MANY people will be confused about the outcome in court for two reasons.
First, why did the jury not make the decision?
Secondly, why did the judge decide to dismiss the case - ie without determining whether Mr Coulson had lied during Tommy Sheridan's trial?
The starting point for the first question is that the Crown has to prove its case. It needs to ensure that enough relevant and admissible evidence goes before the court to allow the jury to make a decision.
The decision on sufficiency and relevancy of evidence is a legal question which is the judge's - and not the jury's - job to determine. The same principle applies in non-jury cases and is one of the fundamental principles upon which our criminal justice system operates.
The decision of a judge or sheriff to hold that there is no case to answer is often based on a lack of corroboration or if the evidence used is held to have been recovered illegally - for example by coercion or on an illegal warrant.
In this particular case, turning to the second question, it seems that the judge's decision was based on the irrelevancy of the evidence from the original Sheridan trial.
The Crown has to prove that the evidence which Mr Coulson gave was relevant to that case. The defence in this case satisfied the court that phone hacking was not a material consideration.
Apparently, Mr Sheridan had himself conceded as much in his closing speech to the jury, arguing that he had brought Mr Coulson to court "to expose wrongdoing", an entirely separate matter from whether or not he himself had lied in his defamation case. This proved to be a fairly compelling argument.
Perjury, therefore, has to matter to the case. I am not convinced that the decision has in any way helped Mr Coulson's reputation, but it does help us to understand more fully the extent to which the Crown must go to prove a criminal charge and the hurdles it must cross before the jury can even have its say.
David McKie is a partner with Levy and McRae solicitors in Glasgow and is Head of Media Law at the University of Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article