Rosie47 said:
Whatever they´ve based their case on, they`ve painted 'enry as a liar when he wishes to be. So the jury are within rights to believe he´s lying at any time during the trial.
not strictly true, a couple of things to mention:
First off it will be interesting on how the court judge sums up to the jury. Specifically regarding the issue of drawing 'adverse inference' from interviews etc in relation to his defence raised, and from the 'bad character' element for anything which Harry has stated in court. He will direct with both as to what weight to attach such evidence. eg. he may say that lying alone to a reporter is not sufficient to adduce that he has lied under oath.
Secondly with regards to his defence, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to adduce all elements of the charges. I haven't looked up what he has actually been charged with but most tax evasion type cases require an element of both 'intention' to defraud or 'dishonesty', and each individual element will need to be proved in order to be found guilty. This is where more importantly the standard of proof in a criminal case is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
The defence only has to raise a defence, as they have, and it is for the prosecution to prove that the defence is not valid.
Currently Harry is relying on:
- He lied to media, but not court (in current climate, that is probably understandable - this will add to weight as to whether any tax would have been due in the first place)
- Pays all other taxes, far outstripping anything he might have saved (questions validity of argument as to 'why')
- Has an accountant who handles stuff (so denying any personal notion of intent)
- He had spoken with Mandaric to confirm that payment was not subject to taxes, as he alone was not sufficiently savvy to even know if it was or not. (being misled, intentionally or not, by another and acting in reliance of the information by a business man far richer than he is)
- He made the revenue aware of account by volunteering information (again serving to show no intent)
- No reason to want to save £10K when clearly minted.
You can see how that may be sufficient to cast doubt in the minds of the jury. Given the standard of proof required, he may yet get away with this.
It is tough to see how the counter arguments given by prosecution on these specific points have been anything other than good headlines for the media.
Despite all the fervent activity, unless The jury is made up of gooners then it wouldn't surprise me that they couldn't find enough to prosecute.
I know I am naturally biased but his cheeky, saggy, twitching face, and mostly because of the potential knock on impact it could have. But even considering the evidence relayed by the media, it is a fairly compelling argument that lying to journalists is possibly a valid thing to have done at the time.
If the jury did find him guilty, I would envisage that an appeal would be lodged fairly swiftly.
This is Harry's Barrister by the way
http://www.clothfairchambers.com/members_profiles/john_kelsey-fry_qc.html
Told you I was a dull fucktard.
Pardew for England.
:baeshock: 
:joejordan: