Bob Bird Detained for Alleged Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice re Sheridan v NOTW

The BBC has reported this morning that the former editor of the News of the World’s Scottish edition has been detained in connection with the perjury trial of former MSP Tommy Sheridan. The report states that Bob Bird is being held on suspicion of attempting to pervert the course of justice over Mr Sheridan’s defamation action against the newspaper in 2006.

Strathclyde Police said a 56-year-old man had been detained in Glasgow.

Officers are investigating allegations of perjury and phone hacking as part of the Operation Rubicon probe.

Of course, Mr Bird has not yet been charged with any offence and, until a court declares otherwise, he is an innocent man.

I have written on this blog before about suggestions that Mr Bird may have committed perjury in the Sheridan criminal trial. An allegation of attempting to pervert the course of justice regarding the original civil case seems rather to have come out of the blue.

What is Operation Rubicon?

Operation Rubicon is described on the Strathclyde Police website as follows:-

Operation Rubicon is the Strathclyde Police enquiry into allegations of phone hacking, breach of data protection and perjury.

Officers from the Major Investigation Teams under the command of the senior investigating officer, Detective Superintendent John McSporran, have been tasked by the Crown Office to examine aspects of the evidence presented during the Tommy Sheridan perjury trial.

In addition, they will examine specific claims of phone hacking and breaches of data protection in Scotland. Strathclyde Police will review the available information and liaise with the Metropolitan Police in relation to any Scottish dimension to their current investigations, and report their findings to the Area Procurator Fiscal at Glasgow.

This was set up in relation to the Sheridan case and the News of the World hacking allegations.

What Is Detention?

Under section 14 as amended of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995:-

Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed or is committing an offence punishable by imprisonment, the constable may, for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of investigations—

(a) into the offence; and

(b) as to whether criminal proceedings should be instigated against the person,

detain that person and take him as quickly as is reasonably practicable to a police station or other premises and may thereafter for that purpose take him to any other place and, subject to the following provisions of this section, the detention may continue at the police station or, as the case may be, the other premises or place.

Normally detention can last no ore than 12 hours and, as a result of the Cadder case there is a right to receive legal advice prior to being questioned under detention.

As the Act makes clear, detention can only occur where the constable “has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed or is committing an offence punishable by imprisonment”.

Therefore detention is not a tool used in relation to witnesses, but rather for suspects.

What Is “Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice”?

That short question gives, sadly, a long answer, which has been, as noted below, the cause for some concern by learned commentators. It primarily appears in the context of criminal cases, although, as here, it can arise in civil matters too.

My comments below are focussed on its appearance in criminal cases, and are general, rather than directed at the specifics of any particular case.

Not everything which might tend to interfere with the administration of justice falls under the heading of a specific crime, such as subornation or perjury. A tendency has arisen in the twentieth century in cases where it is alleged that the course of justice has been interfered with, but where the behaviour complained of does not amount to one of the recognised nominate crimes, to charge attempt to pervert the course of justice. The phrase is vague in that it does not amount to a description of a form of behaviour, but is a description of a tendency of a number of possible forms of behaviour.

For that reason the precise nature of offences which are charged as attempts to pervert the course of justice is not clear: it is not clear whether attempt to pervert the course of justice is an independent crime or whether it is an element in a number of separate crimes. Perhaps what has occurred is that a number of previously innominate crimes have now been joined under one description.

It has been suggested that the lack of clarity both in the definition of the crime of attempt to pervert the course of justice itself and in the relationship between that crime and other crimes against the course of justice make clarification and reform necessary.

Neither Hume, nor Alison, nor Macdonald discloses the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice as a nominate crime.

Indeed, because there is no record of the crime as a separate offence before the twentieth century,there is a view, as propounded by Gordon on Criminal Law, that the development of attempt to pervert the course of justice as a nominate crime has involved the creation of a new crime of dangerously broad dimensions. Dangerous because what was once a categorisation of a type of crime has become a crime itself without any explicit recognition of this fact by the courts, and dangerous also because of the wide variety of conduct which may constitute this crime so that the mental element becomes decisive.

While there are no reported cases before 1946 where attempt to pervert the course of justice was charged, conspiracy to obstruct or defeat the ends of justice was a recognised charge in the nineteenth century.

In one case, two accused faced two charges, one of fraud with intent to defeat or obstruct the administration of justice, and the other of illegal conspiracy to defeat or obstruct the administration of justice, both aggravated by the fact that justice had in fact been defeated or obstructed. One accused had masqueraded as the other at the latter’s trial for theft, and obtained a not proven verdict.

In another case the accused were charged with separate counts of perjury at the same trial and also with conspiracy to defeat or obstruct the ends of justice and to secure the acquittal of an accused person by means of perjury.

It is only in the twentieth century that attempt to pervert the course of justice has become a recognised offence, and perhaps even a commonplace one, encompassing as it does the giving of a false name to police officers in the course of investigation. The offence was first charged in Scott v HM Advocate on an indictment which on the face of it disclosed facts which could have amounted to attempted subornation of perjury in that the accused was indicted for inducing witnesses to give false evidence at any trial that he might have to face. However, in Dalton v HM Advocate the charge was found relevant where the accused was convicted of inducing a witness, without any reference to possible false evidence at a trial, not to give information to the police who were conducting an investigation.

The crime may consist in any conduct that tends to obstruct or hinder the course of justice. In HM Advocate v Mannion a charge of attempting to defeat the ends of justice was held to be relevant where a person who had not been cited as a witness went into hiding to avoid receiving any such citation.

A wide variety of forms of behaviour has been charged as attempts to pervert the course of justice being any action that tends to prevent justice running its proper course.

It is the large number of disparate forms of activities, some of them virtually indistinguishable from lawful activities, which gives rise to some of the unease about the broad nature of the offence. In HM Advocate v Mannion, Lord Justice-Clerk Thomson stated that:

‘… if a man, with the evil intention of defeating the ends of justice, takes steps to prevent evidence being available, that is a crime by the law of Scotland. Evil intention, of course, is of the essence of the matter and must be established. This indictment clearly narrates the evil intention of the accused to avoid being called upon to give evidence, and that is sufficient to make the indictment relevant’.

Accordingly the offence must be committed intentionally. The accused must have intended that the course of justice should in some way be perverted or defeated, for example by avoiding prosecution or avoiding conviction or obtaining a lesser sentence for himself or another.

Therefore where an accused was charged with attempt to pervert the course of justice by threatening a witness with violence if he gave evidence against him at trial, the conviction was quashed by the High Court where the jury had found the accused guilty of making threats without the intent libelled. The court found that, since not every threat amounts to a crime, unless the intent to pervert the course of justice could be proved the accused had not been guilty of any crime.

The definition of the alleged crime is so wide that there is really no way of knowing in what way the relevant constable has reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed by Mr Bird. The Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia lists over 20 different acts which have been treated as falling into the category of an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

As has been the case with this story since the allegations about Mr Sheridan were published many years ago, we await further developments.

Posted by Paul McConville

Advertisements

23 Comments

Filed under Criminal Law, Tommy Sheridan

23 responses to “Bob Bird Detained for Alleged Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice re Sheridan v NOTW

  1. ecojon

    Interesting as Bob Bird left the cop shop and was pavement-stepped by the Beed his response certainly seemed to imply that he has actually been charged with something.

    No doubt we will get the StrathPol statement by lunchtime.

  2. ecojon

    Confirmation that Bob Bird had been arrested and charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice.

  3. Miick

    We all know tommy was fitted up am glad to see the police getting involved a just wish they would do same on the other topics we comment on .tommy bhoy might get crown compo a hope Gail spends the lot of it as she has been throw the mill 10times with it all

  4. Thomo

    I can’t see that Tommy was “fitted up” can be inferred from any of the recent events surrounding the NoTW and its employees. Perhaps certain underhand things may or may not (I believe aledgedly is the commonly used term) have been done in order to get information.

    But the facts are that the case against Tommy was largely based on the evidence of a substantial number of people, ex-colleagues amongst them. All of whom stated that they had heard Tommy admit to, or actually seen him at said club. The information that led the NoTW to pursue that story may have come from underhand means but the evidence from the people that stood in the witness box at the trial is what Tommy needs to focus on rather that “someone was listening to my calls.” What was the motivation for all these people to speak out against Tommy. In party fighting for one part is of no doubt. But why did all those other people alledgedly collude ? That is what has to be established.

    Of course Tommy may be able to argue that the methods of getting the information that lead to speaking to the witnesses was obtained illegally and that had underhand methods not been used no-one would have been aware he did what he did. I would prefer Tommy to provide evidence that those people lied and motive for that lying in order to claim a “fit up”. Perhaps evidence that they were paid by the NoTW would be the thing that blows the whole thing wide open. Is there such evidence ?

    I have nothing against Tommy. I neither like nor dislike him as I have not met or had any dealings with the man. So I can assure you I just want the truth to come out whichever way it falls. I would love Tommy to get one over on the NoTW owners, odious people that they are. But where’s the evidence ?

    Thomo

    • Miick

      fantastic comment thomo well enjoyed the facts when any1 mentions tommy a always think of his saying after court years ago “who framed roger rabbit “all though politically his saying a “world with out frointers” gets my attention most his heart was well in the right place throw his career.

      • Thomo

        My favourite comment from the trial was from Frances Curran.

        Ms Curran responded: “Is this your whole defence? They’re lying, they’re lying, they’re lying?

        “Liar, liar pants on fire? Is that your defence in the whole of this?”

  5. John Burns

    Miick – Sheridan was not ‘fitted-up’ – he is now (proven) and always was, a liar, self-centred, self-publicist and self-styled ‘working-class hero’ who has never done a working class job in his puff!

    He, and his wife, are beneath, beneath contempt – truly the sediment of society in the west of Scotland.

    He turned on his friends and comrades, whose party he had destroyed bu his behaviour and his lies about it – and he had the cheek to call all of the ‘scabs’

    Anyone defending him is even more of an ostrich than the majority of the Newco’s bluenoses.

    • Miick

      Tommys not liked and was fitted up for being working class and from pollok.john ave always supported him even though he’s had minor hic ups in his career .ajust love them cause he’s team from the scheme like ma self .look what most mp,sdo he’s not that bad fair play to him if he’s clever enogh to do a job that’s not hard work there’s no Glasgow pOlitian as famous as him that’s the bottom line and his wife is pure class a true sister that stuck to her vows .awould say at this stage in there careers they still have a place in west coast politics

    • Carl31

      As an aside… should Newco’s bluenoses simply be monikered ‘Newnoses’?

  6. Joseph

    Bob’s arrest should not affect Tommy’s conviction. The editor’s submissions was only part of the trial. Tommy lied to the court. Bottom line. It appears that Bob may have lied too. If that is the case then he too should be convicted of perjury. Of course, in my opinion, many other witnesses also lied. I also hope the police go after them. All liars should be jailed. It would be a travesty of justice if Tommy came out of all this with a pot of gold. He doesn’t deserve it. Bottom line!

  7. ecojon

    I think we might all be better reserving judgement till we actually see the details of the charges against Bird. I don’t think the NoW needed to hack Tommy’s phone to know he was frequenting a sauna.

    Of course that doesn’t mean to say his phone wasn’t hacked at a later date. Certainly Douglas Wight ex-NoW Scottish news editor was charged earlier in the month with perjury and conspiracy to hack telephones and a number of charges of conspiracy to obtain personal data.

  8. Pensionerbhoy

    I have just logged in, Paul, and at first glance notice this blog has nothing about Rangers. Ian and Kieren will be so disappointed. Oh I nearly forgot. You are a legal commentator not a football pundit.
    I do not have the knowledge to comment cold on the present article so I will reserve my decision to do so till I have read your piece in full. Meantime I could not resist this rather infantile quip. Looks like one does revert to a second childhood in later years.

  9. Pensionerbhoy

    I was intending to avoid comment due to my incompetence, Phil, but find myself needing to be distracted for a few moments prior to the game tonight in order to settle the nerves. I am perfectly happy to take your word for all that you said on perversion, obstruction, hindrance and all the other possible criminal/non-criminal behaviour under discussion. This is one legal trip where I am content to sit at the back of the bus and leave the driver’s instructions and directions to the competent passengers in the front seats having every faith they will get me to the right destination. It is fascinating, mind, that in spite of most of your blog being way beyond the understanding of my limited intelligence i.e. I did not have a clue, it was genuinely an interesting read. Perhaps my lack of first hand knowledge of the Tommy Sheridan issue did not help. As a resident of the land of the master race for several years now and a strictly anti press adherent (I have not read a paper other than the area free one that quenches my thirst for local tittle tattle, for about 20 years – honestly!), I am not aux fait with a lot of the Scottish scene in recent years. It is purely my interest in football that has brought me to the knowledge of the Rangers saga and its aftermath and much water had passed under the bridge by the time I got round to it (had to get something in about the Gers to keep your internet image intact :)). However, if nothing else, I am in total admiration of your extensive knowledge and the effort you must put in to pass it on to us plebs. Thank you.

  10. diaryofafailedhuman

    An interesting post, Paul. Thanks. I’ve never been comfortable with the use of the word “evil” when discussing intent as it’s a rather emotive, and dare I say, tabloid word. I’m much happier when we can use cold, legal jargon.

  11. Hello diaryofafailedhuman Could you tell me where you got pic of Jesus winking? It made me smile

  12. every time there is a development we see people stating that it doesnt affect the conviction of Tommy, all of this is speculation. I am in a better position than most to judge with more acces to the details, yet people like me and Tom Watson are often criticised for saying that it DOES affect the conviction when we say so from a position of background knowledge rather than the wishful thinking of deniers. I do not think that this will be only charges against BB and I know there are other charges to follow against other witnesses. The specifics of this charge will affect any chance of an appeal by NotW re the 200k awarded to TS, other later possible charges WILL definitely impact on TS’s conviction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s