Harry - trial begins

sloth · Feb 4, 2012

Dinghy said:
Now the way I see it it is that it is perfectly feasible it went down a little something like this...

Harry thought he was due 10% on the Crouch sale, but contractually ,down to his change of role, was actually only due 5%. Portsmouth, as a club, could not, and would not pay the difference.

MM can see that Harry is pissed about this, so turns round and says to Harry, look I've got this investment opportunity coming up. Open yourself an account down in Monaco then you won't have any tax implications here, and if this investment comes in it'll more than make up for what you lost on the Crouch deal.

Harry thinks that MM knows what he's talking about tax-wise, thinks it's sailing a little close to the proverbial wind but reckons that any normal person would try to reduce there tax liabilities by keeping this kind of thing off-shore so it ain't a problem.

H opens an account up and then totally forgets about it, these sort of investments don't turn over a profit in a couple of weeks and believes he only has to tell his accountant once that has happened. A little later MM tells him the investment went south so he presumes that everything has gone (again!)

When the Quest investigation comes about he remembers the account and tells them he's got this account but there ain't nothing in there.

Tosspot Beasley gets wind of the account and finds some monies going into it so ambushes H with this the day before the cup-final and H tells him it's the Crouch bonus to keep himself off the front page on cup-final day and promptly forgets about this conversation as it doesn't hit the headlines, everything's hunky-dory.

Now he finds himself in front of the beak.

IMO there's enough there to muddy the waters on each point necessary that none of them prove beyond reasonable doubt that he can be convicted for this offence.

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that this wasn't a gift. Just the word of a NOTW reporter

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that it was a deliberate attempt to defraud.
Just the word of a NOTW reporter.

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that it was dishonest by ordinary standards.
Nothing reported at all

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that if it was dishonest that H knew it to be so.
Nothing reported at all.

It may be that only the details that were thought to be interesting to the more general public was actually reported but from what I have read IMO there is no way that they have proved all of the requisite elements of the offence charged.

NOT GUILTY

All the parts matter, and the most important thing is the whole (so if you listen the climate change deniers or the creationists, or the "What Suarez said was racist" deniers, they break everything down into the smallest constituent parts and then say but this could, conceivably be interpreted this way, and then this next thing can be and this next thing can be, and suddenly the incredible starts to seem more reasonable if you're not careful; classic not seeing the wood for the trees syndrome), but for me the crucial thing is that Rob Beasley interview.

But anyway, I fully expect others will take their own view on this. My view is that the jury will probably find him guilty and on the basis of the evidence I've heard I'd find them both guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I do think that because we as Spurs fans have a vested interest in having him proved innocent then there's a lot of reason to think we're unlikely to be unbiased on this matter - which is why none of us would have been allowed to sit on the jury - if you swapped the main protagonists for MPs or bankers and then judged whether you thought their version of events was credible I think 99% would come to a different conclusion to the one you have.

Dinghy · Feb 4, 2012

sloth said:
All the parts matter, and the most important thing is the whole (so if you listen the climate change deniers or the creationists, or the "What Suarez said was racist" deniers, they break everything down into the smallest constituent parts and then say but this could, conceivably be interpreted this way, and then this next thing can be and this next thing can be, and suddenly the incredible starts to seem more reasonable if you're not careful; classic not seeing the wood for the trees syndrome), but for me the crucial thing is that Rob Beasley interview.

But anyway, I fully expect others will take their own view on this. My view is that the jury will probably find him guilty and on the basis of the evidence I've heard I'd find them both guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I do think that because we as Spurs fans have a vested interest in having him proved innocent then there's a lot of reason to think we're unlikely to be unbiased on this matter - which is why none of us would have been allowed to sit on the jury - if you swapped the main protagonists for MPs or bankers and then judged whether you thought their version of events was credible I think 99% would come to a different conclusion to the one you have.

But that's not the way the law works. You'll find that the direction from the judge will be pretty close to as I've put it above.
The jury will be directed to look at each question in turn and have to find against H & MM on all points.

Lo Amo Speroni · Feb 4, 2012

Dinghy said:
Now the way I see it it is that it is perfectly feasible it went down a little something like this...

Harry thought he was due 10% on the Crouch sale, but contractually ,down to his change of role, was actually only due 5%. Portsmouth, as a club, could not, and would not pay the difference.

MM can see that Harry is pissed about this, so turns round and says to Harry, look I've got this investment opportunity coming up. Open yourself an account down in Monaco then you won't have any tax implications here, and if this investment comes in it'll more than make up for what you lost on the Crouch deal.

Harry thinks that MM knows what he's talking about tax-wise, thinks it's sailing a little close to the proverbial wind but reckons that any normal person would try to reduce there tax liabilities by keeping this kind of thing off-shore so it ain't a problem.

H opens an account up and then totally forgets about it, these sort of investments don't turn over a profit in a couple of weeks and believes he only has to tell his accountant once that has happened. A little later MM tells him the investment went south so he presumes that everything has gone (again!)

When the Quest investigation comes about he remembers the account and tells them he's got this account but there ain't nothing in there.

Tosspot Beasley gets wind of the account and finds some monies going into it so ambushes H with this the day before the cup-final and H tells him it's the Crouch bonus to keep himself off the front page on cup-final day and promptly forgets about this conversation as it doesn't hit the headlines, everything's hunky-dory.

Now he finds himself in front of the beak.

IMO there's enough there to muddy the waters on each point necessary that none of them prove beyond reasonable doubt that he can be convicted for this offence.

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that this wasn't a gift. Just the word of a NOTW reporter

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that it was a deliberate attempt to defraud.
Just the word of a NOTW reporter.

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that it was dishonest by ordinary standards.
Nothing reported at all

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that if it was dishonest that H knew it to be so.
Nothing reported at all.

It may be that only the details that were thought to be interesting to the more general public was actually reported but from what I have read IMO there is no way that they have proved all of the requisite elements of the offence charged.

NOT GUILTY

If you are going to use legal jargon it is worth pointing out a very important word you have missed out. Reasonable.

The jury will be asked have the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that HR acted dishonestly in failing to pay tax on £188,000.

I feel you are looking for finite proof that does not exist. The prosecution have been able to show HR told someone it was a bonus payment into an account that his accountant (who did his taxes) did not know about. A bonus payment would have been subject to tax.

He deliberately did not tell his accountant and therefore there is a reasonable assumption that he was acting dishonestly.

The jury will need to decide if HR is now telling the truth. If they don't believe him, then all reasonable doubt is removed but I will accept that not all doubt can be removed.

Physical evidence is the best evidence. The prosecution have the account and the NOTW tape.

HR is totally reliant on a story that portrays him as an illiterate poor businessman who is forgetful and prone to telling lies to the press.

I have little faith in the jury system (30 experience of them) and therefore would not be surprised with a finding of not guilty. That said, if I was a bookmaker I would go 2/5 that they will find him guilty.

That is before the defence do their summing up though. The odds could change Monday afternoon.

Lilbaz · Feb 4, 2012

I guess it all depends whether Dan Ashton's on the jury.

Dinghy · Feb 4, 2012

Lo Amo Speroni said:
If you are going to use legal jargon it is worth pointing out a very important word you have missed out. Reasonable.

The jury will be asked have the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that HR acted dishonestly in failing to pay tax on £188,000.

I feel you are looking for finite proof that does not exist. The prosecution have been able to show HR told someone it was a bonus payment into an account that his accountant (who did his taxes) did not know about. A bonus payment would have been subject to tax.

He deliberately did not tell his accountant and therefore there is a reasonable assumption that he was acting dishonestly.

The jury will need to decide if HR is now telling the truth. If they don't believe him, then all reasonable doubt is removed but I will accept that not all doubt can be removed.

Physical evidence is the best evidence. The prosecution have the account and the NOTW tape.

HR is totally reliant on a story that portrays him as an illiterate poor businessman who is forgetful and prone to telling lies to the press.

I have little faith in the jury system (30 experience of them) and therefore would not be surprised with a finding of not guilty. That said, if I was a bookmaker I would go 2/5 that they will find him guilty.

That is before the defence do their summing up though. The odds could change Monday afternoon.

You are quite right, I should have said beyond reasonable doubt. However you are wrong in the question the jury will be asked.
As I keep reiterating they will be asked 3(/4) questions
Q1 Have HMRC been denied tax due?
Q2 Was this deliberate?
Q3 According to the ordinary man was Harry dishonest about it?
and if so,
Q4 Did he know that the ordinary man would see it as dishonest?

This is the way the law works.

Perhaps this is why you have so little faith in the jury system. You simply don't understand it enough?

IMO Q1 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Q2 I'm not sure on this one to be honest. I've not seen anything to prove this.
Q3 Could go either way. This may fall the prosecutions way if the first 2 have as well.
Q4 I've not seen anything from the prosecution with regards to this (I believe a failing on the prosecutions part.) If this has been addressed at all H's testimony I think, his likeability if you will, will stand him good staid on this count. I don't think the prosecution has met the standard.

Can you point to parts of the testimony that can satisfy all parts of the charge? I don't think that it is possible. I don't believe, from what has been reported, that the prosecution has come close to discharging the requisite burden of proof.

IMO that can only result in a not guilty verdict.

If you think that the burden has been discharged tell me why? Generalities are not good enough.

Lo Amo Speroni · Feb 4, 2012

Dinghy said:
You are quite right, I should have said beyond reasonable doubt. However you are wrong in the question the jury will be asked.
As I keep reiterating they will be asked 3(/4) questions
Q1 Have HMRC been denied tax due?
Q2 Was this deliberate?
Q3 According to the ordinary man was Harry dishonest about it?
and if so,
Q4 Did he know that the ordinary man would see it as dishonest?

This is the way the law works.

Perhaps this is why you have so little faith in the jury system. You simply don't understand it enough?

IMO Q1 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Q2 I'm not sure on this one to be honest. I've not seen anything to prove this.
Q3 Could go either way. This may fall the prosecutions way if the first 2 have as well.
Q4 I've not seen anything from the prosecution with regards to this (I believe a failing on the prosecutions part.) If this has been addressed at all H's testimony I think, his likeability if you will, will stand him good staid on this count. I don't think the prosecution has met the standard.

Can you point to parts of the testimony that can satisfy all parts of the charge? I don't think that it is possible. I don't believe, from what has been reported, that the prosecution has come close to discharging the requisite burden of proof.

IMO that can only result in a not guilty verdict.

If you think that the burden has been discharged tell me why? Generalities are not good enough.

I understand. I don't think you do. :duh:

Touché

Dinghy · Feb 4, 2012

Lo Amo Speroni said:
I understand. I don't think you do. :duh:

Touché

Again, top quality debating there kiddo. :clap:

Bromavinci · Feb 4, 2012

We are truly blessed to have so many astute legal minds posting on SC

GoldstarYid · Feb 4, 2012

Dinghy said:
Again, top quality debating there kiddo. :clap:

My pet hate on forums. Agree 100% there.

sloth · Feb 5, 2012

Dinghy said:
You are quite right, I should have said beyond reasonable doubt. However you are wrong in the question the jury will be asked.
As I keep reiterating they will be asked 3(/4) questions
Q1 Have HMRC been denied tax due?
Q2 Was this deliberate?
Q3 According to the ordinary man was Harry dishonest about it?
and if so,
Q4 Did he know that the ordinary man would see it as dishonest?

This is the way the law works.

Perhaps this is why you have so little faith in the jury system. You simply don't understand it enough?

IMO Q1 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Q2 I'm not sure on this one to be honest. I've not seen anything to prove this.
Q3 Could go either way. This may fall the prosecutions way if the first 2 have as well.
Q4 I've not seen anything from the prosecution with regards to this (I believe a failing on the prosecutions part.) If this has been addressed at all H's testimony I think, his likeability if you will, will stand him good staid on this count. I don't think the prosecution has met the standard.

Can you point to parts of the testimony that can satisfy all parts of the charge? I don't think that it is possible. I don't believe, from what has been reported, that the prosecution has come close to discharging the requisite burden of proof.

IMO that can only result in a not guilty verdict.

If you think that the burden has been discharged tell me why? Generalities are not good enough.

For any set of circumstances any number of stories can provide an explanation of how events unfolded.

In each and every case of tax evasion the defendant can argue that he was a bit dim, that such and such income was in fact a gift, that he forgot to tell his accountant or whatever. It is not enough that a story fit the events. If it was then these kinds of cases could never be brought and the law would be unenforceable.

For this reason I think you're wrong in your conclusion. I think that you believe the burden of proof to be far higher than it ever is in reality.

That said, I hope you are proved correct and I am the one who has got it wrong.

Chinaspur · Feb 5, 2012

I rarely agree with B-C but he is right on this... Lo Amo Speroni and Dinghy need to put a £50 SC donation up as a wager on this...so at least it gets more fun for us neutral observers!

Kendall · Feb 5, 2012

Rocksuperstar said:
He said he picked the name because he loved his dog, but there was already a Rosie somewhere, then made an excellent little joke about if that Rosie was as good as his ol' dog then she'd have been a great wife - the jury apparently made noises as if they approved.

Haha. I love Spurs but my accounts are in my name, not THFC85 :lol:

Why would anyone consider opening an account not in their name or an affiliated business?

Chinaspur · Feb 5, 2012

Kendall said:
Haha. I love Spurs but my accounts are in my name, not THFC85 :lol:

Why would anyone consider opening an account not in their name or an affiliated business?

You're also not rich and famous (infamous maybe :wink

. I've never felt the need to check into a hotel under an assumed name, but celebs do it often. They have more reason to protect their anonymity than you or I.

Full Name, DoB, Address, Wife's Name, Mother's Maiden Name, Employer, Salary, Important anniversaries. All things for Harry I reckon I could find out about (or guess accurately) from my desk here in China. None of which I could do if it was you rather than Harry.

Celebs have more reason than us mere mortals to add some murkiness to their financial affairs. Whether, in this instance, that murkiness is for illegal gain, or for protection is what needs to be proven.

Interesting that the jury is supposed to be a 'Jury of your peers'. I guess none of the jury has ever been hounded by the NotW (actually given the sheer amount of phone hacking that may not be true

), nor had not protect themselves in the way a celeb needs to.

Lo Amo Speroni · Feb 5, 2012

GoldstarYid said:
My pet hate on forums. Agree 100% there.

Perhaps if you read all the posts between the two of us you would see the reasoning behind my somewhat childish behaviour.

Dinghy · Feb 5, 2012

Lo Amo Speroni said:
Perhaps if you read all the posts between the two of us you would see the reasoning behind my somewhat childish behaviour.

Well I've read all the posts between us and I can't see the reasoning! :wink:

Everytime I've disagreed I've given a reason. Everytime you've just stated your position. Not a debate per se. More you saying this is what I see it as and as I'm so important and wonderful I must be correct.

For me I'm truly trying to understand what peoples beliefs/positions are to see if the way I see it is wrong.

Trying to stimulate a true discussion of the situation to see if we can come to a consensus.

Lo Amo Speroni · Feb 5, 2012

Dinghy said:
Well I've read all the posts between us and I can't see the reasoning! :wink:

Everytime I've disagreed I've given a reason. Everytime you've just stated your position. Not a debate per se. More you saying this is what I see it as and as I'm so important and wonderful I must be correct.

For me I'm truly trying to understand what peoples beliefs/positions are to see if the way I see it is wrong.

Trying to stimulate a true discussion of the situation to see if we can come to a consensus.

Then why use the childish smilie earlier?

Anyway moving on, I believe (and I accept that other's may disagree) that the burden of proof in the area's you raised have been achieved. I think I and other's in this thread have pointed out where they feel the prosecution have proved that HR opened the account to receive a payment for a bonus. He denies this but his story (IMO) is unbelievable.

If you are on the jury and decide that HR opened the account to receive a bonus, then it follows that he should pay tax on it. On the other hand any juror who believes HR's version need not go any further in their deliberation and find him not guilty. Do you agree with this?

