Smiths Court Case

[MickCable]

Anyone know where to find transcripts of Morrissey's testamony?
I would love to see what he actually said that made the Judge think his was devious, truculent and unreliable where his own interests were at stake.

Thanks in advance...

MC

 

[MickCable]

come on there has to be some website out there with the transcripts?

did I hit a taboo subject or something?

MC

 

[ella-reflex]

the transcripts were post here earlier this year. i don't remember exactly when though.

 

[Worm]

There are no public transcripts that I'm aware of. The judge's misgivings about Morrissey came about because of his defiant demeanor on the witness stand, as well as factual inconsistencies (or lacunae at any rate). A short article indicates some of what took place:

"Rock star Morrissey exploded with anger in the High Court when he was cross-examined about the "hierarchy" of group members within The Smiths.

The Stretford-born singer lost patience after being asked by Nigel Davis, QC, about an alleged secret plan to replace drummer Michael Joyce.

Pointing to a court copy of the definitive biography of The Smiths, entitled The Severed Alliance, Morrissey told Mr Davis: "There are only two names on the cover - Morrissey and Johnny Marr.

"Did you notice that? Two names only, not Michael Joyce or Andy Rourke." Mr Davis, for Mr Joyce who is claiming a 25 per cent share of the group's massive profits, warned Morrissey: "I'll ask the questions."

[Manchester Evening News, December 5, 1996]​

Here is some information on the appeal, which contains good information on the original case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1711.html

Lord Justice Waller commented on the alleged bias of Judge Weeks:

"All in my view the judge intended to convey in his use of the word 'devious' was that Mr Morrissey had not faced up to Mr Joyce and Mr Rourke with an ultimatum, and sought to bring about inequality by indirect means, and conceivably as is quite apparent from reading Mr Morrissey’s evidence he was reflecting the fact that Mr Morrissey had serious problems dealing with some of the obvious difficulties in his case when they were put to him by Mr Davis QC for Mr Joyce. Certainly it was not suggested by Mr Davis and was expressly made clear in this court, that there was no assertion that Mr Morrissey was in any way dishonest, and if that is how the judge’s comment has in any way been misunderstood the record is now set straight."​

 

[Kumo]

There are no public transcripts that I'm aware of. The judge's misgivings about Morrissey came about because of his defiant demeanor on the witness stand, as well as factual inconsistencies (or lacunae at any rate). A short article indicates some of what took place:

"Rock star Morrissey exploded with anger in the High Court when he was cross-examined about the "hierarchy" of group members within The Smiths.

The Stretford-born singer lost patience after being asked by Nigel Davis, QC, about an alleged secret plan to replace drummer Michael Joyce.

Pointing to a court copy of the definitive biography of The Smiths, entitled The Severed Alliance, Morrissey told Mr Davis: "There are only two names on the cover - Morrissey and Johnny Marr.

"Did you notice that? Two names only, not Michael Joyce or Andy Rourke." Mr Davis, for Mr Joyce who is claiming a 25 per cent share of the group's massive profits, warned Morrissey: "I'll ask the questions."

[Manchester Evening News, December 5, 1996]​

Here is some information on the appeal, which contains good information on the original case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1711.html

Lord Justice Waller commented on the alleged bias of Judge Weeks:

"All in my view the judge intended to convey in his use of the word 'devious' was that Mr Morrissey had not faced up to Mr Joyce and Mr Rourke with an ultimatum, and sought to bring about inequality by indirect means, and conceivably as is quite apparent from reading Mr Morrissey’s evidence he was reflecting the fact that Mr Morrissey had serious problems dealing with some of the obvious difficulties in his case when they were put to him by Mr Davis QC for Mr Joyce. Certainly it was not suggested by Mr Davis and was expressly made clear in this court, that there was no assertion that Mr Morrissey was in any way dishonest, and if that is how the judge’s comment has in any way been misunderstood the record is now set straight."​

In the US we can submit a FOIA request. (Freedom of Information Act)
Can get access to just about everything. Is there a similar process in the UK? Could one of our UK friends request a copy and post it here?

I too always wanted to know what all the Smiths said, not just Morrissey.
I also wondered why Morrissey lied or was misinformed about the Default Judgment, when he posted his public response on TrueToYou. You can only get one if you didn't show up in court, which he obviously did. An appeal court cannot issue a Defaut Judgment, so what gives? So it seems all a bit fishy to me.

Kumo

 

[Danny]

There are no public transcripts that I'm aware of. The judge's misgivings about Morrissey came about because of his defiant demeanor on the witness stand, as well as factual inconsistencies (or lacunae at any rate). A short article indicates some of what took place:

"Rock star Morrissey exploded with anger in the High Court when he was cross-examined about the "hierarchy" of group members within The Smiths.

The Stretford-born singer lost patience after being asked by Nigel Davis, QC, about an alleged secret plan to replace drummer Michael Joyce.

Pointing to a court copy of the definitive biography of The Smiths, entitled The Severed Alliance, Morrissey told Mr Davis: "There are only two names on the cover - Morrissey and Johnny Marr.

"Did you notice that? Two names only, not Michael Joyce or Andy Rourke." Mr Davis, for Mr Joyce who is claiming a 25 per cent share of the group's massive profits, warned Morrissey: "I'll ask the questions."

[Manchester Evening News, December 5, 1996]​

Here is some information on the appeal, which contains good information on the original case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1711.html

Lord Justice Waller commented on the alleged bias of Judge Weeks:

"All in my view the judge intended to convey in his use of the word 'devious' was that Mr Morrissey had not faced up to Mr Joyce and Mr Rourke with an ultimatum, and sought to bring about inequality by indirect means, and conceivably as is quite apparent from reading Mr Morrissey’s evidence he was reflecting the fact that Mr Morrissey had serious problems dealing with some of the obvious difficulties in his case when they were put to him by Mr Davis QC for Mr Joyce. Certainly it was not suggested by Mr Davis and was expressly made clear in this court, that there was no assertion that Mr Morrissey was in any way dishonest, and if that is how the judge’s comment has in any way been misunderstood the record is now set straight."​

If that was the reason the judge called Morrisey devious then it's strange he didn't call Marr devious as well because he behaved in exactly the same way where the business dealings were concerned. Or perhaps the appeal judges were just trying to make excuses for the original judge because they knew he'd been out of order? Trying to blind us with science by pretending the judge was just using a legal term and he didn't mean any insult at all.

 

[Sunbags]

As far as I know, you can go to the library of the courts (where the court-case took place) and look at transcripts of any case. You can't, however, make copies of the transcripts or take them out of the library. They should be there for people to view, I don't think they can ban people from looking at certain court cases, but maybe I'm wrong. Has anyone ever tried to view them?

 

[Worm]

If that was the reason the judge called Morrisey devious then it's strange he didn't call Marr devious as well because he behaved in exactly the same way where the business dealings were concerned. Or perhaps the appeal judges were just trying to make excuses for the original judge because they knew he'd been out of order? Trying to blind us with science by pretending the judge was just using a legal term and he didn't mean any insult at all.

That's a fair reading. I couldn't really make sense of that comment either. I take it the appeal judge was saying that Weeks was trying to say that Morrissey's attitude reflected a general unwillingness to accept Joyce as an equal member, but that it was not necessarily a carefully orchestrated plan to make him a lesser partner. But that still doesn't explain the word 'devious'-- I think even the loosest reading of Weeks' comment would have Morrissey as somewhat dishonest, thus making the appeal judge's statement a bit of a head-scratcher.

On the whole, though, I disagree that Weeks was overly biased. He had to make a judgment call and he made it. I know you disagree with me but FWIW that's my interpretation of the case. That doesn't necessarily excuse Joyce of course. I re-read Morrissey's account of the case on TTY and Joyce comes across as nothing less than satanic.

 

[MickCable]

I just want to see what was said.
I can see Morrissey not listening to his council and trying to use his "wit"
This obviously backfired...

Anyway can someone go to the court and check it out...

Cheers,

MC

 

[lilikoi]

thanks for the link - very interesting. answered all my questions.

 

[Sunbags]

Right, so I'm heading to London to meet a friend 2moro, but I've got A LOT of time to kill b4 I meet her, so I was thinking I might go to the Royal courts and see if you can or can't read them and so forth. Does anyone know what the case number is? I think it's this:CHANF 97/0150/CMS3, which I got from this:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1711.html

Is that correct?