Tommy Sheridan - The Outcome

[Beefster]

I said I couldn't remember. What's your problem with that ?

I may be wrong but your implication was that it didn't happen.


Absolutely. In the original trial a jury was asked to consider two completely opposite sets of accounts in a civil, not criminal case. That jury decided, for whatever reasons, in favour of Sheridan.

For whatever reasons the judge did not like this outcome and ordered the subsequent investigation.

How many times exactly does the legal system react to the outcome of a trial in this way? I'd really, really love to see the numbers and I fully expect it to be very small.

Sheridan is clearly a sheister, but it is also clear that someone has done a number on him.

It wasn't the outcome that cause the Procurator Fiscal to order an investigation, it was the completely contradictory stories told during the original action. It was patently clear that one side or the other was lying.

[hibs0666]

I may be wrong but your implication was that it didn't happen.



It wasn't the outcome that cause the Procurator Fiscal to order an investigation, it was the completely contradictory stories told during the original action. It was patently clear that one side or the other was lying.

Contradictory evidence is presented in just about every trial - that's the point of trials. What exactly made this case so special for the Scottish legal system given that it wasn't even a criminal trial?

[magpie1892]

Contradictory evidence is presented in just about every trial - that's the point of trials. What exactly made this case so special for the Scottish legal system given that it wasn't even a criminal trial?

I really, really hope that's a rhetorical question. If not, you're being deliberately obtuse...

[CropleyWasGod]

I really, really hope that's a rhetorical question. If not, you're being deliberately obtuse...

Maybe he genuinely doesn't know. I'm sure he's not the only person wondering that today.

[Hibs Class]

I really don't understand the extent of debate, or at least differing opinions on this thread, and particularly any suggestion that Sheridan has somehow been singled out and conspired against. It's really very simple:

Sheridan pursued the civil case against the NOTW a) for personal financial gain and b) through his hatred for the Murdoch empire.
He lied to win that case
He got caught
There isn't anything more to it than that, much as some would like there to be.

[magpie1892]

Maybe he genuinely doesn't know. I'm sure he's not the only person wondering that today.

2468 sums up quite neatly above. The devil is in the detail, as always, but the major points are made. It's very straightforward.

[hibs0666]

I really, really hope that's a rhetorical question. If not, you're being deliberately obtuse...

Please enlighten me why the judgement over a £200,000 private dispute merited this level of scrutiny by the Scottish legal system.

[Removed]

Maybe he genuinely doesn't know. I'm sure he's not the only person wondering that today.

:agree: I was too and have been for a few weeks

[hibiedude]

So, in this case for example, you would say...."it's going to cost us £x million. Nah, sod it, let him keep the £200k".

Economically sound, but morally?

Why can the NOTW not persue Tommy Sheridan for all the trial costs :rolleyes:

Lets say we have 10 Tommy Sheridans who get taken to court and lose so the tax payer has to pay 10 x 5 Million ? there has to be a limit or we will be potless in no time and spending 5 million to to save 200k makes sence?

[magpie1892]

Please enlighten me why the judgement over a £200,000 private dispute merited this level of scrutiny by the Scottish legal system.

See #255, as previously directed.

TS decided he would misuse the legal system, through personal and familial perjury, to enrich himself in the face of allegations that were 99% true. If you think that doesn't merit 'scrutiny' then there's little more to discuss.

[magpie1892]

:agree: I was too and have been for a few weeks

Just read through this thread. There are enough people explaining why it was necessary to prosecute. Feel free to disagree, but it's pretty much all in here.

[Hibbyradge]

Please enlighten me why the judgement over a £200,000 private dispute merited this level of scrutiny by the Scottish legal system.


Yes there has to be limit on trials and legal aid because wasting 5 million to stop Sheridan gaining 200,000 from the NOTW is just wrong


Why can the NOTW not persue Tommy Sheridan for all the trial costs :rolleyes:

Lets say we have 10 Tommy Sheridans who get taken to court and lose so the tax payer has to pay 10 x 5 Million ? there has to be a limit or we will be potless in no time and spending 5 million to to save 200k makes sence?

They are straw man arguments. (Much like most of Tommy's defence!)

