Tulisa Contostavlos, how does this even get to court?

[Qwert1e]

Mark-C said:

I know the case has now collapsed but if she should be punished for brokering a drug deal why shouldn't the reporter be punished for initiating a drug deal?

Presumably the "innocent" Tulisa can now sue the reporter and his newspaper for millions - they having destroyed her career by trying to fit her up??

[Centurion07]

PAULJ5555 said:

Lets hope so.

The case has collapsed - she still did it thou.....

Did you actually read the article?

article said:

"Mahmood has now been exposed by my lawyers openly lying to the judge and jury. These lies were told to stop crucial evidence going before the jury."

The singer said the evidence related to her telling Mr Mahmood's driver that she disapproved of drugs, but she claims the "driver was pressured to change his statement to strengthen Mahmood's evidence and to damage mine".

She also claimed she was "tricked" into believing she was auditioning for a movie and was encouraged to "act the part of a bad, rough, ghetto girl".

She said: "They recorded this and produced it as evidence when I thought it was an audition. It was a terrible thing to do.

Yeah, totally watertight.

[paintman]

And if her suing of the 'newspaper' was successful it might get rid of the 'fake sheikh' style of deception. It isn't reporting & demeans those jounalists/reporters that really do investigative journalism.

She's had a lucky escape. Might teach her to keep her mouth shut in future - but I doubt it.

Edited by paintman on Monday 21st July 14:52

[tenpenceshort]

Qwert1e said:

matjk said:

Do we not have entrapment rules, I find it hard to believe an 'undercover reporter' is allowed to do this and his 'evidence' used.

Sounds as though you were right.

Not really.

From what's been said so far I'm assuming (so might be wrong) that there was a pre-trial application by the defence to stay the prosecution because it would either be unfair to try the defendant or the defendant could not receive a fair trial (known as an 'abuse of process' application). These applications are normally heard pre-trial or during trial if the circumstances come to light. In either case there is no jury present. The result of a successful abuse of process application is that the prosecution is stayed and cannot be reinstated.

If there was a pre-trial abuse hearing here, it sounds is if the main witness, Mahmood, was called to give evidence in it. If the judge relied on that evidence in refusing the abuse application (and therefore allowing the trial), and it was subsequently discovered (or sufficiently suspected) that Mahmood had lied when giving evidence at that hearing, I would have thought the defence would renew the abuse application, on the basis that the original decision to continue, reliant as it was on Mahmood's evidence, was now obviously flawed and a fair trial was no longer possible.

The court does have the power to exclude evidence and continue, however if this is the main evidence, without which there isn't much left that a jury could properly convict on, a fair trial can't be had.

[PAULJ5555]

Centurion07 said:

PAULJ5555 said:

Lets hope so.

The case has collapsed - she still did it thou.....

Did you actually read the article?

article said:

"Mahmood has now been exposed by my lawyers openly lying to the judge and jury. These lies were told to stop crucial evidence going before the jury."

The singer said the evidence related to her telling Mr Mahmood's driver that she disapproved of drugs, but she claims the "driver was pressured to change his statement to strengthen Mahmood's evidence and to damage mine".

She also claimed she was "tricked" into believing she was auditioning for a movie and was encouraged to "act the part of a bad, rough, ghetto girl".

She said: "They recorded this and produced it as evidence when I thought it was an audition. It was a terrible thing to do.

Yeah, totally watertight.

Drugs were supplied by Mike GLC and he pleaded guilty - Tulisa could have stopped this but was key to the deal going a head.

[Mill Wheel]

According to reports, the judge says one of the prosecution witnesses lied at the Pre Trial Hearing.
The Sun (allegedly a newspaper) have since suspended their "Fake Sheikh" who was to have been the prosecution's star witness against Tulisa.

I wonder if other "victims" of his fake sheikh stings will now appeal to be exonerated?

[johnny fotze]

Personally (and I'm not the law, not even in my own home), I think the whole journalist entrapment thing is wrong. I remember a few years ago the young lad from grange hill (John Altman?) being stitched up in a similar manner. Basically a rich Arab promises untold riches and "by the way, do you know where I can get some coke?". I estimate 8 out of 10 adults would know someone who knows someone. And until you've had that sort of money pushed toward your pocket, how do you know for sure you wouldn't take that small, seemingly insignificant action in order to hit the jackpot? We're all human.

EDIT- as we are talking the world of showbiz that should probably be 10 out of 10 people. In those circles I've no doubt drug dealers are as common as kiddie fiddlers.

Edited by johnny fotze on Monday 21st July 15:34

[stuttgartmetal]

Shouldn't there be perjury, and or perverting the course of justice charges now brought against Mahmoud ?
Or do we tax payers just keeping shovelling money towards the CPS without any responsibility being shouldered by them, or the Law ?

[Durzel]

johnny fotze said:

Personally (and I'm not the law, not even in my own home), I think the whole journalist entrapment thing is wrong. I remember a few years ago the young lad from grange hill (John Altman?) being stitched up in a similar manner. Basically a rich Arab promises untold riches and "by the way, do you know where I can get some coke?". I estimate 8 out of 10 adults would know someone who knows someone. And until you've had that sort of money pushed toward your pocket, how do you know for sure you wouldn't take that small, seemingly insignificant action in order to hit the jackpot? We're all human.

EDIT- as we are talking the world of showbiz that should probably be 10 out of 10 people. In those circles I've no doubt drug dealers are as common as kiddie fiddlers.

Edited by johnny fotze on Monday 21st July 15:34

Problem is the irony of double standards is completely lost on tabloids. They celebrate lifestyle excesses then completely po-faced act (because that's what it is) outraged that these celebrities with vast disposable incomes might have predilections for expensive drugs. *monocle falls out*

Tangentially related:

[PAULJ5555]

johnny fotze said:

Personally (and I'm not the law, not even in my own home), I think the whole journalist entrapment thing is wrong. I remember a few years ago the young lad from grange hill (John Altman?) being stitched up in a similar manner. Basically a rich Arab promises untold riches and "by the way, do you know where I can get some coke?". I estimate 8 out of 10 adults would know someone who knows someone. And until you've had that sort of money pushed toward your pocket, how do you know for sure you wouldn't take that small, seemingly insignificant action in order to hit the jackpot? We're all human.

Edited by johnny fotze on Monday 21st July 15:34

But you cant go round saying your a role model to young girls and you are againsts drugs.

Then setting up a deal for someone.


Either way she has already signed up for a reality show to follow her round, to show how good she is, this will probably involve a visit or two to the local childrens hospital but we will only see what the program sets out to show.

[Mill Wheel]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28406152

You need to watch the video, so I am unable to quote it.

If what she says is true then the Sun and their fake sheikh should surely be facing some sort of legal censure?

[matjk]

I'm no legal expert (by any stretch) but from the reported evidence it was pretty clear it was a stitch up to get a front page scoop! The CPS seem to have no common sense these days, its all political and i think they just worry about how they look & not whats in the best interest of justice. Tulisa is no angel by any stretch and hopefully this has taught her a life lesson. Probably to late for her career, that got the death sentence ages ago.

[jakesmith]

I hope the guy responsible for this goes to prison, it's one thing reporting on crime taking place, another creating and encouraging it just to make a story. A lot of people would do a lot of things if the right pressure was applied, things that they might not normally do as that pressure is artificial. He deserves a taste of his own medecin as far as I'm concerned

[BMWBen]

Durzel said:

johnny fotze said:

Personally (and I'm not the law, not even in my own home), I think the whole journalist entrapment thing is wrong. I remember a few years ago the young lad from grange hill (John Altman?) being stitched up in a similar manner. Basically a rich Arab promises untold riches and "by the way, do you know where I can get some coke?". I estimate 8 out of 10 adults would know someone who knows someone. And until you've had that sort of money pushed toward your pocket, how do you know for sure you wouldn't take that small, seemingly insignificant action in order to hit the jackpot? We're all human.

EDIT- as we are talking the world of showbiz that should probably be 10 out of 10 people. In those circles I've no doubt drug dealers are as common as kiddie fiddlers.

Edited by johnny fotze on Monday 21st July 15:34

Problem is the irony of double standards is completely lost on tabloids. They celebrate lifestyle excesses then completely po-faced act (because that's what it is) outraged that these celebrities with vast disposable incomes might have predilections for expensive drugs. *monocle falls out*

Tangentially related:

I don't think you can really regard the tabloids as being independent actors - they exist because their readership buys them, and they write articles that their readers want to read.

They are a product of a corrupt society, not the cause.

[Trophybloo]

matjk said:

Probably to (sic) late for her career, that got the death sentence ages ago.

Thank god for small mercies. A more talentless cartload of monkeys than NDubz is hard to imagine. Assaulting our ears with their 3rd rate rap drivel was the real crime.

[Jasandjules]

If someone lied to get this to trial, that person needs to be facing PCoJ charges IMHO.

[anonymous-user]

The public interest is clearly met. I wonder if the evidential threshold is there. What level will the judge have to be satisfied to halt the trial? I imagine it's quite low to keep things safe.

[tenpenceshort]

La Liga said:

The public interest is clearly met. I wonder if the evidential threshold is there. What level will the judge have to be satisfied to halt the trial? I imagine it's quite low to keep things safe.

The trial has been stayed as an abuse of process by the judge. He agreed that in the circumstances it would not be fair to try the defendants. In those circumstances the evidential threshold is irrelevant.

Unless of course you mean any prosecution of Mahmood? I would have thought the allegation is that he lied in the original abuse application and interfered with a witness to support that lie, which was designed to pervert the course of justice.

[anonymous-user]

tenpenceshort said:

Unless of course you mean any prosecution of Mahmood? I would have thought the allegation is that he lied in the original abuse application and interfered with a witness to support that lie, which was designed to pervert the course of justice.

Yes, that's what I meant as my post was a continuation to the above. I should have quoted it.