HMA v Sheridan and Sheridan – day 1 overview and links

Just a quick post on day 1 of the HMA v Sheridan and Sheridan trial linking to some of the material out there. The jury was sworn in and the trial began. The indictment is available in a few places. This contains the charges the Crown has to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The charges include perjury and Mr Sheridan is also charged with attempting to get his successor as SSP leader Colin Fox to perjure himself during the original defamation case.

Tommy Sheridan’s own take on the day is accessible from his blog and the recently established Tommy Sheridan trial blog covers the morning proceedings (noting that the jury comprises 12 women and 3 men – for non-Scots (and Scots who watch too many bad American law shows) a simple majority is all that is required for decision come the end of the trial) and the afternoon proceedings. During the afternoon the witness was former SSP minutes secretary Barbara Scott – who gave evidence in the original defamation action. It appears that the evidence is beginning with consideration of the alleged SSP executive committee meeting attended by MSPs and senior SSP members where contradictory evidence was given in the original defamation case.

News coverage thus far can be found in the Record, the BBC, the Daily Mail,  Guardian (a second report on Scott’s evidence is also on the Guardian website), the Scotsman, and the Herald (although peculiarly the Herald website coverage of the evidence today relies on a PA report – which is also relied on by the Independent).

Reporting is a tad sensationalist (not unfamiliar to those who followed the original defamation action) and there was little today that was not considered in the original defamation proof – other than reference to a handwritten minute which Ms Scott handed to police after the original defamation case. As yet Ms Scott has not been cross-examined so the position to be taken by the defence is not clear.

Mr and Mrs Sheridan have pleaded not guilty.

The trial, as they say, continues.

As this is an ongoing matter I am mindful of the rules relating to contempt of court. If any comments are made on this (or later posts about the trial) that appear to cross the boundaries they will be deleted as soon as I am aware of them.

Edited to add links to further on-line comment on day 1- The Defend Tommy Sheridan website has blogged on day 1 of the trial. The Absolvitor law website queries the use of public money in the case.  The Socialist Unity website picks up one interesting aspect of Ms Scott’s evidence.  Most bizarre host for a comment on day 1 of the trial is the on-line Reputation Management website which offers advice to those that find themselves in the press. Also there is quite a full report in the Press Gazette.

Advertisements

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 Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to HMA v Sheridan and Sheridan – day 1 overview and links

  1. bigrab says:

    Fascinating stuff. The Tomster’s own blog is very interesting -thanks for the link.

  2. Jim Monaghan says:

    Yesterday was a disaster for the prosecution. Barbara Scott admitting withholding evidence from the defamation trial and that this was decided by a small group of people outisde of normal party structures (otherwise known as a conspiracy). The worst news for the prosecution was that she also dropped McCombes in it, claiming that he was involved in passing the withheld evidence to her. I would guess that the prosecution are now reconsidering their decision to have so many SSP witnesses, although it would be hard to imagine that many of them could be worse for the prosecution than Barbara Scott.

  3. Frank Martin says:

    Jim Monaghan
    Former Press Secretary for Solidarity.

    • Jim Monaghan says:

      Yes Frank, this site has established that already (more than once) 🙂

      This is quite predictable and happens in every blog where I post. The pattern is no comment on my post, no comment on the subject, only comment about me.

      Its boring and slightly annoying and adds nothing to the debate.

      • Frank Martin says:

        Hehe… well you [i]are[i] vastly more interesting than Coulson and perjury trials, obviously 🙂 Simply trying to figuring out your previous job title alone can seem like work experience with Indiana Jones.

        It’s often a bit pointless discussing issues with you anyway Jim – you’ve usually got a point you want to push, and push it you will… no matter how the debate, or information put forward develops. That might be a little harsh, but it’s certainly how it feels [u]at times[/u].

        I don’t really think it’s a subject that people [b]connected[/b] with it should be speculating on, or discussing online at present. Best to step back me thinks and let others discuss this till after the court has dealt with it. About 50% of the total online blog comments so far on the trial have been made by yourself (some are gone now obviously) – dunno who that was kicking up a fuss – they had a bit of a point though. At least for Doleman’s peace of mind. I’m sure others that are viewing your comments will be loving it, especially journalists, and everyone’s probably chanting at their screens just now, “Shut up! Shut up! Let the boy type”.

        Feck it… I might be totally wrong. I’m currently screwing-up an attempt at an HND in Legal Services, so I’m no expert. It’s just that the volume of your comments on it so far are making my eyes pop-out a little – It’s also giving me that tight feeling in my chest that I usually get when I see a kid running towards a busy road.

  4. Jim Monaghan says:

    What fuss? Are you saying that the reason the comments are withdrawn is people kicking up a fuss about me? I really cannot see that being the case.

    I really dont know why you want to stop me commenting on this. I NEVER hide my identity or background when discussing these issues. If I was up to no good I would do what the SSP folk do and post under a pseudonym. I was an SSP member for a lot longer than a solidarity member and know the people on both sides.

    As someone who was a press officer for a party whose leader faced perjury charges you should appreciate that I know the rules and my limits inside out.

    I am commenting on the reports here and elsewhere based on what is in court that day and what is already in the public domain.

    So far, I have had SSP members follo me to every site and never comment on anythong other than me. Of course I am biased, every report is!

    You posting my former role in solidarity was your attempt to get people to read my comments through bias. I dont mind that.

    But this concetred effort by SSP members to shut me up is embarrassing and doesnt look good for your side in this, what do they have to fear from my comments?

  5. Jim Monaghan says:

    seriously frank does reading one comment on each report and occassional replies to people who have a go at me really make your eyes pop! The volume % wise is about the fact that others are not commenting, numbers wise it amounts to 8 comments in a week, 2v of them responding to people who only comment about me. I ams ure you must be able to take in such a small amount of reading FFS!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s