers will be aware Mr Coulson was called by the defence to answer allegations that a private investigator, Greg Mulcaire, hacked into Mr Sheridan's telephone answering service in 2006, the evidence for this being a notebook belonging to Mr Mulcaire which contained Mr Sheridan's personal details including his mobile telephone number and what appeared to be a "PIN" number used to access voicemail. Mr Coulson denied any knowledge of this or of the defence's contention that Mr Mulcaire had an "exclusive contract" with the News of the World while Mr Coulson was the newspaper's editor.

Mr Sheridan's lawyer Aamer Anwar, has now issued a statement

"“At the trial of Tommy Sheridan, Mr Coulson gave evidence under oath
that he had no knowledge of phone hacking despite Glen Mulcaire having
Mr Sheridan’s mobile phone number and personal details. His evidence
should now be re-examined by the authorities.

His resignation will not make this go away, members of the public
should not have to take legal action to get to the truth.

It is time for an independent Judicial Inquiry into the role of
Coulson and News International as the conduct of the Metropolitan
Police investigation has been unacceptable.”

Our full reports in Mr Coulson's testimony at the trial can be found below.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3
.
Update 2.37pm
Ian Edmondson, a News of the World journalist who was suspended last week due to allegations of phone hacking, has has his solicitor issue a "notice to broadcasters/editors." This states that any suggestion that Andy Coulson resigned as Mr Edmondson "was about to turn Coulson in" would be "false and defamatory." You can see a copy of that statement Here

Tommy and Gail Sheridan to "Sue Police"

2011-01-20T10:05:00.005Z

The Scottish Daily Record and the Scottish Herald are reporting this morning that lawyers for Gail and Tommy Sheridan have written to Lothian and Borders Chief Constable David Strang and Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, to lodge formal complaints over the broadcast of footage of their police interviews by the BBC. There is also to be a complaint to broadcasting watchdog Ofcom over BBC's transmit ion of the video.

A separate complaint from Mrs Sheridan relates to the conduct of her police interview where a set of rosary beads were removed from her possession and also that, her lawyers state, "she was subjected to certain questioning because she was a Roman Catholic." Mrs Sheridan has also claimed that a charge of theft brought against her after a police raid in her home was malicious.

The letters, which will be delivered this morning, conclude "We are instructed to consider legal proceedings against L&B Police and should an adequate and transparent investigation not take place into the allegations, shall proceed to do so."

The Herald story can be found Here The Daily Record report is Here and a legal analysis from "The Drum" can be found Here

Readers may also find The testimony of DS Harkness of Lothian and Borders Police, who conducted the interview with Gail Sheridan of interest, our report on that can be found Here

Tommy Sheridan nominated for "Scot of the Year"

2011-01-19T12:35:00.008Z

Scottish Television News is reporting that Tommy Sheridan has been shortlisted for "Scot of the Year" in a competition run by a charity ScotsCare, "for showing his fighting spirit";
"Sheridan was named as one of 12 original finalists of the annual contest at the beginning of December while his trial was ongoing. He made the shortlist after suggestions from supporters of the charity and people who the charity helps.

Now, the former Scottish Socialist Party leader - after attracting votes - has been named in the top five, beating seven other celebrities"

A full list of candidates for the award can be found Here

News of the World "Rogue reporter' defence unravels"

2011-01-17T21:02:00.010Z

Glenn Mulcaire

The Guardian is Reporting that Glenn Mulcaire, the convicted "phone hacker" who was called as a witness at the trial of HMA vs Tommy Sheridan (but did not appear due to illness) has submitted a statement to the High Court in London "confirming that Ian Edmondson, the paper's assistant editor (news) asked him to hack into voicemail messages left on a mobile phone belonging to Sky Andrew, a football agent." The Guardian piece continues " It is also understood that Mulcaire said in the court statement that several other executives at the News of the World were aware that phone hacking was taking place, although he does not name them."

Regular readers will be aware that the issue of "phone hacking" played a large role in Mr Sheridan's defence and a number of witnesses were called to give evidence on the issue, including Andrew Coulson, a previous editor of the News of the World and now Director of Communications at 10 Downing Street.

For more background on the evidence presented over this issue during the Sheridan case, including full reports on Mr Coulson's testimony, see Here

Update

Other reports have also emerged today that Mr Coulson has already offered the Prime Minister his resignation over this issue, See Here. Also from the Independent, writer Mathew Norman argues that Mr Coulson could be "The first person in history to offer to resign twice for something of which he knew nothing."

Gail Sheridan to stand for Scottish parliament

2011-01-14T12:16:00.010Z

Reports are emerging this morning that Gail Sheridan is planning to run for the Scottish parliament at next May's election. The Herald Reports that no formal announcement will be made until after Tommy Sheridan's sentencing hearing on the 26th January and quotes a "friend of the couple" as saying "“Gail has said she has been overwhelmed by the support she has received since the trial and the pressure on her to stand She told me: ‘I realised this was the only move forward for Solidarity and I felt I had to take up Tommy’s mantle. There is everything to fight for and I am fighting to win. Given the strength of support I have received in recent weeks, anything is possible.’”

The Guardian is also reporting the story claiming that the decision was "leaked after attempts by the Sheridans over the last few weeks to form a "broad left" coalition – with Galloway as the lead candidate and Gail Sheridan as his running mate – failed.

As the Scottish Socialist Party have already announced and with George Galloway expected to announce his decision to stand on the Glasgow list week it seems there will now be at least three "left" lists for Glasgow voters to choose from at the 2011 Holyrood poll.

Update 2.00pm

George Galloway has responded to the news of Gail Sheridan's plans stating he is "surprised and hurt" by her decision. You can read his remarks Here

Update 3.10pm
Sky News is reporting remarks made by Graham McIvor, the National Secretary of Solidarity, the party set up by Mr Sheridan and other after they left the Scottish Socialist Party. Mr McIvor has said that no formal decision has been made on the organisation's Holyrood candidates but adds "It is clear from the these reports that people close to Gail believe she should stand" adding "It will be up to the members in Glasgow to make the call."

Update Sunday

Solidarity have now issued a statement on the election issue, this can be found Here

Release of police tapes questioned in Parliament

2011-01-13T12:44:00.007Z

Robert Brown MSP

The Herald is reporting that a Member of the Scottish Parliament, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman Robert Brown, has written to the Scottish Justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, asking for an explanation on how recordings of Tommy and Gail Sheridan's police interviews came into the possession of the BBC. Footage of both interrogations was broadcast as part of a documentary shown in Scotland on the night of the verdict.

In a seperate development Lothan and Borders police have also been asked to investigate the treatment of Gail Sheridan during her police interview following a complaint from a "member of the public."You can read the full story Here

Update

Scottish Blogger Lallands Peat Worrier has posted the details of the specific questions put to the minister, see Here for the details

Tommy Sheridan Interview

2011-01-11T22:35:00.010Z

Bernard Ponsonby

Scottish Television has placed online a 25 minute interview with Tommy Sheridan, conducted by their senior political correspondent Bernard Ponsonby. The piece was recorded just a few days before the jury returned their verdict on the 23rd December.

The full video can be viewed Here

The Orwell Prize

2011-01-11T17:47:00.002Z

A few weeks ago it was suggested that I enter this site into the Orwell Prize for Political Blogging.
One of the things I had to do in relation to that was submit 10 posts for consideration. I've done that and thought I'd share what I thought were the most interesting pieces we have produced so far.

Tommy Sheridan begins his own defence

Katrine Trolle, Tommy Sheridan's Cross-Examination

Anvar Khan's Cross-Examination by Paul McBride

George McNeilage Cross-Examination

M atthew McColl Cross-Examination

Andrew Coulson Part 1

Thomas Montgomery

Tommy Sheridan's Summation, the forensics issue

The Verdict

Social Media and the Sheridan Trial

I realise that the list concentrates on cross-examinations, however these do tend to produce the most dramatic moments in court. There are however still a few days before we have to submit our final entry so if anyone has any disagreements with the choices, or suggestions for other posts to be entered please leave a comment or email us at the usual address.

"Sheridan Juror" on Facebook:"Tommy is Innocent" Reports

2011-01-09T13:05:00.011Z

The Scottish Sunday Herald is reporting (story not online) that a woman who served on the jury during the trial of HMA Vs Thomas and Gail Sheridan has "posted confidential details of the case on Facebook and claimed the socialist politician is innocent"

The story, by Paul Hutcheon, goes on to claim that the woman described her fellow jurors as "pure b*******" on a public facebook group adding that she wanted to be at court when Mr Sheridan is sentenced "too support you all the way pal." There are also other quotes in the piece that Mr Hutcheon alleges came from the unnamed "jurors's" personal Facebook page. The report also says that the facebook post concluded by the person concerned "identifying where she sat during the trial."

The article also records the view of a "Senior Scottish Lawyer" stating that this is a breach of the Contempt of Court act 1981 and that the person concerned could face serious consequences "including the possibility of a custodial sentence"

Monday Update

While the original Sunday Herald article is not still not online, today's Herald have published a follow up piece on this subject this morning headlined "Sheridan juror could face jail" that can be found Here

The Scottish Daily Record has also covered the story, that link is Here

The Sheridan Trial, Friday Morning Update

2011-01-07T11:16:00.003Z

Despite the trial being adjourned for sentencing, articles about the case continue to feature prominently in the Scottish media.

The Herald has a full report on the story, that we reported on yesterday, that Tommy Sheridan is to "take legal action" against News International and the Metropolitan Police for allegedly "hacking" his mobile phone. This can be found Here

The Scotsman meanwhile leads with a story on "three new witnesses" who will, it says "bolster" Mr Sheridan's appeal, that story is Here

Finally Kenneth Roy at the Scottish Review has an update on his piece from earlier this week on the BBC's broadcast of police interview tapes on the day of the verdict, a link to that is Here

If any reader has a link to any article or blogpost they think would be of interest please leave a note in the comments or email us at the usual address, sheridantrial@gmail.com .

Update

The Herald has now run a piece on one of the "new witnesses" mentioned in the Scotsman article above, that can be found Here

Tommy Sheridan taking legal action against News of the World/Metropolitan Police

2011-01-06T18:21:00.010Z

The Guardian is reporting.

"The former Scottish socialist leader Tommy Sheridan is taking legal action against News International and Scotland Yard after his personal details emerged as part of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. The disgraced former MSP has instructed his lawyers to pursue the NoW and the convicted private investigator Glenn Mulcaire for breach ofprivacy after details about his home address and mobile phone were found in two of Mulcaire's notebooks in a police raid four years ago."

The full article can be found Here

Update

The BBC has an article with further details and a quote from Aamer Anwar

"Mr Sheridan wants to know who instructed the hacking, why wasn't there a full and transparent investigation by the Metropolitan police and why wasn't he informed. It wasn't just one occasion: it's on two separate occasions."

"This won't be an action for damages; it's an action to find out what went on.
"It is in the public interest to find out what's going on."

Guardian article

2011-01-05T21:04:00.002Z

The Guardian has been good enough to publish an article based on a post I wrote on "Social media and the Sheridan trial." It can be found Here

One thing I didn't highlight was all of the people who made it possible for the blog to happen at all, the people who encouraged me to keep writing, those who helped me get into court every day, and of course Whatsy for all of their help. So If I can just make it clear that I appreciate all of you and the help you gave me.

Thanks

James.

The News of the World and "Phone Hacking"

2011-01-05T20:24:00.002Z

With today's news that a senior News of the World executive has been suspended following an allegation of "phone hacking" (see Here ) I've had a few emails asking me about the evidence presented during the Tommy Sheridan trial on that issue. Regular readers will be aware that the issue of the possible illegal interception of voicemail messages played a large role in the defence case, with four witnesses being questioned about it. Rather than people having to search through the site for that evidence we have decided to create a single post on that subject.

The first witness to be asked about the issue was Bob Bird, the Scottish editor of the News of the World. The relevant part of his testimony is from around paragraph five in This Report This was the first time the court was shown a document containing Mr Sheridan's personal and telephone details that was later confirmed to have been siezed after a police raid on the home of Glen Mulcaire, a private invesigator who later pleaded guilty, along with the News of the World's then royal editor Clive Goodman, of illegally accessing the voicemail of a member of the Royal Household. Mr Bird denied any knowledge of how Mr Sheridan's details came to be in Mr Mulcaire's notebook

The next witness questioned about alleged "phone hacking" at the News of the World was Douglas Wight , a journalist at the newspaper. A report on that section of Mr Wight's evidence can be found Here.

There was also lengthy testimony from Andrew Coulson, News of the World editor between 2003 until 2007, and now communications director at 10 Downing Street. Mr Coulson's testimony was the subject of three reports which can be found Here, Here, and Here

Finally the court heard from Detective Chief Superintendent Phill Williams of the Metropolitan police and the Officer in charge of "Operation Caryatid" the investigation that led to the conviction of Mr Mulcaire and Mr Goodman. DCS Williams was questioned in great detail by Mr Sheridan, who was conducting his own defence, on the police investigation. Reports on that can be found Here and Here

The defence also called Glen Mulcaire as a witness, Mr Mulcaire's solicitors sent a medical certificate to court which stated he was unfit to testify due to "depression" the jury therefore did not hear his evidence.

I hope readers find the above links useful, if anyone has any further queries please leave a comment or email us at sheridantrial@gmail.com

Kenneth Roy on "The BBC, the police and Tommy Sheridan

2011-01-05T16:26:00.001Z

Kenneth Roy has written a piece on the BBC documentary "The Rise and Lies of Tommy Sheridan" that was broadcast on the evening of the verdict saying;

"Only now, in the bleak light of January, is it possible to revisit this shabby little episode in Scottish broadcasting history and to ask one or two unaddressed questions about it."

The full article can be found Here

(the documentary itself is unfortunately no longer available on BBC iPlayer it can however be found online)

Press Articles - A Collection Of Links

2011-01-04T16:09:00.068Z

In no particular order we have listed here links that reference articles that may be of interest to those people who have been following the perjury trial of Tommy Sheridan vs HMA. Readers should note this is far from an exhaustive list and focuses mostly on articles written after the conclusion of the trial.

Herald

Sheridan solicitor dismisses claim on conduct (Robin Dinwoodie, Herald, 03-Jan-2011)

Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday

Guardian/Observer

Independent

Daily Record

New York Times

Tabloid Hack Attack on Royals, and Beyond (Don Van Natta Jr., Jo Becker and Graham Bowley, New York Times, 01-Sep-2010

Express

Sheridan Fights On As More Claims Emerge (Graeme Murray, 27-Dec-2010)

Miscellaneous

Blogs

The Verdict Aftermath

2010-12-30T13:26:00.005Z

Duncan Brown, a freelance photographer, has kindly allowed us to post some photographs taken in the aftermath of Tommy Sheridan's guilty verdict last Thursday. Of all the pictures I have seen taken from outside the court that day these are, in my opinion, the best.

You can find more of Duncan's work on his Flicker Page Here

Grounds for Appeal?

2010-12-28T13:47:00.005Z

Amongst this weekend's barrage of articles in the press about Tommy Sheridan's conviction for perjury was this piece from Andrew Whitaker in Scotland on Sunday . Mr Whitaker quotes "A source close to the Sheridan camp" as saying that Mr Sheridan's legal team " will start to put together an appeal against the conviction within a matter of days." and gives some of the grounds on which they may do so. As well as this possibly opening up a new chapter in the case it also gives us an opportunity to discuss some of the legal arguments that occurred during the trial that we could not report at the time.

Firstly however I'd like to caution readers about interpreting the verdict. Many people in the comments on this site and elsewhere seem to believe that the jury's decision means that the twelve women and two men on the jury must have believed all of the Crown witnesses and disbelieved all of the defence witnesses. This is not necessarily correct. Some people may recall the hypothetical case of "Frank the bank robber" which featured many times in our comments section as a way to discuss legal issues without breaching the contempt of court rules then in place. To continue that analogy for a moment, just because Frank was convicted does not mean the jury necessarily believed both Rosie the bank clerk and Officer Dibble the policeman. They may have done of course, or they may have thought Rosie was too short sighted and Constable Dibble too drunk to identify Frank, yet were convinced by the CCTV footage of the robbery. Alternatively they may have concluded that the CCTV footage was too blurry for identification purposes but that Rosie was a reliable witness. There is simply no way to know.

Similarly in the Sheridan case we cannot conclude that the verdict means a particular witness was believed or not. For example the jury may have concluded that the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) executive members who testified that Mr Sheridan admissions at the 9/11/04 meeting were telling the truth, or they may have decided that they had a motive to lie, could not be trusted but that the "McNeilage video" proved that the admissions has been made. Alternatively the jury may have concluded that the video was a "concoction", as the defence contended but that the Executive members were reliable and telling the truth, those outside the ranks of the jury can never know for sure. In court Mr Sheridan often put to witnesses "the jury in the 2006 case thought you were lying" to which the Advocate Depute would always object on the grounds no-one could know what was in the mind of the 2006 jury. Those objections were always upheld. So, with that in mind let us look at the issues, some given in the article above and some that are not, that could be possible grounds for appeal. Please note I have not the legal knowledge to know if these are valid grounds for appeal or am I expressing an opinion on the validity or otherwise of the issues in relation to the verdict.

The Missing Emails

Before the trial began the defence used the legal process of "discovery" to obtain court orders to view any documents held by News International that related to Mr Sheridan. A number of these documents were produced and used in the case, for example the "double your dosh" email between Bob Bird (Scottish editor of the News of the World) and Anvar Khan. However three News International witnesses (Bob Bird, Douglas Wight and Andrew Coulson) testified in court that a large number of emails had been "lost" in the process of News International moving it's email storage to Mumbai in India. They also agreed that there "could" have been emails relating to the case amongst those missing. There were also a number of emails presented to court between investigating officers and Katrine Trolle. However the court was told that there were other emails between Ms Trolle and Lothian and Borders police were the email subject line was available but the content of the email had been "lost," again due a change of storage facilities.

On a related note the court was shown a heavily redacted document, secured by the defence from News International, titled "Sheridan expenses." This listed various payments to witnesses, and various travel and accomadation costs, but the majority of the entries were blacked out. Mr Sheridan made a long argument to Lord Bracadale that he should be entitled to see this particular document in it's entirety. However the judge ruled that a senior Queens Counsel had examined the document and blocked out only those parts he considered irrelevent, he therefore denied the defence motion to see the whole of the "Sheridan expenses" document.

The Missing Witnesses.

There were two witnesses called by the defence who did not appear in court, Glen Mulcaire and Fiona McGuire. The court was shown a notebook, siezed by police on a raid on Mr Mulcaire's home, which contained personal details of Mr Sheridan including his mobile telephone number and what appeared to be a "PIN" number to access voicemails. The defence contended throughout the trial that this was evidence that Mr Sheridan's phone had been hacked at the request of the News of the World. However a senior police officer, Detective Chief Superintendent Phil Williams who led the investigation which led to the conviction of Mr Mulcaire for "phone hacking" told the court that there was "no evidence" that Mr Sheridan's voicemail's had ever been accessed by Mr Mulcaire. The court never heard Mr Mulcaire being questioned about the issue as, through his solicitors, he had presented a medical certificate stating he was unfit to testify. The same is true of Fiona McGuire, who had featured heavily in the 2006 defamation case. The defence may argue that this prevented the jury from hearing vital testimony.

Another witness who the jury never heard from was Glasgow comedian Des McLean, who is well known for impersonating Mr Sheridan through hoax calls broadcast on the radio. The Advocate Depute objected strongly to Mr McLean's testimony being heard as he argued it was "irrelevant" and may "confuse the jury." Mr Sheridan told Lord Bracadale that believed that Mr McLean's testimony was vital to his defence to show the jury that it was possible to impersonate him. Lord Bracadale, after listening to tapes of Mr McLean's hoax calls, ruled in favour of the Advocate Depute stating that the fact people could impersonate Tommy Sheridan was a matter of "general knowledge" amongst the public and while Mr Sheridan could mention it in his summation (which he did) he would not allow the tapes to be played or Mr McLean to testify.

The Judge's summation

The article above from Andrew Whitaker linked to above also contains this comment;

"Another key plank of the appeal will be that judge Lord Bracadale "wrongly instructed" the jury at Sheridan's trial, just before members retired to deliberate on their verdict. However, the source close to Sheridan would not discuss details of that part of the planned appeal until Sheridan had been able to talk at length about it with his lawyers."

As I said I do not have the legal training to express an opinion on this, indeed to my untrained ear the summation seemed fair. However as we waited for the verdict I did hear opinions that the judge had neglected to place enough emphasis on the "not proven" verdict and that his instructions to the jury had put in place a voting procedure that could be seen to be unfair to the defence.

I'm sure there are other issues I have missed and if people spot anything please post a comment or email us. However it does appear likely that an appeal will be launched and I do believe that some of the issues discussed above may well feature in that appeal.

Any questions?

2010-12-28T11:41:00.000Z

We are just putting together a post on some of the legal arguments in the trial that we could not report at the time, as they occurred outside the presence of the jury.

If anyone has any specific questions they would like us to try and answer, could they email them to us or put them in the comments.

Thanks

James

"Social Media" and the Sheridan Trial

2010-12-26T15:19:00.011Z

I was asked last week if I would write a piece about my experience of blogging the trial of Tommy and Gail Sheridan and what that could tell us about the role of blogging and other "social media" in covering criminal cases. I completed it on Thursday while we were awaiting the verdict. I've posted a copy below, I hope readers will find it useful.

On Thursday 23rd of December, after hearing 46 days of evidence from 68 witnesses, a jury of 12 women and 2 men finally delivered their verdict of guilty against Tommy Sheridan. People outside Scotland may be unaware of how big a story this was, Tommy Sheridan is still the best known political figure in Scotland and even before it began his perjury trial was already dominating the media. I could also see, through conversations with people on both sides, what bitter divisions within the left in Scotland, of which I am a member, the case was causing. Just before the trial began I decided to write an account of the proceedings, I hoped that creating, in so far as I could, a fair an accurate account of what happened in court would help people follow the trial on the basis of accurate information, not tabloid tittle tattle. In the three months since it began The blog has been mentioned in the Scottish parliament,reached half a million page views. and, I would suggest, has raised new questions about the role of social media in the reporting of the administration of justice in Scotland.

At the end of the first week of the trial. by a journalist who had seen me taking notes in court and asked “who I was with ” I answered “I'm doing a blog" he did not appear particularly impressed. I had no legal training but had checked the rules around contempt of court and decided that as long as I stuck to what was said in the presence of the jury I would be within the law. On the second week, when Tommy Sheridan sacked his QC, there was a debate amongst the journalists if they could report that. Two decided that they could and phoned their offices with the news, We then returned to court to be told by the judge that this matter could not be mentioned until the jury had been informed. It was instructive to watch senior reporters leap up and run out of court to get their story pulled and a lesson to keep being careful about what I posted.

Another consequence of Tommy Sheridan’s decision to represent himself was that it raised the drama of the trial to new heights. The accused, one of the best orators of his political generation, directly faced his accusers. At times the scenes seemed more like an argument in a pub rather that a High Court trial, as former friends attacked each other as “liars” and “fantasists.” Two prosecution witnesses were cited for contempt of court and one convicted. We also saw Andrew Coulson, David Cameron’s chief media adviser, being questioned about his role in phone hacking while students and police were battling on the streets of London. It was rumored in court that Mr Coulson was not happy about being told that he could not use his phone in the witness room telling staff, “that could be the Prime Minister calling!” He was informed that the rules applied to everyone, including him.

As the trial continued even some journalists began to admit that they read the blog, and no-one had any complaints about it’s accuracy. What everyone asked about though was the comments I was posting, I was told on a number of occasions that if anything was going to get me into legal trouble it was that. To me blogging without comments isn’t blogging, the only advantage social media has over conventional media is it’s ability to promote interactivity between writer and readers. However approving comments began to be a full-time job in itself at the peak times we could be receiving 250 a day, of which around 100, if published, would have potentially laid me open to a charge of contempt of court. To date we have allowed nearly 6000 comments and deleted around 2000. At first the site was mostly read by people in Scotland, by the end however our biggest source of page views became London and we were being read, and getting comments from the USA, Australia and New Zealand.

As the case neared it’s climax the bitterness and hatred the case was stirring up grew to new levels. On an average day I would be dealing with comments and emails threatening me with being reported to the authorities, sued for defamation, jailed for contempt or just beaten to a pulp. On the other hand it was people posting encouragement for my work that kept me going as the case dragged on into winter. I knew that if I made a factual mistake someone would spot it and post a comment correcting it. I didn’t have any sub-editors but had thousands of fact checkers.

The other thing I began to see was a change in the attitude towards me in the court itself. Not long into the case I had been taken out of court by the police and told I could not take notes as I was not a “bona fide journalist.” The Clerk of the court however spoke to them and told the police that I should be allowed to take notes and indeed later on in the case I did not even have to join the long queue up to get into the public gallery and was allowed to sit in the press section. Lawyers and journalists began to give me background information. One dark Friday evening, as I was leaving court, a woman was berating a leading Television journalist for his coverage and on noticing me shouted “why can’t you be more like him, the blogger.” I hurried away. The broadcaster approached me on the Monday after told me that I was “lucky” as “I only have two minutes to report the case every day you can write as much as you want.”

Courts are open to the public for a reason. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Anyone, in print, on TV or online, has a duty to report a live criminal case responsibly. The stakes in court are high. Witnesses have their reputations on the line, accused persons their liberty. However a criminal trial is the only high profile news event that is never broadcast on television, played on the radio or filmed for posterity. All that the public usually have to rely on to make a judgement about the evidence given in court are short television reports or summaries in the newspapers. In this case thousands of people were anxious to know the details of who had said what in court, and to give their opinions on the testimony and the evidence. It was noticeable that our readership always peaked after TV news bulletins, people seemed to want to find out more that the three minute reports they had just seen. They also wanted to express their opinions about the progress of the case, opinions that often seemed to be better informed that those of many of the pundits.

Of course most people will have got their news about the “Trial of the Decade,” as one tabloid dubbed it, through the newspapers and Television. The role of our site was to provide more specialist coverage to those who wanted more in depth coverage, which at around 13,000 people a day was a lot more than I ever expected. I know from discussions with people involved in the legal system that the courts in both England and Scotland are debating the benefits and possible pitfalls of blogs , twitter and facebook in the reporting of high profile cases. I’d like to think our site showed that this can be done responsibly and I would suggest that Here is a field where social media can add a very useful element to the public’s understanding of crime and punishment.

Ian Hamilton QC

2010-12-25T20:52:00.004Z

Ian Hamilton QC has written an analysis of the current trial that I believe would be interest to many readers of this site. Mr Hamilton states that. in his opinion;

"The News of the World has at last won its vendetta against a left wing politician. It has done so with the connivance of the Lord Advocate. If at first you don’t succeed keep trying. Scottish justice has notched up another political miscarriage of justice alongside that of Al Megrahi and Muir of Huntershill. "

The full article can be found here Here. For background, readers may also find Mr Hamilton's entry on wikipedia of interest.

Update

Scottish legal Blogger Lallands Peat Worrier has written a reply to Mr Hamilton's piece, this can be found Here

"The Rise and Lies of Tommy Sheridan"

2010-12-25T19:39:00.004Z

We thought some readers from outside our fair land might like to be made aware that BBC Scotland broadcast a documentary titled "The Rise and lies of Tommy Sheridan," on the night of the verdict. Without commenting on the conclusions it draws I do think it is a useful piece giving readers the chance to see the main protagonists in the case being interviewed on camera and make their own jugement on their demeanor.

You can find the documentary Here

The Verdict

2010-12-24T13:12:00.001Z

As readers will be aware, yesterday afternoon the jury in the trial of Her Majesties Advocate vs Thomas Sheridan found Mr Sheridan guilty of perjury on a majority verdict (the actual numbers were not revealed in court) The jury did however delete two paragraphs of the remainder of the indictment and one section of one paragraph. Therefore "Mr Sheridan has, in the end, been convicted of five of the original nineteen charges he faced, while his wife Gail Sheridan has been acquitted. You can find a copy of that final indictment Here, the charges that were deleted were "n" and "N" which accused Mr Sheridan of committing perjury by denying he had a "sexual relationship with Anvar Begum Khan" between 1 January 1994 and 11 August 2003. The jury also removed the reference to Katrine Trolle visiting Mr Sheridan's home in Glasgow from charges "o" and "O"

After the verdict was read out and the judge allowed Mr Sheridan's bail to continue, Mr Sheridan's lawyer and Gail Sheridan made statements outside the court which can be viewed Here. During this there were shouts of "innocent" and "show trial" from supporters of the accused. The case has been continued until the 26th of January 2011 where Mr Sheridan will be sentenced. Lord Bracadale has told Mr Sheridan to "expect" a prison sentence.

I'll be reviewing what to do with the site over the next few weeks. I've also been asked by some people to set up a pay pal button as they would like to make a donation to help with the expenses incurred reporting the case and, after some thought ~~I have decided to do that.~~ I'l like to thank all of the people who have helped and encouraged me to keep reporting, the people in the queue who made sure I got in every day, and the clerk of the court for her kind assistance.

Tommy Sheridan found guilty of Perjury

2010-12-23T16:41:00.004Z

At 3.40 today the jury in the case of HM Advocate v Sheridan returned and gave their verdict. A hushed court heard the jury's spokesperson declare that by a majority, the verdict was one of guilty on the charge of perjury.

The Clark of the court then asked if their were any parts of the indictment the jury wished to delete. The court was told that the jury wished to remove the parts relating to Anvar Khan and one part of the charge that had stated that said that Mr Sheridan had a sexual relationship with Katrine Trolle, the section that she had visited his home in Paisley Road West. These parts of the charge are therefore not proved.

Lord Bracadale thanked the jury for their service and, due to the length of this trial excused them from jury duty for the next eight years. The court then heard from the Advocate Depute who informed the judge of Mr Sheridan's criminal record, which he said were mainly charges relating to "protest activities." Lord Bracadale then asked Mr Sheridan to rise and informed him that he would continue to grant Mr Sheridan bail but when he returned for sentencing, on the 26th of January 2011 Mr Sheridan should "expect to be sentenced to prison". The court then adjourned.

Full report to follow.

Thursday Morning Update: Jury Continue to deliberate

2010-12-23T12:45:00.003Z

This morning the jury in the case of Her Majesties Advocate vs Thomas Sheridan retired to further consider their verdict. The jury have still not reached a conclusion and have now (at 1pm) been sent for lunch.

In the meantime, posts for all yesterday's proceedings are now available below.

We have been asked a number of questions about what jury has to decide and possible verdicts. To convict Mr Sheridan of perjury a majority vote of guilty is required (not a unanimous vote as in may other legal jurisdictions. The jury originally contained fifteen people, the norm for Scottish Criminal cases. One juror has now been discharged but this does not change the requirement for a conviction from eight, a vote of seven vs seven is an acquittal. The further complication, unique to Scottish law, is that the jury have three, not two verdicts to choose from, "Guilty," "Not Guilty" and "Not Proven". This is not the place for a full discussion of the Not Proven verdict, suffice to say it leads to acquittal. Therefore a jury vote of, for example of seven guilty, three not guilty and four not proven would lead to Mr Sheridan being cleared of the charges.

We are at court and will be posting any verdict reached or other developments as soon as we can.

As mentioned below comments will remain disabled until the conclusion of the case.

Lord Bracadale's Charge to the jury.

2010-12-22T23:08:00.005Z

Report by Whatsy

Lord Bracadale, the presiding judge in the case, began his summation by directing the jury that "only they and they alone" could decide on the facts of the evidence, and that there were some particular consequences of this for this case. Lord Bracadale informed the jury that although the case involved Socialist politicians, their political views should not matter to the jury, whether they agreed or “vociferously disagreed” with them.

Lord Bracadale directed the jury that this was “not a court of sexual morals”, and neither was it about the morality of telling lies, and that the jury's task was to decide whether the accused had lied in court under affirmation.

Lord Bracadale continued that the jury should put out of their mind any sympathy they may have, and that the consequences of conviction on the accused should be put out of their minds as it was “not a matter to fix your judgment on in any way”, as this was a matter solely for Lord Bracadale himself.

Lord Bracadale described how the jury could draw inferences from a number of pieces of evidence, and that they had to bear in mind the credibility and the reliability of witnesses, describing these as separate – with credibility implying the witness was telling the truth, and that reliability implied that the witness was attempting to tell the truth as best they could, but that this may not always be reliable.

Lord Bracadale stated that the starting point of evidence from witnesses should come from the witness box, and that police statements could be used to jog witnesses' memories or they could be asked to agree with them. When assessing a witness's credibility and reliability, Lord Bracadale gave the examples of

demeanour
tone
consumption of drugs & alcohol at the time of the event they were recalling
consistency with other evidence you do accept
comparison between a witness's testimony in court and police statements
juror's own common sense and experience of the world

as valid ways to test the quality of the witness's testimony.

Lord Bracadale also stated that if a witness refuses to accept the contents of a question, their response was not evidence, and that anything he himself said about evidence was not intended to show his opinion of that evidence.

Lord Bracadale told the jury that their recollection of evidence was what mattered, and that the level for reasonable doubt they may have would be something that “real doubt that would cause you hesitation, to pause, in your own life”, and should not be a fanciful level of doubt or a level of mathematical certainty. Regarding evidence, Lord Bracadale stated that it was not necessary for every piece of evidence to be corroborated, just that two pieces of evidence were required for guilt, and that the burden of corroboration lay with the Crown, not the defence, who did not have to prove anything.

Lord Bracadale stated that evidence from deleted charges on the indictment was still available to the jury to consider if it is useful, and that it was normal for some charges to be dropped in the course of a trial, as the Crown had to give “Fair Notice” of charges, even if evidence does not emerge to corroborate the charge, such as with the Subornation BeanScene chapter involving Colin Fox.

Lord Bracadale clarified that the charge of perjury required the jury to agree that Mr Sheridan gave willfully false evidence during the 2006 civil trial – that he knew his evidence was false at the time.

At this point, Lord Bracadale declared the court should adjourn for lunch.

On resumption, Lord Bracadale reiterated to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that the Crown needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, with evidence from more than one source, to obtain a guilty verdict on any of the six charges.

Lord Bracadale then proceeded to give a detailed summary of each remaining charge subsection and the witnesses and evidence relevant to each. These have not been included here in the interests of time, effort, accuracy and repetition.

After dealing with each charge & related evidence in turn, Lord Bracadale made a specific mention of the “McNeilage Tape”, instructing the jury that they must only take into account the evidence of witnesses when assessing this particular piece of evidence, and that the jury must not do their own detective work to decide whether they think it sounds like Mr Sheridan.

Lord Bracadale concluded by describing how the jury would reach a verdict, from the three available of Guilty, or both acquittal verdicts Not Guilty and Not Proven, instructing them that a majority of the original count of fifteen jurors would be required to find the accused guilty, meaning eight jurors would be required to find Mr Sheridan guilty to convict him of perjury on each of the six remaining subsections of the remaining charge. If they found him guilty on some of these subsections but not others, they should return a guilty verdict “on deletion” of the charges which they did not find the accused guilty. If all subsections resulted in less than eight guilty verdicts, the jury should return a Not Guilty verdict.

The revised indictment listing the relevant sections that Mr Sheridan can be found Here

With that, Lord Bracadale asked the jury to return to their room to consider their verdict and court was adjourned.

Tommy Sheridan's Summation Part 11: Conclusion.

2010-12-22T21:50:00.004Z

After concluding the previous section of his summation with the words “either I'm a liar or I'm no'”, Mr Sheridan moved on, stating that it was generally rare for a defence to cite a witness who would harm their case, but that he had a sense of greater responsibility to the standards of public life, and that was why he had cited Glenn Mulcaire and Andy Coulson as witnesses – not because they would help his case, but by putting Andy Coulson in the witness box he was able to hold him to account.

Mr Sheridan went on to state that although Mr Mulcaire had been called as a witness, he had been unable to attend on medical grounds, but “we'll keep an eye on that one”, and that what the court did know was that Mr Mulcaire had been convicted of phone hacking, and was in possession of a notebook containing Mr Sheridan's name, contact details and PIN codes. Mr Sheridan stated that the Advocate Depute may have been correct when he said that there was no evidence of Mr Sheridan's phone being tapped, but the stopped, retracted this comment, and stated that “if Mr Prentice had said there was “no proof” that my phone was tapped, that would be more accurate”. Mr Sheridan's voice rose as he stated that as Mr Mulcaire had an exclusive contract with News of the World for £105,000, “I think I'm entitled to suggest to you that my phone might have been interfered with”.

Mr Sheridan mentioned the distinctively named Greg Miskiw, whose name had been on the contract Mr Mulcaire had signed with the News of the World, and recalled DCS Williams's testimony that Mr Mulcaire had not been spoken to during the investigation into phone hacking, and that neither had Mr Coulson been interviewed. Mr Sheridan then stated that was why he had got Andy Coulson in the witness box - “I don't think I'm above the law, they think they're above the law”.

Mr Sheridan moved on to Fiona McGuire, stating that she had also been excused from appearing as a witness despite being cited and called, stating that she she had attempted suicide several times, and was also subject to a separate perjury proceeding. The accused stated “I think that's wrong. I know she lied. She knows she lied. I don't want her convicted when she was exploited by the likes of Bob Bird and Douglas Wight. I've been on the side of the exploited all my life. I don't want to see Fiona McGuire in the dock. I want to see Bob Bird and Douglas Wight in the dock.”

Mr Sheridan then displayed several entries from his diary:

27-Sep-2002

“SSP Peoples Festival Fri-Mon”

“Must Attend”

Mr Sheridan stated this was the appointment he attended, with witnesses Jim Monaghan and Alan Brown testifying they had met him there.

01-Oct-2002

“Cumnock Keir Hardy Commemoration”

The meeting Mr Monaghan had reminded Mr Sheridan to attend when he met him in the CCA on 27-Sep-02.

11-Oct-2004

Details of train times between Aberdeen and Dundee

“Stay at Duncan's brothers” at the bottom right of that day's entry.

Mr Sheridan first asked the jury to consider “Why have you not heard from Duncan's brother?”, then stated that these diary entries were independent evidence to back up Brett Harper.

01-Nov-2004

“Mtg with KB/AMcC – Row
- They don't believe me”

Clarifying that this referred to a meeting with Alan McCombes & Keith Baldassarra, Mr Sheridan asked the jury “What did they not believe – my admissions?”

Mr Sheridan stated “I believe my diaries underpin and bolster the testimonies of my witnesses” and that the diaries were independent corroboration.

Mr Sheridan paused, then said to the jury “I don't fear many people, ladies & gentlemen”, adding that he had stood up to Mrs Thatcher and been sent to jail protesting against the poll tax, had also been jailed for protesting against nuclear weapons as he thought they were barbaric, was not frightened of the Murdoch press whom he had fought throughout his life, and was not frightened of Lothian & Borders Police.

