Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Amber · Nationalist Joined: 28 Feb 2008 Posts: 143

For those following the twists and turns of the Sheridan situation, here's an interesting take by Edinburgh blogger "Love and Garbage".

FEB. 26TH, 2008

Tommy Sheridan update - some thoughts on perjury

Hugh Kerr, former Labour MEP, and the man now in charge of Sheridan's PR campaign (whatever happened to Jim Monaghan?) was on Newsnight Scotland last night, after his brief appearance on STV on Friday evening. Kerr has been putting in freedom of information requests to Lothian and Borders police in order to obtain information on the cost of the investigation.

It was he who discovered that more than £1 million and 40,000 hours of police time have been spent on the investigation (claimed to be have been "revealed by the Herald yesterday" in today's Herald article - althogh my regular reader willl recall the figures from Friday evening when they appeared on STV). Today, the Herald publishes statistics Kerr has obtained indicating that, "During the weekend when 12 officers were engaged on interviewing the Solidarity politician and former MSP in Edinburgh and nine more were searching his Glasgow home, it was disclosed that 303 offences were being reported to the force."

Kerr's argument is that the investigation is unprecedented in Scots law - following a civil case - has been a huge waste of police time and is indicative of a vendetta run by the police, the legal establishment and the News of the World against Tommy Sheridan and his family. The argument is familiar, and has received some support from Ian Hamilton QC, Alan Cochrane from the Daily Telegraph, and Iain MacWhirter in the Guardian.

Kerr has some reasonable points. It is unprecedented - in Scotland. However, perjury investigations following civil cases ended in the conviction of Lord Archer and Jonathan Aitken. Again both followed libel cases. However, unlike this case the criminal investigations and actions followed investigations by the newspapers which led to Court of Appeal decisions overturning the original jury decisions. In this case, the investigation was initiated before the appeal to the Inner House. This is due to the peculiar circumstances of the case.

Ordinarily it is difficult to determine if perjury has taken place - because as defined in Scots criminal law "Perjury is committed by wilfully giving false evidence on oath or affirmation in any judicial proceeding", and is a common law offence (potentially punishable by life imprisonment). The definition is from Sheriff Gordon's book on criminal law and further examination of his textbook indicates that perjury may be difficult to establish. in establishing perjury it is necessary to show that a party "wilfully" gave false evidence, and to this extent if a statement is equivocal it cannot be perjury, because two meanings are possible. Further, where parties express opinions this is not perjury; and where a statement is unimportant or trivial - with no bearing on the result of a case, this is not perjury. Omissions in evidence also do not generally constitute perjury.

Already we see that the hurdles for perjury are such that it can be difficult to establish in most cases. This is because in most cases there are shades of grey. People give evidence. They recollect some things that others forget, and so on. They may omit to provide all relevant evidence. Two contrary views can come from two generally honest witnesses - whose own experiences and perspectives influence what they recall. Further statements may be coloured, but open to more than one meaning. And often the evidence will not be material to the outcome of the case.

Hence, typically, perjury will not arise in civil matters. In the investigation resulting from the defamation action things were different.

The crux of the matter was the executive committee meeting of the SSP (the minute of this has now been removed from their website). This meeting was called specifically to consider the newspaper allegations. 11 recalled Tommy admitting to the stories. 4 did not.

As this was the one item on the agenda for that meeting it seems clear that both sets of witnesses are not telling the truth in that case, and this is not down to shades of grey. Here there is a black and white issue: did he admit it or didn't he? Accordingly, some people falsely gave evidence. There were no equivocal statements. People did not recall matters to the best of their knowledge (and it is notable that one witness who couched his evidence in such terms having not been an attendee at the meeting, but did attend a subsequent meeting, has not been charged in connection with the case).

Lord Turnbull referred the matter to the Crown Office, because - unusually - here is a clear instance that someone has given unequivocal false evidence: either (a) to support the allegations of the newspaper which could destroy a political career; or (b) to assist in the obtaining of money by deception. In either case the false evidence is material - being directly relevant to the issue in the case (was Tommy an adulterer? and did he attend the relevant clubs?). It is immediately apparent that - unlike the normal case - all of the requirements for perjury are in place.

