Rosemary Byrne charged with perjury in Sheridan case

[JHE]

He wasn't found to be "innocent", the jury simply preferred the cut of his jib.

The jury decided in his favour. They did so by majority. IIRC, one juror was ill and was excused and seven of the remaining eleven voted in Sheridan's favour and the judge accepted that majority verdict.

We do not know why those jurors decided in Tommy's favour. It could be, as I think Dexter believes, that the jurors believed what Tommy said and (so) believed that most members of the SSP exectutive were conspiring dishonestly to do down Tommy.

Alternatively, they may, as you say, just have liked the cut of Tommy's jib.

They may have disbelieved Tommy but thought (wrongly, IMO) it was better to find in his favour than to let the News of the Screws off. Perhaps they (rightly, IMO) dislike tittle-tattle in newspapers. Perhaps they liked Tommy and agreed with his anti-poll tax campaign. Perhaps they thought it didn't matter that he was calling most of the SSP leadership a bunch of lying scabs.

We don't know their reasoning - or lack of reasoning.

 

[DexterTCN]

Apart from the Criminal Justice system's duty to evaluate the perjury evidence and prosecute.

Oh please supply a precedent for this in Scots law libel trials.

And while you're at it....explain to the purveyor of this nonsense...

Dexter, you keep on chuntering on that what matters is that Tommy won his defamation action. I recommend you familiarise yourself with the Aitken and Archer cases.

that we're dealing with the Scottish Legal system. I'm not aware of a precedent, even though Danny tried to slip a (false) one in by the back door by bringing up the English system.

As I've said repeatedly my primary concern is the Scottish Left.

If your main argument is the result of certain cases in another country, it would at least be kind of you to point out that you're not even talking about the same legal system. Of course that would negate your point.

Don't let me stop your histrionics though, carry on.

 

[Cobbles]

We don't know their reasoning - or lack of reasoning.

All we know is that there were two versions of the "truth" Tommy's and the Defender's.

That meant that someone was lying - the Fiscal (having reviewed the actual evidence from a criminal standard of evidence) appears to be of the opinion that Tommy and his acolytes have been telling porkies.

Still, at least he ought to be used to prison, mind you, if that's the outcome, I fear for the cash flow of Glasgow's sun bed proprietors.

 

[danny la rouge]

we're dealing with the Scottish Legal system.

With which you are clearly unfamiliar. It isn't libel, that's English; it's defamation in Scots Law. And Tommy wasn't "found innocent", as you are fond of saying. First, "innocent" isn't a verdict in a Scots civil court. It isn't a Scots verdict at all. Secondly, Tommy wasn't on trial - he brought the case.

 

[gurrier]

I've stated, many times, that I do so mainly for political reasons and that the reason for all of these cases is political. Your good selves stand in outrage and say you're doing it for moral reasons.

I don't consider myself fit to be a moral arbiter, I leave that to my betters such as yourselves.

Your politics are entirely unrelated to morality? I hate to break it to you dude, but you've just declared yourself a sociopath.

 

[Cobbles]

Oh please supply a precedent for this in Scots law libel trials.

No "precedent" is necessary - it's part of general Criminal Law. Here's one anyway - "Perjury is committed by wilfully giving false evidence on oath or affirmation in any judicial proceeding." - Angus v. H.M. Advocate, 1935 J.C. per Lord Morison at p. 6.

If your main argument is the result of certain cases in another country, it would at least be kind of you to point out that you're not even talking about the same legal system. Of course that would negate your point.

Not at all, if you actually knew anything about Scots Law, you'd realise that there is a hierarchy of cross jurisdictional precedent so that even if a case in another jurisdiction is not binding, it can still be persuasive.

 

[Jamsy]

dexter,
I'll give you a precedent. My mate got two years for telling fibs in court or rather, not telling the truth.

It doesn't matter what court it is. If you fib and get found out it is perjury.

Now just because no other eejit has been daft enough to tell blatant porkies in a libel case in Scotland doesn't mean the law against it doesn't exist.

And btw, your reliance on precedent, in this instance, is unprecedented in scots law.


Edit> other's beat me to it.

 

[DexterTCN]

Your politics are entirely unrelated to morality? I hate to break it to you dude, but you've just declared yourself a sociopath.

Ohh someone twisting what I said, that's new.

