UKC

So in the end the Jury did not have a say.


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

"Explaining his ruling, Lord Burns told the jury that perjury was the giving of false evidence under oath which is relevant to the issues in that trial.

He said the Crown needed to prove that Mr Coulson's allegedly false evidence in the 2010 Sheridan case was relevant to the issues in that trial, and that was for him as a judge to decide rather than the jury"

In reply to Jim C:

Yes interesting. As I understand it, he lied under oath but that is not perjury as the lies were not shown to be relevant in the case in question (Sheridan).

In reply to Jim C:

Innocent of those charges, guilty of others!

In reply to Jim C:
At the time Sheridan's defence looked like it was about forcing Coulson (and others?) to commit perjury or admit crimes rather than Sheridan defending himself.

In reply to elsewhere:

The problem I have with this is Sheridan was defending himself. He asked a question that was NOT in that trial ruled to be irrelevant, so Coulson answered it ( and lied) .
So the judge in the Sheridan trial was either wrong to allow that question ( on the relevance issue) or this latest judge is wrong.

My view, the latest judge was wrong , and from what I have read he did not even read and take into account the previous judges rulings.

If this had gone to the jury, Coulson would be found guilty. ( as he clearly is,)
He got off on a technicality (in the average honest person's judgement) I would suggest.

In reply to The New NickB:


NOT innocent, he clearly lied under oath.
His lie was just ruled to be 'irrelevant' to that trial ( retrospectively) and it overruled the previous judge who allowed the question for good reasons. ( that the latest judge did not even read as I understand)

I would want this ruling to be appealed in the public interest, or at worst change the law so these people cannot wriggle out of their crimes, and stand up and claim to be innocent.

In reply to Jim C:
Issue here is the behaviour of the crown.

At Tommy Sheridan's trial the crown argued that Andy Coulson's evidence about phone hacking was irrelevant to the case and had no bearing whatsoever on his guilt or innocence.

At Andy Coulson's trial the Crown were trying to argue that Andy Coulson's evidence about phone hacking was relevant to his conviction.

Given the Crown's contradictory position this prosecution was unsustainable.

In reply to Jim C:


As far as I can understand it, he wasn't guilty of the 'crime' of perjury in that instance since, in the eyes (and letter) of the law, the crime could only have been committed if the lie was 'relevant'. In this case, it wasn't so he couldn't be found guilty. Ergo, he was innocent of the crime in this instance, (albeit not in spirit!)

Having said that, I heard Sherridan on the radio yesterday responding the this outcome and he sounded as much of a buffoon as I remember him being.

In reply to Jim C:

The charge was perjury, he was innocent of perjury, because whilst he certainly lied, those lies were not considered of consequence to the case. So he is innocent of the charge, he has obviously done time for other charges and he is obviously a dishonest, lying shit who keeps bad company.

In reply to The New NickB:

I do so hope that you are suggesting that the bad company includes Cameron.

In reply to rogerwebb:

The Coulson trial looks like it might have been sabotaged, as the critical relevancy ruling from Lord Brackendal was NOT given to the judge at the Coulson trial. Was it just incompetence, or a deliberate omission?

http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scotsman/20150604/281586649207913/TextVie...

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Of course!

In reply to Jim C:

No need to sabotage it, it was a logical nonsense.

In reply to rogerwebb:


But, putting aside the 'legal definition of perjury, can we at least agree that he DID lie in that first trial?
He is claiming he did not.

In reply to Jim C:

I think he did, but I don't know he did.

In reply to rogerwebb:


I just watched HIGNFY, and Ian Hislop said he lied ( but it was not perjury)

I think if the programme's lawyers ok'd him to say he lied , we can be sure it is true.