The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and the United Kingdom and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (July 2010)

Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.^[1] That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the case. For example, it is not considered perjury to lie about one's age unless age is a factor in determining the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits.

Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.^[2] On the other hand, the California Penal Code allows for perjury to be a capital offense in cases causing wrongful execution. However prosecutions for perjury are rare.^[3] In some countries such as France, Italy, and Germany, suspects cannot be heard under oath or affirmation and thus cannot commit perjury, regardless of what they say during their trial.

The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official. An example of this is the United States' income tax return, which, by law, must be signed as true and correct under penalty of perjury (see 26 U.S.C. § 6065). Federal tax law provides criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for violation of the tax return perjury statute. See: 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)

Statements of interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often make inaccurate statements unwittingly and not deliberately.^{[citation needed]} Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus). Subornation of perjury, attempting to induce another person to perjure themselves, is itself a crime.

Nigeria[link]

See Perjury in Nigeria.

Republic of Ireland[link]

A person who before the Court of Justice of the European Communities swears anything which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true is, whatever his nationality, guilty of perjury.^[4] Proceedings for this offence may be taken in any place in the State and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed in that place.^[5]

United Kingdom[link]

England and Wales[link]

Perjury is a statutory offence in England and Wales. It is created by section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911. Section 1 of that Act reads:

(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.

(2) The expression "judicial proceeding" includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and examine evidence on oath.
(3) Where a statement made for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is not made before the tribunal itself, but is made on oath before a person authorised by law to administer an oath to the person who makes the statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, it shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as having been made in a judicial proceeding.
(4) A statement made by a person lawfully sworn in England for the purposes of a judicial proceeding-

(a) in another part of His Majesty’s dominions; or

(b) in a British tribunal lawfully constituted in any place by sea or land outside His Majesty’s dominions; or

(c) in a tribunal of any foreign state,

shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as a statement made in a judicial proceeding in England.
(5) Where, for the purposes of a judicial proceeding in England, a person is lawfully sworn under the authority of an Act of Parliament-

(a) in any other part of His Majesty’s dominions; or

(b) before a British tribunal or a British officer in a foreign country, or within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England;

a statement made by such person so sworn as aforesaid (unless the Act of Parliament under which it was made otherwise specifically provides) shall be treated for the purposes of this section as having been made in the judicial proceeding in England for the purposes whereof it was made.

(6) The question whether a statement on which perjury is assigned was material is a question of law to be determined by the court of trial.^[6]

The words omitted from section 1(1) were repealed by section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948.

A person guilty of an offence under section 11(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 may be proceeded against and punished in England and Wales as for an offence under section 1(1).^[7]

Section 1(4) has effect in relation to proceedings in the Court of Justice of the European Communities as it has effect in relation to a judicial proceeding in a tribunal of a foreign state.^[8]

Section 1(4) applies in relation to proceedings before a relevant convention court under the European Patent Convention as it applies to a judicial proceeding in a tribunal of a foreign state.^[9]

A statement made on oath by a witness outside the United Kingdom and given in evidence through a live television link by virtue of section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 must be treated for the purposes of section 1 as having been made in the proceedings in which it is given in evidence.^[10]

Section 1 applies in relation to a person acting as an intermediary as it applies in relation to a person lawfully sworn as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding; and for this purpose, where a person acts as an intermediary in any proceeding which is not a judicial proceeding for the purposes of section 1, that proceeding must be taken to be part of the judicial proceeding in which the witness’s evidence is given.^[11]

Where any statement made by a person on oath in any proceeding which is not a judicial proceeding for the purposes of section 1 is received in evidence in pursuance of a special measures direction, that proceeding must be taken for the purposes of section 1 to be part of the judicial proceeding in which the statement is so received in evidence.^[12]

Judicial proceeding

The definition in section 1(2) is not "comprehensive".^[13]

The book "Archbold" said that it appears to be immaterial whether the court, before which the statement is made, has jurisdiction in the particular cause in which the statement is made, because there is no express requirement in the Act that the court be one of "competent jurisdiction" and because the definition in section 1(2) does not appear to require this by implication either.^[14]

Actus reus

The actus reus of perjury might be considered to be the making of a statement, whether true or false, on oath in a judicial proceeding.^[15][16]

Perjury is a conduct crime.^[17]

Mode of trial

Perjury is triable only on indictment.^[18]

Sentence

A person convicted of perjury is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine, or to both.^[19]

The following cases are relevant:

• R v Hall (1982) 4 Cr App R (S) 153
• R v Knight, 6 Cr App R (S) 31, [1984] Crim LR 304, CA
• R v Healey (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 297
• R v Dunlop [2001] 2 Cr App R (S) 27
• R v Archer [2002] EWCA Crim 1996, [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 86
• R v Adams [2004] 2 Cr App R (S) 15
• R v Cunningham [2007] 2 Cr App R (S) 61

See also the Crown Prosecution Service sentencing manual.

History[link]

In Anglo-Saxon legal procedure, the offence of perjury could only be committed by both jurors and by compurgators.^[20] With time witnesses began to appear in court they were not so treated despite the fact that their functions were akin to that of modern witnesses. This was due to the fact that their role were not yet differentiated from those of the juror – hence false evidence or perjury by witnesses was not made a crime. Even in the fourteenth century when witnesses started appearing before the jury to testify, perjury by them was not made a punishable offence. The maxim then was that every witness’s evidence on oath was true.^[20] Perjury by witnesses began to be punished before the end of fifteen century by the Star Chamber. The immunity enjoyed by witnesses began also to be whittled down or interfered with by the parliament in England in 1540 with subornation of perjury^[20] and, in 1562, with perjury proper. The punishment for the offence then was in the nature of monetary penalty, recoverable in a civil action and, not by penal sanction. In 1613, the Star Chamber, declared perjury by a witness to be a punishable offence at common law.

See section 3 of the Maintenance and Embracery Act 1540, the 5 Eliz 1 c 9 (An Act for the Punyshement of suche persones as shall procure or comit any wyllful Perjurye) and the Perjury Act 1728.

Materiality

The requirement that the statement be material can be traced back to,^[21] and has been credited to,^[22] Coke. He said:

For if it be not material, then though it be false, yet it is no perjury, because it concerneth not the point in suit, and therefore in effect it is extra-judicial. Also this act giveth remedy to the party grieved, and if the deposition be not material, he cannot be grieved thereby.^[23]

Northern Ireland[link]

Perjury is a statutory offence in Northern Ireland. It is created by article 3(1) of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1714 (N.I. 19)). This replaces the Perjury Act (Northern Ireland) 1946 (c. 13) (N.I.).