The £200k was incidental. It may have been Sheridan's motive for perjuring himself, and it may exacerbate the crime, but the trial wasn't to "save" the money.

If someone assaults another and the victim makes a full recovery, are you suggesting the culprit shouldn't be tried because it might cost us some money?

[Hibbyradge]

"Is this your whole defence? They're lying, they're lying, they're lying? Liar, liar pants on fire? Is that your defence in the whole of this?" Frances Curran on Sheridan's defence strategy

"You must be the most unluckiest (sic) person in the world because what we have heard is that everyone you have met in the last 20, 30 years is either lying or conspiring against you." Allison Kane

[CropleyWasGod]

Why can the NOTW not persue Tommy Sheridan for all the trial costs :rolleyes:

Lets say we have 10 Tommy Sheridans who get taken to court and lose so the tax payer has to pay 10 x 5 Million ? there has to be a limit or we will be potless in no time and spending 5 million to to save 200k makes sence?

1. the NOTW will get the costs of the original trial back, assuming they win their appeal.

2. we, the public, don't get the £200k whatever happens. That's back and forward between TS and the NOTW.

However, to open up the discussion, is there a moral argument to say "ok, Mr. Sheridan, by your actions, you have cost the state £x million. We're suing you for it"?

My view is that 1. it would cost a small fortune to pursue it. 2. he probably doesn't have it anyway.

[CropleyWasGod]

2468 sums up quite neatly above. The devil is in the detail, as always, but the major points are made. It's very straightforward.

It is clear to me. My post was merely to defend the charge that the questioner was being "deliberately obtuse".

I'll stay out of it :greengrin

[hibs0666]

I really don't understand the extent of debate, or at least differing opinions on this thread, and particularly any suggestion that Sheridan has somehow been singled out and conspired against. It's really very simple:

Sheridan pursued the civil case against the NOTW a) for personal financial gain and b) through his hatred for the Murdoch empire.
He lied to win that case
He got caught
There isn't anything more to it than that, much as some would like there to be.

Why was the jury's verdict in the first trial not accepted as being the end of the matter?

If this had been a major criminal case I can just about understand why the result of a jury's deliberation may not be accepted. But this was a tawdry little civil dispute of no consequence between a no-mark politician and a ****-of-the-earth newspaper.

To have tied up very scarce resources to pursue this trial is a total and utter nonsense.

[Hibbyradge]

Why was the jury's verdict in the first trial not accepted as being the end of the matter?



Following that logic, perjury wouldn't be an offence.

Sheridan was on trial for lying in the action that he won. The original trial verdict hasn't actually been overturned as I understand it. Yet.

If the NOTW want to avoid paying the £200k to Sheridan (they haven't done so yet), there will need to be further legal process, technically at least.

I can't abide Murdoch and the NOTW, but sometimes, like now, the bad guys are in the right.

Sheridan's position is indefensible.

[jdships]

Why was the jury's verdict in the first trial not accepted as being the end of the matter?

If this had been a major criminal case I can just about understand why the result of a jury's deliberation may not be accepted. But this was a tawdry little civil dispute of no consequence between a no-mark politician and a ****-of-the-earth newspaper.

To have tied up very scarce resources to pursue this trial is a total and utter nonsense.

Because in a democratic country anyone has the right to question/appeal against a verdict as long as there are "reasonable grounds" for that appeal.
In this case it has been proved there was .
Once TS has been sentenced he then can appeal against that sentence and so it goes on.

Remember if TS had accepted the "plea bargaining" at the outset of this latest trial he would have served a minimum sentence - possibly six months.
Given the nature of the beast his ego would not let him accept and the rest is now history
Therefore the question of cost is every bit as much his fault as anybody else. ..

Don't have a great deal of sympathy for him or his wife given the lies he has told .

[Hibbyradge]

Because in a democratic country anyone has the right to question/appeal against a verdict as long as there are "reasonable grounds" for that appeal.
In this case it has been proved there was .
Once TS has been sentenced he then can appeal against that sentence and so it goes on.

Remember if TS had accepted the "plea bargaining" at the outset of this latest trial he would have served a minimum sentence - possibly six months.
Given the nature of the beast his ego would not let him accept and the rest is now history
Therefore the question of cost is every bit as much his fault as anybody else. ..

Don't have a great deal of sympathy for him or his wife given the lies he has told .

Well put.

Tommy may think he's in a holy war against the "evil empire" of News international. However, he should have accepted defeat in the battle of the swingers club, licked his wounds and lived on to fight the war on another day.

Instead, he's now a disgraced criminal ex-politician who has done more damage to the left in this country than a succession of Tory politicians and media moguls managed.

[jdships]

Well put.

Tommy may think he's in a holy war against the "evil empire" of News international. However, he should have accepted defeat in the battle of the swingers club, licked his wounds and lived on to fight the war on another day.

Instead, he's now a disgraced criminal ex-politician who has done more damage to the left in this country than a succession of Tory politicians and media moguls managed.


Well put you too:thumbsup:
I should have added that I have no time for Rupert Murdoch or his minnions but simply feel as you do TS brought a lot of this upon himself. :rolleyes:

Pales into signifigance when compared to the late Jimmy "No bevying" Reid - a true "man
for all seasons "

[hibiedude]

They are straw man arguments. (Much like most of Tommy's defence!)

The £200k was incidental. It may have been Sheridan's motive for perjuring himself, and it may exacerbate the crime, but the trial wasn't to "save" the money.

If someone assaults another and the victim makes a full recovery, are you suggesting the culprit shouldn't be tried because it might cost us some money?

No but the criminal compensation board run a system that means that payments are based on injuries caused so the same should be used for Libel cases.

All I’m saying is spending 5 million to save 200k is daft something has to change regarding the way we waste money on legal aid and idiots like Sheridan abusing our legal system at the tax payers expense.

[Hibbyradge]

No but the criminal compensation board run a system that means that payments are based on injuries caused so the same should be used for Libel cases.

All I’m saying is spending 5 million to save 200k is daft something has to change regarding the way we waste money on legal aid and idiots like Sheridan abusing our legal system at the tax payers expense.

Yes, that would have been daft, but the £200k wasn't the issue.

It was a perjury trial. A very serious offence with a tariff of up to 10 years.

To put that in perspective, the maximum sentence for rape is 15 years.

[Hibs Class]

Yes, that would have been daft, but the £200k wasn't the issue.

It was a perjury trial. A very serious offence with a tariff of up to 10 years.

To put that in perspective, the maximum sentence for rape is 15 years.


I think the maximum sentence for rape is life?

[magpie1892]

I think the maximum sentence for rape is life?

Correct.

Interestingly, life is also the maximum sentence for perjury.

[magpie1892]

It was a perjury trial. A very serious offence with a tariff of up to 10 years.

To put that in perspective, the maximum sentence for rape is 15 years.

Both crimes carry a maximum sentence of life.

[Hibbyradge]

I think the maximum sentence for rape is life?


Correct.

Interestingly, life is also the maximum sentence for perjury.


Both crimes carry a maximum sentence of life.

See what I did there? :wink:

[magpie1892]

See what I did there? :wink:

Happy to oblige. :wink:

[Hibs Class]

See what I did there? :wink:


Happy to oblige. :wink:


Ditto

[hibiedude]

Yes, that would have been daft, but the £200k wasn't the issue.

It was a perjury trial. A very serious offence with a tariff of up to 10 years.

To put that in perspective, the maximum sentence for rape is 15 years.

And the last time someone got life for perjury was when ?

Rape and perjury can't be used in the same breath

Rape is a vile crime were perjury is normal heard in libel cases

[Hibbyradge]

And the last time someone got life for perjury was when ?

Rape and perjury can't be used in the same breath

Rape is a vile crime were perjury is normal heard in libel cases

That's an opinion, but clearly they're both very serious crimes.

You don't seem to want to acknowledge it, but the point is that the trial wasn't about money.

If you think that the country shouldn't spend as much as £5m on perjury trials, then say so and we can discuss how much justice is worth, but stop banging on about the £200k.

Sheridan was tried for lying. Not for winning money from News International.

[Hibbyradge]

Happy to oblige. :wink:


Ditto

:thumbsup:

[magpie1892]

And the last time someone got life for perjury was when ?

Rape and perjury can't be used in the same breath

Rape is a vile crime were perjury is normal heard in libel cases

Why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and shout: 'LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'?! :rolleyes:

[hibiedude]

Why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and shout: 'LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'?! :rolleyes:

I why the **** would I want to that :rolleyes:

Because I express an opinion different to yours.

[hibiedude]

That's an opinion, but clearly they're both very serious crimes.

You don't seem to want to acknowledge it, but the point is that the trial wasn't about money.

If you think that the country shouldn't spend as much as £5m on perjury trials, then say so and we can discuss how much justice is worth, but stop banging on about the £200k.

Sheridan was tried for lying. Not for winning money from News International.

Listening to the professional commentators that were at the trial not the amateurs like you or I and their take on things is this- at least 3 prosecution witnesses lied either at the first trial in 2006 or 2010 so to follow your logic we need to bring them to justice because perjury is a serious offence.

Now do you think this will happen and if not why not

The professional commentators opinion is it will never happen because of the COST of the Sheridan’s trial now that’s not me banging on about money but more to do with the FACTS.

You still didn't answer who the last person was who got life for perjury but I can tell you the last person who got life for Rape

Lets not turn this into point scoring because but like you i'm just expressing an opinion :wink:

[magpie1892]

I why the **** would I want to that :rolleyes:

Because I express an opinion different to yours.

Difference of opinion is not the issue. Your total refusal to take on board even a smidgen of an opinion that differs with your own leads me to wonder why you continue to post on this thread. You're not talking anyone round, nor are you adjusting your own position.

Looking at the development of this thread, I think there are a number of people on both sides of the argument that have shifted their positions. Many, like yourself, have remained inert. All seems rather pointless...

[magpie1892]

The professional commentators opinion is it will never happen because of the COST of the Sheridan’s trial now that’s not me banging on about money but more to do with the FACTS.

Can you cite that at all? Genuinely interested.

[Sir David Gray]

I honestly don't get this idea that Tommy Sheridan shouldn't have faced justice because the cost of this trial far outweighed the amount of money he (illegally) won from The News of the World.

He was accused of obtaining that financial payout by lying under oath, which is an extremely serious offence and it is something that should always be investigated, regardless of cost.

We trust our courts to get to the truth of each and every case that comes before them. If we have people telling lies, not only to get them off on a charge, but in order to seek financial gain as a result of those lies, then our courts no longer have the integrity that is so vital.

I'm glad that Sheridan was put on trial and now that he's been found guilty, I hope he's put away for a very long time.

[CropleyWasGod]

And so it continues.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Tommy-Sheridan-in-bid-to.6671597.jp

[magpie1892]

And so it continues.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Tommy-Sheridan-in-bid-to.6671597.jp

I see he's back on to the videotape. The one that he tried and failed to have dismissed as evidence. Now I am beginning to agree with those that say this is good money after bad...

[hibiedude]

Difference of opinion is not the issue. Your total refusal to take on board even a smidgen of an opinion that differs with your own leads me to wonder why you continue to post on this thread. You're not talking anyone round, nor are you adjusting your own position.

Looking at the development of this thread, I think there are a number of people on both sides of the argument that have shifted their positions. Many, like yourself, have remained inert. All seems rather pointless...

Your clearly haven't read the full thread because if you had I didn't think Sheridan would have been found Guilty in fact I thought it might have been a not proven verdict.

Then the cost of the trail was made public and the tax payer (that's me) queries the reasoning of the trial because others have lied on oath and will not be prosecuted (Time will prove this point) so I don’t really understand why this trial went ahead.

Perjury is committed every day up and down the country in our courts by witnesses trying to cover for family or friends who find themselves in the dock- should they be tried for perjury.

The question I’m trying to get across is- do we prosecute everyone who commits perjury or do we only prosecute only high profile individuals.

If you think my posts are pointless then don't reply

[hibiedude]

And so it continues.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Tommy-Sheridan-in-bid-to.6671597.jp

Poll tax Tommy wasting more tax payers money now there's a chance he might walk :bitchy:

[hibs0666]

Even when a fundamental miscarriage of justice such as the Birmingham Six occurs, perjury charges were not invoked when the Six took action against West Midlands police. Lord Denning, on the appeal said...

"Just consider the course of events if their [the Six's] action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. That would mean that the Home Secretary would have either to recommend that they be pardoned or to remit the case to the Court of Appeal. That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, 'It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.' They should be struck out either on the ground that the men are stopped from challenging the decision of Mr. Justice Bridge, or alternatively that it is an abuse of the process of the court. Whichever it is, the actions should be stopped."

Birmingham Six v West Midlands Police = no charges of perjury
No-mark politician v tawdry rag = perjury charges.

WTF is that all about?

[hibs0666]

I see he's back on to the videotape. The one that he tried and failed to have dismissed as evidence. Now I am beginning to agree with those that say this is good money after bad...

Yup, back to the videotape, amongst other points that I'm sure you noticed too but decided not to comment on. :wink:

[magpie1892]

Yup, back to the videotape, amongst other points that I'm sure you noticed too but decided not to comment on. :wink:

My understanding of law is far from comprehensive but I am struggling to see grounds for appeal here. WTF some boy down south having TS' mobile number has to do with him going to sex clubs and lying about it escapes me.

I think (hope) Sheridan will get pretty short shrift if/when he begins the appeal process. Other than a few 'class warriors', I'm feeling most people's sympathy is exhausted in this case.

[Hibbyradge]

Listening to the professional commentators that were at the trial not the amateurs like you or I and their take on things is this- at least 3 prosecution witnesses lied either at the first trial in 2006 or 2010 so to follow your logic we need to bring them to justice because perjury is a serious offence.

Now do you think this will happen and if not why not



I have no idea, but if you're asking me to speculate, I'll guess that the Procurator Fiscal hasn't got enough evidence to prosecute them. :dunno:

They did have the evidence to prosecute Sheridan.

Add to the mix, that it wasn't the witnesses who took the NOTW to court in the first place.




You still didn't answer who the last person was who got life for perjury but I can tell you the last person who got life for Rape



I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your question, but for the record, I have no idea if anyone has ever been sentenced to life for perjury.

I also don't know who the last person to be executed for treason, but that's the maximum sentence.

My point, is that perjury is a serious offence.

Lying to save your own skin when being prosecuted for something is one thing, but pro-actively pursuing another through the courts based on lies is much more serious, in my view.




Lets not turn this into point scoring because but like you i'm just expressing an opinion :wink:

Agreed, although I'm not sure what your point is, if it's not about the money.

[CropleyWasGod]

Even when a fundamental miscarriage of justice such as the Birmingham Six occurs, perjury charges were not invoked when the Six took action against West Midlands police. Lord Denning, on the appeal said...

"Just consider the course of events if their [the Six's] action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. That would mean that the Home Secretary would have either to recommend that they be pardoned or to remit the case to the Court of Appeal. That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, 'It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.' They should be struck out either on the ground that the men are stopped from challenging the decision of Mr. Justice Bridge, or alternatively that it is an abuse of the process of the court. Whichever it is, the actions should be stopped."

Birmingham Six v West Midlands Police = no charges of perjury
No-mark politician v tawdry rag = perjury charges.

WTF is that all about?

Different country = not relevant? :dunno:

[Hibbyradge]

Perjury is committed every day up and down the country in our courts by witnesses trying to cover for family or friends who find themselves in the dock- should they be tried for perjury.

The question I’m trying to get across is- do we prosecute everyone who commits perjury or do we only prosecute only high profile individuals.



There are people driving over the speed limit every day all over the country and don't get prosecuted.

There are people who commit common assault every day and don't get prosecuted.

The truth is, we can't prosecute everyone for every single offence.

Politicians who lie to save their reputations in court, are taking a huge chance, imo. They risk used as an example to deter others.

By the way, do you think the perjury cases against Jeffrey archer and Jonathan Aitken should have been dropped too?

[Hibbyradge]

Even when a fundamental miscarriage of justice such as the Birmingham Six occurs, perjury charges were not invoked when the Six took action against West Midlands police. Lord Denning, on the appeal said...

