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
Big Wullie

Tommy Sheridan Appeals To SCCRC

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news...-scandal-former-msp-tommy-3668792

Sex scandal former MSP Tommy Sheridan says he's 'supremely confident' his 'unsafe' conviction for perjury will be quashed

Jun 10, 2014 07:45  

THE firebrand socialist was jailed for three years in January 2011 after being convicted of lying under oath during his successful defamation action against the News of the World in 2006.


FORMER MSP Tommy Sheridan is to launch a new bid to overturn his perjury conviction.

The 50-year-old is set to take his case to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in a fresh attempt to clear his name.

Sheridan said he is "supremely confident" his "unsafe" conviction will be quashed.

The firebrand socialist was jailed for three years in January 2011 after being convicted of lying under oath during his successful defamation action against the News of the World in 2006.

The now defunct tabloid printed allegations about his private life, which included claims that he visited a swingers' club and cheated on his wife. He was awarded £200,000 in damages after winning his defamation case against the newspaper at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

But he ended up on trial for perjury at the High Court in Glasgow, where he was convicted of the charge at the end of 2010.

Sheridan - who was freed from prison after serving just over a year of his three-year sentence - has always maintained his innocence.

In 2011, he was refused leave to appeal against the perjury conviction. His legal team wanted to argue that he had been denied a fair trial because of the amount of publicity generated before it got under way, but senior judges found the case was "not arguable".

In cases where there has already been an unsuccessful appeal or leave was previously refused, the only route back to appeal judges is via the SCCRC.

Mr Sheridan will now urge the commission to look at his case, with his lawyers arguing he suffered a miscarriage of justice.

He is set to lodge a submission and supporting documents with the body in Glasgow, hoping it will refer the case back to the High Court for an appeal.

The SCCRC will firstly have to decide whether to accept the application. If it does, it then has to determine whether there may have been a miscarriage of justice, a process which usually takes a few months.

If the commission decides there may have been such a miscarriage, it would then refer it back to the High Court, and the case proceeds like a regular appeal.

Speaking in advance of the move, Mr Sheridan said: "I am supremely confident my 2010 conviction will be quashed. It was unsafe and unsavoury. We now have the proof required to expose the extent of the fit-up I was subjected to. The truth will out."

His lawyer, Gordon Dangerfield, said: "I believe that the submission and supporting documents which we are lodging with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission present an absolutely compelling case that Tommy Sheridan's conviction for perjury was a miscarriage of justice.

"We seek that the commission refers the case back to the High Court for further appeal procedure.

"I believe not just that the perjury conviction will be quashed in due course but that Tommy will be completely vindicated."
Big Wullie

I think he is in for a wee surprise with SCCRC.

It will let him see what I have been up against for decades.

I can now only give him the same advice he gave me as an MSP when I sought his help over my wrongful conviction.

"Do You Not Think You Should Give It Up, It Has Clearly Affected You And Your Family All These Years"
nugnug

the conviction should be quashed but ive got a feeling it wont be.

mind you seeing as one of the main witness is now facing a perjury charge for evidence given at Tommys trial id like to see an appeal courts reasoning for saying the conviction was safe.
Big Wullie

nugnug wrote:
the conviction should be quashed but ive got a feeling it wont be.


On what ground NugNug ?
nugnug

on the grounds that a prosecution witness is facing perjury charges for evidence he gave in that trial.

of course this witness hasnt been convicted of perjury but how can the crown charge him and then say all the prosecution evidence was true.
Big Wullie

nugnug wrote:
on the grounds that a prosecution witness is facing perjury charges for evidence he gave in that trial.

of course this witness hasnt been convicted of perjury but how can the crown charge him and then say all the prosecution evidence was true.


Are you aware of the standard charge to juries nugnug.

"it is up to the jury what evidence they believe and they can ignore some evidence, put it to the side and accept other evidence from witnesses"

Most appeals also conclude that even without this evidence the jury were entitled to convict.

Or

There was other overwhelming evidence even without the new evidence.

On a personal level I do not think he has any chance of success.
Big Wullie

Do you ever think the Courts are going to accept that Crown relied upon perjured evidence nugnug ?
nugnug

well i dont see how the crown can charge a prosecution witness with perjury and then say all the prosecution evidence heard in court was true.

im sure they will probably find a way of doing it though.
Big Wullie

From the BBC Website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-27774357

Quote:
His legal team wanted to argue that he had been denied a fair trial because of the amount of publicity generated before it got under way, but senior judges found the case was "not arguable".


No way on the planet this ground will ever be a success in Scotland believe me.

If any cases deserved to win on this ground it would of course be Luke Mitchell and Nat Fraser.

In Fraser he had the First Minister and Justice Minister criticising the Supreme Court decisions similar to the Winchester Three which of course was a success.

I am also afraid there is a reluctance from Scottish Solicitors to raise this issue with the courts despite the success of the Winchester Three case.

He might however have more chance of this in the UKSC or ECHR.
david

Has the witness who gave evidence in this case been charged with perjury?
nugnug

yes they have.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18262740
david

When somebody is convicted and it turns out a witness committed Perjury (material evidence) then surely that supports an arguable ground to overturn the conviction

How can it be a fair hearing when people are committing Perjury?

Have to wait and see if Mr Coulson is convicted
david

Tommy Sheridan's perjury conviction to be reviewed


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28662098
nugnug

ive got a feeling theres a lot more revalations to come out in this case.
Big Wullie

Does the fact Coulson lied at the trial prove Sheridan never lied at his trial ?

Nearly every member of the SSP gave evidence against Tommy Sheridan, so I am sure the conviction did not rest solely or entirely on the evidence of Coulson.
nugnug

Big Wullie wrote:
Does the fact Coulson lied at the trial prove Sheridan never lied at his trial ?

Nearly every member of the SSP gave evidence against Tommy Sheridan, so I am sure the conviction did not rest solely or entirely on the evidence of Coulson.


the appeal cort might very well agrea with you on that.

but i have feeling moe will have come out by the time this is all over.
Big Wullie

I am only trying to second guess what the courts will say.

One must always anticipated what arguments the crown will advance.

It appears to me because Coulson lied (Which has as yet to be proven) this does not prove Sheridan did not.

If all the SSP were indicted then this would be a game changer for Sheridan.

The question the courts of appeal will address are these.

Had the evidence been before a jury would their verdict have been different.

Without the evidence was there a sufficiency.

I am afraid Tommy Sheridan is up against it.

The appeal courts and SCCRC are never going to admit there was a criminal conspiracy against Sheridan, or anyone else for that matter.

They always appear to find in favour of the Status Quo.
nugnug

i agrea i doubt if the appeal court will overturn the conviction on that alone.
nugnug

http://tommyslawyer.co.uk/
david

it appears this blog has been shut down for some reason
nugnug

i think someone might of complained it was prejudicial as certain people are still awaiting trial.
david

makes sense nugnug.


There was certainly some startling allegations against Crown and Police.
NanaKaren

I read the book Downfall by Alan McCoombes which shows another side to Tommy

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Downfall-...;keywords=downfall+tommy+sheridan
david

Good or Bad side Karen?

Will need to get a read of it.



Looks like his lawyer's blog is back up and running.

SCOTTISH CROWN DID NOT CENSOR TOMMY’S LAWYER BLOG

http://tommyslawyer.co.uk/
NanaKaren

It shows both sides David but the bad side is not a very nice side.

Bottom line is Tommy lied and was willing to allow others to go to prison. In fact Alan McCombe did go to prison.
Had he taken the advice he was given, which was admit you went to Cupids and you have cheated on your wife then all would have been forgiven. But he wouldn't
I am really saddened and disappointed by it all.

Although I do realise he did do a lot of good. I used to be one of his greatest supporters. I attended anti poll tax meetings was heavily involved in it all. I was there at Queen St whe he was released from prison re the poll tax and the "offences" and we marched with him to the City Chambers when he took up office as a counciller.

He did get rid of warrant sales which was amazing and he also did help get rid of the poll tax which helped get rid of Thatcher. But he got way too big for his boots sadly.

He is a wonderful speaker I know that.

I don't think he will win an appeal because regardless of Coulson he did lie.
All of this could have been avoided.

the book is worth a read.
nugnug

i don't know weather hes guilty or not but there seems to have been a fair bit of skulduggery used in convicting him.
NanaKaren

There might have been but after reading the book I am unsure. What I am sure of  after reading the book is  that Tommy did tell lies and asked others to tell lies for him. When they didnt they were classed as scabs.  Telling lies in court was what he was convicted of regardless of what Coulson has done.

If you have a kindle it is cheaper to read. It is very enlightening.
david

You certainly don't see a solicitor lambaste the Scottish Justice System so
brazenly very often.

Whether he's guilty or innocent, the scenario of prosecuting someone for perjury and using a witness who is a convicted perjurer does not sit well when considering your rights to a fair trial.  

Was the evidence material I don't know

Could turn out to be an embarrassment
nugnug

he certanly doesnt mince his words does he.

my main problem with this case is the length of time the police took investigating the case i mean i cant think of any other perjury cases that have been investigated for 3 years before a charge was made that sounds like they were out to get him.

and also the behavior of the judge at the original libel trial which was pretty unprecedented.
nugnug

gerry conlon speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK-a0G-tQ6s
SCCRC MOJ SELL BY DATE

Interesting one

As it was quite rightly pointed out, the evidence can be cherry picked and it could rest upon if you set this evidence to one side, was there still enough evidence to secure a conviction?

Only one fundamental problem with that - appellate bodies are supposed to consider the evidence in tablets of stone and should not be trying to second guess what may or might not have happened. As highlighted by the now Lady Maggie Scott, QC, at UKSC level.

Got to agree there will still be a white wash and no wrong-doing on part of the infallible Mr Mulholland & his cronies
david

Tommy Sheridan's publicly-funded legal bill hits nearly £250k


http://www.heraldscotland.com/pol...l-bill-hits-nearly-250k.121824507


Quote:
A spokesman for the SCCRC, which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, said a conclusion to the case is "imminent"
nugnug

http://t.co/SsDsSWia5K
frank

Hi nugnug,

Do you believe the verdict in this trial will have any affect on the SCCRC review of Mr Sheridan's application?


Personally, I believe Mr Sheridan is guilty and has wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax payers money defending his lies. It would also be interesting to see how much Legal Aid he was granted to pursue his SCCRC application.

Conversely, I don't think its fair to prosecute someone of perjury with the aid of a convicted perjurer.

I also wonder if his ulterior motive support for SNP will change if the SCCRC decide not to refer his case back.

Frank
NanaKaren

I personally do not think the Coulson case will affect the Sheridan one.

I also do not believe his support for SNP is anything to do with the SCCRC. I believe his motives are to further his political career.

He became involved since before the referendum. He cannot stand as an msp on his own until 2016.
He supported independence and got people involved in rallies. he then supported SNP.
Many people have the theory that he is trying to gain support for himself when he can once more put himself forward as msp in 2016.
nugnug

frank wrote:
Hi nugnug,

Do you believe the verdict in this trial will have any affect on the SCCRC review of Mr Sheridan's application?


Personally, I believe Mr Sheridan is guilty and has wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax payers money defending his lies. It would also be interesting to see how much Legal Aid he was granted to pursue his SCCRC application.

Conversely, I don't think its fair to prosecute someone of perjury with the aid of a convicted perjurer.

I also wonder if his ulterior motive support for SNP will change if the SCCRC decide not to refer his case back.

Frank


hi frank personally i dont think it will neccasrly afect the review i dont know weather his guilty or innocent he may very well be guilty as charged.

but i do belive there has been a fair bit underhand behavior used to convict him.

and if a key witness is convicted of perjury it really should make the conviction unsafe as coulsen was a proscution witness he played a part in the jury reaching a verdict of guilty now they may of reached that verdict anyway but it cant be said for a fact that they would.
frank

Karen, nug nug


I guess it comes down to if the Crown relied on Coulson's evidence for conviction. If they did then he arguably didn't receive a fair trial considering Coulson turned out to be a convicted perjurer.

I agree that if someone commits perjury during the trial then the conviction should be quashed. No ifs or buts. It is a strong argument for a breach of Article 6.

Will be interesting to see the aftermath when the SCCRC reject or refer his application.

Hopefully he doesn't further his political career as the man is a liar.


frank
Big Wullie

For me Frank

What It boils down to is this.

OK so Coulson lied about the phone hacking.

But this in no way proves Sheridan did not also tell lies.

I do not believe for one minute the whole SSP conspired against Sheridan or that he did not visit Cupids.

The phone hacking is an entirely different issue.

I believe Coulsen knew about it.

Why would he not know where his info was coming from.

This does not in any way mean I accept crown should rely on evidence coming from proven liars for any conviction.

I also believe Sheridan was guilty.

I do not accept that if someone tells lies then the conviction should automatically be set aside.

It depends how crucial and material to the conviction the lie was.

Does Coulsen telling lies, prove Sheridan never lied ?
Big Wullie

I am afraid to say I knew what the court were going to do with this case.

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

I said it above:

Quote:
I do not accept that if someone tells lies then the conviction should automatically be set aside.

It depends how crucial and material to the conviction the lie was.


The court said this:

Quote:
Judge Lord Burns ruled the Crown had not shown Mr Coulson's evidence was relevant in the Sheridan trial.


Is this correct.

This trial was nothing to do with Sheridans conviction but about lies told at Sheridans trial which is distinct.

Had they said this at an appeal by Tommy Sheridan I could accept it more.

The only issue the Judge should have addressed was whether he had lied or not.

The evidence appears to show he did tell lies.

This is more an attempt to shut down Sheridans chances of appealing and I bet this is what he is told by SCCRC.

Like I said above I do not accept because he lied, that if follows that Sheridan told the truth.

If one looks at the lies they are totally different.
NanaKaren

Sheridan blasts Crown Prosecution Service

20 minute press conference


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcRqhM3O2ME
david

Why was the relevancy of Coulson's evidence not considered by Lord Advocate before going ahead with the prosecution of Coulson if relevancy is a pre requisite of a perjury allegation.

He might be guilty but I think Sheridan makes a good point.

Shambolic justice system where lots of money has been wasted.
nugnug

why was this point of law only intruduced in the middel of the court case why did they not bring it up at the start.
Big Wullie

Relevancy is not the issue believe me.

If he lied during a high court trial he Committed Perjury.

From what I have seen if he was convicted for phone hacking and told the high court he knew nothing about it then he clearly lied and should have been convicted.

How relevant to the Like Mitchell trial for murder was bottles of piss under his bed ?

The crown relied upon it so it was in their perverse minds relevant.

The same applies to Coulson in the trial against Sheridan.

The crown relied on Coulson to convict Sheridan and I am sure the charge to the jury also would have mentioned it too.

One rule for the rich and another for the poor, always been the same.

       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.