Andy Coulson perjury charges

Well now, this is turn up for the books.

David Cameron\’s former communications chief Andy Coulson has been arrested and charged with perjury.

Tommy Sheridan was found guilty and jailed over perjury in the same series of cases. So no one can really complain if they have a look at the truth of what everyone was saying in court at the time.

Which leaves the interesting question: whatever lies there were (or were not of course, he\’s been charged only), were they about the same thing? Thus it\’s a case of either Tommy or Andy?

Or were they about different things to do with the same case, thus it being possible for them both to have committed perjury?

I have a feeling it might be the latter….

17 thoughts on “Andy Coulson perjury charges”

  1. Definitely the latter. The prosecution demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that lied about visiting the sex club, and about the affair with a woman from the SSP, neither of which involved Coulson’s evidence.

    He was acquitted of lying about the affair with the NOTW journalist, which is probably just as well considering.

  2. The Police seem to be working on large dossier given them by Sheridan’s brief: so there is likely to be some connexion between the cases.
    Nice to see them coming down here mob-handed
    (seven officers to make the arrest) and driving all the way back : suggestions of a cross border raid by a posse.

  3. the great redacto

    Agree. Mr Coulson’s involvement in Mr Sheridan’s perjury trial, while not peripheral, did not change the basic facts of the case as given above.

    So in theory, Mr Coulson could be convicted – and, God knows, strange things do happen in the Crown Office – but it would not necessarily lead to Mr Sheridan being vindicated. However, Tommy, ghastly old Trot and a frightful ham to boot, does like his days in court.

    I note – probably an unfashionable view – that the Met has yet to charge Mr Coulson with anything related to his time at the NoTW. He had a day at Lewisham nick last July but since then nothing. The gist of his involvement in Mr Sheridan’s case was that he denied being involved in, or aware of, any illegal activities, including phone hacking. Maybe the Strathclyde plods have dug up something the Met has missed, but if Mr Coulson isn’t charged or convicted in London, it is difficult to see how the fiscals can move things forward. Case not proven, m’lud.

  4. This bloke said to me, “I’m going to chop off the bottom of one of your trouser legs and put it in a library.” I thought ‘There’s a turn-up for the books.”

  5. Case not proven, m’lud.

    That’s a jury decision up here, not a judicial one. You think Cameron’s ex-spin doctor would get a fair trial within 100 miles of Glasgow?

    His remaining hope must be that the Crown Office can’t find or fake sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. Considering the political situation and the fact that the hairy-arrsed Nats love Sheridan because he can drag voters away from the red rosette / monkey clan, they’ll probably have him up if all they can find is “Anwar said that Tommy said …” Having a high-profile anti-English case going on at the same time as the Dependancy campaign would suit them to a T (that’s “T for Tennants” btw.)

  6. Can someone guilty of perjury give evidence in a trial ?

    Why would anyone believe anything they said under oath.

  7. the great redacto

    You think Cameron’s ex-spin doctor would get a fair trial within 100 miles of Glasgow?

    Absolutely not, and the political dimension, Wee Eck ringing up Steve House and shouting at him to put a kilt on the story, makes for fascinating speculation and is all too easy to imagine.

  8. Shinsei67, in principle the answer is “yes”, they can. Such a conviction goes to credibility, of course, but is no barrier to giving evidence after that conviction.

  9. Am I losing the plot here? I thought Coulson was one of Sherridan’s defence witnesses – how does proving your defence witness lied vindicate you?

    Answers in very short syllables please, I’m already confused…

  10. Yes, Coulson was a defence witness, but not a sympathetic one. I suppose he gave evidence under legal duress, or the threat of it.

    It’s not clear to me why Coulson’s answers about newspaper phone hacking would affect the jury’s view of whether Sheridan was guilty of perjury. But the questions must have had some relevance.

  11. It seems that just about everyone who appeared as a witness in the various Sheridan cases could be done for perjury.

    “hang ’em all and let god sort them out”

  12. Coulson was dragged out as a defence witness in the hope that he’d be honest about how corrupt the NOTW was, and thereby discredit everyone involved with the NOTW.

    Instead, he lied about how corrupt the NOTW was by saying “not”, but the jury still felt that everyone from the NOTW was discredited and didn’t convict Sheridan on anything that was solely down to evidence provided by the NOTW.

  13. It was a general fishing exercise really. Sheridan saw the opportunity to get Coulson under oath and it looks like he caught a whopper.

  14. Was Coulson deliberately or unknowingly in nominal charge of the NotW when journalists were hacking? Only he knows.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *