SHERIDAN FACES OLD FOE IN COURT AGAIN TOMMY’S
Disgraced politician wants interest paid on £200k defamation win .. plus costs
It can be taken as read that Sheridan’s phone was subject of hacking
A LAWYER acting for the News of the World’s publishers yesterday told a court that the paper’s journalists hacked Tommy Sheridan’s phone.
Advocate Roddy Dunlop QC told judge Lord Turnbull that it can “be taken as read” that employees of the paper gained access to the socialist politician’s mobile.
The admission at the Court of Session in Edinburgh came as Sheridan launched a bid to have the publishers pay interest on his £200,000 defamation award, amounting to at least £8000, as well as his costs.
He was finally paid his £200,000 damages – awarded in 2006 – in May this year.
That followed the August 2016 refusal of appeal judges to overturn the award – despite Sheridan having been convicted of lying to the jury during the defamation trial.
A bid to take the case to appeal at the Supreme Court in London was rejected in March.
Dunlop also told the Court of Session yesterday that a woman called Fiona McGuire – who had alleged in the now defunct paper that she had an affair with Sheridan – was “spirited away” to Dubai.
The newspaper paid for McGuire to go to the Gulf state just before Sheridan won his defamation claim in 2006.
Dunlop made the admissions yesterday after Sheridan’s solicitor-advocate Gordon Dangerfield told the court the paper broke the law to obtain information about his client.
Dangerfield said senior journalists at the paper’s Scottish office got their London-based colleagues to hack Sheridan’s phone.
He told Lord Turnbull: “My Lord, they are criminals.”
Lord Turnbull replied: “Well, they have something in common with Mr Sheridan then.” Dunlop also said in submissions to the judge that “both parties” in the case were as bad as each other.
Sheridan sued the News of the World for defamation after the paper published a story in 2004
RODDY DUNLOP
alleging he had cheated on his wife Gail with McGuire.
A jury awarded the former Scottish Socialist Party leader £200,000 after he described how the claims detrimentally affected his reputation of being a family man.
The paper printed allegations that he was an adulterer who attended a swingers’ club, which he denied.
However, in December 2010, Sheridan was convicted at the High Court in Glasgow of committing perjury during the defamation proceedings.
The jury found he deliberately lied and that he had visited the swingers’ club and had sex with Katrine Trolle, a nurse.
He was jailed for three years, of which he served just over a year.
During the defamation case, Sheridan accused Trolle of being “a conscious liar” when she said in evidence that she had sex with him.
The appeal judges last year ruled that on the information available to jurors, they were entitled to find that Sheridan had been defamed by the News of the World.
Dangerfield told the court yesterday that the extra payment of costs and interest should be made because of the News of the World’s use of criminal means to obtain information about his client.
He said he wanted to tell the judge about how the paper hacked Sheridan’s phone and prevented McGuire being called to court.
Dunlop then rose to his feet and interrupted Dangerfield.
He said: “My Lord, I say this to assist my learned friend and to help this case progress.
“It can be taken as read that Fiona McGuire was spirited away and that Mr Sheridan’s phone was the subject of phone hacking. You are free to make of that as you will.”
Dangerfield said of the journalists at the News of the World: “Their conduct was unreasonable.
“They published a tissue of lies and they knew it.”
However, Lord Turnbull then referred again to Sheridan’s perjury conviction, recollecting that the former MSP had been found guilty of lying in court over having a sexual relationship with Trolle.
And he pointed out that Trolle had been made the subject of “public humiliation” after she was cross-examined by Sheridan, who had denied having sex with her.
He asked Dangerfield how he would describe Sheridan’s conduct with regards to that cross-examination of the nurse.
He said: “She was a young woman – a lowly paid public servant – who gave an account of having a sexual encounter with Mr Sheridan in court.
“She was made the subject of a public humiliation.
“She was named as a liar on the front pages of every newspaper the following day.
“Given his subsequent conviction for perjury over his account of his relationship with this witness, how would you categorise his conduct?”
Dangerfield replied that he thought Lord Turnbull had presented the facts unfairly.
But he also added: “I would have to characterise that as unreasonable conduct.”
Lord Turnbull then said that Sheridan may have difficulty justifying that he was entitled to an extra payment given his own conduct.
The judge also brought up an event which happened during the defamation trial, in which a witness called Ann Colvin was said to have criminal convictions.
A lawyer who acted for Sheridan made the claim when he was taking evidence from Colvin.
However, the claim was incorrect. It was another woman with the same name who had the criminal convictions.
Lord Turnbull said: “I was told at the time, if I can remember correctly, that this fact was given to Mr Sheridan’s solicitors by a usually reliable source.”
He then asked Dangerfield who this reliable source was and how the source came by the information which he had passed to Sheridan’s legal team.
Dangerfield said he was unable to help as he didn’t have any information on the matter.
When asked by Lord Turnbull how he rated his client’s improper conduct in relation to the News of the World’s improper conduct, the lawyer replied that it was “many levels below”.
Dunlop argued that the judge should not make an order which would allow Sheridan to receive extra cash from publishers News Groups Newspapers.
The QC added: “Mr Sheridan lied throughout his jury trial. He lied in his evidence and he lied in his final submissions to the jury. He falsely accused others of lying.”
Dunlop said if the judge stood back and looked at proceedings, he would see both parties were as “bad as each other”.
He added: “When your lordship asks why is it we are here in 2017 discussing a verdict pronounced in 2006, the answer is because Mr Sheridan committed perjury.”
Dangerfield urged the court to rule in favour of his client. He added: “They have continued to pervert the course of justice and have continued to engage in criminal behaviour in order to win.”
Lord Turnbull said he will issue his judgment in the near future.