Anyway...this is the politics forum, so I figure I'm OK by saying my considerations are political. You might want the philosophy section.

 

[DexterTCN]

dexter,
I'll give you a precedent. My mate got two years for telling fibs in court or rather, not telling the truth.

It doesn't matter what court it is. If you fib and get found out it is perjury.

You're not understanding the premise mate...a Scots libel case leading to a perjury charge. Yoiu go find one and come back thanks....I'll expand on my next post.

 

[DexterTCN]

Apart from the Criminal Justice system's duty to evaluate the perjury evidence and prosecute.

No "precedent" is necessary

...there is a hierarchy of cross jurisdictional precedent

So which one do you want?

Let me guess...whatever suits you at the time?

Anyway...let's just go with my question...where is the precedent in Scots law?

And your answer is "There isn't one, Dex. I got that wrong, sorry".

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Whatever happens it's a sad end for a guy who did have a very good record of fighting for working people and communicating left wing politics in an accesible idiom

 

[DexterTCN]

If that's what happens then it's very sad indeed.

It's not over yet, though.

 

[Poi E]

If that's what happens then it's very sad indeed.

It's not over yet, though.

He's not made of teflon, you know...

 

[Cobbles]

So which one do you want?

Let me guess...whatever suits you at the time?

Anyway...let's just go with my question...where is the precedent in Scots law?

And your answer is "There isn't one, Dex. I got that wrong, sorry".

Reading skills are clearly not your forte are they?......

When something is part of the Common Law (or becomes part of the law through Statute or subordinate Legislation), then it is the law - there's no need for a case in point to establish its validity.

In this instance there's a clear precedent defining what perjury is in Scots law so that telling porkies in a defamation case (not "libel" - a Tort in English Law but unknown to Scots Law) is against the Criminal Law of this land.

 

[DexterTCN]

Reading skills are clearly not your forte are they?......

Acutally those skills are ok, my forte is spotting cunts who can't admit when they're wrong.

You don't happen to have a precedent do you...maybe in a link we can click?

 

[Poi E]

You don't happen to have a precedent do you...maybe in a link we can click?

Do you simply mean a prior example of prosecutorial discretion being exercised in favour of prosecution for perjury following a Scottish defamation case? Or the actual law underpinning perjury?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Do you simply mean a prior example of prosecutorial discretion being exercised in favour of prosecution for perjury following a Scottish defamation case? Or the actual law underpinning perjury?

Most people giving evidence are advised about how to avoid perjury and so I doubt that there is a specific precedent in a Scottish defamation case. Perjury trials are relatively rare - though Aitken and Archer managed to up the rate significantly. Martha Stewart in the USA was also convicted of perjury IIRC.

 

[DexterTCN]

Do you simply mean a prior example of prosecutorial discretion being exercised in favour of prosecution for perjury following a Scottish defamation case? Or the actual law underpinning perjury?

The precedent of a defamation case being followed by a perjury trial in Scots law.

 

[Cobbles]

The precedent of a defamation case being followed by a perjury trial in Scots law.

Why is there any necessity for a "precedent"?

If you tell lies in court and are found out, then you're liable to be prosecuted.

If you want to find out what perjury is, you'll have to go down to the Library and look it up - apart from the case citation that I gave, you might also like to have a general text such as Gordon on Criminal Law which will help you with the astonishing proposition that where there's settled law, you don't need case-driven precedent.

 

[urbanrevolt]

The whole thing's a complete mess. When I first heard of this on round 1 my thoughts were TS's sex life is his own, a private matter, assuming that there are no issues about non-concensual sex which there aren't. That the SSP should issue a statement to that effect, perhaps just warning high profile members that anything they do can and will be used against them by the right-wing establishment. That if it came to a court case that NoTW losing was no bad thing.
That any comrades called to testify should be able to refuse but as they can't perhaps make vague statements such as not being able to fully remember the issues under contention.

What complicates it all of course is that TS at first agreed to go along with a party decision then went against his own party and embarked on an extremely unwise and destructive court case that he must have known would blow up the SSP and involve his comrades facing very difficult dilemmas.

I have to say that bastards though the NoTW are- we knew that anyway- I therefore don't have nearly as much sympathy with TS as the fact that it has presented enormous problems for the Scottish left. His sexual or other proclivities are not at issue- what is is taking in a damaging court case.

The SSP though I think could have dealt with it all far more simply at the start by declaring that TS's sex life is his own, they should have told TS to stay on as leader and wage a campaign within the working class movement, through sympathetic newspapers, in communities across the country to say – Tommy Sheridan’s sex life is his business and no one else’s, and in the context of the war in Iraq, the bombardment of Lebanon, the attacks on public services in this country, it is irrelevant. But instead they forced his resignation.

It's a sad stroy all round and lessons need to be learned.

 

[Cobbles]

That any comrades called to testify should be able to refuse but as they can't perhaps make vague statements such as not being able to fully remember the issues under contention.

That probably would have been construed as contempt of court....

Thankfully, some of them had enough integrity to tell the truth.

What complicates it all of course is that TS at first agreed to go along with a party decision then went against his own party and embarked on an extremely unwise and destructive court case that he must have known would blow up the SSP and involve his comrades facing very difficult dilemmas..

Well, maintaining the Sheridan persona was clearly more important than any party issues.

It's a sad stroy all round and lessons need to be learned.

Yes - it's clearly unwise to choose a narcissistic fantasist as your party leader........

 

[Geri]

Oh my God, Dexter, you are so thick!

 

[DexterTCN]

Eloquent.

 

[Alan G]

Snip, the SSP should have

Except Tommy insisted he was going to take the NotW to court

 

[newbie]

The precedent of a defamation case being followed by a perjury trial in Scots law.

There aren't that many defamation trials. Which is more likely to induce a precedent, some sort of showbiz 'personality' being traduced over their hairstyle or elected politicians and the leadership of a major political party apparently lying through their teeth?

 

[Cobbles]

the leadership of a major political party

Oh come now, we're talking about the SSP - a major political party - it was just a few weejies on the make.

 

[Cobbles]

Just in:

Gail Sheridan and her father Angus Healy, 71, were questioned at Gayfield police station in Edinburgh.

Police later confirmed that both Mrs Sheridan and Mr Healy had been charged in connection with the investigation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7252672.stm

I wonder if they do family cells in Saughton?

 

[Udo Erasmus]

That probably would have been construed as contempt of court....

Thankfully, some of them had enough integrity to tell the truth.


Well, maintaining the Sheridan persona was clearly more important than any party issues.


Yes - it's clearly unwise to choose a narcissistic fantasist as your party leader........

I understand why some people in the SSP have a problem with Sheridan. I living far away can't judge the truth of the allegations against him, but I think that we should recognise that whatever he may or may not have done in recent years, he is someone who has helped in the past to further the cause of socialism and someone whom many poor and working class people as seen as someone who speaks up for them. He might or might not have a fatal flaw, but I think he is someone who has devoted his life to the cause.

 

[Cobbles]

someone whom many poor and working class people as seen as someone who speaks up for them.

More fool them......

I think he is someone who has devoted his life to the cause.

'cause it gave him a good living without having to work for it........

 

[danny la rouge]

The whole thing's a complete mess.

I more or less agree with your assessment, with a couple of small provisos. I'll keep it brief, as we've had several threads on this, and it's going over old ground.

First, when the story first broke, you'll remember it was about an anonymous MSP. He wasn't identified by party or position. But that same Sunday, the SSP exec held a meeting to find out how Tommy planned to deal with the story. This was because several of them already knew of Tommy's hobby, had been expecting this moment, and knew it was only a matter of time before his name came out.

And here is where two versions of events now emerge:

- Tommy's version, where the SSP exec decided to pin the story of an anonymous MSP on Tommy, and falsify accounts of the meeting, in order to depose him, as part of a conspiracy with News International and the security services.

- The version of the majority of those present, who say he admitted the story was true, but that he planned to fight it by suing the NotW.

In the latter version, Tommy's comrades advised him against that course of action because it was tactically stupid and would lead where it in fact led. In this version, Tommy was given suggested ways of tackling the story. Tommy refused, and so the exec said OK, in that case we have to ask for your resignation. So Tommy didn't go along with the suggestions, that's why he resigned.

If, however, we choose to believe Tommy's version of events, his exec suddenly turned against him and pinned a false sex story on him and forced his resignation. If that's really the case, why did he remain in the SSP for so long after his resignation as leader?

As to issues of non consensual sex, well there are the allegations of prostitute use. If those are true, then he did cross a line.