Quote Originally Posted by johncar54 View Post
what has her taking drugs got to do with 2 women who spent over £600,000 on company credit cards

In any trail the defence will always seek to show that any prosecution witness may not be a truthful, honest person. The risk the defence takes is that if they question the character of a prosecution witness they stand a chance that the judge will permit evidence of the defendants past being entered into evidence. If the defendant has a snow white past then that is not a risk, of however, if they have any blots (example maybe conversations for dishonesty). Presumably the Grillo sisters had no blots on the previous character.

In this case showing that Nigella may not have been as respectable as she appeared, meant that the jury would consider her evidence in that light. It is normal practice in any trial.

Sorry but most people would take not take at face value anything a drug addict says. That is why her drug taking was important to the defence case.

N.B. I am not expressing any personal opinion, just explaining the law and trail practice in the UK in answer to Joe's question.
You are expressing an opinion because you called her a drug addict, have you any proof of that? she has denied being a drug addict and watching her t.v shows she clearly is not an addict. Mr Saatchi is a very powerfull man and control freak which came out in the trial. He clearly set out to destroy her character to make himself look the hard done by victim. Your views in my opinion are clearly outdated