Tulisa Contostavlos drugs case
Discussion
Mr Trophy said:
Grumfutock said:
Yes but he lied to the court in typical style. This idiots thinks he is above the law and i would hope the CPS now purse him for wasting the courts and police time and the judge has him for contempt.
Sorry - I am really not trying to cause a fight, surely if it's filmed, lied or not about something, there is still grounds there? What did he lie about?Grumfutock said:
hornetrider said:
What a pleasing outcome. I'm no fan of the X-Factor bint, but this was clearly a fit-up in grand style by this fake sheikh. I'd like to see him charged with... something.
Is being a complete an offense? Bloody should be!This means prison.
tenpenceshort said:
Soov535 said:
There's a very good chance he will be charged with perjury.
This means prison.
£25 says perverting rather than perjury (need some independent evidence for the latter, not just the word of the driver).This means prison.
Either way, this hasn't gone well for him has it!?
Soov535 said:
Could be a good shout, but given the fact that he gave untruthful evidence under oath I think perjury.
Either way, this hasn't gone well for him has it!?
Nope. Going to go from Fake Sheikh to Big Bob's 'Milk Shake' in about 6 months, I reckonEither way, this hasn't gone well for him has it!?
Edited to add on perjury;
Perjury Act said:
13 Corroboration.
A person shall not be liable to be convicted of any offence against this Act, or of any offence declared by any other Act to be perjury or subornation of perjury, or to be punishable as perjury or subornation of perjury, solely upon the evidence of one witness as to the falsity of any statement alleged to be false.
A person shall not be liable to be convicted of any offence against this Act, or of any offence declared by any other Act to be perjury or subornation of perjury, or to be punishable as perjury or subornation of perjury, solely upon the evidence of one witness as to the falsity of any statement alleged to be false.
Edited by tenpenceshort on Monday 21st July 15:31
Grumfutock said:
She would need a good scrubbing before I did , if I did I would imagine she is so far up her own arse it would be unbearable to be in the same room with her for very long so it would have to be very quick angry bum sex
I'm glad she got off with this, the full thing really stunk and I think it was horribly unfair to put her in the position where she thinks she's in line for a movie role then the bloke asks her where he can get some drugs.
It seems a bit bizarre that the actual dealer got off though, from his point of view there wasn't all the nasty smell of entrapment. He's definitely got very lucky here.
It seems a bit bizarre that the actual dealer got off though, from his point of view there wasn't all the nasty smell of entrapment. He's definitely got very lucky here.
KFC said:
It seems a bit bizarre that the actual dealer got off though, from his point of view there wasn't all the nasty smell of entrapment. He's definitely got very lucky here.
In a legal sense the entire trial was tainted. Based on the behaviour of the main witness, it would not be fair to try any of them. Even though the dealer had pleaded guilty, the result is that his prosecution is stayed.MarshPhantom said:
tenpenceshort said:
gpo746 said:
I suspect someone in the CPS may have some questions to answer
Nothing you can really do about it. The tax payer will just be expected to take it on the chin
It looks to me as if the evidence of the reporter is the mainstay of the prosecution case. By the sound of it there were pre-trial hearings during which he gave evidence (this would be before the jury had been sworn in and probably an 'abuse of process' hearing trying to have the prosecution stayed). The result of the abuse hearings would have been that the judge believed there could be a fair trial, probably relying on the evidence already given by Mahmood.Nothing you can really do about it. The tax payer will just be expected to take it on the chin
If it turns out Mahmood had been telling porkies at the abuse hearing, and the decision to allow the trial relied on his evidence, it then stands to reason the decision to allow the trial could no longer stand (without other evidence to prevent a stay).
Sadly there's little the CPS can do to tell if Mahmood was lying at those hearings, when the court heard his evidence and found it sufficiently compelling. Sometimes people lie, sometimes they get found out- the main thing is that the trial process is sufficiently able to deal with such situations. Here it was.
Magog said:
According to wiki, there have been 94 convictions on the basis of Mazher Mahmood's investigations. If he were found guilty of perjury or perverting the course of justice, that's a hefty wedge of potentially unsafe convictions the courts might have to wade through.
94 people stitched up like a kipperGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff