A world in which
each new life
is unwelcome
The fire and humour
of the UCS work-in
are still with us
SR will return with a special pre-Hogmanay edition on Thursday 30 December
SR accepts no advertising or corporate backing. We depend entirely on the generosity of our individual supporters. Help SR to flourish by becoming a Friend. [click here]
If you would like to read previous articles published in SR since early August, check
our archive
[click here]
SR recommends
For biographical reference:
whoswhoinscotland.com
For lively discussion of current politics:
scotlandquovadis.net
For intelligent comment on Scottish literature:
scottishreviewof books.org
[click here] for his SR poems of the year so far
A view from the SR editorial office in Kilmarnock
Why the Sheridan case
may return to haunt
Scottish justice
Kenneth Roy
Christmas Eve
On 26 January, unless the unexpected happens, Tommy Sheridan will enter the Scottish prison system. On arrival, he will be taken to a cubicle known as the dog-box, where he will be stripped of all his clothes and possessions. He will then be required to walk naked along a narrow corridor to a room where he will be medically examined and fitted with a distinctive uniform for the convicted.
After this procedure, he will be escorted to one of the prison’s Victorian halls and locked in a cell so tiny that, when I asked a group of young people to step into one such cell at Barlinnie, one after another, and experience the sensory sensation of confinement, they emerged pale with shock. The statistical probability is that Tommy Sheridan will share this cell with a semi-literate drifter with mental health problems. He will not have to slop out with his fellow inmate, this practice having been abolished in most prisons, including Barlinnie, but in other ways the condition of the prisoner has scarcely changed in a hundred years.
This is the first thing to be said about Tommy Sheridan’s impending imprisonment. He will enter an institution so overcrowded, so hostile to any prospect of rehabilitation, that it makes a mockery of the present political will to reduce the prison population. As we learned earlier this week, the number in prison in Scotland has actually increased. The justice secretary says one thing; the judges do another.
Their vicious factionalism was an insult to the people, mainly of Glasgow and the west of Scotland, who voted for them and believed in them.
Did they not realise how counter-productive their actions were? Did they
not appreciate that a jury might feel its proper role was being usurped
by the crowd?
The media coverage of the trial was shocking, if predictable, in its partiality. After they had covered the prosecution case with melodramatic, occasionally comic emphasis – ‘Tommy drops his briefs again’ was the headline in two tabloid newspapers the day after Mr Sheridan dismissed his counsel, the sexual innuendo all too clear – the newspapers lost interest. The defence witnesses were not accorded the same attention. The case drifted like snow from the front pages.
The prosecutor, a Mr Prentice, adopted a magnanimous posture in dropping the charges against Gail Sheridan last week. He declared that to proceed was no longer in the public interest. But if it was not in the public interest last week, why was it in the public interest last month or last year? I do not expect that Mr Prentice, or his employers in the Crown Office, will clarify the reasons for this act of apparent generosity.
Do the friends of the co-accused emerge with any dignity or credibility? The warmth of their support is not in question: they cheered when Gail Sheridan was acquitted; they applauded Tommy Sheridan’s extended summing-up. Did they not realise how counter-productive their actions were? Did they not appreciate that a jury might feel its proper role was being usurped by the crowd?
That leaves Mr Sheridan himself. A five-hour speech, often from a bleeding heart, could only have alienated; his decision to dispense with counsel was arrogant and fatally misguided. The summing-up needed a good editor. A jury of his peeers, drawn from his native city, decided with its verdict that much of his conduct in life should have been edited too.
Why did the Crown put Mrs Sheridan in the dock and then acquit her at the last minute on unexplained public interest grounds?
Yet questions about this case, and the official handling of it, are likely to persist far beyond what remains of Mrs Angiolini’s reign as Lord Advocate.
Why was this highly unusual prosecution brought in the first place when the Crown knew that it would need to depend almost entirely on the evidence of witnesses whose testimony had been rejected by the previous jury?
Why did the Crown not produce forensic evidence to support the taped ‘confession’ bought by the newspaper? This failure is particularly disturbing.
Why did the Crown put Mrs Sheridan in the dock and then acquit her at the last minute on unexplained public interest grounds?
Why were the police so aggressively interested in the case (with so much else of greater importance to attend to, including loss of life) and why did they make the disgraceful suggestion to Mrs Sheridan during their questioning of her that she was behaving like a terrorist by exercising her legal right to silence?
Was the press coverage of the trial, particularly in its early stages, prejudicial?
None of these questions is likely to be of immediate interest to the central figure in this cause celebre, who now faces the near-certainty of spending years in prison. By the time he is released, Tommy Sheridan will be pushing 50, his public life and reputation in ruins, with no obvious way back. The long ordeal will have finished him; the butterfly will have been broken on the wheel.
