Shereen Nanjiani interviews Richard Keen QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates
09 months ago
by ScotsLawBlog
in Scots Law
Quite a lot of the legal content and information that ScotsLawBlog shares can be found on the microblogging / microblawging social media network Twitter. But every now and then there is a post to be shared which merits more than just a retweet. This is one such post:-
Scottish journalist Shereen Nanjiani’s blog recently featured an interview with the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Richard Keen QC.
As Shereen explains,
Known as the Rottweiler, he has a forensic mind and is a formidable and flamboyant presence in court. In person I found him considered and modest. He chooses his words carefully but there was a surprising moment when he got very emotional talking about what it meant to him to be elected Dean.
At the law firm where I trained, Richard Keen QC was, and indeed still is, regarded as a pre-eminent complex commercial litigation advocate in Scotland. In the interview below, Richard discusses, inter alia, why he entered the legal profession, the qualities it takes to become a successful litigator, the recent dispute between Alex Salmond and the Supreme Court and the current status of the legal profession in Scotland.
Shereen’s recent interview with Richard can be found below or on Shereen’s website:-
Oil Company Cairn Energy Secures Social Media Interdict Against Greenpeace
210 months ago
Cairn Energy has obtained an interdict against Greenpeace preventing them posting to Twitter or Facebook photos regarding their occupation of Cairn’s Edinburgh headquarters.
In their press release, Greenpeace notes that
In its latest move to cover up the truth about its Arctic drilling, Cairn Energy has obtained an extraordinary, wide-ranging legal interdict (injunction) against Greenpeace UK, gagging us from posting Tweets and Facebook updates containing photos of yesterday’s occupation of their Edinburgh headquarters.
The interdict also demands that we remove our Tweets and Facebook updates carrying pictures of protesters dressed as polar bears – and that we retract photographs issued to national newspapers.
Specifically, the court order prohibits “disseminating, printing, uploading, sharing, copying or otherwise publishing any images, photographs, pictures or other material (or copies thereof) taken or recorded by Greenpeace activists present within 50 Lothian Road, Edinburgh on or around 18 July 2011.”
Greenpeace are being prudent to delete the photographs to avoid breaching the interdict. They note:-
We are deleting the photos but, as you might expect, we’re going to keep campaigning to protect the Arctic from reckless corporations who see the melting of the polar ice as a business opportunity.
Comment
The grant of this interdict preventing social media posts comes after the first such order being granted in the High Court in England in May.
Interestingly, the superinjunction fiasco from earlier this year appeared to see no interdicts being granted by the Scottish courts, probably because the lawyers who obtained the superinjunctions in England believed that no action in the Scottish courts was necessary to restrain publication there. As it happened, The Herald went ahead and published that which could not have been published in England about Ryan Giggs. Now that the Scottish courts have granted such an order, it is wondered if interdicts and injunctions preventing publication on social media sites will become even more common.
It is submitted that the answer is: probably not. Unsurprisingly the granting of the interdict and its revelation has backfired on the energy company in this case with hundreds of retweets of the images and news being sent across the world. Further, the images which have been taken and were sent out initially are now ‘cached’ in search engines for all to see. Take, for instance, a Google Images search for Greenpeace Polar Bears Edinburgh. But this time it is not the Courts that need to keep up with technology; it’s the oil company itself. The Scottish Court did exactly what Cairn’s lawyers asked it to do: to grant the interdict. The commercial implications on the other hand are the responsibility of Cairn. This time, it would seem, they got it wrong.
Law Society of Scotland & SHRC respond to Carloway Review
011 months ago
The Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) have both published responses to the Carloway Review, with a large focus on the Scots law requirement of corroboration, through which at least two individual pieces of evidence are required for a criminal conviction to be secured.
The corroboration requirement is one element of Scots law being reviewed as part of the Government-commissioned Carloway Review, led by Lord Carloway following the Cadder v HMA criminal appeal decision by the UK Supreme Court last year and the passing of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010.
The Scottish Human Rights Commission has recommended that the Carloway Review should carefully consider whether the Scottish Law Commission or a Royal Commission should review the issue of corroboration, rather than the Review itself.
President of the Law Society of Scotland, Cameron Ritchie said: “We feel the requirement for corroboration should remain. It is a vital safeguard of Scots law that ensures that people cannot be convicted on the word of just one person. It is, of course, a different case in England & Wales where the evidence from a single witness does not require to be corroborated, but a judge can, at his or her discretion, decide if a jury should be warned on relying on this evidence.”
See The Law Society’s response here.
See the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s response here.
Lord Carloway is to consider all consultation responses and will publish a report later this year.
Further analysis of the issues can be found at the following sites:-
The Journal Online on the SHRC’s response
The Herald on the Carloway Review responses
McSporrans on the Law Society’s & SHRC’s responses
Law Society Press Release
Alistair Sloan on Corroboration and Rape
Ayr Woman Convicted of File Sharing as ACS Law Gets Off Hook
01 year ago
by ScotsLawBlog
in Criminal Law
Update [31 May 2011]: Anne Muir has been sentenced on 31 May 2011 to three years’ probation & has been ordered to attend mandatory cognitive therapy treatment sessions for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Ms Muir is to return to court on Tuesday 30th August for a probation report.
The first person to be convicted of illegal file sharing in Scotland is a woman from this blawger’s home town of Ayr.
58 year old Anne Muir admitted distributing copyright music worth £54,000 by distributing them on a peer-to-peer file sharing network.
Guilty under the CDPA 1988
Pleading guilty under section 107(1)(e) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Muir was convicted following investigation by both the British Recorded Music Industry (BPI) and International Federation for the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).
Following the conviction, which will result in sentencing later in May 2011, prosecutor Mirian Watson said: “Intelligence gathered by BPI and IFPI revealed that Anne Muir was a prolific user of a particular file sharing network based in the UK. Illegally flouting copyright laws is tantamount to theft and not only deprives legitimate companies and artists of earnings, but also undermines the music industry as a whole.”
For further coverage see The Journal Online, BBC News and Scots Law News, which quite pertinently points out that:-
Unfortunately, in commenting on the conviction, District Procurator Fiscal for Ayr, Mirian Watson, succumbed to the music industry’s favoured but legally unsound analogy in cases of this kind when she said that “Illegally flouting copyright laws is tantamount to theft.
This point is being discussed in further depth on Facebook. Two relevant pages here:-
Edinburgh University Law School’s Scots Law News page on Facebook
WardblawG on Facebook
Please do join us there.
Comment
This is a landmark case in Scottish legal history and a triumph for the music industry, although it should be stressed that this was a judgment from Ayr Sheriff Court, which may yet result in an appeal to the High Court and could, yet, be overruled.
The files included 7,493 digital music files and 24,243 karaoke files. While Muir’s lawyer insists there was no financial gain intended or received, the value placed on the files was over £50,000. Nevertheless, this is not an astonishingly large collection of music and, in any case, the music was not shared for the purpose of making money. Even from general knowledge, there remain many in the homes and streets of Scotland with larger collections of illegally acquired music – will we see these being targetted next if the owners are found to have shared their files after having downloaded them?
If we do, we must note the civil remedies available to the music publishing companies, which may stand alongside the criminal remedies such as the conviction outlined above.
And in that respect, if such civil claims are brought, it is hoped that the law firms acting for the publishers do a more professional job of that of ACS from the last couple of years. ACS, it should be remembered, sent people letters threatening court action unless they made “settlement” payments of up to £500 for copyright infringement. See this Guardian article on ACS Law. ACS then had its unsecured IT infrastructure hacked, disclosing thousands of emails and client details over the web. It was revealed that it was retaining up to 40% of payments made to the publishers. Following the breach of privacy, only today was it announced that Andrew Crossley, owner of ACS, which has all but disappeared from the map, has only been fined £1,000 by the Information Commissioner, rather than the £200,000-£500,000 initially forecast. Needless to say, privacy campaigners are furious. See this article from today’s Guardian.
The enforcement of IP and the right to privacy in Scotland and the rest of the UK will remain a heated issue over the course of the rest of 2011 and it will be interesting to see what Ms Muir’s sentence will be when she returns to Ayr Sheriff court on 31 May 2011.
For criminal law advice from Edinburgh lawyers click here.
For criminal law advice from Glasgow lawyers click here.
Comments welcome below.
Consultation on changes to Scotland’s criminal justice system
11 year ago
Further to the Cadder V HMA decision, a further full review and potential changes are to be considered for Scots criminal law. This may lead to the revocation of certain current rights of suspected criminals which have stood for hundreds of years.
