Thorpe Decides To Call No Evidence In His Defence (Press, 9 June 1979)

The trial of former Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe at the Old Bailey in London was adjourned until Monday, 11 June 1979, after Thorpe's legal team unexpectedly decided not to present any evidence in his defence. This decision means that Thorpe, 50, will not take the witness stand, a move that denies what could have been a pivotal moment in the trial where he could have faced cross-examination regarding the serious allegations against him. Thorpe, along with three co-defendants—David Holmes, John Le Mesurier, and George Deakin—has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiring to murder Norman Scott, a former male model. Thorpe is also accused of inciting Holmes to commit the murder. The remaining defendants are similarly contesting the charges. Closing arguments from the defence counsel for the four defendants are scheduled to begin on Monday, following 20 days of prosecution evidence. Central to the prosecution's case is testimony from Andrew Newton, a former airline pilot who was presented as a key witness. He claims he was hired with a payment of $10,000 to kill Scott but ultimately backed out of the plan, claiming his weapon jammed when he attempted to carry out the act. However, the prosecution contends that the intent behind the conspiracy was created due to Scott posing a perceived risk to Thorpe's political career. George Deakin, during his testimony, stated he was approached to find someone who could intimidate Scott, rather than hire a hitman. He recounted a conversation where he was informed of a “blackmailer” situation involving Scott which led him to provide a connection to Newton. Deakin, lacking knowledge of the full circumstances, professed his unwillingness to inquire further about their intentions. Deakin also noted that he had no prior acquaintance with Thorpe and had only met him in court, mentioning that he had voted for the Conservative Party, showing a lack of ties to the Liberal Party. Meanwhile, Thorpe denies having had any personal relationship with Scott, asserting that their interactions were purely a matter of the allegations and political implications surrounding him. The absence of Thorpe's testimony was seen as a significant decision, removing the opportunity for Thorpe to personally address the jury regarding the accusations and potentially sway their judgment. The implications of the trial are profound, particularly regarding Thorpe's political future and the reputations of those involved. The case continues to capture public interest as it unfolds, highlighting the complex interplay of personal history, public figures, and the legal system.

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