[Closed] Coulson - let off.

Well he didn't break the actual law.

Which isn't the same as being let off.

Doesn't mean he wasn't lying through his teeth under oath, of course, just that it wasn't a crime to do so because the outcome of the trial wasn't affected.

[i]"Not every lie amounts to perjury" Judge Burns tells jury[/i]

Burns agreed with MacLeod’s case that Coulson’s alleged lies under oath, when he appeared as a witness during the trial for perjury of former Scottish Socialist party leader Tommy Sheridan in 2010, were not material to the main case against Sheridan at that trial. That therefore failed to meet the required definition of perjury.

Now there's a law that needs tidied up a bit.

I find it entirely plausible that as the editor of a national newspaper he didn't show any particular interest in where his journalists were getting their stories from, involving as they did the most intimate details of people's personal lives.

Thankfully the judge did too

Justice has prevailed

Kitchen supper with Dave, Sam and Rebecca to celebrate this evening?

you nearly got me there binners 🙂

[img] [/img]

❓

Analogous to being offside but not interfering with play - not original to me, copied.

Any lawyers here?

Does that mean I can lie under oath as long as no tone takes any notice of me?

If his testimony was not material to the case WTF was he giving evidence for?

Confused of STW

There's a good analysis here;

[url= https://www.byline.com/project/8/article/70 ]https://www.byline.com/project/8/article/70[/url]

bloke who wrote it was live tweeting the bits with the Jury in and in court for the bits he couldn't report before outcome was known.

Analogous to being offside but not interfering with play - not original to me, copied.

If you're not interfering with play then why are you on the pitch?

[i]If you're not interfering with play then why are you on the pitch? [/i]

He was called as a defence witness at the original trial, Crown at the time said he was irrelevant. Therefore they can't now say his evidence (whether truth or lie) influenced the outcome of the trial.

Coulson's defence on this occasion haven't actually contested the evidence that he was lying, just that it didn't matter if he did or not.

If you're not interfering with play then why are you on the pitch?

If you are not happy with the offside rule, I suggest you take it up with FIFA. Apparently they are keen on reform at the moment.

JY the quote implies that the lie needs to affect the outcome of the trial (I didn't know this previously).

Burns agreed with MacLeod’s case that Coulson’s alleged lies under oath, when he appeared as a witness during the trial for perjury of former Scottish Socialist party leader Tommy Sheridan in 2010, were not material to the main case against Sheridan at that trial. That therefore failed to meet the required definition of perjury.

Odd it went to a full trial, I guess they needed to determine what he'd lied about.

Don't forget this is Scottish law, in England they just have to prove that you lied.

So, does the fact that Coulsons evidence didn't affect The originalconviction now settle once and for all the fact that Tommy Sheridan is a cheating, lying, purjuring ****?

I don't think that was ever in doubt

Perhaps the prosecution were hoping that the judge would put the technical question of relevance to the jury rather than acquit Coulson himself.

There would have been a fair prospect of conviction given that phone-hacking journalists are rightly regarded with contempt by most members of the public.

As per Al and others I wasn't previously aware of the definition of perjury in Scotland. Coulson absolutely lied about phone hacking at the trial but as in the judge's opinion it did not affect the outcome of Sheriden's trial Coulson has no case to answer. Disgrace.

The Scots might like to look at their definition of perjury, their decision whether to or not of course.

There isn't a comment as yet on the [url= http://hackinginquiry.org/ ]Hacked Off Website[/url]

JY the quote implies that the lie needs to affect the outcome of the trial (I didn't know this previously).

Yes read the link above and whilst i get it it seems an odd rule tbh

Seems absurd tbh, just seems to totally undermine "lying under oath", that should be an absolute. What happens when you lie about something that could have affected the trial, but didn't? Or probably didn't?

(OTOH I suppose there's a counterargument that it's possible to get asked offtopic questions in court where honesty might impact you negatively, without benefiting the case... which doesn't sit well either)

COPFS made a **** of it - who'd have thought?!

at least he was found guilty of something.....

[img] [/img]

money talks and the guilty walk

of course having friends in high places helps
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

@kimbers, I think Newsgroup paid something like £60m in legal fees with Brooks defense costing around £6m - sadly money does indeed buy a very good defense. I remain hopeful that new evidence will come to light and she'll be back in court.

What happens when you lie about something that could have affected the trial, but didn't? Or probably didn't?

[url= https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/andy-coulsons-evidence-at-the-sheridan-trial-the-legal-definition-of-perjury-in-scotland/ ]An old blog but on Perjury and Coulson[/url]I especially like the fact that Sheridan's decision to defend himself played a part in Coulson getting off.

@Cougar - my first thought too!

jambalaya - Member

@Northwind, we know the answer to that now - you are acquitted.

Do we? I'm talking about the grey areas that inevitably exist.

[i]I'm talking about the grey areas that inevitably exist. [/i]

If there was a grey area then the jury would be left to decide.

It's a fallen world innit.
What's Brooksey upto these days?

[i]Brooksey[/i]

Senior role in another News Corp company, obvs.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/02/storyful-rebekah-brooks-new-job-dublin-company ]http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/02/storyful-rebekah-brooks-new-job-dublin-company[/url]