High Court of Justiciary Edinburgh
The review is being led by Lord Carloway. Hoping to trigger an “open discussion” of the relevant issues, a consultation has been released with the aim of exploring certain criminal law issues such as corroboration and whether they should remain part of criminal law in Scotland.
The consultation paper is seeking views on issues such as whether the requirement for corroboration – unique to Scots law – should remain. Lord Carloway stated that “The aim of the consultation is to stimulate open discussion of the issues raised, rather than to present draft recommendations for response.
“I am determined that my recommendations will be practical as well as compliant with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights and the needs of justice more generally.
“What is needed are clear, effective, efficient and practical rules and procedures which all can understand and follow.”
The consultation is located at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/CarlowayReview/Consultationprocess with a deadline for responses of 3 June 2011. Many responses to the consultation are to be welcomed, not just from Scottish law firms, but also from members of the public as any changes made to the criminal system will affect society in Scotland as a whole. Indeed the changes which may be made in the next few years may be seen to be the equivalent of Lord Gill’s review of civil courts in Scotland.
For further information, get in touch with expert criminal defence lawyers from Edinburgh or Glasgow solicitors.
Margaret Aitken v Scottish Ambulance Service and Greater Glasgow Health Board [2011] CSOH 49
01 year ago
Margaret Aitken v Scottish Ambulance Service and Greater Glasgow Health Board [2011] CSOH 49
Margaret Aitken, a mother whose teenage daughter died through an epileptic seizure, has succeeded in her first legal hurdle to suing the Scottish Ambulance Service and Greater Glasgow Health Board for damages following their alleged negligence.
Facts
The daughter of Ms Aitken, Nikki Williamson, died in November 2003 following an epileptic seizure. Before the death, Ms Aitken’s son had telephoned 999, which was answered by the Emergency Medical Dispatch Centre (the “EMDC”). An ambulance arrived at the family home 33 minutes later following the instruction of a doctor who attended the family home 10 minutes after the emergency phone call. Ms Aitken sued for damages on the basis that the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Health Board were vicariously liable for the fault and negligence of others for whose acts and omissions they are responsible, primarily in respect of an ambulance having not been sent immediately to the family home.
The case came before Lord MacKay in the Outer House of the Court of Session through a procedure roll hearing, where the first defenders sought to have excluded from probation certain of the averments of fault of the defenders. The principal question raised was essentially whether the member of staff of the EDMC who answered the 999 call owed any duty of care to the deceased when the 999 call was made.
Judgment
Refusing the ambulance service’s motion and allowing a proof before answer, Lord MacKay noted that
“it cannot be said that the pursuer had no prospects of addressing fairness and public policy, the issues involved in the third element of the Caparo test, in a manner that results in the test being satisfied in its entirety. That is because the pursuer may, if she manages to prove her averments about the events of 1 November 2003, be able to prove that the defender’s employee, by her words and actions, assumed a responsibility for getting Nikki to hospital as an emergency. In my opinion, it may also be possible for her to establish that she and her son relied on what the employee did and said, as they cared for Nikki. In my opinion, the facts the pursuer offers to prove as to the events of 1 November 2003 are capable of constituting a situation of an exceptional nature such as was postulated in Mitchell v Glasgow City Council… and capable of establishing that the first defenders’ employee had by what he had said and done come under a duty to exercise reasonable care towards Nikki by arranging for her to be transported to hospital as an emergency.”
Comment
While there still has been no definitive judgment on the case in its entirety, the Opinion of Lord MacKay illustrates the maintained flexibility of the Scots law of delict, through which each case should still be considered on its merits. Any blanket immunity in favour of the emergency services may indeed even lead to a breach of Article 6 of the ECHR, as was established, for instance, in Osman v United Kingdom [1998] EHRR 101.
Through the law of negligence, the duty of care tripartite test was established by Lord Bridge in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2AC 605 at pages 617 – 618:
“What emerges is that, in addition to the foreseeability of damage, necessary ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there should exist between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterised by the law as one of ‘proximity’ of ‘neighbourhood’ and that the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope upon one party for the benefit of the other.”
This test is now firmly regarded as being part of Scots Law e.g. via Gibson v Orr 1999 SC 420, 431, per Lord Hamilton and Mitchell v Glasgow City Council, [2009] 1AC 874, para 25, per Lord Hope of Craighead.
Counsel for the Defenders argued that the ambulance service was not subject to any such common law duty of care, as set out in Caparo, to rescue members of the public. However, every case turns on its own facts. Here, the proximity and the fair, just and reasonable tests, which are the second and third legs of Caparo respectively, may indeed be subject to further consideration and cannot be blankly dismissed.
As regards proximity, Lord MacKay said that “In my opinion, were this action to go to proof, it would be open to the Lord Ordinary to hold that a relationship of some proximity came into existence involving Nikki and the member of staff in the EMDC unit, arose whilst that member of staff was dealing with the first 999 call.” Thus, the relevant relationship of proximity may be greater than that of the member of staff to all members of the public.
Turning to the fair, just and reasonable test, Lord MacKay took into account many relevant similar cases involving responses by emergency services to alarms or 999 calls. These were summarised as follows:-
- In Kent v Griffiths [2001] Q B 36, it had been held that an ambulance service had been under a duty to respond to a 999 call;
- In Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53, it was affirmed by the House of Lords that there was no general duty of care owed by police officers to identify and apprehend an unknown criminal and that police officers did not owe any duty of care to individual members of the public who might suffer injury through such a criminal’s activities (also applied by Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] 1 WLR 1495 and Van Colle v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police [2009] 1 AC 853);
- In Alexandrou v Oxford [1993] 4 All ER 328, the Court considered the question of whether the making of a 999 call, activated by an alarm bell, which had caused police to attend at the plaintiff’s premises, had created a special relationship between the plaintiff and the police and given rise to a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal held it had not;
- In Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004, it had been held by the Court of Appeal that a fire brigade had not been under a common law duty to answer a call for help or to take care to do so.
- In OLL Limited v Secretary of State for Transport [1997] 3 All ER 897, May J had held that there was no obvious distinction between the fire brigade responding to a fire where lives were at risk and the coastguard responding to an emergency at sea. On that basis, the coastguard had not been under any enforceable private law duty to respond to an emergency call.
Nevertheless, although these cases may show pockets of liability, or indeed lack thereof as the case may be, Lord MacKay noted that “there are cases in which the facts may have to be established before such a question [of whether a duty of care was owed] can be determined. Having considered the extensive submissions I received, I have reached the firm opinion this is such a case. In particular, without a full examination of the facts, it is not possible to reach a conclusion whether the pursuer will be able to satisfy the third element of the Caparo test. Before doing so, she would require to demonstrate that when regard is had to all the relevant circumstances, including the statutory framework within which the first defenders operate, the nature of the services they provide as a Special Health Board, the policy and other factors involved in the delivery of those services to individual members of the public by their employees, and also, of course, to the events of 1 November 2003, it would be fair, just and reasonable for there to have been a duty of care of the nature upon which she seeks to found. In that exercise, she will not have any assistance from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kent v Griffiths, for the reason that, as is clear from the report at para.48, the defendants in that case did not seek to found on policy considerations as providing a basis for challenging the decision of Turner J that they had owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.”
As noted above, the Opinion of Lord MacKay leads Ms Aitken one step further to securing damages for the alleged negligence of the Defenders. Nevertheless, Ms Aitken must still establish, through the forthcoming proof before answer, that a proximate relationship existed between the Defenders and the deceased, that it was fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances that a duty of care be imposed and, if a duty of care is deemed to have existed, also that the Defenders breached that duty of care and that the Defender’s breach caused the harm suffered by the deceased. A long road remains to be travelled for Ms Aitken and, equally, for the Defence.
The case is reported here http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011CSOH49.html
For further information or advice, contact personal injury lawyers such as Lawford Kidd in Edinburgh.
867 criminal cases not able to proceed because of Cadder
21 year ago
Recent criminal cases challenged in Scotland post-Cadder
As reported by the Journal Online on Wednesday 9 February 2011, a total of 867 prosecutions have not be able to proceed as a direct result of the Cadder v HMA ruling last year, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has announced.
Hume Statue outside High Court of Justiciary Edinburgh
Cadder v HMA
The 2010 decision of Cadder v HMA was a landmark case for criminal law in Scotland. At the Supreme Court, a seven judge bench held that the practice of detaining and interviewing a suspect without immediate access to a solicitor constitutes a breach of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Since then, there have been at least 867 prosecutions which have been unable to proceed as a direct result of Cadder, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has announced. Below are two such recent significant instances where the accused has been able to challenge the case brought against them by the Crown on the basis of Cadder.
