Sheridan update

A very quick update.

Things are starting to move.  Tommy and Gail will appear in Edinburgh sheriff court on petition next week.

Looks like my camera picked the wrong week to pack up, never mind – v-blogging to begin in the near future…

PS I guess this is a different Tommy Sheridan

“Let me tell you something a sales call with Tommy Sheridan on St. Patricks day in Philadelphia is a recipe for a good time. …

“Then went to Tommy Sheridan’s office around 10:30. I know the reason he wanted to meet me on St. Paddys day at 10:30 was so I had an excuse to take him to lunch. So we met quickly, set up a bunch of stuff for fall deliveries and then went to lunch. Long story short is lunch ended at about 5:30 PM. Luckily I had stopped drinking at around 2 so I was OK to drive home. Tommy takes the train in to work and I am not sure how he made it.”

[nah, can’t be our Tommy]

” He is a fun guy.”

[then again…]

About loveandgarbage

I watch the telly and read when not doing law stuff and plugging my decade and a half old unwatched Edinburgh fringe show.
This entry was posted in tommy sheridan, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Sheridan update

  1. Anonymous says:

    What is the reason for this appearance and why are the couples co-accused not appearing on the same day.
    Is it possible to commit perjury in the divorce Courts.
    I hope you and yours are all well
    Mick Hall

    • Re: question
      Hi Mick
      nice to hear from you again.
      On your second question – yes, and having read the judgment (especially some of the paras on charitable donations I highlighted in a post yesterday) perhaps a well meaning member of the public will refer matters to the constabulary. I suspect that the court may prefrr to investigate contempt of court initially given the press conference on the steps of the court and the relationship to the undertaking and order pronounced on certain matters being discussed in public (referred to within the judgment).
      On thje first question I don’t know. However, this is merely a preliminary diet within the Scottish procedure – that is simply an opportunity to lodge a plea and for the defence to have notice of the charges and to indicate a timescale for investigations. This does not mean the trial will start next week (as suggested on one blog I read today). This is simply the start of the process leading to trial (and incdientally indicates the Crown has taken the view that it is in the public interest to prosecute – so they belive there is sufficient evidence to merit a prosecution).
      The newspaper reports do not make clear if other parties will appear (the media focus up here is on the Sheridans).
      I would read nothing into only the Sheridan appearing from the perspective of the trial as a whole (if that is indeed the case). Unless, the Crown is separating the accused into 2 or 3 trials because the evidence relating to the 4 former SSP executive committee members is more appropriately dealt with together (given that the alleged perjury in relation to each must relate to the controversial executive committee meeting of the SSP – the charges relating to Gail and her father cannot relate to that meeting, and the charges relating to Tommy so far as I am aware from the media reports relate to matters beyond the executive committee meeting). The media reports are too brief and I have not seen a cronw office press release on this as yet (although will ask my friends on the mailing list for that if they can enlighten me at all).
      At least a trial will indicate whether all of this has been worthwhile.
      Best wishes
      PS incidentally, the report mentions they are appearing on a petition. This is Scottish criminal procedure for a solemn (or jury) case. Th hearing being in the sheriff court does not mean that it will be heard before a sheriff. It will probbaly be heard in the High Court of the JUsticiary before a High Court judge and jury. THere are 15 in a Scottish criminal jury (12 in a civil jury) and as with our civil jury cases a simple majority is all that is required. So 8-7 one way or the other will determine matters. Sheridan benefited from that rule in his civil case (where in England the case would have involved a hung jury and either no decision or a new hearing). I have no idea how the jury will play in the new case, other than to note that appearing on petition in Edinburgh pretty much indicates that the trial will be in the High Court in Edinburgh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s