In These New Times

A new paradigm for a post-imperial world

Her Majesty’s Advocate v Mr and Mrs Sheridan

Posted by smeddum on December 28, 2010

26 December, 2010


By Ian Hamilton QC

Socialist Unity

The News of the World has at last won its vendetta against a left wing politician. It has done so with the connivance of the Lord Advocate. If at first you don’t succeed keep trying. Scottish justice has notched up another political miscarriage of justice alongside that of Al Megrahi and Muir of Huntershill.

This remains to be said. For the Lord Advocate to bring this case was a prostitution of Scots law. The Lord Advocate is a member of the Scottish government and the government was the pimp. The aim was not to seek justice but to placate Rupert Murdoch and the News of the World.

Consider this. In every case where someone seeks damages there are two sides. Mr Sheridan won his civil case because the jury believed his witnesses and disbelieved those for the News of the World. In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of common sense these latter witnesses were now tainted. Yet they were then called by the crown against the Sheridans. In a criminal case a jury must decide the issue of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I can think of no better example of reasonable doubt, than a case which rests on the evidence of witnesses already discredited by another jury. In all my years as a lawyer I have never known a case where the successful side in a civil action was prosecuted for perjury. If anyone had to be prosecuted it was the side held to have lied under oath.

No doubt the Lord Advocate was leant on by Rupert Murdoch’s employees. The Lord Advocate is a member of the government. Very likely they did some leaning too. It was not the money that mattered to the journalists. It was their pride. They were prepared to spend the same sum that Mr Sheridan got in damages on buying a video from a known thief. No attempt was made to have the tape examined by a voice expert. It was presented as it came as though it needed no further examination. I have never known a prosecution case that relied on voice recognition to go to a jury without being supported by expert testimony. In this case there was none.

The case raises wider issues still. Who is responsible for the behaviour of our police? They spent thousands of man hours and over a million pounds on this investigation, while the gangster bosses go free. All the police do with the gangsters is make it hard for them to get contributory pensions: yet they spend prodigiously where a press baron is offended. Dear God! Has it come to this!

But that is not all! Mr Sheridan is a political figure. The police don’t like his politics. Neither do I, but neither of these facts matter. Fifteen of them burst into his house where they knew there was a three-year-old child. They terrified the whole family including the child. She hid in a spasm of terror behind a sofa. She will remember that all her life. The Sheridans are not violent people. They are public figures untainted by violence. The violent people were the police. Why did it take fifteen policemen to burst in when the suspects would have gone to a police station if asked?

But that is not yet all! Mrs Sheridan was then senior air hostess with BA in Glasgow. (She has since retired.) She had a collection of whisky miniatures exhibited freely in her living room. The police without further enquiry charged her with their theft, and leaked it to the press that they had done so. This attempt to blacken her character was an affront to justice. It caused her to be suspended from her job, while her employers made the enquiries the police should first have made. Normally you don’t charge someone with theft unless someone has complained of theft. BA found the whisky miniatures were not stolen and reinstated her. This attempt to pervert the course of justice by blackening Mrs Sheridan’s character is an affront to justice.

I declare my interest. I am a friend of Mr and Mrs Sheridan. We have some political interests in common. I also am a republican. That’s about as far as it goes. But greater even than my loyalty to my friends is my loyalty to the law of Scotland. I spent a lifetime trying to uphold its standards. The prosecution of Mr and Mrs Sheridan was against every known principle. It was motivated entirely by a desire to placate a powerful press baron. Scots law used to boast that it protected the weak against the strong. Now it lies in shame.

Next year it will be made even more shameful when the Lord advocate is rewarded by being made a judge.

This article was originally published at The Firm magazine and has since appeared in Newsnet Scotland.


A BBC interviewer on Good Morning Scotland was stupid enough to think this article was written in support of Mr Sheridan. It was not. The body of the article was written long before the verdict. Indeed The Firm legal magazine had accepted the article while we were still waiting the verdict. Only the first paragraph was written after the verdict.

The thrust of the article is against the prosecution having been brought at all. The whole matter reeks of a suspicion that the press, and in particular Rupert Murdoch’s News International, must be appeased. Readers should carefully watch next year’s judicial appointments. I strongly suspect that the Judicial Appointments Committee will have been sufficiently impressed by the Lord Advocate’s action to make her a judge.

3 Responses to “Her Majesty’s Advocate v Mr and Mrs Sheridan”

  1. jon said

    This articles seems to suugest that the jury that found Sheridan guilty are somehow easily duped and manipulated into making that decision. Maybe he thinks ordinary people are incaple of making a legal decision. The whole idea that Murdoch wanted to get Sheridan is ludicrous. This fiasco started when some journalist made suggestions about a sex club and a politician, and Sheridan decided to act in a way that damaged his reputation and damaged the socialist movement in Scotland. I don’t believe the establishment conspired to bring Sheridan down, the fact that he kept going on and on about a conspiracy with him as the lone Socialist was total arrogance. But Sheridan has a history of divisive politics. Everybody mentions the poll tax but Sheridan came into that act late in the day, and then managed to fracture the alliance. With the militant tendency he managed to split that by forming the Scottish Militant. He even tried to join Scargill’s socialist labour party but they didn’t want him because they knew he was had a divisive nature which would threaten any chance of unity. With the SSP this was a opportunity to divide the nationalist vote and challenge the snp, but he also managed to create divisions in the SSP by allowing the controlling egotistic swp a platform. He split the Scottish coalition for justice not war when after the invasion of Iraq the ssp pulled out of the coalition with ssp supporters claiming that the cnd were stalinists. He even tried to meet Castro in 2004, but I can’t recall whether he actually met Castro or anybody of importance. It is interesting that people like Chaves and Cartro steer clear of Sheridan and Galloway, what do they know? In late 2004 the Americans were bombing Falluja and causing Nazi style atrocities, but Sheridan’s actions assured that most socialists in Scotland were more concerned about whether he visited a sex club or not. After the fiasco he jumped ship to form solidarity with the SWP. What a joke. I don’t wish him imprisonment and the whole episode has been a tragic waste of time and energy, but Sheridan has brought this on himself.

  2. inthesenewtimes said

    The author stresses he is not a supporter of Sheridan’s politics. He questions the proceedings from a legal point of view.

    Now that the SSP feels itself vindicated by the legal system they purport to despise can we expect them to come to the fore as an oppositional force, warning of the coming second bailout and mobilising popular opinion against it, exposing the phoney war on terror, exposing the HINI scam, throwing their resources into opposition to war and opposing Britain’s increasingly irrational and destructive foreign policy, opposing repossessions and disconnections, fighting for the right to food, shelter and warmth for all? You know them- what do you think?

  3. smeddum said

    Firstly, the author reckons the first jury was good enough and there should not have been a second trial.
    Secondly, it would be strange if Murdoch was not out to get Sheridan if had just won £200,000 from him. Why do you think he would not be?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: