Reclaiming Motion Thomas Sheridan Against The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Drummond Young,Lord Menzies,Lord President |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] CSIH 23 |
| Date | 10 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | P831/16 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 10 April 2019 |
FIRST DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2019] CSIH 23
P831/16
Lord President
Lord Menzies
Lord Drummond Young
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD PRESIDENT
in the Reclaiming Motion by
THOMAS SHERIDAN
Petitioner and Reclaimer
against
THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION
Respondents
Petitioner and Reclaimer: G Dangerfield, sol adv; Archer Coyle, Glasgow
Respondents: Moynihan QC; Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
10 April 2019
Introduction
[1] This is the latest episode in the saga of cases involving the petitioner, which stems
from articles which were published in the News of the World in November 2004 and January
2005. In August 2006, a civil jury determined that the articles were defamatory. They
awarded the petitioner £200,000. In March 2008, criminal proceedings for perjury at the civil
jury trial were instituted against the petitioner. These culminated in the petitioner’s
conviction in December 2010. In August 2016 the publishers of the News of the World failed
2
in their attempt to secure a new civil jury trial (2017 SC 63). There have been subsequent
skirmishes about interest (2018 SLT 249, 2019 SLT 10).
[2] Meantime, the petitioner was refused leave to appeal his conviction. His application
to the respondents to refer the conviction to the High Court under section 194B of the
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 was refused in March 2015 and again in June 2016
and 2017. The petitioner challenged the first two of those decisions by petition for judicial
review. His challenge was rejected by interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary dated 21 June 2018
([2018] CSOH 69). This is a reclaiming motion seeking review of that interlocutor.
[3] The reclaiming motion raises issues about the scope of judicial review in relation to
the respondents generally and, in particular, the degree of investigation which the
respondents are required to carry out and the extent to which they need to recover
documents which were not produced at trial (1995 Act, s 194F). It concerns whether the
respondents had closed their minds before reaching their decisions. It alleges that the
respondents ought to have referred the case on the basis of evidence which was not heard at
the trial (1995 Act, s 106(3)(a)). It maintains that the prosecution was oppressive because of,
inter alia, the conduct of counsel for a co-accused.
The Perjury Trial
The Crown case
[4] On 23 December 2010, at the High Court in Glasgow, the petitioner was convicted,
by a majority verdict, of perjury. Specifically, he was found guilty of telling lies on 21 July
2006, when giving evidence in the civil jury trial of his successful defamation action against
News Group Newspapers. That action had related to the publication, on 14 and
21 November 2004 and 2 January 2005, in their Sunday newspaper, namely the News of the
3
World, of statements that the petitioner: had committed adultery with Fiona McGuire, AK
and other unnamed persons; was a swinger and had participated in orgies; and drank
champagne whilst purporting to be teetotal. He was thus, by innuendo, a hypocrite and an
abuser of his position as the leader of the Scottish Socialist Party. The issue for the civil jury
had been whether these statements were defamatory, to the petitioner’s loss, injury and
damage. The jury agreed that they were, at least in part, defamatory and awarded the
pursuer £200,000. The motion for a new trial, which was based in part on the facts found
established in the perjury trial, was refused on 19 August 2016.
[5] The untrue matters, which the jury found established, were that, when giving
evidence in the civil trial, the petitioner had denied that, at a meeting of the Executive
Committee of the SSP on 9 November 2004 he had: (i) admitted attending Cupid’s Club,
Manchester, in 1996 and 2002 and had visited it with AK (sub-heading A in the charge);
(ii) previously admitted to two members of the Executive Committee, who had raised the
issue, that he had attended a sex club in Manchester (sub-head B); and (iii) not denied
having visited a swingers club in Manchester (sub-head C). He had also falsely denied that
he had: (iv) attended Cupid’s on 26 September 2002 with Andrew McFarlane and Gary
Clark, AK and KT and had also visited a swingers club (sub-head M); and (v) had a sexual
relationship from 2000 to 2005 with KT (a party worker) and had stayed overnight with her
at an address in Dundee (sub-head O). It was not alleged in the perjury indictment that he
had falsely denied having a sexual relationship with Ms McGuire.
[6] In relation to sub-heads A, B and C, the Crown had led evidence from BS, who said
that she had been taking the minutes at the SSP Executive Committee meeting of
9 November 2004. She had made handwritten notes in a book. She had torn the relevant
pages out of the book, but had retained both them and the book. She had later prepared a
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Kelly v Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
...403; 2007 GWD 27-469 SD v HM Advocate [2014] HCJAC 17; 2014 SCL 352; 2014 GWD 8-158 Sheridan v Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission [2019] CSIH 23; 2019 SLT 586; 2019 SCCR 142 Urquhart v HM Advocate [2009] HCJAC 18; 2009 SCCR 339; 2009 SCL 683; 2009 GWD 9-150 Woodside v HM Advocate [20......