No, and it didn't meet the England and Wales standard either, baz. It is not an offence to lie in court unless such falsehoods influence the outcome. His evidence did not have a material effect on the outcome of Sheridan's trial so no offence was committed.
Almost all acquittals such as this are termed "technicalities" but such technicalities are what the law is. Imagine if, say, a motorist was accused of driving without insurance in a car park. The law says that insurance cover must be in place for vehicles used on "a road or other public place". Some car parks are subject to Road Traffic Law (i.e. they do fall within the definition of "other public place"), some are not (mainly depending on how access is afforded to them).
If the driver successfully argued that the place where he was driving was not "a public place" he would be acquitted because he had committed no offence. The requirements to support a successful prosecution had not been proved. So it is with Coulson.