Garry McCall
In November 2010, Garry McCall was permitted to leave jail in order to appeal a conviction for raping a 27-year-old woman in 2008.
Following the Cadder ruling by the Supreme Court earlier in 2010, McCall was granted bail when previously he had been unsuccessful in appealing against his conviction and prison sentence.
This illustrates the significance of the Cadder decision. In many police interviews across Scotland before the Cadder ruling, suspects have made admissions without their solicitor being present. In such cases, the police and the Crown will, therefore, have to rely on other forms of evidence in order to secure a successful conviction.
Barbara Riddel
In January 2011, pensioner Barbara Riddel had her case in respect of an alleged sexual assault dropped by the Crown. Riddel, aged 81 years old, alleged that a man had sexually assaulted her in 2010 in her own home.
Following arrest and charge, the alleged attacker was told he would not face a court appearance that prosecutors decided there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the case in court.
The Crown’s statement remarked that “in the light of the Supreme Court’s recent judgement in the Cadder case Crown Counsel have reviewed Mrs Riddel’s case and concluded that there is now insufficient evidence to proceed. The case is now closed.” This was largely because some of the crucial evidence was collected during police interview where the accused had not been given access to a solicitor.
Comment
While this is undoubtedly difficult news for the alleged victims to bear, these consequences of the Cadder case are not surprising to many criminal defence solicitors in Edinburgh or the rest of Scotland. The judge delivering the leading judgment in the Cadder case in the Supreme Court, Lord Hope of Craighead, had noted that those who had promoted the legislation which afforded a right of intimation but not access to a solicitor were “shutting their eyes to the way thinking elsewhere was developing. Now, sadly, 30 years on the Scottish criminal justice system must reap the consequences.”
The effects of the Cadder decision are limited in scope to existing cases, including cases where appeals are outstanding. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that the decision does not permit the re-opening of closed cases, although referrals by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission may allow a limited number of cases to be resuscitated.
These consequences of the Cadder case have still surprised some, despite the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal’s Service trying to prepare for such seismic developments by issuing interim guidelines, in addition to the Scottish Government taking steps to address the issue by laying emergency legislation before the Scottish Parliament.
Practical Criminal Law Advice
The Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act now provides for the definitive right of a suspect to a private consultation with a solicitor before and at any time during questioning, including consultation by means of telephone.
The first few months of 2011 will be a period of continued adjustment and uncertainty. What is clear is that there will be significant implications in terms of Legal Aid and the working practices of police officers and solicitors.
Given that over 800 cases have been dropped on the basis of the Cadder ruling, if you or anyone you know is or has been involved in a case where police did not give an opportunity for access to a solicitor at such times during questioning or consultation, it would be sensible to consult an experienced criminal solicitor in Scotland, such as criminal defence solicitors in Edinburgh or criminal defence solicitors in Glasgow..
Cadder v HMA and Loss of Identity for Scots Law
31 year ago
Scotland’s top prosecutor, The Lord Advocate, The Rt Hon Elish Angiolini QC WS, has warned of a loss of identity for Scots law following on from the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Cadder case. The Lord Advocate suggests that the Supreme Court should only have the power to consider newer legislation or decisions with major constitutional consequences.
Stair Memorial Encyclopedia
The Cadder decision means that in Scotland, police can no longer question suspects without allowing them access to a solicitor. For further information on Cadder, see the ScotsLawBlog article “Cadder Goes Forth: Emergency Amendments to Scots Criminal Law” .
The Lord Advocate made her remarks on 8 February 2011 when questioned by MSPs on Holyrood’s powers potentially being increased through the Scotland Bill.
Potential Loss of Identity of Scots Law
The Rt Hon Elish Angiolini told the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee: “My slight concern is that, because of the approach of the Supreme Court, there is a real danger that we will not just have harmonisation of our criminal law, procedure and evidence, through that process, but that there will be a complete loss of identity for Scots law unless it is something which is genuinely rarely exercised in the context of something which is of substantial constitutional significance across the United Kingdom or where it is a very new piece of jurisprudence which is clearly ambiguous.”
Update at 9 February 2011:Recent criminal cases challenged in Scotland post-Cadder
As reported by the Journal Online on Wednesday 9 February 2011, a total of 867 prosecutions have not be able to proceed as a direct result of the Cadder v HMA ruling last year, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has announced. A separate blog post to come on these new, perhaps unsurprising, findings.
Comment:
First, it would appear that the powers exercised in the Cadder judgment can and should be seen as being exercised in the context of something which is of substantial constitutional significance across the United Kingdom. During my time at Glasgow University I wrote my dissertation on a topic which centered on Article 6 of the ECHR, albeit in an international private law context. For my dissertation together with legal dissertation tips, click here. One of the lessons learned early on was in respect of the importance given to human rights legislation. As Lord Justice Mance (as he then was) noted “it is now imperative to reach conclusions which reflect the “importance attaching in today’s world and in current international thinking and jurisprudence to the recognition and effective enforcement of individual human rights.” (Jones v Saudi Arabia [2004] EWCA Civ 1394 (CA), at [96]). On the other hand, in the context of prisoners’ rights to vote, it is interesting that there have been calls, e.g. on 7 February 2011, for the UK to cut its ties with the ECtHR.
Second, it should be stressed for lay readers that Cadder is not the first example of a Court located in England overruling a decision from a Scottish court. Perhaps the most famous delictual case was a decision made by the House of Lords: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. For analysis regarding Cadder and other landmark cases heard on appeal, such as Donoghue v Stevenson, see the Scotsman article, Purdy, Pretty, Campbell … and the case of a Paisley snail and in particular at page 2 and page 3.
Third, nevertheless, it is still important for such comments regarding the preservation of the identity of Scots law to be made. With the inception of Alternative Business Structures (ABS) across the UK and the trends towards expansion if not globalisation (which have been demonstrated, for instance, by DLA recently forming the largest law firm in the world following its merger with its Australian sister-firm), coupled with more widespread use of the Internet with many free communications readable from anywhere on the planet, it is easy to see how a legal system could lose its roots. With more partners from the big Scottish law firms heading south towards London in search of more and bigger business, private law in Scotland is also taking a hit, with more and more contracts having governing law and jurisdiction clauses in favour of English law and the English courts respectively. None of this is, necessarily, a bad thing, but it is important that through this rapid period of change for the legal markets of Scotland, the UK and indeed the world, Scots law does not lose its unique identity.
For further information, see also the BBC News article on the Lord Advocate’s comments entitled Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini on legal identity ‘loss’
Comments welcome below.
Best wishes,
G
Tommy Sheridan to sue News of the World
21 year ago
Tommy Sheridan to sue for breach of privacy
One may have mistakenly thought that we wouldn’t be hearing any more about Tommy Sheridan until his sentencing for perjury on 26 January 2011. That would be wrong, as Tommy Sheridan is now preparing to take legal action against both the News of the World and the Metropolitan Police, his lawyer, Aamer Anwar, confirmed on 7 January 2011. The case is being prepared after Sheridan’s personal details emerged following an investigation into phone-hacking.
Following the phone-hacking investigations, Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman were jailed back in 2007. Recent investigations have led to the suspension of news editor Ian Edmondson.
As STV News reports, presenter Chris Tarrant, comic Steve Coogan and actress Sienna Miller are all lining up to take similar legal action against the News of the World for breaching privacy laws.
Comment
It will be interesting to see how these new developments will affect the Tommy Sheridan saga in the long run. It seems, however, that the alleged breach of privacy is separate from the perjury issues and therefore will have no impact on the criminal proceedings and sentencing should commence as planned on 26 January 2011.
Mr Anwar claims that “This won’t be an action for damages; it’s an action to find out what went on…It is in the public interest to find out what’s going on.” While that may be true, it is difficult to imagine the “one-uppance” struggle between Sheridan and the News of the World ending with the News of the World reclaiming all of the £200,000 paid in damages following the defamation case, money which Sheridan was never entitled to spend, AND with Sheridan potentially having to pay for the NOTW’s expenses in that civil case, if appealed successfully. The word “settlement” comes to mind… And in any case, Sheridan should have no shortage of time in prison to collect his thoughts and write a best-seller.
Another battle commences, but the war isn’t over. There is a lot to be said for staying strong, as Sheridan would say.
