Musings and Snippets from a recently retired JP. I served for 31 years, mostly in west London. I was Chairman of my Bench for some years, and a member of the National Bench Chairmen's Forum All cases are based on real ones, but anonymised and composited. All opinions are those of one or more individuals. JPs swear to enforce the law of the land, whether or not they approve of it. Nothing on here constitutes legal advice.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015
Numbers
If anyone here knows Andy Coulson, could they ask him if I could have his lottery numbers?
Of course a court's verdict must be final, as I accept, but Mr. C. must have a guardian angel somewhere.
Come on, Bystander old chum, you know as well as I how high the bar is for a No Case To Answer. It's judge-speak for it's a disgrace that this came to court.
You may not like him, but they still have to prove something before he can take up residence in the Archer Suite at HMO Sheraton
Actually the Judge's ruling was that Mr C had lied when giving evidence in the case involving the ex MSP Tommy Sheridan back in 2010 but that the Crown had not shown that Coulson's evidence was relevant in the Sheridan trial. On this basis there was no case to answer. Not at all the same as saying he didn't lie, only that it made no difference in the Sheridan hearing & therefore a charge of perjury couldn't be made to stick. As BS has intimated, Coulson got lucky.
I think the key criticism is that apparently another Judge wrote chapter and verse in a report about how Coulson's evidence *was* relevant to the original trial.
This report was never passed to the judge in this case, and then a *lack* of relevance was used as the rationale for dismissing the perjury charge.
It's either fishy, or the CPS have been hugely incompetent, given they've been preparing for this trial for over a year.
Something definitely fishy going on if the CPS were involved. Perhaps they were colluding with his Barrister...
On the other hand the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the defence Advocat agreed a year ago that this aspect could only be tested by the judge hearing the evidence.
I'm not sure I'd really want Andy C's "luck"; and 18 month sentence in July last year (of which he served 5 months) was no joy I'm sure. Any "guardian angel" wasn't much in evidence then!
I was waiting for the Scottish 'Not Proven' to come in at some stage, but it didn't. As the judge Lord Burns ruled, Coulson's alleged lies were irrelevant to the perjury case. Tellingly he added "not every lie amounts to a perjury". Our own DPP Alison Saunders must be relieved that this latest CPS failure was on not her patch, but on Scotland's....
The Spectator covers the subject in language that I understood at http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/06/not-every-lie-amounts-to-perjury/ Apparently, he may have lied but, in the Judge's view, it did not alter the outcome of the case, and apparently this means it is not perjury. One learns something new almost every day!
All a bit of a circus really. Whilst Mr Coulson may not be on everyone's Xmas card list anymore, he is not half a s bad than the other character in the case.
hopefully all this shit will be over and done with and some ral villains can start getting put away
What are you insinuating BS - suits you - 'I accept, but': that justice has somehow been perverted? Well STFU, you don't like it when OTHERS criticise the judicial system, but YOU think you can, you bl00dy hypocrite.
Can it really be the case that it doesn't count as perjury if the evidence is not 'relevant' in the trial? I find that astonishing. A witness promises to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is no caveat about 'in so far as it turns out to be relevant' and nor should there be. Is that really English law? or is it just in Scotland?
Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.
Less a guardian angel and more a very imaginative and skilled barrister?
ReplyDeleteCome on, Bystander old chum, you know as well as I how high the bar is for a No Case To Answer. It's judge-speak for it's a disgrace that this came to court.
ReplyDeleteYou may not like him, but they still have to prove something before he can take up residence in the Archer Suite at HMO Sheraton
Actually the Judge's ruling was that Mr C had lied when giving evidence in the case involving the ex MSP Tommy Sheridan back in 2010 but that the Crown had not shown that Coulson's evidence was relevant in the Sheridan trial. On this basis there was no case to answer. Not at all the same as saying he didn't lie, only that it made no difference in the Sheridan hearing & therefore a charge of perjury couldn't be made to stick. As BS has intimated, Coulson got lucky.
DeleteI think the key criticism is that apparently another Judge wrote chapter and verse in a report about how Coulson's evidence *was* relevant to the original trial.
DeleteThis report was never passed to the judge in this case, and then a *lack* of relevance was used as the rationale for dismissing the perjury charge.
It's either fishy, or the CPS have been hugely incompetent, given they've been preparing for this trial for over a year.
Something definitely fishy going on if the CPS were involved. Perhaps they were colluding with his Barrister...
DeleteOn the other hand the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the defence Advocat agreed a year ago that this aspect could only be tested by the judge hearing the evidence.
You seem well informed about perjury law in different jurisdictions.
ReplyDeleteNot sure that this one becomes you, Bystander Team. Maverick team member ?
ReplyDeleteIsn't an angel a bit like a friend in a high place?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I'd really want Andy C's "luck"; and 18 month sentence in July last year (of which he served 5 months) was no joy I'm sure. Any "guardian angel" wasn't much in evidence then!
ReplyDeleteI was waiting for the Scottish 'Not Proven' to come in at some stage, but it didn't. As the judge Lord Burns ruled, Coulson's alleged lies were irrelevant to the perjury case. Tellingly he added "not every lie amounts to a perjury". Our own DPP Alison Saunders must be relieved that this latest CPS failure was on not her patch, but on Scotland's....
ReplyDeleteWhy would he need a guardian angel when there was no case to answer. Surely you're not suggesting the law doesn't work?
ReplyDeleteThe Spectator covers the subject in language that I understood at
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/06/not-every-lie-amounts-to-perjury/
Apparently, he may have lied but, in the Judge's view, it did not alter the outcome of the case, and apparently this means it is not perjury.
One learns something new almost every day!
i think it may be what we lawyers call a 'legal nicety'...at least for Mr C!!!
ReplyDeleteAll a bit of a circus really. Whilst Mr Coulson may not be on everyone's Xmas card list anymore, he is not half a s bad than the other character in the case.
ReplyDeletehopefully all this shit will be over and done with and some ral villains can start getting put away
What are you insinuating BS - suits you - 'I accept, but': that justice has somehow been perverted? Well STFU, you don't like it when OTHERS criticise the judicial system, but YOU think you can, you bl00dy hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteCan it really be the case that it doesn't count as perjury if the evidence is not 'relevant' in the trial? I find that astonishing. A witness promises to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is no caveat about 'in so far as it turns out to be relevant' and nor should there be. Is that really English law? or is it just in Scotland?
ReplyDelete