So Tommy Sheridan has won his defamation case against the News of the World. I'd hazard a guess that many people who have read about the proceedings in Edinburgh's court of session over the past month will have been surprised at the verdict and at the fact that the jury awarded him £200,000 in damages. I have followed the daily evidence fairly closely and I admit to forming certain views about the likely verdict.
Immediately I say that, I realise the problem we all face in making up our minds about courtroom decisions based only on what we read, hear or see in the media. It's a mistake to do so, not because the reports are inaccurate or selective, or even lack balance, but because court reporters cannot be expected to reflect all that happens within the confines of the court. Indeed, for them to attempt it would require description involving value judgements that would surely be considered too subjective. And they also might face contempt-of-court charges for making the attempt. So we usually read only what is said and rarely how it's said (unless it involves other easily describable features, such as shouting or weeping).
The jurors, meanwhile, take in all sorts of things, such as body language, that make a difference to how they view a person giving evidence. They spot the tell-tale sweating, the hesitancies, the rapid eye movements and the fidgeting. It's often the reason that readers are baffled by the outcome of court cases. They cannot hope to understand as much as the people in court. As The Scotsman noted in its report after the verdict, the 23 days of testimony was as hot as the weather outside. There were sensational allegations of sex, cocaine and champagne orgies with prostitutes and visits to swingers' clubs. It was good, saucy reading material. But it had little to do with how the jury viewed what had happened.
Frustratingly, we can't ask jurors how they reached their verdict. I'd lay odds though that the News of the World's promiscuous use of the chequebook played a part. Given that several witnesses had been paid by the paper, it may well have struck the jury that their evidence was potentially tainted. As I say, I can't know for sure. But that paper, having suffered yet another court room reverse (it was only a week ago that the fake sheikh's Red Mercury trial ended in acquittal) must surely take a long, hard look at its journalistic output. And its journalistic ethics.
