Orraloon Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Been looking into it, as far back as 2012 people(who seemed informed and fairly neutral) were saying it wouldn't be perjury , or would be hard to prove. So it seems the surprise i feel has came about from my ignorance of Scottish law. http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/coulson-crossing-rubicon.html https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/andy-coulsons-evidence-at-the-sheridan-trial-the-legal-definition-of-perjury-in-scotland/ We can forgive you for your ignorance but you would expect the PF to know better? Which poses the question "Was this just a show trial to appease the public?". Pretty expensive show, if you ask me, but I suppose it's not their money they are wasting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 We can forgive you for your ignorance but you would expect the PF to know better? Which poses the question "Was this just a show trial to appease the public?". Pretty expensive show, if you ask me, but I suppose it's not their money they are wasting. If only i could be as magnanimous to others Well considering the prosecution had started and the judge decided to send the jurors home for 2 days after that, it seems like it was a very late defense. Although the judge has to make the decision on the relevancy, not the PF, so it's really a case if they don't send it, then the outcome we got is guranteed as opposed to looked at by a judge to make a judgement on "relevance". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnie x Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Been looking into it, as far back as 2012 people(who seemed informed and fairly neutral) were saying it wouldn't be perjury , or would be hard to prove. So it seems the surprise i feel has came about from my ignorance of Scottish law. https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/andy-coulsons-evidence-at-the-sheridan-trial-the-legal-definition-of-perjury-in-scotland/ Forgot how interesting some of his stuff was. Sadly missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyDenoon Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 So it's not that he lied, he did. It's the relevance of the lie to the case. So you can lie under oath provided you can get a judge to rule it is irrelevant, didn't know that. Apatently so. But you'd think the CPS would know that wouldn't you? Seems they only found out themselves 5 minutes before the trial collapsed. Something a bit stinky about this if you ask me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.