Appeal In Terms Of Section 74 Of The Criminal Procedure (scotland) Act 1995 By Andrew Edward Coulson Against Her Majesty's Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Menzies,Lady Clark Of Calton,Lord Brodie |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] HCJAC 49 |
| Published date | 09 June 2015 |
| Date | 01 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | HCA/2015-000530-XC |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
[2015] HCJAC 49
HCA/2015-000530-XC
Lord Menzies
Lord Brodie
Lady Clark of Calton
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD BRODIE
in
APPEAL IN TERMS OF SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1995
by
ANDREW EDWARD COULSON
Appellant;
against
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE
Respondent:
Appellant: Macleod QC, Meehan; Livingston Brown, Glasgow
Respondent: Goddard AD; Crown Agent
1 April 2015
Introduction
[1] The appellant in this appeal in terms of section 74 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 is charged on indictment with perjury. A diet for his trial in the High Court has been fixed for 21 April 2015. The allegations of perjury relate to evidence given by the appellant when called by Mr Tommy Sheridan, at the trial of the latter and Gail Sheridan, also on a charge of perjury, in the High Court at Glasgow (“the Sheridan trial”) on 9 and 10 December 2010.
[2] The libel in the indictment against the appellant includes the following:
“On 9 and 10 December 2010 at the High Court of Justiciary, Saltmarket, Glasgow, you ANDREW EDWARD COULSON, having been sworn as a witness in the trial of Thomas Sheridan and Gail Sheridan then proceeding in the High Court of Justiciary at Glasgow upon an indictment at the instance of Her Majesty’s Advocate charging them with attempted subornation of perjury and perjury, did falsely depone: ...
(b) that whilst you were employed as Editor of the News of the World Newspaper there was not a culture of making use of the unlawful interception of communications in the course of their transmission by a public telecommunication system, commonly known as ‘phone hacking’ at the News of the World Newspaper and that you were aware only of a ‘very unfortunate case’ of ‘phone hacking’ involving Clive Goodman; ...”
[3] The appellant has taken objection to the admissibility at his trial of evidence of the asking of certain questions of the appellant by Mr Sheridan and the answering of these questions by the appellant. The evidence objected to has been identified by the appellant by reference to passages in the transcript of the Sheridan trial in a preliminary issue minute lodged by the appellant in terms of sections 72(6)(b)(i) and 79(2)(b)(iv) of the 1995 Act. A number of different points of objection is taken in the minute. However, this appeal relates to only one of these points. The appellant contends that to admit evidence of a certain passage in the transcript, where reference is made to the appellant’s having given evidence before a Parliamentary select committee, would be to breach the privilege of the United Kingdom Parliament by entering into a consideration of matters which, constitutionally, are within Parliament’s exclusive jurisdiction. This point is taken at paragraph 4.6 of the preliminary issue minute.
[4] It is accepted on behalf of the Crown that the passage in the transcript from the Sheridan trial which is objected to is the foundation for sub-paragraph (b) of the indictment, quoted above.
[5] On 2 February 2015 at a continued preliminary hearing Lord Burns heard submissions on the admissibility of the evidence identified at paragraph 4.6 of the minute. Lord Burns further continued the matter to 9 February 2009 when he repelled the objection. He granted leave to appeal his decision.
Background
[6] For a period of four years between January 2003 and January 2007 the appellant was editor of the “News of the World” newspaper. During that time material was published in the “News of the World” about Mr Sheridan which Mr Sheridan regarded as defamatory. In an action in which a jury verdict was given in 2006 Mr Sheridan successfully sued the publishers of the newspaper for damages. It was in respect of his alleged perjury when giving evidence in that action for damages that Mr Sheridan was being prosecuted in the Sheridan trial.
[7] The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is a departmental select committee appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated public bodies. The committee has an interest in press freedom and press standards. In pursuit of that interest and prompted by a number of specific concerns it initiated an inquiry into these matters on 18 November 2008. It thereafter received written and oral evidence from witnesses. In July 2009 it reopened the taking of evidence in the light of allegations of the illegal interception of public telecommunications (otherwise “phone hacking”) by journalists and others employed by or associated with the “News of the World”. The report on the committee’s inquiry was ordered by Parliament to be printed on 9 February 2010. It is freely available to the public both in hard copy and through the Parliament website.
[8] Among those who gave evidence to the committee was the appellant. He gave that evidence on 21 July 2009. A minute of that evidence is reproduced as part of the committee’s report to Parliament.
[9] By the time the appellant was called to give evidence at the Sheridan trial Mr Sheridan had dispensed with the services of counsel and was conducting his own defence. We were told by Mr Macleod, who appeared for the appellant before us, that when addressing the jury at the Sheridan trial Mr Sheridan had explained that his purpose in calling the appellant to give evidence was not because he thought the appellant was going to help his defence but “because I think I have a public service and a public duty to try and expose wrongdoing.”
The evidence objected to
“MR SHERIDAN: You’ve given evidence Mr Coulson at that House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport looking into allegations of phone hacking at News International, haven’t you?
MR COULSON: Yes.
