Crown defends decision to prosecute Coulson saying ‘hindsight is a great thing’

Following the collapse of former News of the World editor and convicted phone hacker Andy Coulson’s perjury trial at the High Court in Edinburgh yesterday, prosecutors defended their decision to prosecute the Prime Minister’s former director of communications, saying they had no reason to believe the evidence which was the focus of the trial would not be deemed legally relevant.

Lord Burns acquitted Mr Coulson, 47, saying his evidence was not relevant in the 2010 trial of ex-MSP Tommy Sheridan.

James Chalmers, Regius Professor of Law at the University of Glasgow, questioned why the Crown had pursued Mr Coulson at all.

He said: “It is difficult to see what the Crown was hoping to do at the trial. It is difficult to see how they thought they were going to be able to prove relevance.

“It is the kind of point you would hope would be solved by legal debate.”

On leaving court, Mr Coulson said: “This prosecution was always wrong. I didn’t lie and the prosecution, in my view, was a gross waste of public money.”

However, a spokesman for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) said “cost was never a factor” when deciding prosecutions.

The spokesman added: “An allegation of perjury was made in this case and it was in the public interest that this was fully investigated and the evidence brought before the court.

“The public require to have confidence in the judicial system and we will continue to treat perjury as the serious offence it is and to bring prosecutions when there is sufficient, credible and reliable evidence of a crime.”

But a more senior Crown source, who spoke to The Herald on the condition he remains anonymous, said there was no reason to believe Lord Burns would rule as he did.

He said: “Hindsight is a great thing.”

The source added: “The fact that this evidence was false - allegedly - provided the basis for the prosecution, the trial judge is, of course, entitled to form his own view of relevance which he did.

“But at the time of taking the decision to indict we did not know how the trial judge would rule.

“We were entitled to rely on the fact that the evidence was admitted without objection and intervention by the judge.”

Lord Burns said at the trial that “not every lie amounts to perjury” in Scots law.

This was originally articulated by the then Lord Justice General, Lord Emslie in 1985 when he said that a “charge of perjury will not lie unless the evidence alleged to be false was both competent and relevant at the earlier trial either in proof of the libel or in relation to the credibility of the witness.” Lies, then, have to be material to the main issues in a trial.

And, despite the Crown’s comments, lawyers have expressed doubt since 2012 about whether Mr Coulson’s evidence satisfied Lord Emslie’s tests.