A clearly emotional Mr Sheridan then stated “I'm frightened of you. You can do something News of the World will never be able to do” at which point Mr Sheridan briefly broke off, then with voice cracking, resumed “You could separate me from my wife, you could make me break my promise to my daughter to spend Christmas with her”.

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to disregard his emotion and to “believe that you've heard more than enough evidence to convince you of reasonable doubt”.

With that, Mr Sheridan sat down, followed by applause from the public gallery. The presiding judge, Lord Bracadale, asked the jury to return to their room, and court was adjourned.

Tommy Sheridan's Summation Part 10 - Katrine Trolle

2010-12-22T21:49:00.004Z

Mr Sheridan recalled the evidence of Brett Harper, who had testified he had walked Mr Sheridan round to the flat, owned by Duncan Rowan's brother, the accused claims he stayed in when in Aberdeen, how Mr Harper found this memorable as he had handed in his final piece of University coursework that day and had a birthday celebration arranged he had been late for as a result of taking Mr Sheridan to the flat, and that this had got him in trouble with his girlfriend “who is now, sadly, his ex-girlfriend”. Mr Harper had also recalled Mr Sheridan's visit to the Steiner school earlier, and Mr Sheridan suggested to the jury that “his evidence was strong and credible”.

Mr Sheridan mentioned the two Crown witnesses, Ruth Adamson and Ralph Barnett, and how when they testified in 2006, couldn't remember the months of the year, but now claim they remembered the actual date of meeting Mr Sheridan in Kingennie Court, Dundee. Mr Sheridan then suggested to the jury that Brett Harper's evidence on it's own was enough to find reasonable doubt on this part of the charge.

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to reflect on something the Advocate Depute had put to them in his summation, but that Mr Sheridan was “reluctant to call it evidence”, and that “I'm sure I'll be getting two or three of the belt from Lord Bracadale” for overstepping the mark in his summation, but hoped the Advocate Depute would also get one or two, then recalling how Mr Prentice had shown the beginning of an 0161 Manchester area telephone number from Mr Sheridan's diary which, in place of the final digit, had the numbers “3 or 5”, or “3.5” as the Advocate Depute had put it, before suggesting to the jury “this could be a code, this could be disguised”. Mr Sheridan then stated that this had never been presented as evidence from a witness and it was “not the Advocate Depute's job to invent evidence – 'perhaps he's hiding it from his wife'”, going on to state that in the deleted charge against his wife Gail Sheridan, she had been accused of witnessing Mr Sheridan phone directory enquiries for the Cupid's club. Mr Sheridan then suggested that, in the days before more modern directory enquiry technology when someone told you over the phone the number you were looking for, it was not unreasonable to expect you might write the number down, and that “you might write down the number with the couple of digits you thought it was, and you might get it wrong”.

Mr Sheridan moved on to Katrinne Trolle, asking why she would lie about Ryan Sloan, the solicitor acting for Mr Sheridan's lawyers who had been sent a letter from the Procurator Fiscal regarding possible implications of Ms Trolle's comments that he had told her twice that she did not need to attend court. Mr Sheridan stated it was lucky that Mr Sloan had been advised to tape record that meeting, as “that tape recording probably saved his career”.

The evidence from Gillian McFarlane – Mrs Sheridan's sister – was recalled, when she testified she saw her husband at home in the morning before her work, then in the evening after returning from work, and that “if you found her in any way credible at all, the whole Cupid's story is blown apart”. Mr Sheridan recalled how the Advocate Depute, in relation to the other witnesses of the Cupid's chapter, had reminded that jury that Andy McFarlane had “called them liars”. Mr Sheridan described Mrs McFarlane as a “hard working woman, get's married, has a child”, and that the Advocate Depute had suggested that Mr McFarlane was not immobile after his hip operation, asking “do you think you would notice he wasn't ion the house when she returned from work? I think you would”, adding “if the evidence of Andy McFarlane and Gillian McFarlane is in any way credible, you cannot convict as it is reasonable doubt”.

Mr Sheridan compared the McFarlane's evidence with Tony Cumberbirch, “you may have formed the impression of him being a bit of a smart alec” until he was asked about his charge sheet which was “as long as your arm”, and especially the charge of “reset”, where Mr Cumberbirch may not have realised what he was admitting to when he said he “took the rap for that one”, thereby admitting having previously lied in court. Mr Sheridan then pointed out that Mrs Cumberbirch had been unable to identify him in court, despite Mr Cumberbirch having claimed he had identified Mr Sheridan previously when he was on Big Brother, and had pointed him out at the time to his wife.

Tommy Sheridan's Summation Part 9 - The Witnesses

2010-12-22T21:48:00.005Z

Mr Sheridan reminded the jury of Jim Monaghan's evidence, described by the Advocate Depute as “the leafletter”, who had testified that he had been at the CCA SSP People's Festival to distribute leaflets on the night of 27-Sep-2002 and to remind Mr Sheridan to attend the Cumnock Keir Hardy Commemoration the following week. Mr Monaghan had said Mr Sheridan was the only SSP EC member in attendance at the CCA, and Mr Sheridan suggested he was honest and credible, and compared him to Alison Kane's testimony, when she had testified that the CCA event was memorable to her, as Mr Sheridan put it, “because it was her birthday on the Monday”.

Mr Sheridan moved on to the “McNeilage Tape”, stating that there had been no expert witnesses called regarding the tape, and “you might like to reflect why”, and that regarding this “News of the World video”, “I want you to consider, hand on heart, do you have reasonable doubt?”. Mr Sheridan ten suggested that after nine witnesses testified that they did not think it was Mr Sheridan on the tape, “you may have reasonable doubt”.

Regarding the SSP witnesses who had appeared for the Crown, Mr Sheridan asked the jury to “reflect on possible bile, hatred and vitriol” in their evidence, that “yes, I want you to consider their demeanour”.

Mr Sheridan then apologised to the jury for the “boring, detailed and repetitive” evidence regarding the SSP motion for a Strategy of Defiance regarding release of minutes to the court in 2006, and that their eyes must have been glazing over, but this had been important because it showed the SSP had devised a strategy to lie to the commission hearing, that Alan McCombes, Alan Green, Alison Kane, Colin Fox had given testimonies that were hard to reconcile with each other's, with Mr Sheridan suggesting they had told lies. “At the very least, what do you make of all of their testimonies?”, asking the jury to conclude that they were unreliable. Mr Sheridan pointed it that it was he who had asked for the minutes to be handed over “because I had nothing to hide”, and that if the SSP members were “prepared to get together to discuss lying” regarding the minutes, it was not too big a stretch that they might tell other lies, and then referred to Carolyn Leckie stating “We discussed whether we should lie in court”.

Mr Sheridan suggested to the jury that during this twelve week court case, the SSP had “committed perjury in pursuit of a political civil war”, and that while he was not a lawyer and the Advocate Depute had an advantage over him in court, he had the advantage over Mr Prentice when it came to knowledge of left wing politics, how there are lots of fights and factionalism. Mr Sheridan put it tho the jury that the SSP's testimony that he had made sex-club admissions “testimonies tainted by spite and hatred”. Mr Sheridan reminded the jury of Jack Ferguson's testimony for the Crown and asked them, as Mr Prentice had, to bear in mind the significance of small details, and that Mr Ferguson had dismissed the burning of Tommy Sheridan effigies at a Scottish Socialist Youth gathering as “fun”, and how he admitted a group had left a phone call message to Mr Sheridan – and at this point Mr Sheridan paused for a number of seconds - “hope your mother dies of cancer”. Mr Sheridan emotionally stated “You've heard in court that she didn't die of cancer, she fought it and beat it”, and that the jury should reflect “on the level of hatred required to leave that message”.

Mr Sheridan continued on the subject of the SSP, stating there were secret pre-meetings, “some of which we have heard of”.

Mr Sheridan then moved to the witness testimony on the “McNeilage Tape”, agreeing with the Advocate Depute that the jury should not just weigh the nine people who said it was not Tommy against the four who said it was, and that credibility and reliability was most important. Mr Sheridan then stated that the testimony of Gordon Morgan, Jock Penman, Graham McIvor and Pat Smith should be enough for reasonable doubt over the charge of admissions of visiting a sex club, and that although the Advocate Depute had said he was going to come back to Jock Penman, “he never did”, and Mr Sheridan went on to recall the testimony of Crown witness Ian Campbell, who stated that Jock Penman had told him “Tommy denied the allegations”, and also that Mr Campbell had been told by Ms Trolle that she had attended the Perth conference.

On the issue of credibility and reliability, Mr Sheridan asked the jury to consider Rosemary Byrne - “why would she lie?”, and that she gave her testimony in an impeccable manner.

On the defence witness Pat Smith, Mr Sheridan described her as “softly spoken”, and who, apart from politics, I know nothing about, and described how the Advocate Depute had been “ a wee bit magpie-ish” when he had described Ms Smith as having agreed to almost everything in the disputed minutes of the 9/11 meeting when she had disagreed with the sections about Mr Sheridan admitting visiting a sex club. Mr Sheridan stated “I think she was a witness of impeccable credibility whose demeanour was first class”.

Turning to Graeme McIvor's testimony, Mr Sheridan admitted that there was a political association between them as he is the National Secretary of Solidarity, the political party of which Mr Sheridan is Convener. Mr Sheridan stated that he was proud to have Mr McIvor in the party, as he had four children, and in the witness box, didn't want to call people liars and resisted name-calling while testifying he had heard the accused deny ever visiting a sex club.

Mr Sheridan concluded his examination of the SSP witnesses by stating “you the jury have been dragged into a political battle that has nothing to do with you”, and that even more of this detail had been discussed in the 2006 trial but had not been allowed in this trial and that Mr Sheridan was not allowed to discuss it now, but that he thought “you are able to be reminded how that jury found – in my favour”, going on “if you can't conclude beyond reasonable doubt that you believe the Crown witnesses, you cannot convict”. Mr Sheridan then stated that defence witness Steve Arnott was “a pal”, but that Charlotte Ahmed and Mike Gonzalez were not friends, but under oath had all stated “there was no minute”, and that Professor Mike Gonzales, teacher Charlotte Ahmed both said the minutes were not there at the meeting of 24^th November 2002.

Tommy Sheridan's Summation Part 8: The Witnesses

2010-12-22T21:41:00.004Z

Mr Sheridan began the second day of his summation by reminding the members of the jury that yesterday he had ended while discussing Carol Alan. He reminded the jury of Mrs Alan's testimony when she had stated that when you answered the phone you "just knew" who it was if you knew the person well. Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider that "my voice is regularly mimicked" giving the example of Des Mclean, a Scottish comedian who regularly impersonates Mr Sheridan. Mr Sheridan asked the jury to recall the testimony of witnesses who had told them they believed the voice on the tape was that of a "mimic," suggesting that this evidence "raised a reasonable doubt."

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall the evidence of Thomas Montgomery, adding that this was testimony that was "suggested I would not want you to remember." Mr Sheridan asked the jury to recall that the Advocate Depute had referred to Mr Montgomery as a "complete liar," stating "well I don't think there is a basis for that allegation." Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider that the Advocate depute had "in no shape or form asked you to consider" Mr Montgomery's " testimony on the video." Mr Sheridan then put to the jury Mr Montgomery's job, as a training manager in a call centre meant "he worked with voices every day." Mr Sheridan then asked the asked the jury to "reflect on the answer" Mr Montgomery had given to the Advocate Depute when he had asked "what is it about the voice" that had convinced him that it was not that of Mr Sheridan. Mr Montgomery had answered "the tone, the pitch and the pace," Mr Sheridan then stated "the Advocate Depute quickly moved on."

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall that the Advocate Depute had "made fun" of Mr Montgomery's statement that he had a "eureka moment." Mr Sheridan said to the jury "that's fine" and said that the jury could reflect on if that was the "best expression to use." Mr Sheridan then stated to the jury "you may consider" that Mr Montgomery had not came to the witness box with "prepared quips" as had, in Mr Sheridan's words, "so many witnesses from the SSP" Mr Sheridan then put to the jury that Mr Montgomery "had not had that kind of preparation."

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider what was it the Advocate Depute had stated Mr Montgomery had "lied about," suggesting to the jury that "when people are in a stressful situation they do or say things that they regret." Mr Sheridan told the jury that "you will remember the clarification" and asked the jury to "bear that in mind" adding that the main part of Mr Montgomery's testimony, that he had been with Gary Clark on the 26th November 2002, had not been challenged."

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury if they "remembered the testimony" of Gary Clark, asking them to consider that Mr Clark had stated he was at a "low time in his life" and had "turned to alcohol" and "antidepressants" Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall that he had put it to Gary Clark during his testimony that it was "difficult to remember what happened or rely on your memory?" Mr Sheridan told the jury, "he agreed." Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall that Mr Clark had been, in the words of Mr Sheridan, "put under pressure by the News of the World" who he stated had told Mr Clark "if he did not "cooperate" with the paper "they would paint you as my wing pilot for the last ten years." Mr Sheridan then added that Gary Clark had been interviewed by the police, "not once, not two times, not three times but eight times." once at "5.45am" Mr Sheridan asked the jury "you may wish to reflect" that the police had interviewed Gary Clark eight times but "had never been to the lochside hotel to check my diary entry."

Mr Sheridan then moved on and asked the jury to consider that "this case revolves around dates." Mr Sheridan stated that he had been accused of visiting the Cupids club in Manchester on the 27th September 2002. Mr Sheridan then invited the jury to consider the testimony of Alan Brown. Mr Sheridan then reminded the jury that Mr Brown had told the court he had met Mr Sheridan on the night in question and that they had then driven back to Mr Brown's home town of Hamilton. Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall that when the Advocate Depute had asked Mr Brown "if he was sure the meeting he had with me was on Friday 27th of September" and asked the jury to reflect on Mr Brown's answer which was that he was "absolutely sure" Mr Sheridan asked the jury to note that "this answer was not challenged by the Advocate Depute." Mr Sheridan then asked the jury "why Mr Brown would lie" and put it to the jury that "if they considered Alan Brown to be a "credible and reliable witness" that his testimony would make it "easy to conclude that there was reasonable doubt I was not at Cupids on the 27th September 2002" adding that the jury might like to consider the questions "why would Alan Brown lie?" and "Why didn't the Advocate Depute suggest he was lying."

Mr Sheridan then moved on to discuss other witnesses in the case, which will be the subject of our next report.

Wednesday Afternoon update

2010-12-22T17:35:00.003Z

At 3.36pm today, after Lord Bracadale's summing up, the jury left court to consider their verdict. At 4.30 Lord Bracadale reconvened the court and informed the jury that he was adjourning their deliberations until tomorrow morning, the court then rose. We will be posting reports later tonight on the conclusion of Mr Sheridan's summation and the directions given to the jury by Lord Bracadale.

NB due to the stage the case has reached we will be suspending comments until the verdict is returned. Any comments received will, unfortunately, have to be deleted. If anyone wishes to contact us we can be reached by email at sheridantrial@gmail.com

Wednesday Morning update

2010-12-22T13:17:00.000Z

After forty six days of evidence, the trial of Tommy Sheridan has almost reached it's conclusion. Mr Sheridan concluded his summation at around 11.30 this morning and Lord Bracadale, the presiding judge, has commenced his summing up. After the conclusion of Lord Bracadale's advice to the jury on matters of law, the jury will retire to consider it's verdict.

We will, of course bring you any updates as soon as we can.

Tommy Sheridan's Summation Part 7: The Conclusion of Day One.

2010-12-22T05:44:00.003Z

The High Court of Glasgow, Interior View (Via STV)

When the court reconvened at around 3pm this afternoon, Mr Sheridan again rose from his seat in the dock to address the jury. He told the "ladies and gentlemen" that he apologised that he would not be finishing his summation today as there were "so many points to be made." Mr Sheridan added I am speaking for my life here."

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall that before the adjournment he had been asking them to "consider the demeanor of George McNeilage" and he had suggested that his "testimony had been bought and paid for" and suggested to the jury that they may not regard Mr McNeilage as "credible or reliable." Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to reflect on the other witnesses the prosecution had asked to testify that it was his voice on the disputed tape. Mr Sheridan then stated that none of those who had spoken to the matter on behalf of the Crown were "independent witnesses."

Mr Sheridan then listed the other three witnesses who had said it was his voice on the tape. These were, Colin Fox, Alan McCombes, and Caroline Leckie and said that the "the idea that these individuals are independent does not bear examination. Mr Sheridan then turned to the Advocate Depute's statement, in his summation yesterday, that had described his witnesses on the veracity of the tape as "relatives and lifelong friends"

Mr Sheridan challenged this statement, listing witnesses he stated did not fit that description. He asked the jury to look at the contrast in demeanor between a defence witness Duncan Boyle, who had said in court "he had too many grandchildren for Christmas" and a Crown witness William Moore. While, in Mr Sheridan's words, Mr Boyle, a 72 year old retired pipe fitter, had been respectful of the court and shown he was of the "old school" by calling the judge sir. Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider the "demeanor" of Willliam Moore who had engaged in a "foul mouthed tirade" and had called Mr Sheridan a "wee shit." Mr Sheridan stated to the jury that it was up to them to decide on the "credibility" of witnesses but that he "knew which one he would want on his side."

Mr Sheridan then continued to review for the jury some of the other defence witnesses who had testified on the question of the tape. Mr Sheridan highlighted the evidence of Phillp Stott that the tape was "too neat" and that it "ticked all the boxes." Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall the testimony of George McNeilage where he had said Mr Sheridan had already, in Mr Sheridan's words, "told him everything" The jury was then asked to consider why, if Mr Sheridan had already made admissions to Mr McNeilage during two car journeys, "why would I speak to him about it again" on the tape.

After touching on the testimony of his two sisters, Lynn and Carol, of whom Mr Sheridan told the jury he was "proud of their achievements" they had made and noted that being a member of his family "would not excuse them for perjury."

Mr Sheridan concluded his summation for the day by asking the jury to recall what he called "the sunbed story." Mr Sheridan asked the jury to consider that the the Advocate Depute had "seemed to dismiss" Katrine Trolle's statement that she had seen a sunbed when she had claimed to have been at Mr Sheridan's home. Mr Sheridan then remarked to the jury that the Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC, "was from Edinburgh" and therefore "perhaps was not aware of the tag sunbed socialist, that was applied to me" Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider that "it was a pity that Katrine Trolle doesn't know Paisley Road West" adding that it would be "superflous to own a sunbed" there. Mr Sheridan described that as a "stupid remark that undermines her testimony." Mr Sheridan then ended his summation for the day.

Lord Bracadale then adjourned the court for the day.

Tommy Sheridan's Summation Part 6: The McNeilage tape

2010-12-22T03:54:00.006Z

George McNeilage

At this point in his summation, Tommy Sheridan turned to what he called the "single most important piece of evidence in the case, the video, or should I say, the audio." Mr Sheridan reminded the jury that the Crown had played them the tapes "several times" at least, as he put it, "the thirty eight minutes not the missing 18 minutes." Mr Sheridan asked the jury to consider that this was the "fulcrum of the Crown case" and suggested that without it "there might not even be a case."

Mr Sheridan then suggested one question about the tape was when it was made? George McNeilage had stated 2004, while witness William Moore had initially testified that it was made in 2006 before being, as Mr Sheridan put it, "reminded " during his testimony about a previous police statement. Mr Sheridan then stated "I say prove the unknown, where is the forensic report? Where are the expert witnesses?"

Mr Sheridan suggested to the jury that they were being "invited by the Crown" to agree that it was his voice on the video. Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider that they were being asked to decide if it was his voice or not on the tape and "to decide that enormity, to hazard a guess, when none of you are voice experts." Mr Sheridan further suggested to the jury that the "Crown has let you down" asking "where was the voice expert? Where was the expert report?."

Mr Sheridan then reminded the jury that he had called nine witnesses that the voice on the tape was not his and the Crown had called four. Mr Sheridan suggested to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that they were not to weigh up numbers, "not in a criminal trial" Mr Sheridan reminded the jury that he had suggested the voice was that if a mimic and that it was "generally known" that he was "regularly mimicked" Mr Sheridan told the jury that one person who impersonated him was Des McLean whom he had hoped to call as a witness, but his testimony was not allowed in this case."

Mr Sheridan reminded the jury that they had heard mention of the News of the World setting out to get the tape "verified." but that there was "none" presented in this case. He also asked the jury to consider that it was "funny" that the tape did not show him and the jury might consider that if you were to "set someone up you might get their face in it." Mr Sheridan then suggested that there was "not sufficient evidence" that the tape was genuine.

Mr Sheridan then reminded the jury that they had heard evidence from George McNeilage, and he had said of the voice on the tape "it's him, it's definitely him." Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall that the Advocate Depute had invited them yesterday to consider "the demeanor of witnesses." Mr Sheridan then "invited the jury to consider the demeanor of George McNeilage"
when he had appeared before them, stating that Mr McNeilage had "shown contempt for this court" and that "George McNeilage would say anything for two hundred thousand pounds." which Mr Sheridan described as "ten times the salary of an average worker." Mr Sheridan noted that the contract between Mr McNeilage and the News of the World stipulated that Mr McNeilage must agree to testify in court in any proceedings arising from the publication of the tape's publication. Mr Sheridan them stated that Mr McNeillage's testimony had been "bought testimony." The court then rose for a brief adjournment.

Tommy Sheridan's Summation Part 5: The Forensics issue

2010-12-22T01:43:00.002Z

After the section of his summation on the role Mr Sheridan claimed the News of the World had played in the case, Mr Sheridan turned to the question of his diaries, which have been a much viewed set of exhibits in this case. Speaking to the jury Mr Sheridan said "my diaries, I would suggest to you have fatally undermined the Crown case and form a basis for you to find me not guilty."

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider that he had no access to his diaries since 2007 and that they were "unaltered and untampered." Mr Sheridan continued that his diaries "don't rant and rave from the witness box" and do not "spew bile." Instead, Mr Sheridan suggested the diary entries "establish as reasonable doubt." Mr Sheridan then stated that the Crown case against him, "after four years and two million pounds" was "not only weak, it was verging on the pathetic." He then asked the jury if they might like to consider "where is the forensic evidence?"

Mr Sheridan suggested to the jury that a scientific piece of evidence was "not tarnished" and gave the example f the handwritten notes presented to the court as being a "contemporaneousness note" made by Barbara Scott of the pivotal 9/11/04 SSP executive meeting. Mr Sheridan stated "I say this is a lie, the Crown say not. I say, where is the forensic report? the handwriting analysis? there is none," adding that the jury "may wish to consider why."

Mr Sheridan then turned to the mobile phone records, which have been another key feature of the trial. He asked the jury to consider that the Advocate Depute had used these in his summation to "suggest there was a pattern emerging." Mr Sheridan asked "where is the forensic phone report" asking the jury to recall that there had been only one "independent" forensic report on a mobile phone presented to them, and it "came from the defence" Mr Sheridan then reminded the jury that during the evidence of Ian Campbell the defence had presented a report that showed texts from from the witness to Jock Penman, adding "we read them out."

Mr Sheridan the asked the jury to consider, "where are the text messages between me and Anvar Khan? where are the text messages between me and Katrine Trolle? Where are the text messages between me and George McNeilage? Mr Sheridan said these "lack of reports undermine any suggestion, or dare I use the word speculation" from the Advocate Depute. Mr Sheridan continued there was "not one text, not one phone report' and that "The Advocate Depute has told you not to speculate, then speculated."

Mr Sheridan gave as an example of this "speculation" the Advocate Deputes statement, in his summation, that Mr Sheridan had called Gary Clark and Katrine Trolle. Mr Sheridan asked the jury to recall that when questioned neither witness had recalled it, stating that it "was so significant no-one remembers." Mr Sheridan stated that the jury had "been invited to read something" from these calls and therefore he was going to invite them to speculate."

Mr Sheridan then had his mobile phone records for 9/11/04 displayed on the screens placed around the packed courtroom. He said that this record showed that his first call after the executive meeting had not been to Gary Clark, but to his voicemail service, a call that had lasted for 2 minutes and 54 seconds. Mr Sheridan had then "phoned my mum" then next "his sister" and only then had called Gary Clark. Mr Sheridan said to the jury, regarding his call to his voicemail that "I would invite you to consider it common knowledge and be allowed to suggest that I might be calling back people who called me?"

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to also consider that they had been shown none of the text messages, the prosecution has claimed, between him and George McNeilage. Mr Sheridan said to the jury "you may think that the resources of the Crown can get access to to information to information not available to us mere mortals"

Mr Sheridan then turned to the issue of the "McNeilage tape" and this will be the subject of our next report.

Tommy Sheridan's Summation Part 4: The News of the World

2010-12-22T00:05:00.003Z

Mr Sheridan then moved on from the issue of the indictment (see report below) and asked the jury to recall the Avocate Depute's statement yesterday that he Crown case "had nothing to do with the News of the World (NotW) Mr Sheridan stated "I beg to differ, the Notw is at the heart of this case." Mr Sheridan then put to the jury a number of points to illustrate his argument;

"It is NotW video the Advocate Depute relies on and plays to you"
It was NotW photographs the police showed to witnesses
It was the NotW that "gave names to police for them to investigate
That it was the NotW that had passed Mr Sheridan's phone records to the police
That it was the NotW that "paid or offered to pay eight important witnesses in this case"

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider what he called the "cosy meeting" between NotW editor Bob Bird and Lothian and Borders police saying that the investigation on him was launched "the next day." He also stated that that despite the video being part on an ongoing criminal investigation the NotW had been allowed to publish further extracts on the 8th of October 2006, asking the jury "is this what the police normally do?" Mr Sheridan then added "with me ten officers stormed my house" Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider that when the NotW had published more extracts for the video after the official investigation had started "why didn't the police arrest Bob Bird [The Scottish Editor of the NotW] for contempt of court.

Mr Sheridan then turned to what he called "misleading evidence" NotW "executives had given in court. He asked the jury to recall the evidence of Bob Bird, who in 2006, Mr Sheridan said, had stated "under oath" that the paper had not offered any money to Anvar Khan and in 2010 when asked the same question had said, in Mr Sheridan's words "awfully sorry, just checked and yes we did." He also recalled the testimony of Douglas Wight, then News Editor and the Scottish News of the World, who, he said, had claimed in 2006 that two witnesses had not been given money, only for it later to be revealed that he had signed a contract offering seven thousand pounds for their stories. Mr Sheridan asked the jury to consider "why would they do that" and suggested that they "didn't want that jury to think their witness testimony was tarnished."

Mr Sheridan then stated to the jury, "Bob Bird and Douglas Wight were never cautioned they had a coffee and a chat in Fettes" (Lothian and Borders Police HQ is in Fettes, Edinburgh) Mr Sheridan reminded the jury that the Advocate Depute had said of his prosecution "no-one is above the law." Mr Sheridan stated that in contrast it is "NotW executives who are above the law" that they could "lie with impunity and not be in this dock." He further stated that "News of the World witnesses lie in court and are not in this dock."

Mr Sheridan then turned to the evidence given by former NotW journalist Anvar Khan, asking the jury to consider that Ms Khan had given "three dates for one visit all under oath," a police statement saying November 2002, her testimony in 2006 which gave the dates of the Cupids visit as November 2001 and her testimony at this trial when she gave a date of September 2002. He also suggested that Katrine Trolle had also changed the dates of the Cupids visit. Mr Sheridan asked the jury to consider that the prosecution had asked them to "rely on the credibility of these witnesses" asking "is that enough to send a man to jail?" Mr Sheridan then reminded the jury that Anvar Khan had told them that she had "not been paid" for the original NotW article that sparked this case, yet Bob Bird had testified she had received 2000 pounds. He then produced into court an email from Bob Bird to Anvar Khan stating she could "double her dosh" asking how she could "double her dosh if there was no dosh to begin with"

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider that if Anvar Khan was being asked to make a phone call to him that would be recorded as "insurance" for the NotW. He said that many telephone companies had used the phrase "it pays to talk" but that he had not heard of any occasion where someone could "make 2000 pounds with one phone call" Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider why Anvar Khan had not made that call. Asking again if the jury could consider this witness to be "credible and reliable enough to send me to jail."

Mr Sheridan then turned to what he called the "circumstantial" evidence the Crown had presented to support Anvar Khan and Katrine Trolle's account of the Cupids visit. He reminded the jury that "what the Crown has offered you" was firstly that, "Anvar Khan bought a plane ticket to Glasgow," which even Ms Khan had said "was not unusual" as she still had friends in Glasgow and her parents lived there. He asked the jury to consider if they could "send him to jail" all because Anvar Khan "bought a plane ticket to Glasgow on the September weekend."

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury if any of them shopped in Primark or Debenhams adding that the jury "might as well own up now as they will probably be accused of visiting a sex club" Mr Sheridan suggested to the jury that "they may wonder." in relation to Katrine Trolle, Mr Sheridan suggested to the jury that a "bus ticket or a train ticket to Glasgow wouldn't be a wee bit more substantial" but instead all the jury had seen was a receipt that showed Katrine Trolle had "bought a pair of knickers" adding "this is the evidence in a multi-million pound trial?"

Mr Sheridan then turned to the evidence presented by Detective Chief Superintendent Williams of the Metropolitan Police who had stated in court that he had "pursued the News of the World" over phone hacking carried out by their Royal correspondent Clive Goodman. Mr Sheridan asked the jury to recall what the DCS had replied when he had been asked what he had meant by the phrase that he had "pursued" the NotW, suggesting that his response had been that he "wrote a letter to their solicitors". Mr Sheridan characterised this approach as "mild and civilised" and contrasted this with his own treatment with police raids on his home and a "Starsky and Hutch" style arrest with "screeching cars" which he asked the jury to consider was designed to create an "impression of guilt"

Mr Sheridan then moved on to discuss his diaries and forensic evidence in the case, which we will deal with in our next report.

Tommy Sheridan's Summation Part 3: The Deleted parts of the Indictment.

2010-12-21T21:59:00.003Z

Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA

When court reconvened, with the public gallery fuller than ever as the police had re-opened the two front rows, Mr Sheridan rose in the dock to continue his summation speech to the jury. Mr Sheridan reminded the jury that he had been discussing the subornation charge laid against him in relation to Colin Fox (see report below) Mr Sheridan noted that Mr Fox had told the police in a statement that the meeting at which Mr Fox had alleged he had been asked to commit perjury was the 17th June 2006, a date which Mr Fox told the court he had recalled as it was his birthday and Mr Sheridan's wedding anniversary and that he had met the accused after he had "spent the night in an Edinburgh hotel. Mr Sheridan then brought into evidence his diary for that year, which had been in the possession of the police since the raid on his home on the 16th December 2007. Mr Sheridan pointed to the entry in the diary for the 16th June 2006 which stated " stay night in Lochside hotel in Cumnock" and reminded the jury that during his defence he had produced a receipt for that day from the hotel. He asked that if the police had his diary, and it referred to such a serious charge "had the police checked it out" saying that at least "there would have been a phone call or an email" or even a "visit with coffee and muffins"

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider why this was not done, was it because "inconvenient" and would "undermine the charges against me?" Mr Sheridan reminded the jury that when he had dropped the subornation charge he charged the jury "not to let it effect your view of Mr Fox." Mr Sheridan then said "I beg to differ" Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall the testimony of his sister Lynn Sheridan on the events of that day stating "that it shows him [Mr Fox] to be a liar. He then asked the jury to reflect on why the Crown in this case had not checked if he had been at the Lochside hotel on the night in question, stating to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, "This has been a fair and even handed case from the start, and the moon is made of cheese."

Mr Sheridan then turned his attention to the "Moat House chapter" of the case. He told the jury that they had never heard what the jury in the 2006 case had on that alleged incident, "which was a pity." Mr Sheridan then reminded the jury that the Advocate Depute had said in his summing up that they should "think carefully about certain witnesses" Mr Sheridan then invited the jury to "think carefully about Matthew McColl" Mr Sheridan asked the jury to reflect "how easy it is to bring allegations eight years after the event." Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider that this was a "substantial part of the indictment" However after "Mathew McColl lied the whole thing collapsed like a house of cards in the wind. Mr Sheridan added that the Moat House chapter had collapsed as a result of a "ten minute cross examination" and that a "serious allegation" that had "hung over his head for three years "had vanished in a stroke."

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall the Advocate Depute's statement yesterday that a "pattern was starting to develop" He asked the jury to consider that statement in the light of the number of charges that had been deleted from the indictment, suggesting that it might as well be written in "disappearing ink." He then asked the jury to retrieve their original copies of the indictment, which they did, and asked them to remember when they had first seen the document on the 4th October this year, "when we were all considerably younger" Mr Sheridan told the jury the indictment was the product of a "three year investigation costing 2 million pounds and 52,000 police hours" and contained two charges over eighteen paragraphs, adding there "were now six." Mr Sheridan reminded the jury that the Advocate Depute had said yesterday he had a "compelling and convincing case." Mr Sheridan stated to the jury "so compelling and convincing that of two charged one had been dropped and from eighteen paragraphs twelve had been dropped, adding that if the case against him was so "straightforward" why "three quarters of the case has disappeared." He then added "one wonders if i had strung my defence out till the end of january would there be anything left on the indictment?"

Mr Sheridan then moved on to the role played in the case by the News of the World and it's then journalist Anvar Khan. This will be the subject of our next report.

Tommy Sheridan's Summation Part 2: The Police Investigation

2010-12-21T19:40:00.004Z

In the second section of his summation (for the first part see post below) Tommy Sheridan turned to the topic of the police investigation of the case. Mr Sheridan told the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that since October 6th 2006, "four long years ago" he and his wife had been investigated by Lothian and Borders police. Mr Sheridan asked the jury to recall the testimony of Detective Sergeant Harkness who had told the court that the Sheridan's were the "focus " of the police investigation "from the outset" stating that "between fourteen and twenty one police officers looked into every aspect of our lives" Mr Sheridan went to on tell the jury that during the police investigation "our families were visited, our friends were visited" adding that on the 16th December 2007, "nine days before Christmas" that "ten police officers" had searched his family home for "eight hours."

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall the testimony they had heard relating to that police search, how his daughter Gabrielle, who was then two years old, had "hidden behind the sofa"that his wife Gail "was in shock" and that the police had taken away his daughter's party dress and her "reindeer antlers", as evidence. Mr Sheridan asked the jury to recall that he had put it to DS Harkness that he should have been "ashamed" , not just over the search, not just for keeping an "innocent woman who had never been in a police station for five hours and for following legal advice being called a "trained terrorist" but for ignoring "significant inconsistencies" from those "who gave evidence for the News of the World in 2006."

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to recall the testimony of Douglas Wight, the former news editor of the News of the World, who had stated in 2006 that he had not paid two witnesses in the case, only for it to be revealed later in that case that he had signed a contract that did give these witnesses payments. Mr Sheridan asked the jury to consider if this "prima face" case of perjury was not worthy of investigation. Mr Sheridan then listed other witnesses from the 2006 case who had given what he called "inconsistent testimony" including Alan Green, Katrine Trolle and Anvar Khan and asked the jury if they might like to consider that these people might have been "worthy of investigation" in a perjury inquiry but that, according to DS Harkness, there had been "no investigation" of them.

Mr Sheridan then contrasted the treatment of himself and his wife to other witnesses in the 2006 case. He reminded the jury that they had been subject to a "major inquiry" that had used the HOLMES (Major inquiry) database system. He asked the jury to recall the testimony of Detective Chief Superintendent Williams that he had not used the HOLMES system in his inquiry in phone hacking due to "lack of resources" adding that DS Williams had been investigating alleged phone hacking of the Royal family and did not have the resources to employ HOLMES but "there were enough resources to use it to investigate me and my wife."

Mr Sheridan then reminded the jury that the Advocate Depute had told them yesterday that perjury was a serious crime. He added however that the Advocate Depute had "never got round to telling you how rare a perjury charge is" stating that this was the "first ever perjury case arising from a civil trial." Mr Sheridan asked the jury to consider that "we have an adversarial justice system in Scotland" and that "two sides battle it out" over both serious and lesser crimes. Mr Sheridan put it to the jury that they might like to ask themselves, why then "there were not perjury cases every day of every week" asking "why is this case so exceptional?

Mr Sheridan then moved on the the nature of the charges he and his wife faced. Mr Sheridan asked the jury to consider the case against his wife, Gail Sheridan. He pointed out that she had been charged in February 2008 and had sat in the dock for eleven weeks only for the Crown not to offer a "jot of evidence" against her before she was "allowed to walk free." Mr Sheridan asked if this was not evidence of a "vendetta" against him, stating that his wife had only been guilty of "believing in her husband." Mr Sheridan then stated to the jury that this, and a charge of theft against Gail Sheridan that was also dropped, were attempts to "blacken her name" and stated further that when he said there was a "vendetta" against them he did so with "foundation" as the charges against Gail Sheridan were "baseless and malicious" Mr Sheridan then told the jury that in his view this was "not prosecution but persecution"

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to "think about" the charge of subornation ((the act of attempting to persuade a witness to lie in court) that had been laid against him in relation to Colin Fox. Mr Sheridan told the jury that this was a "serious charge" especially in the context of a perjury case, as it might make the jury tend to disbelieve witnesses that has testified on his behalf. He then reminded the jury that this charge had been dropped late on in the trial as the Advocate Depute had told them "there was no way to corroborate it" yet, Mr Sheridan stated, he had been charged with subornation for "three years." Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider that the press and television had reported the charge yet after seven weeks they "need to drop it." Mr Sheridan stated that the prosecution had "known" they could not corroborate that charge "so why did they libel it against me in the first place?"

The court then rose for lunch. Further reports to follow.

Tommy Sheridan's Summation Part 1: Introduction.

2010-12-21T17:49:00.003Z

NB as with yesterdays summation by the Advocate Depute we will, for reasons of space, be splitting our report into separate sections.

There was not a seat to be had in court number four at the High Court of Glasgow when Tommy Sheridan rose, just after 12 noon, to address the address the jury. Speaking from the dock, unlike the Advocate Depute who spoke from a lectern in front of the jury, Mr Sheridan began by apologising in advance to the jury about about "what will be a lengthy and time consuming summation speech." Mr Sheridan then told the jury "I hope you understand but my life is at stake" and added that he had a "wee girl and a loving wife at home" and that "if you decide to convict me I will be separated from them for a considerable time." Mr Sheridan stated that his aim was "to do that I can to convince you that there are far too many reasonable doubts on the six remaining charges" for the jury to convict him.

Mr Sheridan then reminded the jury that the Advocate Depute had, in his summing up yesterday to "think about Barbara Scott" adding "I hope you did" Mr Sheridan said that yesterday the Advocate Depute had "posed a question," why had Barbara Scott handed in her notes to the police if she knew they were a fabrication. Mr Sheridan suggested to the jury that they may like to ask themselves if this was motivated by "indignation" and a desire to clear her name why had she "invited the press and television along" However he also said there was a "more fundamental question relating to Ms Scott and this was "not why she handed in the notes when she did" but "why did she not take them out of her handbag in the first place."

Mr Sheridan asked the jury to recall that in Ms Scott's testimony to the court she had said she had her notes in her handbag during her evidence at the 2006 civil trial and that she had "told that to the police." He then recalled Ms Scott's cross-examination of Ms Scott by Paul McBride QC where he had asked her about her statement to the police and then produced that statement which made no mention of notes being in her handbag. Mr Sheridan suggested to the jury that Ms Scott had "accepted that she was wrong" and that the jury might conclude that "Barbara Scott had "lied" to them about that point and that it was his submission that she had.

Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider that this was "not the only lie" told in evidence by Barbara Scott, and asked the jury to recall her evidence about a car journey where she had claimed that a discussion about minutes had taken place between her and Catriona Grant. Mr Sheridan recalled that there were six people in the car and that four of them had testified this discussion had not taken place, Mr Sheridan suggested to the jury that this was "another lie from Barbara Scott." and also a lie "from Catriona Grant."

Mr Sheridan then quoted the first line in Advocate Depute's summation "you could hear a pin drop," and pointed out that four Crown witnesses had used this exact phrase in relation to the 9th November Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) executive meeting. Mr Sheridan recalled that one of the witnesses who had said that was Alison Kane, who appeared to have the "remarkable skill of knowing when people are not at places" noting that it was usual to remember who was at an event, as you saw them, rather than who was not. Mr Sheridan reminded the jury that Alison Kane had told this court that she had known Katrine Trolle was not at the Perth Conference as "they counted the money together" and had also stated that "she had told the police that." Mr Sheridan invited the jury to recall Ms Kane's cross-examination when, according to statements produced in court, it was "shown" that "she told the police no such thing" and asked the jury to consider if this was "a lie from Alison Kane."

Mr Sheridan then told the jury that it was his submission that "this underlines the essential problem the Crown has. The problem is it seeks to rely on liars." Mr Sheridan then asked the jury to consider that the prosecution witnesses "lacked credibility or reliability" Mr Sheridan them moved on to the subject of the police investigation of the case, which will be the subject of our next report.

The Crown Summing Up, Conclusion

2010-12-21T01:52:00.007Z

After the showing of the "McNeilage Tape," Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute, suggested to the "ladies and gentlemen of the jury" that they should "reject the proposition" that the "McNeilage tape" (see report below) was concocted by the News of the World stating that if that this was true it was "pretty poor." The Advocate Depute then suggested that as well on the voice on the tape that the jury "consider the content," and additionally ask themselve's "why the tape is so long." Mr Prentice stated that the jury should consider that if a "concocted" tape was required why one was not produced that "showed a short event" as anything other than that risked "exposing the conspiracy." He also queried why Bob Bird, the Scottish editor of the News of the World, would give details, "including the details of his boxer shorts" unless he was giving a true account, and asked why, if Mr Baldessara and Mr McCombes knew that Mr Sheridan did not swear, did they include swearing in any script for the tape.

Mr Prentice mentioned the evidence of Susan Dobbie and the miniature bottles of wine, stating that this may seem small and insignificant by itself, but that the jury should "bear in mind the link to an airline".

The Advocate Depute then turned to the matter of "phone hacking" that had been raised in the case, suggesting it was irrelevant to the charge. He reminded the jury of the testimony of Detective Chief Superintendent Williams who had told them that there "was no evidence" that Mr Sheridan's voicemail had been accessed illegally. Mr Prentice went on to suggest that there was no information contained in the McNeilage tape that had been gathered from any alleged illegal voicemail access, that there was no evidence of phone or voicemail interception, and in particular, there was no evidence of what could be gained by this.

Mr Prentice also took issue with the suggestion that the Lothian and Borders Police inquiry into had been "biased", while the jury might consider the actions of Officer Grant ill-advised, the Advocate Depute invited the jury to "reject that" suggestion of bias.

Mr Prentice concluded by asking the jury to wonder why Barbara Scott took the minutes to the police, and that they should conclude that Mr Sheridan did commit perjury in the 2006 trial, that they should "convict Tommy Sheridan on the charge of perjury" and asked them "when they are in the jury room" they should "think about the testimony of Barbara Scott". The Advocate depute then ended his summing up and court was adjourned.

The Crown Summing Up, The "McNeilage Tape"

2010-12-21T00:16:00.009Z

Report by Whatsy

Mr Prentice first displayed the evidence bags containing the camera, the cables and the micro-cassette pertaining to the McNeilage Tape, and mentioned that although Mr McNeilage had testified that there had been an altercation at the end that he had taped over, the one thing that was unchallenged was that the tape was a film of an event. The challenge, as MR Prentice understood it, was that the man in the film talking to Mr McNeilage was not Tommy Sheridan.

Mr Prentice suggested to the jury that although they might not think it honourable of Mr McNeilage, “a lifelong pal” of Tommy Sheridan, to record a conversation, that doesn't change the fact that it was done.

Mr Prentice listed a number of Crown witnesses who had testified that they thought the voice on the tape was Mr Sheridan's – George McNeilage, Carolyn Leckie, William Moore, Colin Fox, Alan McCombes, and that although Andrew Coulson and Bob Bird had identified the voice as Mr Sheridan, the jury should be cautious with their evidence as they have an interest in it being Mr Sheridan.

Mr Prentice quoted defence witness June Hill saying it was “not even remotely like Tommy Sheridan”.

Mr Prentice then suggested to the jury that there is another way of assessing the tape, the fleeting glimpse of the man alleged to be Mr Sheridan in the tape, but that even Carolyn Leckie placed nothing on this, as it was the voice that was the most important.

Mr Prentice then moved on to the timing of the recording, recalling Mr McNeilage's testimony that Mr Sheridan sent him a text, then phoned him before the meeting to say he was five minutes away. Mr Prentice then quoted evidence from Mr Sheridan's mobile phone records that showed a text message being sent on 18 November 2004 at 18:43:34 and a phone call to the phone Mr McNeilage testified as his, although it had been registered to someone else.

Mr Prentice examined the defence proposition that the film was actually made in 2006, and recalled the evidence of William Moore who, although at one point had said the film was made in 2006, if the jury looked closely at Mr Moore's evidence he had also stated he had seen the tape in 2004, as also mentioned in Mr Moore's statement to the police. Mr Prentice also pointed to the denial by “Tommy” on the tape of the Fiona McGuire story, then to the next call Mr Sheridan made on his phone at 20:44:17. Mr Prentice put it to the jury that the News of the World would have got “incredibly lucky” to fit the film into this gap between Mr Sheridan's use of his phone, and that while it may be suggested to them that the NoW had combed through Mr Sheridan's phone records for such a gap, this had not been suggested to any witnesses.

Mr Prentice then recalled the testimony of the witness who had been standing next to Mr Sheridan when he participated in a television interview, with the witness saying that the voice on the tape was not Mr Sheridan, but that when the recording of the interview had been played in court, Mr Sheridan had suggested during that interview that it was his voice, spliced with some other voice.

The McNeilage tape was then played to the court on the Audio-Visual system, with Mr Prentice stopping the tape at certain points to comment on the contents:

Firstly, Mr Prentice asked the jury to consider the initial detail Mr McCombes would need to know if he or Mr Baldessara had scripted the tape, as had been alleged by the defence, although this suggestion had not been put to Mr Baldessara when in the witness box.

At a point in the tape where “T” makes reference to Alan McCombes “shagging” Carolyn Leckie behind his wife's back, Mr Prentice asked whether this was detail that Mr McCombes would include when writing the script for the tape.

At a point where a PCS strike, Rose Gentle and a Baird Memorial event are mentioned, Mr Prentice asked why this would be included in a scripted film.

At the point where “T” shows a text from Mr McCombes to Ms Leckie suggesting Tommy was going to join the Independents, which that had apparently been sent accidentally to the phone of “T”, Mr Prentice again asked why this had been included in the film if it was scripted by Mr McCombes.

At the point where “T” is heard saying about Fiona McGuire “I've never even met the lassie”, Mr Prentice asked the jury why, if the News of the World was behind the tape, would they include this on the film when it “rubbished their headline story” regarding Ms McGuire and Mr Sheridan.

At the point where “T” is heard describing Katrinne Trolle as “a diamond” and “fucking solid” an that she would not tell anyone about the Cupid's visit, Mr Prentice put it to the jury that that was exactly how it had turned out and that Ms Trolle had not admitted anything to the News of the World.

At the point where “T” discusses speaking to Lynn and Carol, presumably Mr Sheridan's sisters, about leaving his wife, Mr Prentice asked the jury why this should be included in the film as it could be denied by the people concerned, as it had indeed been done in their testimony. If the alleged conspiracy against Mr Sheridan was true, why include such detail?

At the point where “T” mentions talking to a journalist on the way to the train station, Mr Prentice suggested this was exactly what had happened, as mentioned during the journalist Paul Sinclair's testimony.

The tape was then stopped, and Mr Prentice suggested to the jury that if the News of the World really had created the tape, it was of pretty poor quality, and that if, as alleged by the defence, the recording had to be stopped because the actor playing “T” had stood up, why not do a second take?

Mr Prentice put it to the jury that the tape was the “genuine article”, and that although £200,000 was a lot of money, that was not a reason to conclude that it had been concocted.

The Advocate Depute then moved to the conclusion of his summing up, which will be the subject of our next report.

The Crown Summing Up, The "Cupids Visit"

2010-12-20T23:51:00.006Z

After his summing up on the the "SSP chapter" of evidence (see our previous posts below) Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute, turned to the question of the alleged visit by Mr Sheridan and others to the Cupids club in Manchester. He first asked the jury to "pause for a moment" and consider his assertion that the idea of a "big conspiracy" around the visit to Cupids "doesn't make sense."

Mr Prentice put it to the jury that if the whole story had "been a set-up" by the News of the World why would they "include lots of people." The Advocate Depute said that it was possible to link Anvar Khan to a purported plot by the News of the World, as she had been a journalist with the newspaper and "had a book to promote" However Mr Prentice said was "more difficult" to link Katrine Trolle. to the "plot" , but it could be argued that as a member of the SSP she could have been seeking to be seeking promotion within the party. Mr Prentice then asked the jury to consider why the alleged plotters had "not just stopped there" and queried why they would have included Gary Clarke and Andrew McFarlane, in the story as they could have had "cast iron" alibis for the night. The Advocate Depute then asked the jury to consider the "obvious answer."

Mr Prentice then suggested that the jury reflect on the testimony of Katrine Trolle. He reminded the "Ladies and Gentlemen" that there had been no evidence presented to them that showed that Katrine Trolle had "taken a penny" from the News of the World, although he accepted that there had been a conflict between Bob Bird and Ms Trolle's testimonies on whether she had ever been "offered payment", then asked the jury to conclude whether this was important. Mr Prentice stated that Ms Trolle had lied to the News of the World when they were on her doorstep, and had not co-operated with them. The Advocate Depute asked the jury to reflect on why Ms Trolle would have told "intimate details" about her personal life "before a busy court and a jury full of stranger." Mr Prentice also asked the jury to consider the description Ms Trolle had given of Mr Sheridan's house, suggesting that the defence's contention that she had received this information from Alison Kane made no sense as "what gain would they have to tell lies?" Mr Prentice asked the jury to consider why Ms Trolle would add details of the house if she had never been to it, and regarding her recall of a sunbed, put to the jury that although Mr Sheridan's sister claimed to have not seen one during her stay at the house, that doesn't mean there was not one there. Mr Prentice asked why Ms Trolle would say she met Mr Sheridan in Dundee, and what witnesses Adamson and Barnett would gain by lying about this. Mr Prentice then showed evidence of a phone call from Mr Sheridan's phone to Cupid's club on 23 November 2001 at 23:41, stating that it may seem like a small piece of evidence on it's own, but asked the jury to consider it as part of a "pattern of evidence" adding "there is a pattern, is there not?"

The Advocate Depute continued by reminding the jury that Katrine Trolle had produced receipts from "Primark and Debenhams" relating to purchases she said had been for the trip to Cupids, showing a date of the 26th September 2002. He also recalled Anvar Khan being shown, in court, her bank statement that showed a debit to British airways of £223.40 on the 26th September 2002, which Ms Khan had testified had been for her plane ticket to Glasgow to join the group travelling to Cupids. Mr Prentice continued that on this trip, Ms Khan had testified that Ms Trolle and Mr Sheridan had bought a veggie burger, and suggested to the jury that, although it was a small detail, taking notice of the "detail might assist you" and suggested that their given the jury's "experience of life and human affairs a strong picture may be emerging"

Mr Prentice then produced the evidence of Mr Sheridan's phone records, showing six phone calls to Anvar Khan, Gary Clark and Katrinne Trolle over the 26th and 27th September 2002 - the latter being the date of the alleged trip to Cupid's.

Mr Prentice said to the jury "In particular, I ask you to believe Gary Clark", as he had no political interests, had nothing to gain, had not co-operated with the investigation until forced to do so, had held back the sex club details for the sake of his family, and that it had taken great courage for Mr Clark to tell court about this.

Mr Prentice then asked the jury to consider why, if the News of the World was behind a conspiracy, why include all these people, rather than stopping with Mr Sheridan, Ms Trolle and Ms Khan? The Advocate Depute recalled the Cumberbirches, then and Pamela "Stella" Tucker, who, he suggested to the jury, they "might have thought really didn't want to be here", but had recognised Mr Sheridan at Cupid's.

Mr Prentice recalled Mr McFarlane's testimony, where he had said he had not been at Cupid's and that everyone else was a "complete liar", then that although medical record evidence confirmed that Mr McFarlane had a recent operation on his hip, there was no evidence that he was immobile. The Advocate Depute went on to remind the jury that Mr McFarlane had testified he had not appreciated the significance of the date 27th September 2002 until well into the trial.

Mr Prentice reminded the jury of the conflict in evidence between Nicholas McKerrell and Lynn Sheridan, stating that the jury would have to resolve this conflict.

Mention was also made of evidence presented by Keith Baldessarra, Charlie McCarthy and Elizabeth Quinn, then that although there may be issues with the evidence of Anvar Khan and payments, it doesn't follow that because she was paid, she had told lies.

Mr Prentice stated that this was not a court of morals, then discussed some defence witnesses - Alan Brown and Jim Monaghan, who had testified they had seen Mr Sheridan at the Cultural Festival on 27-Sep-2002, then that Alison Kane had testified that she had organised this event, had been nervous about it, had wanted all EC members to attend, but that Mr Sheridan had not attended.

Mr Prentice then brought up defence witness Thomas Montgomery's testimony, stating that he had found him to present "most unsatisfactory evidence", reminding the jury of Mr Montgomery's "Eureka moment" when he had first read about the Cupid's allegation date of the 27th September 2002 during the course of this trial, that his body language may have been useful to the jury, and that when asked by Mr Prentice "Who did you tell", replied "Nobody". Mr Prentice put to the jury that Mr Montgomery expected them to believe that the first time his evidence concerning this date became known to the defence was when he took the witness stand in this trial, with Mr Prentice concluding "I suggest you view him as a complete out and out liar".

Mr Prentice then moved on to discuss the "McNeilage Tape" which will be the subject of our next report.

The Crown Summing Up, The November 9th Meeting

2010-12-20T21:36:00.015Z

After concluding his introduction (see previous report), Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute, moved on to the first of what he had termed the "key areas" of the case, the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) Executive meeting held in the 9th November 2004. He reminded the jury that Barbara Scott had produced "handwritten notes" that the witness had said before them were "contemporaneous notes." Mr Prentice then had the notes in question displayed on the screens set around the court and in front of the jury and pointed to both an entry that appeared to be from a previous meeting and what appeared to be an exchange of notes between Barbara Scott and Catriona Grant. The Advocate Depute asked the jury to consider the proposal. made to them by the defence, that these notes were "fabricated", asking the jury if there was really "so sophisticated a conspiracy." He instead suggested to the jury that these notes had "the ring of truth"

Mr Prentice then turned to the issue of minutes, an issue that he said the jury had "heard a lot about." He suggested the jury consider that the issue in question was not the minutes themselves but the "recollection of those people at the meeting." If the jury believed the minutes "could assist them" they were free to do so, however Mr Prentice also asked the jury to consider that if the notes and minutes were a "complete fabrication" and part of an "elaborate conspiracy" then "why on earth would you take them to the police?" The Advocate Depute then asked the jury to consider that when Barbara Scott had said that she had taken the documents to the police as she was "indignant about being called a liar" she may have been telling the truth. If this was not true then she must have been part of an "sophisticated conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice."

The Advocate depute then turned to the evidence of witnesses who had attended the 9th November 2004 SSP executive. He quoted the testimony of Colin Fox, who had said he was "hanging on every word," and of Kevin McVey who said "his whole world had fallen in on him" Mr Prentice said there was "no issue of confusion" from these witnesses on what was said. He then reminded the jury of the testimony of Alan Green who said Tommy Sheridan was a "tremendous ambassador for the party" and that of Colin Fox who had stated he had not given testimony through malice. Mr Prentice then suggested to the jury that there was no great split over policy or principles in the SSP, and that the jury might wonder if the rifts had been so severe would people just not have left and formed another party "which would have been easy to do."

Mr Prentice then turned to the testimony of five other witnesses who attended the 9th November meeting, reminding the jury that"

Carolyn Leckie had stated she had seen Catriona Grant and Barbara Scott exchange notes
Jo Harvie had called it "the most devastating day of her life"
Rosie Kane had stated that she "hoped it was a mistake"
Frances Curran had said she was "Sad"
Kevin McVey had "been tearful"

The Advocate Depute then asked the jury to consider the idea that the proposal made by the defence that all of these people conspired may be a "fanciful claim."

Mr Prentice then turned to the situation of the SSP in 2004. He described the party as being created through the hard work of a group of "committed socialists" that had put left wing politics in Scotland on a "different plane" through the work of Mr Sheridan in the Scottish Parliament and the election of six members of parliament in 2003. He asked the jury to consider why any group of the party would conspire to remove Tommy Sheridan and if they had "why on earth they would choose a sex scandal involving a club." He called this a "potential disaster" for the party adding that "there would be no survivors from that sort of disaster." He then asked why any of the witnesses in the case would want to "destroy the party?"

Mr Prentice then turned to telephone records, that have been agreed by both parties to be those of Mr Sheridan. He asked the jury to consider why the accused, having left the 9th November meeting early, would have then phoned Gary Clark and Katrine Trolle, saying that the "ladies and gentlemen of jury may draw an inference" on why Mr Sheridan had phoned two of the people alleged to have been involved in the "Cupids visit," he then invited the jury to "consider this."

Mr Prentice then moved on to the question of the accusations, made against Mr Sheridan by the News of the World, that he had an affair with Fiona McGuire. The Advocate Depute then said that Mr Sheridan had "consistently denied" these allegations and had "never faltered from that." He then asked the jury to consider why, if there was a "conspiracy" had that denial been accepted and why it had not been "suggested by the conspirators" that he had not denied the Fiona McGuire story. The court then adjourned for lunch.

When the court reconvened the Advocate Depute turned to the question of the SSP executive meeting of the 24th November 2004. He asked the jury to consider the question of why documents distributed at that meeting had been numbered, signed for and then returned. Stating that this process had never been used "before or since." He asked the jury to use "common sense" on interpreting this, suggesting that it may have occurred due to the minute of the 9th November meeting been distributed. Mr Prentice stressed again that the issue of admissions on the 9th November "did not hinge" on the question of the minute being "ratified" but on the jury's interpretation of the witness testimony they had heard.

Alex Prentice QC then asked the jury to consider that in relation to the alternative minute of the 9th of November meeting that had been presented to them, which Maggie Scott QC had called the "mystery minute", the jury had never heard "where it came from" and suggested that they "pay it little regard." The Advocate Depute then suggested to the jury that they might find it "surprising" that Mr Sheridan had circulated by email a motion by the Cardonald branch of the SSP that "any minutes or other documents referring to Tommy Sheridan's private life be immediately destroyed." Mr Prentice then ended this chapter of his summing up by asking the jury to consider that "if it was all a conspiracy" why had the conspirators not "never told anyone about it publicly" until the 2006 defamation trial.

The Advocate Depute then moved on to the question of the alleged visit to Cupids, which we will cover in our next report.

The Crown Summing Up, Introduction

2010-12-20T17:50:00.010Z

After the changes made to the indictment had been given to the jury (see post below) Alex Prentice QC, the Advocate Depute rose to sum up the case for the Crown. Moving to the lectern, which has been moved to face the jury rather than the witness box, he began by saying "you could hear a pin drop" adding, "this is how Barbara Scott described the room at the meeting where Tommy Sheridan admitted attending a sex club in Manchester on two occasions." He then "posed the jury a question" asking "why do you think Barbara Scott took her notes of the 9th November 2004 meeting to the police after the conclusion of the civil defamation trial? Ponder on that."

Mr Prentice then said to the jury that when they had been read the indictment at the start of the case they may have wondered about the nature of the crime stating that it was not about "murder, drugs or child abuse" and why the court would be interested "if Tommy Sheridan had sex at a sex club" stating that this was not a crime, involved consenting adults and left "no victims." The reason, Mr Prentice told the jury, was that the crime was perjury, the crime of "knowingly giving false evidence" adding that juries should be able to expect that the evidence they heard to be true. Mr Prentice stated that perjury led to a "denial of justice" for both "the victim and accused," this was "never acceptable in a dignified and mature democracy" and if allowed would cause "our whole justice system to fall apart." Mr Prentice then said to the jury that he never normally gave an introduction of that sort, but as a defence witness, Hugh Kerr, had expressed the view that this case was "an incredible waste of time and money" he stated that he thought the case appropriate, to show that no-one was "above the law".

Mr Prentice then discussed his own role in the trial stating that he was there to represent "the public interest" not the News of the World, the SSP or the Police. The Advocate Depute then said "Mr Sheridan has said that this prosecution is driven by the News of the World, it is not," Mr Prentice then spoke to the jury about their role in the trial, then adding that they would know that the accused Tommy Sheridan "is not a trained laywer." Mr Prentice stated that the jury would have seen him making objections to some of Mr Sheridan's questions to witnesses. The Advocate Depute told the jury that he had objected not because of anything "improper" but due to the "rules of evidence"

Mr Prentice then went on to describe much of the evidence presented by the defence as "irrelevant" to the charge of perjury stating that "this is not a public inquiry it is a criminal trial" He told the jury that they should be "careful to proceed with what you have established as proved" and it is "your recollections that count" Mr Prentice then informed the jury that he would not be covering all of the Crown evidence as this would take an "inordinate time." He added however that if he did not mention certain evidence, the jury were not to conclude that it was not important, as it was "up to you to decide what's important.

Having told the jury that this trial was "not an appeal on the outcome of the civil trial" He told them that this criminal trial was a "different case with different witnesses" and that they should put the verdict in the defamation trial"out of their minds" He also reminded the jury that no evidence had been led about Fiona McGuire in the case so any issues around Ms McGuire where "irrelevant to the issue of perjury" He also warned the jury to be beware of "hearsay" evidence, such as one article read to the court, in relation to Barbara Scott. Mr Prentice reminded the jury that this article had not been put to Ms Scott stating that the quote attributed to her could be a mistake on her part or "journalistic licence." The Advocate Depute told the jury this was just one example of hearsay evidence they had heard, there had been "many"

The Advocate Depute then turned to the issue of the charges removed from the indictment, stating that was "my responsibility" and that the jury "should draw no conclusions" from this. Mr Prentice told the jury that the removal of significant parts of the indictment was "designed to assist you" and allowed them to "sharply focus" on what was now a "straightforward" charge. Mr Prentice then reminded the jury that Mr Sheridan had not given evidence on his own behalf and that they "must not draw any inference" from that. He then added however that this had led to much of the Crown evidence being "unchallenged" such as a reference in Mr Sheridan's diary to a scored out word that Felicity Garvie had "said was Cupid" and the fact that a partial telephone number found in Mr Sheridan's diary matched that of the Cupids club in Manchester, as did an address in that diary. Displaying the diary on the court screens Mr Prentice invited the jury to consider if this was a "telling and significant piece of evidence."

The Advocate Depute then told the jury that one of their most important tasks was to "assess the credibility and reliability of witnesses" through their "body language" and "demeanor." He stated that the jury "could consider Thomas Montgomery" in that regard and suggested that "his body language spoke volumes" when he had spoken of his "Eureka moment" Mr Prentice then informed the jury that he would now move on to what he called the "three key areas" in the case. These were:

The Scottish Socialist Party Executive meeting on the 9th November 2004
The Cupids visit
The "McNeilage Tape.

For reasons of space We will deal with each of these three areas separately in our subsequent reports.

Final Indictment

2010-12-20T16:31:00.004Z

THOMAS SHERIDAN, born 7 March 1964, whose domicile of citation has been specified as ******

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

(2) on 21 July 2 In 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) 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;

(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 August 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) 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;

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 August 2003 you did have a sexual relationship with said Anvar Begum Khan; and

(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 Morning update

2010-12-20T13:12:00.000Z

When court reconvened this morning Lord Bracadale, the presiding judge addressed the jury. He advised them that he had allowed further amendments to the indictment and asked them to remove a number of sections. (You can find a copy of the Indictment Here ) Deleted were all sections of the first charge except A, B and C and all charges from the second section except A, B ,C and M, N, and O. This indictment, which began with 19 charges has now been reduced to 6. There has also been an ammendment to Part N of the second charge which did read "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;" The second date has been altered from 2002 to August 2003. We will post a full updated indictment later today.

The court then heard from the Advocate Depute, Alex Prentice QC who began his summing up of the case on behalf of the Crown. Full report to follow.