Scott ‘fraud, Crook, But Could Be Telling... (Press, 20 June 1979)

In a high-profile trial in London regarding former Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe, Mr Justice Cantley has scrutinised the credibility of key prosecution witness Norman Scott, branding him a "crook" and a "fraud." During his closing remarks on the 27th day of the trial, the judge acknowledged Scott's negative attributes, describing him as an accomplished sponger and an expert at evoking sympathy. However, he cautioned that despite these observations, the jury should still consider the possibility that Scott might be telling the truth. The trial revolves around allegations against Thorpe and three others, concerning a conspiracy related to Scott. Cantley highlighted that while Scott's testimony may point to a homosexual relationship between him and Thorpe, it does not necessarily prove the allegations of more serious crimes, such as the claim of buggery. He indicated that Scott's credibility was compromised, noting that Scott had a history of deceit to enhance his public image and survival. This included a nervous breakdown, after which Scott made allegations of a homosexual relationship with Thorpe that lack substantial foundation. The judge differentiated between witnesses, stating that Andrew Newton, a former airline pilot, appeared to be an accomplice and a dangerous basis for conviction without corroboration. He portrayed Peter Bessell, another witness, as intelligent but also capable of hypocrisy, complicating the jury's ability to assess the case. The judge reminded the jury of the esteemed reputation of the accused, questioning whether individuals of such standing would engage in the alleged misconduct. Justice Cantley also addressed the significance of the defendants choosing not to testify, explaining that this should not be interpreted as evidence of guilt. The prosecution bears the burden of proof, and if the jury remains unsure, they are obligated to acquit. Additionally, he pointed out that the pursuit of profit by certain witnesses had compromised evidence quality in the trial. He cautioned against the media's role in sensationalising the case, asserting that journalism should uphold ethical standards to protect the integrity of justice. Overall, the judge's summary called on the jury to weigh the evidence carefully, taking into account the negative portrayal of Scott while remaining open to the possibility of his truthfulness. He concluded that despite the bizarre nature of the case, the jury's duty was to convict only if they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged crimes had been committed.

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