The nature of the evidence then renders this case unusual - and the fact that the police had 15 witnesses to investigate in this respect - where they know that either a block of 4, or a block of 11 were lying - necessarily involves the incurring of costs. Now, I do not know how the police carried out the case - but there are explicable reasons for the police investigation taking a protracted period of time, many man hours, and running up costs. Having been invited to investigate by the trial judge prior to any appeal the police know that they have to consider the 15 witnesses So if we assume the police began looking at only the 15 witnesses who had given diametrically opposed evidence. When this initial investigation into what happened at the meeting is complete the police then have to follow up other lines of enquiry. Either the 4 were telling the truth, or the 11 were telling the truth. If the four were believed this had implications for the News of the World witnesses - each would have to be investigated. Did they attend the clubs? Did they see what they claimed to see? If the 11 were believed this had implications for Tommy and his witnesses: were they where they claimed to be on the relevant nights? Did the claimed phone calls take place?

In either case an original police investigation on the meeting potentially leads to investigation of many others (and if it did not it could be viewed as a political vendetta against one or other socialist movement - to avoid this allegation the police had to investigate further).

Further the enquiryis also likely to have involved subornation or attempted subornation of perjury (where parties are induced to give perjured evidence). Newspapers reported various stories about alleged witness tampering. These complaints have to be invesigated - and that widens the enquiry, again, beyond the parties that originally gave evidence.

Now, I don't know how the figures relate to the issues that inevitably arise from pursuing the investigation even to a basic level - but it seems that Mr Kerr and the other supporters of the Sheridan seven are using smoke and mirrors here. And some journalists and lawyers who should know better ought to think through the consequences of Lord Turnbull's initial action in reporting the matter to the Crown Office and the inevitable complexities thereby created (with at least 15 potential suspects to begin with) and consequential impact on the time and costs of investigation.

Those supporting the Sheridan Seven are attempting to have any prosecution stalled as not being in the public interest. I think that unlikely. I do not know what evidence the police has. I do not know if the allegations against Sheridan are true. I know he denies matters. I must assume that the police believe they have gathered evidence sufficient to warrant charges.

There are no reasons for a Scot to be ashamed of this enquiry (excepting the miniatures - possibly - but then we don't know how many there were).

Let the matter go to trial. Let a jury decide.

Morph · Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject:

15 officers does seem a bit excessive when you consider the better uses these officers could have had.
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

Amber · Nationalist Joined: 28 Feb 2008 Posts: 143

But Morph, surely we don't know what's "excessive" until we see the evidence.
I'm not prejudging the outcome of this, but it seems completely wrong to try to muddy the waters with talk of excessive or disproportionate action.

Morph · Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:12 am Post subject:

i see your point however in my opinion, i have no police or legal background, 15 officers investigating a perjury case just seems like overkill to me.

Maybe this is the norm but it does seem to be too many
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

Rinty · Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:55 am Post subject:

No the point is not the evidence. And Love and Garbage is an anti-sheridan blog, always has been.

When the investigation is launched there is no evidence, in theory, that is why they investigate. At that stage it has to be decided whether this particular one point in all of the evedince is worth allocating so much resources to and whether this is in the public interest.

If the police now have evidence then that is a different story, no-one is saying that this evidence shouldnt be tested in court.

The question is why set a legal precedent on this case, especially (as the biased blogger points out) it is all about who said what at a meeting about one small part of a civil case.

For the record, his opening remarks are bogus, I know as I am Jim Monaghan who he comments on. Hugh Kerr was introduced as the 'man orchestrating the fightback', this doesnt mean Hugh is in charge because the BBC say so, and I am not replaced as I was never in charge of the campaign anyway. I coordinate a team that Hugh Kerr is a very important member of. Hugh, as an Edinburgh resident, secured the Freedom of Informaton requests that exposed the figures relating to the costs of the case. Love and Grabage is an anti-sheridan site and it is in their interests to suggest splits in Solidarity or people being 'replaced' its part of the nasty campaign.

They also reveealed that 300 crimes were committed in Edinburgh on the day that 19 officers were employed to question Tommy and search his house.

The blogger misses the point completely and underlines the key argument. If this was instigated because of the judges comments then why doesnt this happen in the thousands of other cases when the judge makes similar comments.

the questions remain, why this case? why such massive resources? why do the police see this as more important than the evidence in a criminal case?

Amber · Nationalist Joined: 28 Feb 2008 Posts: 143

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, Rinty.
I think this point IS the evidence.
As for the investigation being a waste of resources, well, the money's spent now. Better value for the taxpayer if a trial goes ahead now rather than the whole thing being abandoned at this stage, I'd say. I mean, if it is abandoned, then the resources really would have been allocated for nothing.
And I'm sure you'd agree that if evidence of a crime has been found (and who knows whether it has?) then that evidence should be tested.
Look at it this way, if the evidence is non-existent or shockingly poor, you'll be in a strong position to campaign for reform.

Rinty · Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:18 am Post subject:

Yes Amber we will have to disagree. We are asking why they investigation was launched. At that point the evidence was that some witnesses evidence was directly conflicting to other witnesses evidence. That is true of all court cases.

Evidence now, emerging from the investigation, is a different matter. No-one is saying that it shoudn't be tested in court. Personally, I cant wait!

As for the money being spent now, that is ridiculous, the vast majority of piolice investigations dont result in crminal roceedings. If you are adviocating anothe precedent that we should proceed with the case as we have spent money investigating t, this would be anothet massive change for the Scottish justice system.

Anyway, the money is far from being spent. The legal aid bill alone for the 7 defendant will come in at least £2M, the investigation is ongoing abnd costing £20K per week.. If we stopped now and took all seven to court there would be a bill of about £5m in total.

Amber · Nationalist Joined: 28 Feb 2008 Posts: 143

Rinty · Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:58 pm Post subject:

I have never demanded that they drop the case. I want an enquiry into why we had a case at all in this instance instead of the thousands of serious offences where perjury looks to have taken place.

I dont think that police should be wasting their time and our money on this issue. But any evidence that has been turned up should be tested in court now, not in the tabloids as others would prefer.

Howvere, if the evidence isnt strong enough for cort than the PF will not pursue it. You, on the other hand, are demanding a court case goes head, no matter the evidence, simply because of the money spent so far. that doesnt make sense.

I dont mind justice taking it's course, unlike the NotW who unsuccesfully tried to have the jury dismissed near the end of the original case.

Red Justice · Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject:

It is a disgrace the public money spent on this one-sided investigation by Lothian & Borders police. Money better spent on public sevices rather than a dubious police investigation by officers probably looking to secure themselves some means of promotion. This is one of many examples where the police are accountable to nobody in the general public but quite simply themselves.

Some who take delight in this vendetta against Tommy, his family and comrades is no friend of socialists or the Scottish working and lower classes.
_________________
"We need independence but we also need socialism"
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6732691161

iainmhor · Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject:

The real losers in all this will be the SSP who ll be seen by many as being riddled with brussel sprouts and midnight masses.

Amber · Nationalist Joined: 28 Feb 2008 Posts: 143

jimtrot · No Longer a Wean Joined: 16 May 2007 Posts: 62

Morph · Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject:

why you think that Jimtrot? I dont think Sheridan s a guilty party in this. He went to court and won a case in a fair trial.To waste public money on this case cannot be blamed on him surely?
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

jimtrot · No Longer a Wean Joined: 16 May 2007 Posts: 62

Aventinian · Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject:

jimtrot · No Longer a Wean Joined: 16 May 2007 Posts: 62

Rinty · Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:35 am Post subject:

"Remember the "Witches coven" statement?"

No. Perhaps you can give us a source for this Jim?

The way that I remember it was Tommy sheridan claiming that people had been practising the "dark arts" referring to political plotting. This is a common term. The reaction from some in the SSP was to read this as calling women witches and from there the legend grew until it became 'fact' in the mind of SSP members that Tommy called three women a coven of witches. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That's how chinese whispers works.

iainmhor · Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject:

iainmhor · Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject: