A Newport businessman accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice by intimidating two police officers walked free from court after a jury delivered majority not proven verdicts.
Mark Harris (41) was found not guilty by majority of two other charges theft of keys and a car following a two-week trial at Dundee Sheriff Court.
Mr Harris declined to comment as he left the court on Tuesday, except to thank the jury of eight men and seven women, who took around 70 minutes to reach their decision.
The property developer had already been cleared of five further charges including two breaches of the peace by Sheriff Maggie Scott after defence QC Donald Findlay successfully contended his client had no case to answer.
Mr Harris was found not guilty of stealing keys at Abercorn Street, Dundee, in June 2007 and stealing a Mini car in August of that year from the same address.
He said the car had not been a gift to Nancy Renwick his partner at the time as she had claimed. He said his reason for taking the Mini was because he wanted documentation of joint ownership signed.
Mr Harris denied making two attempts to pervert the course of justice at police HQ in Bell Street in November 2007 by making comments calculated to threaten and intimidate the two police officers into halting their investigations.
The court had heard that Andrew Drummond, a friend and business associate of Mr Harris, had been asked by him to seek information on two police officers.
The reason the court was told was because Mr Harris was concerned that information had been supplied to Nancy Renwick’s solicitor, which would assist her in a civil case.
The court was told that the information Mr Harris received on the police officers was readily available from the Land Registry, the Tayside Police website and the internet.
One of the officers told the court that Mr Harris had told him personal information about himself and his family while at police HQ in Bell Street.
Earlier in the trial, the tape of a phone call between Mr Harris and the officer was played to the jury, in which Mr Harris told him that earlier comments he had made regarding his private life were not meant to be threatening.
In his closing speech to the jury, depute fiscal Neil Shand said Mr Harris thought he was “untouchable” and could act “with impunity.”
He added, “You should, in large part, reject his evidence.”
Mr Findlay said in his summation that Mr Harris had merely been “fired up” at what he saw as “unreasonable interference.”
Mr Findlay said, “It’s not a crime to say, ‘You may be watching me, pal well, I’m watching you.’
“It might have been rash but it was not an attempt to pervert the course of justice.”