When a juror then debates dishonesty, they will surely take into account the NOTW interview and the fact that HR lied to them. They will have to consider why he felt the need to lie to them.

Kendall · Feb 5, 2012

Chinaspur said:
You're also not rich and famous (infamous maybe :wink. I've never felt the need to check into a hotel under an assumed name, but celebs do it often. They have more reason to protect their anonymity than you or I.

Full Name, DoB, Address, Wife's Name, Mother's Maiden Name, Employer, Salary, Important anniversaries. All things for Harry I reckon I could find out about (or guess accurately) from my desk here in China. None of which I could do if it was you rather than Harry.

Celebs have more reason than us mere mortals to add some murkiness to their financial affairs. Whether, in this instance, that murkiness is for illegal gain, or for protection is what needs to be proven.

Interesting that the jury is supposed to be a 'Jury of your peers'. I guess none of the jury has ever been hounded by the NotW (actually given the sheer amount of phone hacking that may not be true), nor had not protect themselves in the way a celeb needs to.

Yet the accounts he pays tax on in the UK are in his name? It doesn't really stack up.

Dinghy · Feb 5, 2012

Lo Amo Speroni said:
Then why use the childish smilie earlier?

Because I was trying to stimulate a debate; to move this thread on from people just stating their position without explanation. It seems that I may have been successful to some extent finally as the rest of this post demonstrates.

Lo Amo Speroni said:
Anyway moving on, I believe (and I accept that other's may disagree) that the burden of proof in the area's you raised have been achieved. I think I and other's in this thread have pointed out where they feel the prosecution have proved that HR opened the account to receive a payment for a bonus. He denies this but his story (IMO) is unbelievable.

If you are on the jury and decide that HR opened the account to receive a bonus, then it follows that he should pay tax on it. On the other hand any juror who believes HR's version need not go any further in their deliberation and find him not guilty. Do you agree with this?

When a juror then debates dishonesty, they will surely take into account the NOTW interview and the fact that HR lied to them. They will have to consider why he felt the need to lie to them.

Without wanting to sound condescending this is much better. You've actually given reasons and they are things that I need to take into consideration and things that can be discussed.

If you believe that Harry opened the account to receive a bonus then it's not the NOTW that he has lied to, he's committed perjury and lied to the court.

The saving grace in all of this however even if you consider that in regards to all of the points up to this point the prosecution have discharged their duty, I just can't see that they have shown that H knew his actions to be dishonest.

Dinghy · Feb 5, 2012

Kendall said:
Yet the accounts he pays tax on in the UK are in his name? It doesn't really stack up.

I think that far too many people are getting stuck on this idea that the account was named proves dishonesty. I believe that all accounts at the bank are named accounts (rather than numbered.) It's just the way that bank works. It's not your everyday high-street branch of HSBC. This should have no bearing on the dishonesty of the situation.

Lo Amo Speroni · Feb 5, 2012

Dinghy said:
I think that far too many people are getting stuck on this idea that the account was named proves dishonesty. I believe that all accounts at the bank are named accounts (rather than numbered.) It's just the way that bank works. It's not your everyday high-street branch of HSBC. This should have no bearing on the dishonesty of the situation.

I'm with Dinghy on this point.

The name of the account means very little, the purpose for opening the account does.

If the prosecution have proved to the jury that the account was opened to receive money owed to him as a bonus, then they are IMO nearly home and dried. Bonus payments into this account would be subject to tax.

HR and MM claim it was for an investment. If the jury believe this, then they do not need to deliberate any further as the prosecution fall short.

In my view the whole case rests on this and if the jury go with the prosecution on this point alone, I believe they will be satisfied that HR has acted dishonestly.

Of course I could always be totally wrong. :grin:

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

Harry - trial begins

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Only been in match thread once.

Just call me Baz

Well-Known Member

Only been in match thread once.

Well-Known Member

Dazed & Confuzed

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Only been in match thread once.

Well-Known Member

Only been in match thread once.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Only been in match thread once.

Similar threads