Monday, December 20, 2010

The Crown Summing Up, Introduction

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:
  1. The Scottish Socialist Party Executive meeting on the 9th November 2004
  2. The Cupids visit
  3. The "McNeilage Tape.
For reasons of space We will deal with each of these three areas separately in our subsequent reports.



23 comments:

Who_do_you_think_you_are_kidding_Mr_Prentice? said...

'Prentice then said to the jury... that the case was appropriate, to show that no-one was "above the law"'.

Does Mr Prentice seriously expect anyone to believe this guff?

Tommy Sheridan, whatever else he may or not be, is hardly a privileged pillar of the British Establishment. I don't believe he attended Fettes or Gordonstoun. He does not (at least as far as I am aware) spend his spare time massacring Scotland's wildlife on a Highland estate...

Clearly Mr Sheridan should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us. And of course every jurisdiction takes perjury seriously because the courts have to be seen to punish those who take the mick out of the system. But to have the jury believe that this prosecution was somehow an attempt to strike a blow against the high and mighty in defence of liberty, fraternity and equality is really rather silly and fools no-one.

Chumpo said...

What doe the hearsay evidence regarding Barbara Scott refer to? I think I must have missed a bit?

Can someone link to the relevant previous report, if it's been covered here?

Anonymous said...

@Who_do_you_think_you_are_kidding_Mr_Prentice? said.. TS did reach the lofty heights of the privileged position of Member of the Scottish Parliament.

The Quiet Observer said...

Who_do_you_think_you_are_kidding_Mr_Prentice? said...

What planet are you on?

Regardless of whether you think TS is guilty or not, Perjury remains a serious charge. It is further aggravated by the allegations that it took place in the Court of Session; that the accused was a serving MSP in the Scottish Parliament and that he stood to win a sum of £200,000 by committing perjury. I can't think of any more serious allegations of perjury in Scotland in recent years. Can you? This has nothing to do with the class system. People from less-priviliged backgrounds than TS now enjoys are far more likely to be charged with perjury in Scotland every other week.

Armchair Juror said...

"assess the credibility and reliability of witnesses" through their "body language" and "demeanour." - not from where I am sitting.

Anonymous said...

How will Tommy explain telephone records, same with Diary entries.
Are these not undisputed facts?

Anonymous said...

PS. How long did the summing up take?

Olivia Twist said...

This is good stuff, James. More, please!

James Doleman said...

Should have the next part soon Olivia. BTW comments may be slow to be moderated for the next hour or so.

Olivia Twist said...

Very much looking forward to it, James. And no need to apologise for slow comment moderation. Ox

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan Ventriloquist and Puppetry Circle said...

Can't wait! Feels positively Dickensian: hanging around a scribe's windows hoping for a glimmer of news.
[Sounds of cawing crows in background at this point obviously being, recognisably, a poor imitation].

Has AP posed questions to the jury he'd have liked TS to answer if he'd gone into the witness box?

Anonymous said...

well done Mr P........i had reservations about where you were going through the trial....but my faith has been restored in your summin' up.....

Anonymous said...

Tommy Sheridan has quite a job tomorrow. If the jury haven't already made up their minds.

Say it ain't so Joe said...

Probably a good idea for AP to have kept it short and sweet. Also a very good idea to lance the 'Rupert's Little Helper' argument as deftly as he seems to have.

It may be a somewhat inconvenient truth for some who post here but my own view based on too long spent footling about in our criminal justice system is that the default setting of most of our prosecutors is either politically neutral or fairly liberal/left.

It may also surprise many that your average PF tends to treat whatever goodies the Polis report to them as being potential garbage. A PF friend of mine frequently referred to police statements disclosed as 'enemy propaganda'.

Some pretty brave PFs have battled hard over the last few years to prosecute serving police officers guilty of various crimes including corruption, sexual abuse, assault and perjury.

In the space of 20 years I have seen a sea change in our criminal justice system. Things that were once simply not prosecuted are now prioritised and treated with enormous sensitivity by our prosecutors - I'm talking hate crime, domestic crime and race crime as just three examples. The fact of the matter is that our independent prosecution system has helped Scotland start drag itself from being the wife-beating , asylum-seeker bashing intolerant hell-hole it could be into a half decent civic society. When I read posters here digging at AP because they've convinced themselves that he spends half an hour every morning phoning Rupert Murdoch for the party line I think that the point is being missed somewhere.

Heather said...

Dear Quiet Observer,

I read in the Herald that this was the first ever perjury investigation following a civil trial in Scotland, so the treatment of the Sheridans is obviously very unusual in that instance.

I don't know how often perjury trials are launched in Scotland following criminal cases though, do any of the legal eagles out there know ?

If it is "every other week" then fair enough QO, Sheridan is just one of many, but I think your dislike of the man may be clouding your judgement.

Anonymous said...

Say it aint so Joe, I know a procurator fiscal who when at uni and still is a member of dare I say... a far-left wing organisation.

James Doleman said...

Hello jimmy the penguin sorry if we could avoid drawing conclusions just yet.

Best Regards

James

jimmy the penguin said...

Fair enough!

Clerk of the Blog said...

jimmy the penguin - you will have to wait until Lord Doleman gives instructions for us to retire and consider your verdict before you can begin deliberations.

James Doleman said...

"Lord Doleman?"

May I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments before.

Anonymous said...

lol James, it looks like you have been recognised for all your hard work by being elevated to the bench, your Lordship.

Anonymous said...

james, don't accept, you would then join good 'socialists' like Lord Prescott. No, wait a minute, he only accepted it for his wife's sake so that's ok.

Not politically affilliated said...

Jamesie Cotter Esq. Govan Ventriloquist and Puppetry Circle said...


Has AP posed questions to the jury he'd have liked TS to answer if he'd gone into the witness box?
December 20, 2010 8:45 PM

**

I dont think he's allowed to comment on Sheridan's right not to give evidence.