Archive for shirleymckie.myfastforum.org To allow readers to post comments on current issues related to the Shirley McKie case
 


       shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Test Forum 1
frank

HMA V COULSON: SCOTTISH CROWN SABOTAGES ITS OWN PROSECUTION

Scottish Crown sabotages its own prosecution.

Very interesting from Tommy's lawyer.

http://tommyslawyer.co.uk/hma-v-c...tish-crown-sabotages-prosecution/
david

Was wondering when someone would become unstuck at the hands of the ludicrous CJM judgement. Didn't think it would be the Sheridan case.

5 High Court Judges concluding that a previous false rape allegation is not material during a defendants trial when the complainer alleges the same offence against them.


The Crown have a lot to answer to in relation to Mr Sheridan's allegations that reports from other judges which supported the relevancy argument were not disclosed to the trial judge in Coulsons trial. If this is true then there should be some kind of investigation.
nugnug

i never knew there was such a point of law i allways thought that lying under oath was lying under oath whatever the relavance.
david

It appears Frank Mulholland thought the same nug nug to the tune of aprox 1 million wasted pounds.
frank

The Scottish justice system has today confirmed that you can lie during a trial and get away with it as long as the information your lying about is not all too important to the trial.

What a pure laughing stock.
Big Wullie

For me there is a two part test here.

1)Was it relevant.

2)Did Crown rely upon it for their conviction.

I think one runs into the other in that if Coulson's evidence was not relevant then why did the crown call him as a witness.

Would a jury have rejected all of his evidence if he had been proven to have lied ?

Having listened to a few charges to the jury judges always tell them they can accept some evidence but not the entire evidence from a witness.

If they do not accept it all as credible they simply put it to the side but they can also accept some and not it all, it is a matter for the jury to decide what they accept as proven and credible.

This is the way judges regularly direct juries.

I think if you tell a lie during a high court trial then you have committed perjury no ifs or buts about it.

Relevancy to the evidence at that trial does not feature.

In this instance I have to say this:

If Coulson claimed he knew nothing about phone hacking at the news of the world then in my view the fact he was sentenced for phone hacking in London proves in itself he told lies.

He should have been convicted or at the very least it should have been allowed to go to the jury.

As much as I agree he should have been convicted I do not accept this means Sheridan did not also tell lies.

Take away the evidence of Coulson there was nearly an entire party of SSP MSP's and others who gave evidence against Sheridan.

I think the jury would still have convicted him but this is only my opinion.
nugnug

well the jusge at sherdins trial said coulsons evedence was relvant to the conviction some im not sure how the judge at the coulsen trial formed this opinion unless of course he dident know that.
frank

http://tommyslawyer.co.uk/wp-cont...ridan-Tommy-Bracadale-extract.pdf
nugnug

https://www.change.org/p/michael-...=mob-xs-share_petition-custom_msg
frank

Seems to be taking quite a long time for this petition to secure the 1000 names.

Everything has went so quiet in the media relating to Coulson's acquittal and  the questions related to the failed Crown prosecution which cost aprox 1 million pounds.

They will sweep all this under the carpet like they usually do.
Big Wullie

What is the odds the SCCRC will tell Sheridan what the courts have said in Coulsen ?

The lie was not relevant to the trial therefore your appeal should be rejected lol
frank

I seen somewhere it took nearly 2 years for Sheridan's defence to prepare the SCCRC application therefore I'm guessing that his submission must consist of more than the Coulson point.


What do you make of the Bracadale Report supposedly supporting the relevancy argument yet the Lord Burns doesn't see this report?
Big Wullie

frank wrote:
I seen somewhere it took nearly 2 years for Sheridan's defence to prepare the SCCRC application therefore I'm guessing that his submission must consist of more than the Coulson point.


What do you make of the Bracadale Report supposedly supporting the relevancy argument yet the Lord Burns doesn't see this report?


The Judiciary in Scotland is an absolute shambles to say the least with the left hand not knowing what the right is doing.

When one reads the amount of appeals as I do all I see is inconsistency which the Lawyers and QC's are shit scared to argue about.

Justice really does depend on which judge you get at trial and appeals and nothing to do with Legislation.

The way the law is taught in our universities is not the way it is practiced and I know many agree with me on this issue.

       shirleymckie.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Test Forum 1
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Sincere thanks to all those who have supported Shirley and challenged miscarriages of justice on this forum.