A Nagging Question
Both the BBC and the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland have reported that a complaint has been lodged by Lord Turnbull against Graeme Henderson, the junior counsel whom Redfinger sacked before conducting his own case (it might have been his background in the protest movement, but at that point his perception of proceedings seemed less than perfect, asking the judge for 'time to prepare his defence'; it was his case).
The rationale for both Henderson's dismissal and the complaint is a question put by him to the witness Anne Colvin, that she had served a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for credit card fraud - an accusation she denied.
It may be that, in the midst of an extremely high profile litigation, Henderson suffered a Daffy Duck moment, jumping up and down, whooping and saying the first thing that came into his head.
On the other hand, as I remarked upon the production of Gail Sheridan's work rosters, "this case was in preparation for at least 18 months before the first witness was sworn. Sheridan came to court with both senior and junior counsel, although he famously dispensed with their services."
I find it hard to believe that an experienced counsel like Henderson would have asked that question without having some reasonable idea as to the answer he was going to get.
So how did such a potentially damaging worm enter the apple?
It will be very interesting to hear the answer. After all, a man's professional reputation is at stake.