MR SHERIDAN: Do you think your memory served you well when you gave that evidence?
MR COULSON: I think so – yes.
MR SHERIDAN: Were you able to answer questions with some clarity at that Committee hearing?
MR COULSON: I did my best.
MR SHERIDAN: Can you recall the findings of that parliamentary committee?
MR COULSON: Not exactly, but I’ve got a feeling you’ll remind me.
MR SHERIDAN: Well do you remember the Committee finding that the News of World UK at best turned a blind eye to illegal activities such as phone hacking and blagging and at worst actively condoned it. Do you remember the Committee saying that?
MR COULSON: Yes I remember reading the, reading their findings.
MR SHERIDAN: Do you remember them saying that a culture undoubtedly did exist in the newsroom of the News of the World at the time, which at best, turned a blind eye to illegal activities such as phone hacking and blagging and at worst actively condoned it while you were the editor?
MR COULSON: Well I gave I gave pretty long and detailed evidence to that select Committee and I gave my view pretty clearly. I don’t accept that there was a culture of phone hacking at the News of the World. There was a very unfortunate, to put it mildly, case involving Clive Goodman. No one was more sorry about it than me and that’s why I resigned.
MR SHERIDAN: Do you recall the parliamentary Committee concluding that it had not received help from you or any executive at News of the World in relation to their attempt to investigate the phone hacking?
MR COULSON: No I gave – sorry could you repeat the question?
MR SHERIDAN: Sorry.
MR SHERIDAN: Do you recall the conclusion of the parliamentary committee that neither you or any other executive of the News of the World were able to provide help and assistance with the inquiry into phone hacking allegations at the News of the World?
MR COULSON: Are you sure they said that about me?
MR SHERIDAN: They said in seeking to
MR COULSON: Because I gave
MR SHERIDAN: Discover precisely who knew what among the staff of the News of the World we have questioned a number of present and former executives. You come into the latter category. You are a former executive. Is that right?
MR COULSON: I was at the time of giving evidence. Yeah.
MR SHERIDAN: They questioned a number of present and former executives of News International. Throughout we have repeatedly encountered an unwillingness to provide the detail information that we sought, claims of ignorance or lack of recall and deliberate obfuscation. We strongly condemn this behaviour which re-inforces the widely held impression that press generally regard themselves as unaccountable and that News International in particular has sought to conceal the truth about what really occurred. Is that what you were doing, trying to conceal the truth Mr Coulson?
MR COULSON: No and I’m not sure that they are referring to me. I gave lengthy evidence. I answered every question that was asked of me by a large panel of members of parliament. I couldn’t have been more co-operative. So I’m not sure that that refers to me Mr Sheridan.
MR SHERIDAN: So your answer to the House of Commons Select Committee inquiry is that this reference to former executives is to somebody else, but not you?
MR COULSON: Well I can only tell you that I co-operated with the Committee fully. You know I sat and gave evidence for many hours.
MR SHERIDAN: But this is your paper being condemned by a parliamentary Committee while you were the editor.
MR COULSON: Well Mr Sheridan I’m not going to stand here and pretend that things didn’t go wrong at the News of the World. I said so at the time. That’s absolutely my position now. It is why I resigned. It’s why I gave up a 20 year newspaper career.
MR SHERIDAN: Because you were deputy editor, then editor over a seven year period?
MR COULSON: That’s right.”
The law
[10] The advocate depute argued, rather faintly, that the position may have been qualified or developed by certain obiter remarks by Bean J at paras 32 to 35 of his judgment in R (on the application of Bradley) v Secretary of State for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition Of James Craig Against Lord Keen Of Elie Qc, Advocate General For Scotland And The Scottish Ministers For Judicial Review
...court. Nonetheless under reference to various authorities, including Adams v Guardian Newspapers Ltd 2003 SC 425 and Coulson v HM Advocate 2015 SLT 438, it was insisted that neither the petitioner nor the court could have regard to the answer (or Mr Browne’s statement) for the purpose of th......
-
Opinion of Lord Carloway, The Lord President in the reclaiming motion by Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General
...with Parliamentary proceedings, rules and privileges. The courts and Parliament had to respect each other's roles and jurisdictions ( Coulson v HM Advocate 2015 SLT 438; cf Adams v Guardian Newspapers 2003 SC 425 at paras [13] and [17]). Parliament had control over its dissolution and pro......
-
Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry Qc Mp And Others Against The Advocate General
...proceedings, rules and privileges. The courts and Parliament had to respect each other’s roles and jurisdictions (Coulson v HM Advocate 2015 SLT 438; cf Adams v Guardian Newspapers 2003 SC 425 at paras [13] and [17]). Parliament had control over its dissolution and prorogation. It had legis......
-
Stagecoach East Midlands Trains Ltd and Others v The Secretary of State for Transport
...relate, either directly or by inference. The present highp-water mark in this tide of caution is probably [20] of Coulson v HM Advocate [2015] HCJAC 49 (a passage cited in part by the Speaker's Counsel) which concludes: “Parliamentary proceedings are simply off-limits when it comes to litig......