A JURY has been told that a man is standing trial for the second time over the murder of restaurant worker Surjit Singh Chhokar.
The High Court in Glasgow heard that Ronnie Coulter, from Wishaw, was tried and acquitted in 1999 of stabbing 32-year-old Mr Chhokar to death.
These facts came out as defence QC Donald Findlay questioned Mr Chhokar’s former partner, Elizabeth Bryce.
Mr Coulter, 48, denies murdering Mr Chhokar in Overtown, North Lanarkshire, in November 1998.
He has lodged a special defence blaming his nephew Andrew Coulter and David Montgomery.
Mr Findlay asked Ms Bryce if Ronnie Coulter had been sitting in the dock alone when she gave evidence in March 1999. She replied: “Yes.”
Mr Findlay then said: “So there was no Montgomery in the dock and no Andrew Coulter.” Ms Bryce replied: “No.”
The QC went on: “At the time of that trial Ronnie Coulter was acquitted of the charge of murder wasn’t he.”
Ms Bryce answered: “As far as I know, yes.”
The jury was then told that Ms Bryce, 56, also gave evidence in 2000 when Mr Montgomery and Andrew Coulter stood trial and were acquitted.
Mr Findlay said: “This time there was no Ronnie in the dock. It was Montgomery and Andrew Coulter.” Ms Bryce replied: “Uhu.”
The QC then produced the original indictment against Ronnie Coulter in which he was charged with stabbing Mr Chhokar, along with others unknown. Jurors were also shown the indictment for the trial in 2000. The court also heard from PC David Rattray, who was the first policeman on the scene after Mr Chhokar was fatally injured.
PC Rattray said that, at the scene and in an ambulance en route to hospital, Ms Bryce only gave him the name of one of the three men she said were involved.
When asked by Mr Findlay: “Did she name Andrew Coulter,” he replied: “Yes.”
The QC added: “It seems she didn’t say anything to indicate she knew the names of the other two.” PC Rattray replied: “No.”
The trial before Lord Matthews continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article