Andy Coulson’s Evidence at the Sheridan Trial & the Legal Definition of Perjury in Scotland

On the basis that, at the time of posting this piece, Andy Coulson, former editor of the News of the World and former spin doctor to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, remains detained by Strathclyde Police in Govan Police station in connection with alleged perjury in the Tommy Sheridan trial, but not yet charged with any offence, I thought I could update and revise two pieces I wrote last year regarding the issues which might be of assistance to my readers.

I will repeat here – (well actually I will repeat it lower down the page) – Mr Coulson is innocent of any crime, unless and until convicted by a court. There might even not be any criminal proceedings at all.

————————————–

Part 1 – Mr Coulson’s Evidence in Detail

Perjury in the law of Scotland is the making of false statements under oath, the statements having to be competent evidence in the case in which they were made, and material to the subject of the case or investigation. There must be proof beyond reasonable doubt that the statement or statements are false and there requires to be evidence from at least two sources.

Andy Coulson “Detained” By Strathclyde Police – A Quick Guide to Detention

Andy Coulson, former “spin doctor” to Prime Minister David Cameron, and former Editor of the News of the World has been detained by officers from Strathclyde Police investigation allegations arising from evidence given at the trial of Tommy Sheridan in 2010 at Glasgow High Court.

Mr Coulson has not been arrested, despite reports stating that he has been.

What is “detention”?

Under Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which was amended by the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010, police in Scotland have the opower to detain a suspect for questioning.

Quick Thoughts on Rangers CVA Proposal – Have We Heard This Before? Rangers Being Sold for £1!

Mr Green and his consortium are brilliant businessmen.

Their CVA plan consists of them lending Rangers Football Club PLC £8.5 million repayable with interest by 2020. The purchase price they are paying is £1 for sale of Rangers FC Group Ltd’s shares.

In return for this loan, which will of course be repaid, unless the rescued Rangers go into administration again, they will get 85% ownership of all of Rangers assets, including Ibrox, Murray Park, all the players and the goodwill and intellectual property.

This result is better for creditors than a sale to a newco, because if that has to happen Mr Green will pay a price of £5.5 million to buy all the assets of the club, including the money due to Rangers for player sales.

How Much Money = Chance of Success in Rangers’ CVA? How Does Mr Green Make A Profit?

In which I look at what Sir David Murray thought was needed to give a CVA a reasonable chance of success and what this might mean for Mr Green’s efforts to make a profit out of his proposed investment.

——————————————

As we await the formal revelation of the details of the CVA, which has already resulted in Duff & Phelps being on the receiving end of some less than complimentary comments, I wondered if any financial experts had offered their opinions on what would be needed to give a CVA a reasonable chance of being accepted.

I then saw that Sir David Murray had been asked this very question by Jeff Randall of Sky News on March 16. The full transcript of the interview is here. I recommend it as a good read.

However, and with thanks to Sky News, I reproduce the following part of the discussion.

“Jeff Randall – How much, in your view, would he (Paul Murray and the Blue Knights) need to raise?

Sir David Murray – It’s guess work because it’s interesting, we’re meeting today, the day that bids are going in for the club but I would have thought, probably, if it’s a debt free club, probably £20-25 million to then put into CVA to have a reasonable chance of paying a reasonable payment in the pound, I would have thought.”

Revealed! Source for Rangers CVA Proposal by Duff and Phelps! (May contain satire)

It is good to see that Duff and Phelps are of an historical bent.

Hogarth’s Depiction of the South Sea Bubble

I can exclusively reveal that the terms of the CVA propsed for creditors are inspired by the prospectus for a company associated with what became known as the South Sea Bubble in 1720.

It is referred to here in the Economist.

Their proposal is inspired by the offer of shares in:-

“A COMPANY for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is”.

How can any creditor resist that!

The terms of the CVA were due to appear on the Rangers website at 8 am (although not specified if this was UK time…)

When it appears, I will see if I can offer some sensible thoughts on it and the CVA process.

 

Posted by Paul McConville