Dear All
Advocate Depute Alex Prentice, QC has described the Tommy Sheridan Case as a “straightforward” case.
It isn’t anything of the sort; it is complex because of the amount of witnesses and evidence presented.
The jury has a lot to look through and think about.
The Crown says that this case was brought ‘in the public interest’ and not in the interest of the News of the World, the SSP or the Police.
Given the usual nature of how this case came before a criminal court, I think this statement to some may some far fetched.
Some people believe this trial is an establishment organised witch hunt on behalf of the News of the World.
Prentice says that he has presented a “convincing and compelling” case against the former MSP.
However he should consider whoever tells the best story in a court has a fair chance of winning.
He also says that justice would be denied if perjury was not prosecuted.
Justice for the News of the World!
This is a newspaper that has destroyed a considerable number of people and in some way played a part in building them up.
If Prentice was looking for a sympathy vote about the poor NOTW I can’t see him getting it.
And remember Gail Sheridan was in the dock and all charges against her were dropped.
This begs the question if the case against her was so strong to charge her why did Alex Prentice back out?
Did he say this case was in the public interest?
Prentice told the jury of 12 women and two men that perjury was a serious offence that, if not prosecuted, puts the entire justice system at risk.
Is this case about lying or saving the entire justice system?
The case either stands or falls on its merits, nothing else should enter the mind of the juror least of all propping up the justice system.
He put it to the jury that they may be wondering why the crime should take up the time of the High Court when there were cases of murder, child abuse and drug dealing to handle.
He said:
“Why should we be interested if Mr Sheridan had sexual relations at a sex club? There is no suggestion that any crime was committed. They were all consenting adults. There are no victims of such as in a murder. The charge is one of perjury. That is a serious crime for the simple reason that our whole system of justice falls apart if perjury is acceptable behaviour. Juries such as yourself are expected to be given truthful evidence so that you can discharge the serious duties that you have. These murder cases could not be properly determined if perjury abounds. There would be a denial of justice. It is not acceptable and should never be acceptable in a mature and dignified democracy. If we let perjury pass without action, we let ourselves down.”
This case is a pile of crap and the justice system isn’t going to fall if Tommy Sheridan walks.
You could argue in a perverse way that justice would be served if he walked.
Prentice asked the jury to consider Katrine Trolle.
He said:
“Why on earth would Katrine Trolle want to come here and tell you about intimate things, sexual behaviour, to a busy court and a jury composed of strangers? Why would she put herself through that?”
I could hazard a guess that most people would think of and say money?
In the end this case shouldn’t have been brought regardless of the rights and wrongs.
How much time and money has been spent in case with no victims, that is the real crime here.
When Alex Prentice said that this case was brought ‘in the public interest’, I thought he was just going through the motions and taking the piss.
Sheridan in summing up said:
"I've got a wee girl at home, I've got a loving wife and if you decide to convict me I'll be separated from them for a very long time. I have to convince you that there's far too much reasonable doubt for you to find me guilty of any of the remaining six charges."
Would the world be better if Tommy Sheridan was slammed up?
I would say no.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Advocate Depute Alex Prentice, QC has described the Tommy Sheridan Case as a “straightforward” case.
It isn’t anything of the sort; it is complex because of the amount of witnesses and evidence presented.
The jury has a lot to look through and think about.
The Crown says that this case was brought ‘in the public interest’ and not in the interest of the News of the World, the SSP or the Police.
Given the usual nature of how this case came before a criminal court, I think this statement to some may some far fetched.
Some people believe this trial is an establishment organised witch hunt on behalf of the News of the World.
Prentice says that he has presented a “convincing and compelling” case against the former MSP.
However he should consider whoever tells the best story in a court has a fair chance of winning.
He also says that justice would be denied if perjury was not prosecuted.
Justice for the News of the World!
This is a newspaper that has destroyed a considerable number of people and in some way played a part in building them up.
If Prentice was looking for a sympathy vote about the poor NOTW I can’t see him getting it.
And remember Gail Sheridan was in the dock and all charges against her were dropped.
This begs the question if the case against her was so strong to charge her why did Alex Prentice back out?
Did he say this case was in the public interest?
Prentice told the jury of 12 women and two men that perjury was a serious offence that, if not prosecuted, puts the entire justice system at risk.
Is this case about lying or saving the entire justice system?
The case either stands or falls on its merits, nothing else should enter the mind of the juror least of all propping up the justice system.
He put it to the jury that they may be wondering why the crime should take up the time of the High Court when there were cases of murder, child abuse and drug dealing to handle.
He said:
“Why should we be interested if Mr Sheridan had sexual relations at a sex club? There is no suggestion that any crime was committed. They were all consenting adults. There are no victims of such as in a murder. The charge is one of perjury. That is a serious crime for the simple reason that our whole system of justice falls apart if perjury is acceptable behaviour. Juries such as yourself are expected to be given truthful evidence so that you can discharge the serious duties that you have. These murder cases could not be properly determined if perjury abounds. There would be a denial of justice. It is not acceptable and should never be acceptable in a mature and dignified democracy. If we let perjury pass without action, we let ourselves down.”
This case is a pile of crap and the justice system isn’t going to fall if Tommy Sheridan walks.
You could argue in a perverse way that justice would be served if he walked.
Prentice asked the jury to consider Katrine Trolle.
He said:
“Why on earth would Katrine Trolle want to come here and tell you about intimate things, sexual behaviour, to a busy court and a jury composed of strangers? Why would she put herself through that?”
I could hazard a guess that most people would think of and say money?
In the end this case shouldn’t have been brought regardless of the rights and wrongs.
How much time and money has been spent in case with no victims, that is the real crime here.
When Alex Prentice said that this case was brought ‘in the public interest’, I thought he was just going through the motions and taking the piss.
Sheridan in summing up said:
"I've got a wee girl at home, I've got a loving wife and if you decide to convict me I'll be separated from them for a very long time. I have to convince you that there's far too much reasonable doubt for you to find me guilty of any of the remaining six charges."
Would the world be better if Tommy Sheridan was slammed up?
I would say no.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
4 comments:
Didn't I see you at a News of the World hustings, chatting to their political editor?
Dear Anon
"Didn't I see you at a News of the World hustings, chatting to their political editor?"
Was I?
Who is their political editor?
I will talk to anyone, and to be fair I generally don't ask their names.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Women don't really like philanderer type of blokes.
With a jury of 12 women and 2 blokes he didn't have much chance from day one.
The main reason this case blocked the High Court for three months, pushing murderers and drug dealers to one side while they dealt with Sheridan is because he crossed swords with the establishment, and won.
The NOTW is a private arm of the British government, extremely useful for spying and smear tactics, while keeping the Governments hands clean of any mess it generates.
So seven million pounds of public money got spent chasing one Glaswegian socialist while The Houses of Parliament, a nest of expenses thieves and bare faced liars, barely gets a look-see.
The other classic case in recent years is Mohammed al-Fayed, a billionaire who put the British establishments nose out of joint.
He can't get a passport no matter how hard he tries, and yet every tom dick or mohammed arriving in the UK from all the corners of the globe can pick up a passport after a few years.
Post a Comment