United States of America[link]

Perjury operates in American Law as an inherited principle of the common law of England, which defined the act as the "willful and corrupt giving, upon a lawful oath, or in any form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, in a judicial proceeding or course of justice, of a false testimony material to the issue or matter of inquiry."^[24] William Blackstone touched on the subject in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, establishing perjury as "a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered, in some judicial proceeding, to a person who swears willfully, absolutely, and falsely, in a matter material to the issue or point in question."^[25] The punishment for perjury under the common law has varied from death to banishment and has included such grotesque penalties as severing the tongue of the perjurer.^[26] The definitional structure of perjury provides an important framework for legal proceedings, as the component parts of this definition have permeated jurisdictional lines, finding a home in American legal constructs. As such, the main tenets of perjury, including mens rea, a lawful oath, occurring during a judicial proceeding, a false testimony have remained necessary pieces of perjury’s definition in the United States.^[27]

Perjury’s current position in America’s legal takes the form of state and federal statutes. Most notably, the United States Code prohibits perjury, which is defined in two senses for federal purposes as someone who:

(1) Having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true^[28]

The above statute provides for a fine and/or up to five years in prison as punishment. Within federal jurisdiction, statements made in two broad categories of judicial proceedings may qualify as perjurious: 1) Federal official proceedings, and 2) Federal Court or Grand Jury proceedings. A third type of perjury entails the procurement of perjurious statements from another person.^[29] More generally, the statement must occur in the "course of justice," but this definition leaves room open for interpretation.^[30] One particularly precarious aspect of this phrasing is that it entails knowledge of the accused person’s perception of the truthful nature of events and not necessarily the actual truth of those events. It is important to note the distinction here, between giving a false statement under oath and merely misstating a fact accidentally, though this distinction can be especially difficult to discern in court of law.^[31]

The development of perjury law in the United States centers on United States v. Dunnigan, a seminal case that set out the parameters of perjury within United States law. The court uses the Dunnigan based legal standard to determine if an accused person, "[T]estifying under oath or affirmation violates this section if she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory."^[32] However, a defendant shown to be willfully ignorant may in fact be eligible for perjury prosecution.^[33] The Dunnigan distinction manifests its importance in with regard to the relation between two component parts of perjury’s definition: in willfully giving a false statement, a person must understand that she is giving a false statement to be considered a perjurer under the Dunnigan framework. Deliberation on the part of the defendant is required for a statement to constitute perjury.^[34] Jurisprudential developments in the American law of perjury have revolved around the facilitation of "perjury prosecutions and thereby enhance the reliability of testimony before federal courts and grand juries."^[35] With this goal in mind, congress has sometimes expanded the grounds on which an individual may be prosecuted for perjury, with section 1623 of the United States Code recognizing the utterance of two mutually incompatible statements as grounds for perjury indictment even if neither can unequivocally be proven false.^[36] However, the two statements must be so mutually incompatible that at least one must necessarily be false; it is irrelevant whether the false statement can be specifically identified from among the two.^[37] It thus falls on the government to show that a defendant (a) knowingly made a (b) false (c) material statement (d) under oath (e) in a legal proceeding.^[38] These proceedings can be ancillary to normal court proceedings, and thus, even such menial interactions as bail hearings can qualify as protected proceedings under this statute.^[39]

Perjury law’s evolution in the United States has experience the most debate with regards to the materiality requirement. Fundamentally, statements that are literally true cannot provide the basis for a perjury charge^[40] (as they do not meet the falsehood requirement) just as answers to truly ambiguous statements cannot constitute perjury.^[41] However, such fundamental truths of perjury law become muddled when discerning the materiality of a given statement and the way in which it was material to the given case. In United States v. Brown, the court defined material statements as those with "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to be addressed," such as a jury or grand jury.^[42] While courts have specifically made clear certain instances which have succeeded or failed to meet the nebulous threshold for materiality, the topic remains unresolved in large part, except in certain legal areas where intent manifests itself in an abundantly clear fashion, such as with the so-called perjury trap, a specific situation in which a prosecutor calls a person to testify before a grand jury with the intent of drawing a perjurious statement from the person being questioned.^[43]

One significant legal distinction lies in the specific realm of knowledge necessarily possessed by a defendant for her statements to be properly called perjury. Though the defendant must knowingly render a false statement in a legal proceeding or under federal jurisdiction, the defendant need not know that they are speaking under such conditions for the statement to constitute perjury.^[44] All tenets of perjury qualification persist- the “knowingly” aspect of telling the false statement simply does not apply to the defendant’s knowledge about the person she intends to deceive.

Despite a tendency of American perjury law toward broad prosecutory power under perjury statutes, American perjury law has afforded potential defendants a new form of defense not found in the British Common Law. This defense requires that an individual admit to making a perjuious statement during that same proceeding and recanting the statement.^[45] Though this defensive loophole slightly narrows the types of cases which may be prosecuted for perjury, the effect of this statutory defense is to promote a truthful retelling of facts by witnesses, thus helping to ensure the reliability of American court proceedings just as broadened perjury statutes aimed to do.

Subornation of Perjury

Subornation of perjury stands as a subset of American perjury laws and prohibits an individual from inducing another to commit perjury.^[46] Subornation of perjury entails equivalent possible punishments as perjury on the federal level. This crime requires an extra level of satisfactory proof, as prosecutors must show not only that perjury occurred, but also that the defendant positively induced said perjury. Furthermore, the inducing defendant must know that the suborned statement is a false, perjurious statement.^[47]

Notable convicted perjurers[link]

• Jonathan Aitken, British politician, was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment in 1999 for perjury.^[48]
• Jeffrey Archer, British novelist and politician, was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for perjury in 2001.^[49]
• Kwame Kilpatrick, Detroit mayor was convicted of perjury in 2008 in relation to text messages he sent to his chief of staff, Christine Beatty.^[50]
• Marion Jones, American athlete, was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment after being found guilty of two counts of perjury in 2008.^[51]
• Mark Fuhrman, Los Angeles Police Department detective, entered a no contest plea to a perjury charge relating to his testimony in the murder trial of O. J. Simpson.^[52]
• Lil' Kim, American rapper was convicted of perjury in 2005 after lying to a grand jury in 2003.^[53]
• Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted in 2007 of two counts of perjury in connection with the Plame affair.^[54]
• Bernie Madoff, the former Chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange, in 2009 he was found guilty of perjury in relation to investment fraud arising from his operating a Ponzi scheme.^[55]
• Michele Sindona, convicted of perjury related to a bogus kidnapping in August 1979.^[56]
• Tommy Sheridan, Scottish politician, found guilty of lying on affirmation in a trial in 2010.^[57]

Allegations of perjury[link]

Notable people who have been accused of perjury include:

• Barry Bonds has been indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly perjuring himself in testimony before a grand jury in 2003 as part of the BALCO steroid scandal, in which he denied using any performance-enhancing drugs.^[58]
• Former U.S. President Bill Clinton was accused of perjury and as a result was impeached by the House of Representatives on 19 December 1998.^[59] No criminal charges were ever brought and upon leaving office he accepted immunity.^[60]
• Former Premier of Queensland Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was acquitted of perjury due to a hung jury.

See also[link]

• Anatomy of a Murder
• Making false statements
• Obstruction of justice
• Testilying

References[link]

External links[link]

Look up perjury in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Bryan Druzin, and Jessica Li, The Criminalization of Lying: Under what Circumstances, if any, should Lies be made Criminal?, 101 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (Northwestern University) (forthcoming 2011).
• Gabriel J. Chin and Scott Wells, The "Blue Wall of Silence" as Evidence of Bias and Motive to Lie: A New Approach to Police Perjury, 59 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 233 (1998).

v t e English criminal law Part of the common law series Classes of crimes Common law Indictable Either way Summary Regulatory Lesser included Elements of crimes Actus reus Causation Mens rea Intention (criminal law) Intention in English law Recklessness Criminal negligence Corporate / Vicarious / Strict liability Omissions Concurrence Ignorantia juris non excusat Inchoate offences Encouraging or assisting crime Conspiracy Accessory Attempt Common purpose Defences Self-defence Duress Necessity Marital coercion Consent Insanity Diminished responsibility Intoxication Category:Criminal defences Offences against the person Homicide (Murder / Manslaughter / Corporate manslaughter / Infanticide) Child destruction Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm Assault occasioning actual bodily harm Common assault Battery Kidnapping False imprisonment Harassment Offences against the Person Act 1861 Sexual offences Rape Sexual assault Sexual Offences Act 2003 Public order offences Riot Violent disorder Affray Fear or provocation of violence Intentional harassment, alarm or distress Harassment, alarm or distress Public Order Act 1986 Nuisance Public nuisance Offences against property Dishonesty Burglary Robbery Theft Taken Without Owner's Consent (TWOC) Deception Handling stolen goods Blackmail Computer crime Theft Act 1968 Theft Act 1978 Fraud Act 2006 Criminal damage Conspiracy to defraud Forgery, personation and cheating Forgery Cheating the public revenue Offences against justice Bribery Perjury Perverting the course of justice Other common law areas Contract Tort Property Wills Trusts and estates Evidence See also Criminal procedure History Law of England and Wales portal Criminal justice portal

Eric Holder
82nd United States Attorney General
Incumbent
Assumed office February 3, 2009
President	Barack Obama
Deputy	David Ogden James Cole
Preceded by	Michael Mukasey
Deputy Attorney General of the United States
In office June 13, 1997 – January 20, 2001
President	Bill Clinton
Preceded by	Jamie Gorelick
Succeeded by	Larry Thompson
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia
In office October 1993 – June 13, 1997
Nominated by	Bill Clinton
Preceded by	J. Ramsey Johnson[1]
Associate Judge on Superior Court of the District of Columbia
In office October 1988 – October 1993
Nominated by	Ronald Reagan
Personal details
Born	Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. (1951-01-21) January 21, 1951 (age 61) Bronx, New York, U.S.
Political party	Democratic Party
Spouse(s)	Sharon Malone
Children	Maya Brooke Eric
Alma mater	Columbia University (A.B.) Columbia Law School (J.D.)
Profession	Attorney at Law
Religion	Episcopal

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. (born January 21, 1951) is the 82nd and current Attorney General of the United States and the first black American to hold the position,^[2] serving under President Barack Obama.

Holder previously served as a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and a United States Attorney. In that office he prosecuted Congressman Dan Rostenkowski (Democrat, Illinois) for corruption charges related to his role in the Congressional Post Office scandal. Later, he was Deputy Attorney General of the United States and worked at the law firm of Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. He was senior legal advisor to then-Senator Barack Obama during Obama's presidential campaign and one of three members of Obama's vice-presidential selection committee.

Early life[link]

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. was born in the Bronx, New York, to parents with roots in Barbados.^{[3][4][dead link][5]} Holder's father, Eric Himpton Holder, Sr. (1905–1970) was born in Saint Joseph, Barbados and arrived in the United States at the age of 11.^[6][7] He later became a real estate broker. His mother, Miriam, was born in New Jersey, while his maternal grandparents were immigrants from Saint Philip, Barbados.^[7] Holder grew up in East Elmhurst, Queens, and attended public school until the age of 10. When entering the 4th grade he was selected to participate in a program for intellectually gifted students.^[8] In 1969, he graduated from Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan and attended Columbia University, where he played freshman basketball and was co-captain of his team. He earned a A.B. degree in American history in 1973.^[9] Holder received his Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School, graduating in 1976. He worked for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund during his first summer and the United States Attorney during his second summer.^[8]

Career[link]

After graduating from law school, Holder joined the U.S. Justice Department's new Public Integrity Section during an interval lasting from 1976 to 1988. During his time there, he assisted in the prosecution of Democratic Congressman John Jenrette for bribery discovered in the Abscam sting operation.^[10] In 1988, President Ronald Reagan appointed Holder to serve as a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.^[11]

Holder stepped down from the bench in 1993 to accept an appointment as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from President Bill Clinton. He was the first black American U.S. Attorney in that office.^[8] At the beginning of his tenure, he oversaw the conclusion of the corruption case against Dan Rostenkowski, part of the Congressional Post Office scandal.^[10] He was a U.S. Attorney until his elevation to Deputy Attorney General in 1997. Holder also served on The George Washington University's Board of Trustees in 1996 and 1997.

Deputy Attorney General[link]

In 1997, after the retirement of Jamie Gorelick, Clinton nominated Holder to be the Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno. Holder was confirmed several months later in the Senate by a unanimous vote.^[12] During his confirmation hearing, Holder's opposition to the death penalty was questioned, but he pledged his intention to cooperate with the current laws and Reno, saying, "I am not a proponent of the death penalty, but I will enforce the law as this Congress gives it to us."^[13] Holder was the first black American to serve in that position.^[8] Holder briefly served as Acting Attorney General under President George W. Bush until the Senate confirmed Bush's nominee John Ashcroft.^[14]

As Deputy Attorney General, Holder advised Reno about how far to go in the Justice Department's use of the Independent Counsel statute. Reno made the decision to permit Kenneth Starr to expand his investigation into the Lewinsky affair, leading to Clinton's impeachment.^[8]

In his final days with the Clinton administration, Holder was involved with Clinton's last-minute pardon of fugitive and Democratic contributor Marc Rich. Between November 2000 and January 2001, Jack Quinn, Rich's lawyer and former White House Counsel from 1995 to 1996, had been contacting Holder, testing the waters for the political viability of a presidential pardon. Quinn asked Holder for advice as to how he should proceed. According to Rich's attorney, Holder advised Quinn to circumvent standard procedures by submitting the pardon petition directly to the White House.^[15]

After presenting his case to Holder in a November phone call and a last minute January 17 letter, Quinn arranged a phone call between the White House and Holder, asking the Deputy Attorney General to share his opinion on the Rich pardon. Holder gave Clinton a "neutral, leaning towards favorable" opinion of the pardon.^[8]

Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder opened an Interagency Working Group meeting of the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders hosted by the Department of Justice on October 18, 2000.

During his February testimonies before the House Government Reform Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder argued his phone call was not intended as a formal Justice Department blessing of the pardon, saying, "my interaction with the White House, I did not view as a recommendation. because I didn't have the ability to look at all the materials that had been vetted through the way we normally vet materials."^[16] He also did not believe his opinion would be interpreted as a go-ahead for the pardon. "What I said to the White House counsel ultimately was that I was neutral on this because I didn't have a factual basis to make a determination as to whether or not Mr. Quinn's contentions were in fact accurate, whether or not there had been a change in the law, a change in the applicable Justice Department regulations, and whether or not that was something that would justify the extraordinary grant of a pardon."^[17] An investigation led by House Government Reform Committee chairman Dan Burton concluded in a 2003 report covering 177 Clinton pardons that Holder had played a significant role in facilitating the Rich pardon, first by recommending the well-connected Jack Quinn to Rich's legal representatives, by failing to fully inform prosecutors of the pending pardon, and by eventually delivering a "neutral leaning favorable" opinion to Clinton from a position of authority.^[18] Holder has expressed some regret over his handling of the Rich pardon, stating "I wish I had done some things differently with regard to the Marc Rich matter. Specifically, I wish that I had ensured that the Department of Justice was more fully informed and involved in this pardon process", and called his own actions a "mistake".^[19]

Official photo as Deputy Attorney General, ca. 2000

Holder was also involved in Clinton's decision to reduce the criminal sentences of 16 members of the Boricua Popular Army, an organization that has been categorized by the FBI as a terrorist organization. The clemency request was initially opposed in 1996 by U.S. Pardons Attorney Margaret Love. When Holder was elevated to Deputy Attorney General in 1997, he was asked to reexamine the issue by three members of Congress. In July 1999, Holder recommended clemency to Clinton with a report from then U.S. Pardons Attorney Roger Adams that neither supported nor opposed clemency. A month later, Clinton granted clemency. According to The Hartford Courant, the grant of clemency was unusual because it was opposed by the FBI, the federal prosecutor and the victims. According to the newspaper, it was also unusual because before the commutations, the Boricua Popular Army members were not required to repudiate their actions and were not asked to provide any information concerning the whereabouts of Victor Manuel Gerena, a co-conspirator and one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, or the millions of dollars stolen by the group in a 1983 robbery of Wells Fargo in West Hartford, Connecticut.^[20]

Private practice[link]

From 2001 until he became Attorney General, Holder worked as an attorney at Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C., representing clients such as Merck and the National Football League.^[3][8] He represented the NFL during its dog fighting investigation against Michael Vick.^[21]

In 2004, Holder helped negotiate an agreement with the Justice Department for Chiquita Brands International in a case that involved Chiquita's payment of "protection money" to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a group on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations.^[22][23] In the agreement, Chiquita's officials pleaded guilty and paid a fine of $25 million. Holder represented Chiquita in the civil action that grew out of this criminal case.^[23]

In March 2004, Holder and Covington & Burling were hired by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to act as a special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board. The Gaming Board had voted 4-1 earlier that month to allow a casino to be built in Rosemont, Illinois. That vote defied the recommendation of the board's staff, which had raised concerns about alleged organized-crime links to the Rosemont casino's developer. The move had also raised concerns that the governor had named his close friend and fund-raiser, Christopher Kelly, as a "special government agent" to be involved in official state negotiations about the casino. Holder's legal work for the State of Illinois never materialized when the board reversed its decision and refused to hire Kelly. The investigation was subsequently canceled on May 18, 2004.^[24]

The firm represented Guantanamo inmates but Holder "never participated directly in the firm's Guantanamo work", and is not expected to recuse himself from matters pertaining to it.^[25]

While D.C. v. Heller was being heard by the Supreme Court in 2008, Holder joined the Reno-led amicus brief, which urged the Supreme Court to uphold Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and said the position of the Department of Justice, from Franklin Roosevelt through Clinton, was that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes unrelated to a State’s operation of a well-regulated militia.^[26] Holder said that overturning the 1976 law "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."^[27]

In 2008, Holder represented the wife of Robert Wone, victim of a controversial and unsolved 2006 murder.^[28]

Holder speaking at a press conference on Guantanamo Bay detainees

In late 2007, Holder joined then-United States Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign as a senior legal advisor. He served on Obama's vice presidential selection committee.^[11]

Holder favors closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, although he said in 2002 that the detainees are not technically entitled to Geneva Convention protections.^[29][30] He is opposed to the Bush administration's implementation of the Patriot Act, saying it is "bad ultimately for law enforcement and will cost us the support of the American people."^[31][32] He has been critical of Enhanced interrogation techniques and the NSA warrantless surveillance program, accusing the Bush administration of a "disrespect for the rule of law... [that is] not only wrong, it is destructive in our struggle against terrorism."^[33]

Attorney General of the United States[link]

On December 1, 2008, Obama announced that Holder would be his nominee for Attorney General.^[34][35] He was formally nominated on January 20, 2009 and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 28.^[36][37] Following his confirmation by the full Senate on February 2, 2009, he became the first African-American Attorney General of the United States. His installation took place on March 27, 2009 at the Lisner Auditorium of the George Washington University.

During his confirmation hearings in the Senate, Holder agreed with Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, that a technique used by U.S. interrogators under the Bush administration known as waterboarding is torture.^[38] Holder was confirmed by a 75-21 vote on February 2, 2009.^[39]

Holder gave a speech on race relations on February 18, 2009, in the midst of Black History Month. "Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we average Americans simply do not talk enough with each other about race," he said.^[40] The speech stirred mild controversy, with some reacting favorably to Holder's comments and others sharply criticizing them.^[41][42] Obama rebuked Holder's comments, saying that “I think it’s fair to say that if I had been advising my attorney general, we would have used different language”.^[43]

When questioned about weapons regulations during a news conference to announce the arrest of Mexican drug cartel members, Holder stated that the Obama administration would seek to re-institute the expired Assault Weapons Ban, which he strongly supports.^[44][45]

After the U.S. government filed suit against the Swiss bank UBS AG, whom Holder had represented during his time in private practice, the attorney general recused himself from all legal matters concerning the bank, which stands accused of conspiracy in U.S. tax fraud.^[46][47]

On April 1, 2009, Holder announced that he had ordered the dismissal of the indictment against former Senator Ted Stevens on corruption charges. Stevens had been found guilty, but hadn't been sentenced; Holder's action effectively vacated Stevens' conviction. Holder was reportedly very angry that the prosecutors had withheld potentially exculpatory evidence from Stevens' attorneys. After the prosecutors had been held in contempt of court for failing to turn over required documents, Holder replaced the entire trial team. Soon afterward, the Justice Department discovered a previously undocumented interview with Bill Allen, the prosecution's star witness. In this interview, Allen gave statements that directly contradicted his testimony at trial, including a claim that he'd been asked to get a note for a repair bill on his house. By nearly all accounts, Holder wanted to send a message that he would not tolerate any behavior he deemed to be prosecutorial misconduct.^[48]

Holder presented friend and predecessor Janet Reno, Attorney General under the Clinton Administration, the American Judicature Society's (AJS) Justice Award on April 17, 2009. The award is the highest given by the AJS, and recognizes significant contributions toward improvements in the administration of justice within the United States.^[49]

On November 13, 2009, Holder announced that accused September 11 attack conspirators Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi would be transferred from the military commissions system to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for trial. He also expressed confidence that an impartial jury would be found "to ensure a fair trial in New York".^[50]

Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 14, 2010, "No final decision has been made about the forum which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-defendants will be tried. As I said at the outset, this is a very close call."^[51]

However, in early April 2011 Holder announced that the 9/11 co-conspirators will be tried by a military tribunal. "Holder said that he believes the trials could have been held in New York or Virginia, but that Congress imposed restrictions on where the trial could be held, taking the decision from his hands." ^[52]

In May 2010 Holder expressed "concerns" about "Arizona’s tough new immigration law", saying that it might "lead to racial profiling". Holder was criticized for his testimony during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, when he said that he had "not read" the Arizona law and that he had formed his opinions on the basis of news reports.^[53][54][55] In July 2010, Holder stated that the Justice Department filed suit against the Arizona law because it is preempted by federal law. Holder was quoted as saying, "I understand, first off, the frustration of the people of Arizona and the concerns that they have with regard to the amount of illegal immigration that occurs, but the solution that the Arizona legislature came up with is inconsistent with our federal Constitution."^[56]

In July 2010, Holder flew to Kampala, Uganda, to address the Heads of State Summit of the African Union, where he discussed the Obama Administration's priorities with regards to Africa and the terrorist bombings in Kampala during the World Cup.^[57][58]

Before the November 2010 elections, Holder stated that he planned to prosecute people in California if they possess marijuana even if Californian voters passed a proposition legalizing marijuana (Proposition 19).^[59] Proposition 19 was ultimately defeated.

After the United States diplomatic cables leak in December 2010, Holder said that "We have an active, ongoing, criminal investigation with regard to this matter," Holder said. "We are not in a position as yet to announce the result of that investigation, but the investigation is--is ongoing. To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law and who has put at risk the assets and the people that I have described, they will be held responsible," Holder said. "They will be held accountable." Holder's comments leave open a crucial question, which is whether the investigators are looking at how WikiLeaks obtained the documents (not unlike probing a news organization's source), or if they're looking at whether WikiLeaks staffers violated criminal law and should be the ones indicted.^[60]

In March 2011 Holder left open the possibility that the Guantánamo Bay terrorist prison camp might live on beyond President Obama’s first term. Asked in a congressional hearing whether the prison would be closed by November 2012, Holder said: "I don’t know". He said the Justice Department has established a task force to look at each of the 172 detainees being held at the Guantánamo prison to address how they should be dealt with. Holder’s comments come just weeks after CIA Director Leon Panetta told a Senate panel that Osama bin Laden would probably be shipped to and held at the Guantánamo Bay facility if he were captured.^[61]

Controversies[link]

In May 2009, Holder's Department of Justice ended a civil suit originally brought by the Bush administration against the New Black Panther Party, its chairman, and two of its members for voter intimidation due to their conduct during the 2008 election. Two members of the party had stood outside a polling station during the election in paramilitary uniforms, one of them carrying a billy club. Although none of the defendants appeared in court to contest the charges, the department of justice voluntarily dropped the charges against the party, its chairman, and one of the two members who had stood outside the polling station, and obtained a narrow injunction against the other. While the Department of Justice has contended that the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence, several of its current and former members have stated that Holder's Department of Justice is unwilling to prosecute minorities for civil rights violations.^[62] This accusation has been made most notably by J. Christian Adams, who in May 2010 resigned his post at the Department of Justice out of protest,^[63] and by his former supervisor Christopher Coates.^[64]

J. Christian Adams and former Bush appointee Hans A. von Spakovsky have also accused the civil rights division in Holder's Department of Justice of inactivity and wastefulness. According to Adams and von Spakovsky, although the voting section has hired dozens of new attorneys, the number of actual cases filed has declined sharply since Holder took office, and many of its employees spend their time "playing computer Solitaire, watching videos, and venting at the lack of activity."^[65][66]

During a meeting with a House subcommittee discussing this and other issues, Holder has argued that the behavior from the New Black Panther Party was not comparable to historical voter intimidation against minorities, stating "When you compare what people endured in the South in the ’60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia… I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people."^[67] Critics have interpreted this comment as evidence of racial bias on Holder's part, with James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal arguing "If he approaches the job with the attitude that any group smaller than all Americans is 'my people,' he is the wrong man for the position."^[68]

Holder has faced additional controversy for the Obama Administration's decision that his Department of Justice would no longer enforce certain provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, which Representative Frank Wolf has described as a "decision to abandon your duty to defend this law."^[69]

House oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley sent Holder a letter in May 2011 asking for details about Operation Fast and Furious, the ATF operation that sent thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels. Tax money may have been used to purchase the guns ^[70][71] Grassley and Issa, "have urged Holder to cooperate and turn over subpoenaed records that would reveal the scope of the government coverup." ^[72] In October 2011, documents were released^[73] that indicated Holder was sent memos in regards to Operation Fast and Furious in 2010,^[74] contradicting Holder's sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in which he said he was unaware of Operation Fast and Furious until April 2011.^[75][76] In April 2012, Issa announced that his committee was drafting a Contempt of Congress resolution against Holder in response to the committee being "stonewalled by the Justice Department."^[77]

In response, Lamar Smith, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to President Obama, requesting the appointment of an independent special counsel to investigate whether Holder committed perjury by lying to the committee while under oath. ^[78][79][80]

Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has written in the Washington Times that, "It is time for Mr. Holder to go." because of his role in Operation Fast and Furious. Perry stated that, "America simply cannot tolerate an attorney general who arms the very criminals he is supposed to protect us from".^[81]

Personal life[link]

Holder is married to Dr. Sharon Malone, an obstetrician; the couple have three children.^[82] Malone's sister was Vivian Malone Jones, famous for her part in the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door which led to integration at the University of Alabama.^[83] Holder has been involved with various mentoring programs for inner-city youths. He is also an avid basketball fan,^[84] and the uncle of former NBA All-Star Jeff Malone.^[21]

Awards[link]

In June 2009 the Government of Barbados announced that it would begin a project to determine the first 100 Great Barbadians which would be selected among the public of Barbados. At the announcement of the project it was announced that Eric Holder was the first candidate to be nominated toward the final list.^[85]

On May 16, 2010, Eric Holder presented the commencement address at Boston University, for both the All-University Ceremony and the School of Law. In addition, he was presented with an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree.^[86] On May 19, 2009, Holder was chosen by his alma mater, Columbia College, to be its Class Day Speaker.^[87]

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• "Black U.S. Attorney Brings an Indictment Against Powerful House Committee Chairman". Jet (FindArticles.com). June 20, 1994. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n7_v86/ai_15480292. Retrieved July 1, 2008. 
• Crabtree, Susan (April 28, 1997). "A New Sheriff at Justice". Insight on the News (FindArticles.com). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n15_v13/ai_19340518. Retrieved July 1, 2008. 
• Haywood, Richette L. (September 1994). "First Black U.S. Attorney in D.C.". Ebony (FindArticles.com). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n11_v49/ai_15837298. Retrieved July 1, 2008. 
• Longstreth, Andrew (June 2008). "Making History". The American Lawyer. http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202421743636. Retrieved November 18, 2008. 
• Randolph, Laura B. (January 1999). "Power Couples". Ebony (FindArticles.com). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_3_54/ai_53475509. Retrieved July 1, 2008. 
• Lichtblau, Eric; David Johnston (December 1, 2008). "Pardon Is Back in Focus for the Justice Nominee". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/us/politics/02holder.html. Retrieved December 2, 2008. 

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Eric Holder

• Profile at the United States Department of Justice
• Eric Holder at WhoRunsGov at The Washington Post
• Appearances on C-SPAN
• Eric Holder collected news and commentary at The New York Times
• Works by or about Eric Holder in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• Justice Department Bio of Holder as Deputy Attorney General at the Wayback Machine
• Answers.com
• Columbia University
• Covington & Burling
• The History Makers
• Homeland Security Policy Institute
• Eric Holder's federal campaign contribution report at NewsMeat
• Holder Speech at Department of Justice African American History Month Program Feb. 18, 2009
• Authenticated text, audio, video of Eric Holder Speech at the Department of Justice African American History Month Program AmericanRhetoric.com
• Attorney General Holder Speech to the African Union Summit July 2010
• Will Eric Holder Be the Anti-Torture Hero? by Andy Worthington, The Huffington Post, July 12, 2009

v t e United States Attorneys General Randolph Bradford Lee Lincoln Breckinridge Rodney Pinkney Rush Wirt Berrien Taney Butler Grundy Gilpin Crittenden Legaré Nelson Mason Clifford Toucey Johnson Crittenden Cushing Black Stanton Bates Speed Stanbery Evarts Hoar Akerman Williams Pierrepont Taft Devens MacVeagh Brewster Garland Miller Olney Harmon McKenna Griggs Knox Moody Bonaparte Wickersham McReynolds Gregory Palmer Daugherty Stone Sargent W D Mitchell Cummings Murphy Jackson Biddle T C Clark McGrath McGranery Brownell Rogers Kennedy Katzenbach W R Clark J N Mitchell Kleindienst Richardson Saxbe Levi Bell Civiletti Smith Meese Thornburgh Barr Reno Ashcroft Gonzales Mukasey Holder

v t e Cabinet of President Barack Obama (since 2009)   Cabinet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (2009–present) Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (2009–present) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (2009–2011) Leon Panetta (2011–present) Attorney General Eric Holder (2009–present) Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar (2009–present) Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (2009–present) Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke (2009–2011) John Bryson (2011–present) Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis (2009–present) Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (2009–present) Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (2009–present) Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan (2009–present) Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood (2009–present) Secretary of Energy Steven Chu (2009–present) Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki (2009–present) Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (2009–present)   Cabinet-level Vice President Joe Biden (2009–present) White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (2009–2010) William Daley (2011–2012) Jacob Lew (2012–present) Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Lisa Jackson (2009–present) Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag (2009–2010) Jacob Lew (2010–2012) Trade Representative Ron Kirk (2009–present) Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice (2009–present) Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer (2009–2010) Austan Goolsbee (2010–2011) Alan Krueger (2011–present) Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon Panetta (2009–2011) David Petraeus (2011–present) Administrator of the Small Business Administration Karen Mills (2012–present)* * took office in 2009, raised to cabinet-rank in 2012 See also: Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet

v t e Current members of the Cabinet of the United States Obama Biden Bryson Chu Clinton Donovan Duncan Geithner Holder Jacksonc Kirkc Kruegerc LaHood Lewc Millsc Napolitano Panetta Ricec Salazar Sebelius Solis Shinseki Vilsack Zientsca c - cabinet-level; a - acting

Tommy Sheridan
Tommy Sheridan in March 2007.
Joint convenor of Solidarity
Incumbent
Assumed office 3 September 2006
Preceded by	New position
Member of the Scottish Parliament for Glasgow
In office 6 May 1999 – 3 May 2007
Glasgow City Councillor
In office 1992 – 1 May 2003
Succeeded by	Keith Baldassara
Personal details
Born	(1964-03-07) 7 March 1964 (age 48) Glasgow, Scotland
Political party	Solidarity
Alma mater	University of Stirling

Tommy Sheridan (born 7 March 1964, Glasgow) is a Scottish socialist politician. He has had various prominent roles within the socialist movement in Scotland and is currently one of two co-convenors of the left-wing Scottish political party Solidarity.

Sheridan was active as a Militant tendency entryist in the Labour Party, before leaving Labour as a member of Scottish Militant Labour (SML). He was a prominent campaigner against the poll tax in Scotland, and was jailed for six months for attending a warrant sale after Glasgow Sheriff Court had served a court order on him banning his presence. Sheridan has twice been jailed in connection with campaigning against the presence of the nuclear fleet at Faslane Naval Base - a presence which continues.

In 2006 in the case of Sheridan v News International he won an action for defamation against the News of the World and was awarded £200,000 damages. The following year, he was charged with perjury, for having told lies to the court in the defamation case.^[1] In the following weeks, six of his relations and colleagues were also charged. In October 2010, he appeared together with his wife Gail at a trial for perjury. While the charges against his wife were withdrawn, on 23 December 2010, Sheridan was convicted of perjury, and on 26 January he was sentenced to three years imprisonment.^[2] In the light of the News of the World phone hacking affair, the Crown Office has been ordered to reassess the case.^[3] He was released from prison on 30 January 2012, one year into his sentence.^[4]

Since leaving Holyrood, he has pursued a media career, with a chat show on Talk 107, a show at the Edinburgh Fringe and appearing on Celebrity Big Brother 2009 for a reported fee of £100,000. He has justified this appearance by saying that he needed the money and that it is "..an honest offer of employment. I'm not crossing a picket line. I'm not hurting anyone."

Early life[link]

Sheridan's mother is Alice Sheridan, an experienced political activist who has stood as a candidate for political groups involving her son.

Sheridan attended the Roman Catholic schools of St Monica's Primary and Lourdes Secondary before studying at the University of Stirling, where he received a degree in Economics. He obtained a MSc in Social Research at the University of Strathclyde in 2008.^[5] He studied law at Strathclyde Law School, on the two year fast track degree, but did not complete the course.^[6] He also played football at Junior level with Larkhall Thistle, Benburb, East Kilbride Thistle, Baillieston and St. Anthony's.

Political career[link]

Militant tendency[link]

This biographical section of an article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (December 2010)

Sheridan was a prominent member of the Militant tendency while a student at Stirling University. After graduating he went to Cardonald College as a typing student as part of an (unsuccessful) effort on the part of Militant to recruit Scottish Labour Students in further-education colleges. The Labour Party, then led by Neil Kinnock, found that Militant contravened the Labour Party constitution, and Sheridan himself was expelled from the Labour Party in 1989.

From within Militant, he was the public face of a mass non-payment campaign against the poll tax in Scotland (where it was introduced a year earlier than other parts of the UK). The campaign involving the refusal to pay the tax, together with resistance to warrant sales which local councils held to try to recoup the money, was ultimately successful and Sheridan became a popular political figure. Sheridan denounced those who fought the police in the large-scale riot against the poll tax in London - which took place on 31 March 1990, the day before the tax was introduced in England and Wales - and publicly threatened to "name names". The police widely advertised for people to tell them the names of alleged rioters, and partly as a result of police acting on such information, over 100 individuals were jailed. With Joan McAlpine, he published A Time to Rage which chronicled the anti-poll tax movement of the late 1980s and early 1990s. McAlpine has since written about the Sheridan she became close to during that turbulent youthful period, with reference in particular to the libel case.

As the highest profile Militant member in Scotland, Sheridan was a leading figure in the group's split in the early 1990s. Expelled from the Labour Party in 1989 he was emboldened by the success of the campaign against the poll tax; many Militant members - particularly in Scotland - argued for the abandonment of entryism and for the creation of Scottish Militant Labour and Militant Labour in England and Wales as separate political parties.

The argument was resolved when Sheridan and his supporters won a vote at a special conference held in Bridlington in October 1991, defeating the faction around Militant founder Ted Grant who argued against abandoning the Labour Party. The result was a split in the Militant in what has become known as the "Scottish Turn". Sheridan and Scottish Militant Labour enjoyed a brief success in its first few years. With a strong Scottish National Party (SNP), Scottish Militant Labour argued in favour of founding a new, left-wing political party. Discussions were held with other left-wing and Scottish republican groups and a new group was formed in 1996 known initially as the Scottish Socialist Alliance. In 1998, the new Scottish Socialist Party was formed from the SSA. Differences over political strategy and priorities within the CWI soon surfaced, especially on the issue of Scottish independence, leading to a split within the CWI and Sheridan along with the majority of Scottish supporters left the organisation.

Sheridan fought two elections while in prison, coming second in the Pollok constituency at the 1992 General Election, beating both the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party. A few weeks later he won the Pollok ward on Glasgow City Council. He contested the European Parliament election in 1994 as the SML candidate in Glasgow, and came third with 8% of votes cast.

Scottish Socialist Party[link]

Tommy Sheridan was a leading figure in the negotiations to establish the Scottish Socialist Alliance in 1996, which evolved into the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) in 1998. He was elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999 as a Glasgow representative and re-elected in 2003. Together with Alan McCombes he published Imagine, an outline of the principles of socialism for a modern era.

He was the convenor of the SSP from its formation until 11 November 2004, when he resigned, citing as a prime reason his wife Gail expecting their first child.^[7] The resignation was steeped in controversy. After his announcement that he was stepping down for family reasons, the News of the World ran a series of articles, among other allegations claiming that he had had an extramarital affair. Sheridan strenuously denied the accusations and quickly announced his intention to sue.

The minutes of the meeting which detailed the deliberations leading to Sheridan's resignation were kept confidential until subpoenaed by News International. Alan McCombes was ordered to appear before judge Lady Smith at the Court of Session, Edinburgh, when he refused to release the minutes. He was jailed for 12 days, at which point the party agreed to hand over the minutes as part of the subsequent court case and were then made public. The minutes included a discussion about a recent article in the News of the World which alleged that a married MSP had visited a swingers' club in Manchester, and also the admission by Sheridan "that he had in fact visited the club on two occasions, in 1996 and 2002 with close friends. Some of those present at the meeting were later cited as witnesses for News International, to give evidence that they had heard Sheridan acknowledge he had been "reckless" in his behaviour which had, with hindsight, been "a mistake" and that "his strategy was to deny the allegations". Others present, notably Rosemary Byrne MSP, gave evidence that Sheridan had made no such statement. The minutes recorded that Sheridan left the meeting early, but before leaving, according to the minute, "he repeated that he did not believe there was any evidence which would prove him to be lying. He did not accept that he should admit the visits to the club and felt that no-one should comment on private lives". Sheridan claimed in court that the minute was not accurate and that he had denied visiting the swingers' club. Sheridan would later (December 2010) be convicted of perjury for lying during this court case.

At the annual conference of the SSP in early 2005 Sheridan was elected to the SSP executive and at the March 2006 conference he was elected as party co-chair. However Sheridan announced that he was leaving the SSP in August 2006, after his prominent court-case victory, accusing the SSP of being part of "the mother of all stitch ups" involving not only their leadership, but also MI5 and News International.^[8]

Solidarity (Scotland) [link]

In September 2006 Tommy Sheridan announced the formation of a new political party in Scotland named Solidarity, with himself and fellow MSP Rosemary Byrne as joint convenors.^[9] Sheridan narrowly failed to be re-elected in the 2007 Holyrood election as top of his party's list nominees for Glasgow. The party also stood a candidate in by-elections in 2008 in Glasgow East and the Glenrothes, and Sheridan himself stood in the Glasgow North East by-election, 2009.

Sheridan stood as a candidate in the 2009 European Parliament elections for No to the EU – Yes to Democracy, a left-wing alter-globalisation coalition led by RMT union leader Bob Crow.^[10][11]

Defamation action[link]

Hearings in Sheridan's defamation case against the publishers of the News of the World began in the Court of Session in Edinburgh on 4 July 2006.^[12] Unusually in Scottish civil proceedings, the case was heard before a jury.

The jury heard allegations that Sheridan had visited a swingers clubs in Manchester and engaged in adulterous affairs with two women.^[13] Sheridan, who claims to be a teetotaller, reportedly drank champagne and consumed cocaine during an extramarital liaison.^[14] Sheridan denies drinking the champagne and the claim of substance abuse. Eleven members of the SSP's executive committee testified that he admitted in an Executive committee meeting to attending a swingers club with women,^[15][16] but another four members of the SSP who were present at that Executive meeting backed Sheridan's claim that he made no such admission at that meeting.^[17]

On 14 July 2006, Sheridan sacked his legal team and announced that he would represent himself following controversy over the source of a question over credit card fraud addressed to one of the witnesses.^[18]

On 4 August 2006, Sheridan won his case with a majority verdict of 7 - 4 and the jury awarded him maximum damages of £200,000.^[19] The News of the World has appealed the verdict. In the Scottish Socialist Voice of 8 August, a letter signed by a further six leading members of the SSP claimed that Sheridan had told them that he had admitted at an SSP Executive meeting to attending the Manchester swingers club.

The News of the World announced its intention to appeal what they described as the "perverse" decision in the immediate aftermath of the trial, and a provisional date for the hearing was set for December 2007, however it was postponed until the procurator fiscal announced the outcome of the perjury probe.^[20]

Allegations of witness intimidation[link]

On 10 October 2006, BBC News reported that Grampian Police were investigating a claim by Fiona McGuire, who had been a witness in the trial for the News of the World, that she had received a death threat through the post. In a statement to the BBC, Sheridan said: "I utterly condemn any threats to Fiona McGuire or any other individual".^[21]

On 26 August 2007, the Sunday Herald reported that John Lynn had been questioned by detectives about allegations of witness tampering. Lynn is reportedly an associate of Paul Ferris, a reformed criminal who has become friendly with Sheridan. The report said Helen Allison, who claimed in court that she saw Sheridan having sex in a Glasgow hotel, had been approached by Lynn who asked her not to give evidence. Lynn was once jailed for 17 years for shooting an Ulster barman.^[22]

Hidden video[link]

On 1 October 2006, the News of the World reignited controversy by publishing new evidence in support of its claim that Sheridan lied to the Court of Session. It was a video recording of Tommy Sheridan admitting he had visited a swingers club in Manchester on two occasions and further, that he had, as other senior SSP members claimed in court, admitted this at an Executive meeting of the SSP. The tape had been made without Sheridan's knowledge using a hidden camera by SSP member George McNeillage in McNeillage's house after he invited Sheridan there. McNeillage had been one of three best men at Sheridan's wedding. The transcript, and excerpts from the tape, can be found on the News of the World website.^{[23][dead link]}

Tommy Sheridan does not appear on the video at any time. The newspaper has not been able to produce any images from the video showing Sheridan's face and Sheridan says the video is a fake. He conceded his voice was on the tape but suggested it was "spliced" with clips of the voice of someone else.^[24] The News of the World claimed four independent voice analysts had confirmed that the voice on the tape is that of Tommy Sheridan.^[25] However, in an interview with the BBC a forensic speech scientist, Peter French, said: "Experts should never say conclusively they have identified a person and this kind of evidence should never solely be used to bring a criminal trial".^[26]

Sheridan then suggested that MI5, someone within the SSP and Rupert Murdoch had conspired to concoct the videotape to undermine his campaign for an independent socialist Scotland.^[27]

Perjury conviction[link]

HM Prison Barlinnie

The conflicting evidence given during the trial resulted in the judge warning several witnesses about the implications of perjuring themselves. On Monday 7 August 2006, Lothian and Borders Police said they had received two complaints of perjury, one from the former Conservative MSP Brian Monteith,^[28] the other alleged to be from the SSP's minutes secretary.^[29]

On 22 August 2006, the Crown Office announced it had instructed the Edinburgh Procurators Fiscal office to ascertain if there were grounds for a criminal investigation. On 2 October 2006, it was concluded that there were and Lothian and Borders Police were instructed to start a criminal investigation.^[30] On 21 February 2007, The Herald reported that the Crown Office had asked Lothian and Borders Police to undertake a full inquiry after receiving a preliminary report.^[31]

In May 2007, it was reported that staff at Cupid's Swingers Club in Manchester had told police they had been offered bribes not to co-operate with the inquiry.^[32]

On 16 December 2007, Sheridan was charged with perjury in relation to the News of the World case.^[33] In a public statement outside the police station he attributed his arrest to the "powerful reach" of the Murdoch press. During February 2008, his wife Gail, former SSP MSP Rosemary Byrne, former members of the SSP Executive Committee, Patricia Smith, Graeme McIver, Jock Penman, and Sheridan's father-in-law, Angus Healey were also charged with perjury.

On 27 January 2009, Sheridan and his wife were indicted for perjury, and were summoned to attend a pre-trial hearing at Edinburgh High Court on 26 February.^[34] however this was postponed until 11 May.^[35]

This trial started at Glasgow High Court on 4 October 2010. Sheridan's initial defence team included Donald Findlay, who was replaced by Maggie Scott.^[36][37] However, a few weeks into the case, Sheridan instructed his Solicitor Aamer Anwar, who has defended him since 2007, to withdraw Scott's instructions. He was subsequently only represented by Anwar, while conducting the cross-examination himself.

On 23 December 2010 a jury found Sheridan guilty of perjury and on 26 January 2011 he was sentenced to 3 years in prison.^[38] Initially he was held in Barlinnie prison in Glasgow, but after several weeks he was moved to a semi-open wing in Barlinnie, and on 21 June he was moved to Castle Huntly open prison.^[39][40] Sheridan was freed on 30 January 2012, having served just over one year of his sentence.^[41]

Support for Sheridan[link]

On 17 December 2007, Sunday Herald columnist Iain McWhirter questioned the investigation saying "it is hard not to conclude that the police's diligence has been inspired by Rupert Murdoch's News International."^[42]

A campaign by Sheridan's supporters, 'Defend Tommy Sheridan' was launched, calling for answers into the nature of this investigation and the reasons behind it. The campaign has received widespread support and funding from individuals, political campaigners and civil rights activists, including high-profile left-wing politician George Galloway MP: John McManus, head of MOJO, the organisation which campaigns against miscarriages of justice: The Royle Family actor and left-wing political campaigner Ricky Tomlinson: Paddy Hill of the Birmingham Six: Gerry Conlon of the Guildford Four: Singers Paul Heaton (Beautiful South) and Edwyn Collins. Leading trade unionists Bob Crow (RMT), Janice Godrich (PCS), Kenny Ross (FBU) all support the campaign.

On 21 February 2008, The Daily Telegraph columnist Alan Cochrane questioned the treatment of the Sheridans by the police and claimed that his view was shared by "Senior members of Scotland's legal fraternity, including some with the closest of links to the Scottish Executive".^[43]

In June 2008 a rally organise by the Defend Tommy Sheridan Campaign, heard speeches from Fire Brigades Union leader Kenny Ross, Paddy Hill, one of the Birmingham Six, and Gerry Conlon (Guildford Four), the later two were both wrongly convicted and imprisoned. The speakers queried the motives for the investigation, questioned the role of the police and Crown Office and verbally attacked the witnesses who had given evidence unhelpful to Sheridan in the original hearing.

On 11 February 2009, Scottish law magazine The Firm claimed that Police had put "incredible pressure' on the Crown Office to proceed with a case against Gail and Tommy Sheridan. Lothian and Borders Police and the Crown Office deny the claims.^[44]

Claims of illegal surveillance[link]

In March 2007, Lothian and Borders Police investigated claims that Tommy Sheridan had been bugged after a suspicious device was found in his car. The device was described as "not of the kind used by British security services".^[45]

A complaint submitted to Strathclyde Police in July 2011 lead to Operation Rubicon, a major investigation involving 50 officers investigating allegations of phone hacking, breach of data protection and perjury by News of the World.

Celebrity career[link]

In 2001, Sheridan provided vocals for "Daddy dog", a single and track on the album "Popartglory" by Scottish band Jasmine Minks, released on Alan McGee's label Poptones.^[46] Tommy Sheridan had a weekly Sunday morning show on Talk 107 for 18 months, but the station did not renew his contract due to cutbacks and changes to programming that saw Mike Graham and others leave Talk107.^[47] He hosted a chat show during the Edinburgh fringe in 2007, which received muted reviews.^{[citation needed]} He appeared in the Celebrity version of Big Brother UK. He was the fourth person to enter the Big Brother House, and the fifth to be evicted (during the double eviction on 21 January 2009). He received mixed reactions from the crowd upon both entry and exit, and admitted during the post-eviction interview that his primary motivation for taking part was that he "needed the money".^{[citation needed]}

References[link]

See also [link]

• Operation Rubicon
• HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan

External links[link]

• Solidarity Scotland Official Site

Andrew Edward Coulson (born 21 January 1968^[1][2]) is an English journalist and political strategist.

Coulson was the editor of the News of the World from 2003 until his resignation in 2007, following the conviction of one of the newspaper's reporters in relation to illegal phone-hacking.

He subsequently joined David Cameron's personnel as communications director, until announcing his departure on 21 January 2011 because of continued media coverage of the phone-hacking affair.^[3][4] He was replaced on 2 February 2011 by former BBC Global News Controller of English Craig Oliver.^[5] Coulson was arrested by the Metropolitan Police Service on 8 July 2011 "in connection with allegations of corruption and phone hacking".^[6]

Early life[link]

Coulson grew up in Wickford, Essex. He attended Beauchamps High School, a secondary school and sixth form college, from 1979 to 1986. Coulson's parents moved from their Basildon council house to nearby Wickford during his childhood.^[1]

Career[link]

Coulson started work at 18 as a junior reporter on the Basildon Echo in 1986. In 1988, he moved to The Sun, working with Piers Morgan on the Bizarre column and subsequently hiring current Sun editor Dominic Mohan. In 1994, he briefly moved to the Daily Mail, but after nine weeks moved back to The Sun to edit Bizarre. He set up the website page3.com, which was the first of News International's websites to make a profit. In 2001, in the run up to the general election, he asked Tony and Cherie Blair whether they were members of the mile high club. He became deputy editor of the News of the World in 2000.^[7]

[edit] News of the World editor (2003–2007)

Coulson replaced Rebekah Wade as editor in 2003. In an interview with the Press Gazette in 2005, he said that "Tabloid newspapers in this country do more for its people than any other newspapers in the world".^[7]

Coulson resigned on 26 January 2007 over the News of the World phone hacking affair which would several weeks later see the jailing for four months of the paper's Royal correspondent Clive Goodman. Private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, remunerated by the newspaper, was given a custodial sentence of six months.^[8]

On 21 July 2009 Coulson appeared in front of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and denied any knowledge of the phone hacking scandal, saying "my instructions to the staff were clear – we did not use subterfuge of any kind unless there was a clear public interest in doing so. They were to work within the PCC code at all times".^[9]

In 2008 an employment tribunal upheld a claim of bullying by Coulson whilst he was at the News of The World. A Stratford employment tribunal upheld a claim of unfair dismissal claimed by senior sports writer Matt Driscoll, and stated "We find the behaviour to have been a consistent pattern of bullying behaviour".^[10] The judgement singled out Coulson for making "bullying" remarks in an email to Driscoll. The paper was told to pay Driscoll £800,000.^[11]

Conservative Party communications director (2007–2010)[link]

Coulson became the Conservative Party's director of communications on 9 July 2007. Various media stories estimated his salary at between £275,000^[12] and £475,000; the party indicated the latter figure was "inaccurate" and that his salary was "substantially less" but refused to provide an exact figure.^[13] In July 2011 the Mail on Sunday alleged that Cameron had been about to appoint the BBC's Guto Harri, but was persuaded by Rebekah Wade to appoint Coulson. The paper quoted "an individual intimately involved in Mr Coulson's recruitment" as saying "Rebekah indicated the job should go to Andy. Cameron was told it should be someone acceptable to News International. The company was also desperate to find something for Andy after he took the rap when the phone hacking first became an issue. The approach was along the lines of, 'If you find something for Andy we will return the favour'."^[14]

Director of Communications for the Prime Minister[link]

After David Cameron became Prime Minister in May 2010, he appointed Coulson as Director of Communications for the government at 10 Downing Street. His pay was £140,000, the highest paid special advisor.^[15]

Coulson announced his resignation on 21 January 2011. He commented about the News of the World allegations "I stand by what I've said about those events but when the spokesman needs a spokesman it's time to move on."^[16][17]

In July 2011 questions were raised about Coulson's security vetting at Number Ten. He had not been subjected to the highest level of vetting, "developed vetting", allowing unrestricted access to Top Secret material. His predecessors had had the highest level of vetting, as did his successor and (after his departure) his deputy. The Guardian said that the disclosure "is understood to have 'absolutely shocked' some Whitehall information staff."^[18] According to Chris Bryant MP, senior officials working with Coulson believed that he had the same clearance level as his predecessor.^[19] Coulson continued to be an embarrassment to Cameron as it emerged that he was still being paid by News International while working for the then opposition leader.^[20]

Private Consultancy[link]

On the 7 February 2011, Coulson and his wife established 'Elbrus Consultants Ltd' (UK Company Number 07519035). The purpose of the company is not recorded by Companies House, but is reportedly a PR agency.^[21] Clients include 'One Young World'.^[22] Kate Roberston of One Young World told the Guardian "He can't do One Young World work at the moment, that is absolutely clear".^[23]

Renewed allegations on phone hacking[link]

As the Conservative Party's director of communications, Coulson continued to be subjected to allegations that he was aware of the hacking of phones while serving as the editor of News of the World. On 7 July 2009, John Prescott called on leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron to remove Coulson from his position, after The Guardian revealed further details about phone-hacking by the News of the World.^[24] Cameron, though, defended Coulson on the morning of 9 July: "I believe in giving people a second chance. As director of communications for the Conservatives he does an excellent job in a proper, upright way at all times."^[25]