"Just consider the course of events if their [the Six's] action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. That would mean that the Home Secretary would have either to recommend that they be pardoned or to remit the case to the Court of Appeal. That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, 'It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.' They should be struck out either on the ground that the men are stopped from challenging the decision of Mr. Justice Bridge, or alternatively that it is an abuse of the process of the court. Whichever it is, the actions should be stopped."

Birmingham Six v West Midlands Police = no charges of perjury
No-mark politician v tawdry rag = perjury charges.

WTF is that all about?

I don't know why the CPS decided not to prosecute the WM police, maybe it was a lack of conclusive evidence in a hugely complicated case.

However, are you suggesting that perjury cases are no longer pursued because they missed a chance to do so in the past?

[Cropley10]

It's fun reading all the prejudice and self-righteousness on this thread. Obviously some people are 'in the know' or on the 'inside'. Or hate the Left. Or love the News of the World. Or just enjoy gloating.

TS talks for a living but this time TS talked himself into, not out, of trouble. He thought he could explain it all away. In the end he couldn't and a majority of the jury decided not to believe him, either what he said or how he said it...

What is interesting though is that a key witness was excused as he was ill. Perhaps more interestingly the jury decided he didn't have sex with Anvar, nor did Trolle visit his house. But they are prepared to accept he did travel to Cupid's with them...? Seems almost illogical to me that one.

The strangest thing about the whole trial though is that there is nothing at all linking TS to Cupid's - nothing resolute, just lots of circumstantial -even after thousands of hours of police time. But the best bit surely is that no-one can agree what the date of this trip was supposed to be!

Think about that - the date for the visit kept changing. Why is that?

Either way - I think there may be grounds for an appeal - but ultimately he 'got what was coming to him'. He was known as a '****ger' (alledgedly) but the old saying 'anyone who represents himself in court has a fool for a client' springs to mind too.

[Cropley10]

The main issues would be:-
1) Did the Crown introduce evidence that it was not entitled to.
2) Did the Crown fail to disclose material to the defence which could otherwise undermine the crown case or strengthen the defence case
3)Was Mr Sheridan prevented from introducing evidence which would have been helpful to his case.
4) Was there 'oppression' (narrow term of Scots Law applies here)
5)Did the judge mis-direct the jury.

[Cropley10]

http://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/blog/?p=452

And if you can't be bothered, how about this then

"Consider this. In every case where someone seeks damages there are two sides.

Mr Sheridan won his civil case because the jury believed his witnesses and disbelieved those for the News of the World.

In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of common sense these latter witnesses were now tainted.

Yet they were then called by the Crown against the Sheridans.

In a criminal case a jury must decide the issue of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I can think of no better example of reasonable doubt, than a case which rests on the evidence of witnesses already discredited by another jury."

Trust me folks - if this was you or me who'd lost there'd be nae L&B Police enquiry - precisely for the reasons stated above. But thankfully Tam will be locked up (for 6 years according to Magpies 'sources').

[Cropley10]

I see he's back on to the videotape. The one that he tried and failed to have dismissed as evidence. Now I am beginning to agree with those that say this is good money after bad...

Perhaps you could point me to the part in the trial where he "tried and failed to have dismissed as evidence". I must have missed this. Thanks

[Hibbyradge]

I can think of no better example of reasonable doubt, than a case which rests on the evidence of witnesses already discredited by another jury."



An interesting point at first glance, I agree.

It would be terribly unfair, however, if having been falsely convicted at a trail after being framed, for example, for an appeal court not to listen to your evidence on the grounds that you'd been previously discredited.

I don't particularly care what happens to Sheridan, but I can't agree that he should have somehow been allowed to keep the £200k and not face charges because it was the NOTW and because loads of other folk lie in court.

If you want to fight the big boys, fair enough, but they will fight back. And they're big.

[Cropley10]

An interesting point at first glance, I agree.

It would be terribly unfair, however, if having been falsely convicted at a trail after being framed, for example, for an appeal court not to listen to your evidence on the grounds that you'd been previously discredited.

I don't particularly care what happens to Sheridan, but I can't agree that he should have somehow been allowed to keep the £200k and not face charges because it was the NOTW and because loads of other folk lie in court.

If you want to fight the big boys, fair enough, but they will fight back. And they're big.

True enough Radge, but in this situation - the NotW weren't framed - and it wasn't an appeal. They also spent £200k - double or quits if you like - on the McNeilage tape.

[hibiedude]

There are people driving over the speed limit every day all over the country and don't get prosecuted.

There are people who commit common assault every day and don't get prosecuted.
The truth is, we can't prosecute everyone for every single offence.

Politicians who lie to save their reputations in court, are taking a huge chance, imo. They risk used as an example to deter others.

By the way, do you think the perjury cases against Jeffrey archer and Jonathan Aitken should have been dropped too?


Jeffrey archer and Jonathan Aitken and Tommy Sheridan were all found guilty of perjury and the decision to jail them was correct.

But the Sheridan case is different in many ways because there was two trials 2006-2010 Consider this. In every case where someone seeks damages there are two sides. Sheridan won his civil case because the jury believed his witnesses and disbelieved those for the News of the World. In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of common sense these latter witnesses were now tainted. Yet they were then called by the crown against the Sheridan’s. In a criminal case a jury must decide the issue of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I can think of no better example of reasonable doubt, than a case which rests on the evidence of witnesses already discredited by another jury." (Not my words but posted in Scotland on Sunday)
Everyone who lied in this case and its not difficult to pick them out should be prosecuted- do you agree with that or do you think that will never happen?

[lapsedhibee]

Lying to save your own skin when being prosecuted for something is one thing, but pro-actively pursuing another through the courts based on lies is much more serious, in my view.
Shouldn't really be though - you're dissing The Court in both cases.

[magpie1892]

Perhaps you could point me to the part in the trial where he "tried and failed to have dismissed as evidence". I must have missed this. Thanks

I think it's been mentioned previously on this thread that TS' then-counsel tried to get the VT dismissed as evidence before the trial started. I missed it at the time also.

[Hibs Class]

Jeffrey archer and Jonathan Aitken and Tommy Sheridan were all found guilty of perjury and the decision to jail them was correct.

But the Sheridan case is different in many ways because there was two trials 2006-2010 Consider this. In every case where someone seeks damages there are two sides. Sheridan won his civil case because the jury believed his witnesses and disbelieved those for the News of the World. In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of common sense these latter witnesses were now tainted. Yet they were then called by the crown against the Sheridan’s. In a criminal case a jury must decide the issue of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I can think of no better example of reasonable doubt, than a case which rests on the evidence of witnesses already discredited by another jury." (Not my words but posted in Scotland on Sunday)
Everyone who lied in this case and its not difficult to pick them out should be prosecuted- do you agree with that or do you think that will never happen?


As far as I recollect Aitken's libel case collapsed whilst Archer won his, as did Sheridan. In both Sheridan's and Archer's cases, that the jury believed them doesn't mean that they didn't commit perjury (if anything it only reaffirms that they are both convincing liars), nor does it mean that the other witnesses at the libel trials were discredited simply because the jury reached - in Sheridan's case at least - an utterly counter-intuitive verdict. Given the Ian Hamilton blog entry I can see why some people might think there has been an injustice done but, in Sheridan's case at least, the only injustice was the original libel case verdict and that wrong has now been pretty much righted.

[lapsedhibee]

As far as I recollect Aitken's libel case collapsed whilst Archer won his, as did Sheridan. In both Sheridan's and Archer's cases, that the jury believed them doesn't mean that they didn't commit perjury (if anything it only reaffirms that they are both convincing liars), nor does it mean that the other witnesses at the libel trials were discredited simply because the jury reached - in Sheridan's case at least - an utterly counter-intuitive verdict. Given the Ian Hamilton blog entry I can see why some people might think there has been an injustice done but, in Sheridan's case at least, the only injustice was the original libel case verdict and that wrong has now been pretty much righted.

Jury reached an unlikely verdict in the Archer case also, being somewhat nobbled by the judge dribbling on about how fragrant Archer's missus was. Plum.

[Hibbyradge]

Shouldn't really be though - you're dissing The Court in both cases.

I think there is a distinction.

I guess it's like meticulously planning and executing a murder or killing someone on the spur of the moment.

In both cases someone dies, but the former is always regarded as much more serious.