Case Against Thorpe Rests On Word Of Liars —... (Press, 13 December 1978)

The legal proceedings against British politician Jeremy Thorpe, former leader of the Liberal Party, are centring around allegations that he plotted to murder Norman Scott, a man with whom he allegedly had a homosexual relationship. Thorpe, aged 49, denies the charges of conspiracy to murder and incitement to murder, which are largely based on the testimonies of two key witnesses: Andrew Newton and Peter Bessell. During a court hearing in Minehead, Thorpe’s lawyer, Sir David Napley, argued that the case should be dismissed, labelling the evidence as unreliable and questionable. Sir David referred to Newton, an airline pilot who admits to having shot Scott's dog in 1975, as a "tainted and polluted" source, accusing him of being a self-confessed liar motivated by greed. Newton claims he was hired for £10,000 to kill Scott but argues he botched the assignment. Sir David dismissed Scott as mentally unstable, comparing him to individuals in mental institutions who might make improbable claims. He claimed Scott has a history of making accusations against various people, implying his lack of credibility in this case. Bessell, a former member of Parliament who flew from California to testify, was also strongly criticised by Sir David, who described him as dishonest and motivated by financial gain from potential media deals. The lawyer asserted that this type of "chequebook journalism" undermines the integrity of the judicial process and creates an unfair trial environment. He raised concerns that both Bessell and Newton had substantial financial incentives to provide testimony against Thorpe, with the potential for large sums from book deals or payments from media outlets. Sir David highlighted the significant issue of the magistrates’ ability to fairly judge such a complicated case, questioning whether lay magistrates, untrained in law, could adequately assess the evidence's weight and complexity. He objected to the additional charge Thorpe faced, suggesting it indicated a lack of evidence for the main conspiracy charge and furthered the notion that the Crown was desperate for a conviction. Another defence lawyer, Gareth Williams, representing one of the other defendants, sought to downplay the conspiracy charge as well, arguing there was only an intent to intimidate rather than commit murder. He suggested that the evidence relied heavily on the unreliable testimony of Newton, whose motivations were questionable. The magistrates are tasked with deciding if the case should proceed to trial. As these legal arguments were presented, Thorpe appeared calm and attentive while his wife and mother watched closely from the gallery. The case, being described as “the court case of the century” in Britain, has drawn significant public interest and scrutiny, highlighting the potential conflicts between media sensationalism and the fair administration of justice.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand