Tommy Sheridan found guilty of perjury [Updated Bump] - Page 2

LondonRoad · 29-01-2009, 19:58

You can disagree with his politics, You can question some of the alleged antics in his personal life, but he has been a significant figure in Scottish politics for quite sometime.

As I overheard one Granny say to her purple rinsed friend on the train tonight -
"If it wisnae for Tommy Sheridan we'd still have yon Poll Tax".

Not quite true but he did become a prominent figure then and went to Jail for it. Maybe he just likes porridge

Tezcatlipoca · 23-12-2010, 18:53

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-12059037

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC News

Tommy Sheridan has been convicted of perjury following a 12-week trial at the High Court in Glasgow.

The 46-year-old former MSP was found guilty of lying during his successful defamation case against the News of the World newspaper in 2006.

He sued after it printed allegations that he was an adulterer who had attended a swingers' club.

Sheridan has been given bail and faces a prison term when he is sentenced on 26 January.

His wife Gail, also 46, was acquitted last week after the Crown withdrew charges against her.

(snip)

Minutes before, the politician was found guilty of five allegations under one charge on the indictment.

The last remaining allegation, that he had a sexual relationship with former News of the World columnist Anvar Khan, was deleted.

In coming to their verdict, the 14 members of the jury ruled that: Sheridan did tell a meeting of the SSP executive committee on 9 November 2004 that he had visited Cupid's in Manchester in 1996 and 2002 with Ms Khan.

The jury found that party members Keith Baldassara and Alan McCombes did state at the meeting that they had previously raised the issue of Sheridan attending a sex club in Manchester with him and that he admitted that it was true.

It was also found that he did visit Cupid's with Andrew McFarlane, Gary Clark, Ms Khan and Katrine Trolle on 27 September 2002 and that he did have a sexual relationship with Katrine Trolle between 1 January and 31 December 2005.

Following the majority verdict, advocate depute Alex Prentice moved for sentencing, giving a short biography of Sheridan's political career and mentioning previous convictions for breach of the peace.

Lord Bracadale requested background reports and said any submissions by Sheridan could be made at the sentencing hearing next month.

The judge told Sheridan: "You have been convicted of the serious offence of perjury and must return to court expecting to begin a prison sentence."

(snip)

So then... guilty of perjury (although he can still seek to appeal the verdict).

What I want to know, & haven't seen mention of, is... as he has been found guilty of lying in court during his successful libel action against the News of the World, does this mean that he will have to pay back the damages he obtained from the News of the World?

Osem · 23-12-2010, 20:13

I would think so. This is what happened with Lord Archer:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1448075.stm

I wonder if Sheridan employed Jonathan Aitken's "simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play"....

Flyboy · 23-12-2010, 20:28

This whole sorry story is extremely distasteful. It starts with an unnecessarily intrusive report on someones private life, a fool who really should have known better and should have kept his mouth shut, a so-called friend's treachery and now he may face jail for something that should never have gotten as far. I think it is about time the test of, "in the public interest," is re-examined.

nomadking · 23-12-2010, 20:52

He shouldn't have won the original case. Even he seemed to indicate at the time, that he only won it because he from the Left.

IIRC the case with Lord Archer, was where they changed the day anything was supposed to have taken place at the very last minute before trial. In that situation, could anyone have dealt with something where you had an provable alibi for a specific day before, but now faced having to provide an alibi for a day that you couldn't(eg you were home on your own).

Derek · 23-12-2010, 23:32

Guilty

If he'd accepted that he had done wrong rather than trying to wriggle and squirm his way out of things he wouldn't be looking at the wrong end of a prison sentence, the damages award being overturned and possibly losing his house.

The trial was pretty ridiculous with everyone and their granny lining up to shoot him down and only a couple of family members (including one who miraculously remembered after the trial started *exactly* what was doing on a specific evening 10 years ago) still clinging to the story that it was a huge setup.

Derek · 26-01-2011, 10:59

3 years in jail. Well about 14 months in reality.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-12280552

Osem · 26-01-2011, 12:21

Yeah but he's only been sent down because of his lifelong fight against 'injustice and inequality'....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12287231

**Hugh** · 26-01-2011, 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

3 years in jail. Well about 14 months in reality.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-12280552

I wonder if he will be trying a threesome in prison.........

Derek · 26-01-2011, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Yeah but he's only been sent down because of his lifelong fight against 'injustice and inequality'....

It's a conspiracy!

TheDaddy · 26-01-2011, 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

3 years in jail. Well about 14 months in reality.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-12280552

3 years, I wonder if it'll be tough sentances all round now, if burglars and muggers got anywhere near 3 years it'd be better imo

Derek · 26-01-2011, 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

3 years, I wonder if it'll be tough sentances all round now, if burglars and muggers got anywhere near 3 years it'd be better imo

It would be even better if 3 years actually meant something close to 3 years.

TheDaddy · 26-01-2011, 14:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

It would be even better if 3 years actually meant something close to 3 years.

Now now Derek we have to let them out early for behaving whilst inside, it's almost as if the concept of "behave or we'll keep you banged up even longer" never occured to them.

Derek · 03-06-2015, 20:41

Bit of a mega bump but Andy Coulson has been cleared of committing perjury during the previous perjury trial not because he didn't lie but because the PF couldn't prove his lies had an effect on the case.

Confused? Me as well but on the bright side Mr Sheridan is going absolutely tonto with rage right now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32962263

Quote:

Former News of the World editor Andy Coulson has been cleared of committing perjury while giving evidence in the 2010 trial of ex-MSP Tommy Sheridan.
The Crown alleged that Mr Coulson, 47, lied about his knowledge of phone hacking at the now-defunct tabloid.
The case against him collapsed after his defence team successfully argued there was no case to answer.
Judge Lord Burns ruled the Crown had not shown Mr Coulson's evidence was relevant in the Sheridan trial.

**Damien** · 03-06-2015, 21:12

It seems am uncharacteristically fair and sensible decision to me. I am surprised that the law has been drafted well enough to allow it happen. The alternative is that there would be scope for an overzealous prosecution to convict someone of perjury, a serious offence that carries a jail term, for telling a irrelevant minor lie in court.

I.E Someone lies about where they going when they witnesses a crime. They might say they were off to work but really they had decided to take the day off. Is that really worth of being illegal? I am not sure.

We have enough laws written with enough leeway to convict people for stupid things. Remember that guy who was convicted of terrorism offences after tweeting a joke? Everyone knew it was stupid but the law meant they just had to stick with it.