The questioning droned on and I think Dr Turner was getting a little impatient. Challenger was going over the time frame of events leading up to Jeremy’s acquittal, including the fraudulent credit card transactions, Gerard and Campbell’s forensic evidence, and it seemed he was trying to illicit a different response until Dr Turner said, ‘What I have written here is what I understand he [Jeremy] told me. I am not sure that I’m getting very far by just agreeing to all of this.’
I noticed I was getting a few mentions in despatches and that Dr Turner had agreed with my evidence given previously. At one stage he said that, ‘When I went through a series of events with Mr Clifford I found his wife particularly helpful because I had the chance to interview her and talked about how bad things were at different stages.’ I remembered back to that meeting, looking over Dr Turner’s shoulder out of his office window trying not to cry.
Finally Challenger’s questioning drew to a close. Dr Turner had been a good witness for us and, instead of leaving the court, he returned to a seat behind Jeremy. Leslie then informed Cranston that Dr Turner was our last witness and that our case was formally closed. Next it was the turn of the defence witness Dr Cleo van Velsen – or ‘Van Helsing’ as we had nicknamed her – the psychiatrist acting for the police.
Dr Van Velsen was called into the witness box. She was dressed entirely in black with long jet black hair which hung long and loose around her shoulders. Her eyes were heavily made up with black eyeliner and layers of mascara with her lips coated in a vivid red lipstick. Jeremy had never told me what she looked like so my shock at her appearance mirrored Andre’s who glanced around at us to raise his eyebrows. Leslie turned to look at all of us, showed no expression that could be read but we knew what he was thinking.
Challenger asked her to give her full name, professional address and confirm her report and the joint statement with Dr Turner. She addressed Cranston with her answers and I noted that she was another who was seemingly comfortable in this environment, remembering to answer questions looking directly at the judge. Cranston then handed her over to Leslie for questioning.
Leslie went straight in: ‘His Lordship has your joint report. I am not going to waste time by taking you through those. Can I just clarify this with you? When you did your report, did you have the opportunity of interviewing Faith Clifford?’
‘No,’ she answered, looking towards Cranston.
Leslie countered, ‘You never interviewed her?’
‘No,’ she replied, again at Cranston.
‘Did you ask to interview her?’ Leslie pressed. The wife questions were not going away and Van Velsen started to shift from one foot to another in the witness box. Leslie had got her full attention and asked, ‘You could have done?’
‘I could have done but…’ she trailed off.
Leslie jumped in to finish for her, ‘…but you did not?’
Van Velsen felt the need to clarify and did not bother looking towards Cranston but remained transfixed in Leslie’s stare. She went on to say that she did not need to see me as Jeremy had taken another family member to sit in on her interview and that he was not, as advised by his legal team, going to discuss in detail any of the aspects of the psychiatric condition during the times in question. She added, ‘I didn’t think that there was going to be much benefit to have his wife, who naturally is by his side and supporting him.’
Leslie acknowledged that and asked, ‘Did you contact the solicitors who sent you the instructions and say to them, “I want to interview the wife?”’
Van Velsen replied that she did not think I would be useful to interview as I would not have been an independent observer and I am not a psychiatric expert.
I am expert enough to know that the man I married has changed radically since the back end of 2003, I thought, angered by this comment, and it doesn’t take a fancy title to work out why when looking at the circumstances.
Leslie soon finished his questioning of Van Velsen, which brought us neatly to a break for lunch. Hopkins would be next on the stand and we were all looking forward to it.
Chapter 39
HOPKINS
Returning to the courtroom after lunch, we took our seats. Leslie and Andre were conversing quietly while looking through papers and Challenger and Grundy were doing much the same. On their side they were joined by a male colleague whom I assumed was one of their legal team. He had not been at the court in the morning.
There was a lot of shuffling from the benches behind me and I turned to see what was going on. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Cliff had come along to support us. I saw Dr Turner, too, who had evidently decided to remain for the afternoon’s proceedings at the court to observe the man who had caused us so much grief. While those on the police’s side of the court numbered four in total, I was looking at a sea of faces on ours. Leslie was smiling broadly at his audience who were some of the staff from Tuckers who had also been involved or knew about our case and were keen to watch Leslie in action against Hopkins. I felt like I was at the theatre waiting for the curtains to open for a matinee performance when all of a sudden the clerk of the court came in and asked us to ‘all rise’. Mr Justice Cranston took his seat and cast his eye over the benches. I cannot imagine what he thought upon seeing a packed audience one side behind Leslie and mostly empty seating on the police side. Jeremy and I held hands and sat back to watch the show.
As soon as Cranston appeared settled Challenger was on his feet to say that he would be calling Hopkins as his first defence witness. We eagerly looked towards the court doors behind Challenger for the emergence of Hopkins walking to the witness box, only to hear, ‘Before I do that I think we need to review where we are in the evidence so far as the issues are concerned, although I think I must try to ration any debate on these points to ten minutes or so otherwise…’ Challenger was gearing up for a lengthy pre-amble and ten minutes would probably be an understatement we thought.
As he gently rocked from side to side, shifting weight from one foot to the other, fingers laced together in front of him, Challenger burbled on in his droning voice which, in my opinion, should be recorded and sold as a cure for insomniacs everywhere. It was easy for my mind to drift. He was boring me and I was impatient for the proceedings to get under way but I sighed with resignation when I heard him say, ‘Secondly, so far as Fouhey is concerned…’
Oh my days, I thought, we are only at ‘secondly’ and you have been going on for so long…
‘It follows as night follows day that allegations of either species against Mr Fouhey do not, in our respectful submission, get beyond half time. We say on this side of the court the claim or claims – we are not sure whether there are one or two on the pleading as it is drafted – against Mr Fouhey fail. My Lord, slightly less stridently, we invite the court to assist by giving an indication as to whether really at this juncture the allegations against Mr Hopkins can proceed…’ My head shot up to look at Challenger while Leslie had turned round to Andre with a note that I could not read from where I was sat. I thought it must be about this attempt to halt the trial here and now, to prevent Hopkins from going on the stand.
Leslie and Andre were looking toward him in a kind of astonishment as to how long he was going on and wondering how much latitude Cranston was going to give him. Challenger at last said, ‘My Lord, that is all I am going to say…’ and then trailed off. Great, are we done? I thought. I was a little worried that his ramblings may have had some influence but I knew Leslie would put a stop to that. It probably came as no surprise to our legal team that the police were going to try to get this whole case thrown out. I was drifting again, when suddenly I heard Challenger crank up: ‘…but so far as Mr Hopkins is concerned, the fact that our case throughout has been suspicion was based both on what was in the Tiny and the other material too, means, we say at this juncture, that this claim or these claims really are hopeless.’ Challenger looked up towards Cranston in a beseeching manner, obviously hoping that his words had hit the mark a
nd that the trial would be over. I could only see the top of Cranston’s wig and thought that perhaps he had nodded off with his forehead rested on the bench but he looked up towards Leslie and said, ‘Mr Thomas, my view is we need to hear Mr Hopkins. I said yesterday I am going to give you quite a lot of latitude but I do not think we have to be all day, as it were.’ That was surely a barb at Challenger whose shoulders had visibly slumped as he realised his efforts had not got him anywhere. The trial would be continuing. The male colleague who had joined the police camp that afternoon rubbed his fingers through his hair in exasperation. If they were so sure that we had no case, why were they so afraid of Hopkins giving evidence?
Leslie responded to Cranston by saying, ‘My Lord, I hope from this side of the Bar I have been very short,’ while giving a smirk towards Challenger. He continued, ‘Can I just say this? I will flag it up one last time for my learned friend. My learned friend has missed the point completely. Let me spell it out for Mr Challenger so he can deal with this when we come to submissions.’
Cranston smiled at Leslie and said, ‘I think he might have heard this before.’ I was laughing inside at the judge’s dry humour.
Leslie replied, leaning on his books and looking towards Challenger, ‘My Lord, I am not too sure he has. He has heard it but I am not sure he understands it. My case is not about whether or not the officers had reasonable suspicion. I concede that. I do not say that Mr Hopkins did not have reasonable suspicion – that is accepted. But reasonable suspicion is a completely different legal concept to reasonable and probable cause, which is what he needed to have for each specific charge he brought. The case is Abbott ; my learned friend ought to read it.’
‘I am sure he has,’ Cranston responded. ‘I think we will just hear Mr Hopkins.’
Finally, after much procrastination from the police defence, Challenger called in Hopkins. Hopkins looked nervous as he was sworn in. I could see the red flush just above his collar creeping up to his jawbone and I felt a deep satisfaction from this. I squeezed Jeremy’s hand and looked at him. He whispered, ‘This is going to be interesting.’
Challenger took Hopkins through a few questions to identify himself and his service within the police. He was then diverted to a part of his statement relating to questioning Jeremy about his credit card statements, but Hopkins replied that he could not remember. Leslie’s cross-examination was just about to start and it appeared that Hopkins was going to have a convenient memory lapse. How could he forget anything of this case, I thought, when he knows that we have been pursuing him since April 2005, just after Jeremy’s acquittal from the criminal case?
Leslie commenced his questioning of Hopkins by taking him through his basic knowledge of computers and the internet in particular. It transpired that Hopkins had never purchased anything off the internet and had left all that to his wife. I thought if that was the case, how could he be familiar with its possible perils?
In his thirty-one years in the police force, Hopkins’s career had been involved in other departments but, as Leslie established, he was not green when it came to policing matters. He had not joined Operation Metropolis, the name Hertfordshire Constabulary gave to their investigation of Operation Ore cases, at the roll-out stage where he would have been fully briefed. He had learned on the job by sitting with other officers senior to himself and Jeremy’s case was the second that he had managed on his own, the first one being a similar case. He admitted that he was a bit of a rookie compared to other officers, to which Leslie led him to the fact that he would have to have been very dependent on his expert, George Fouhey. Hopkins had agreed. Then Leslie moved on to the subject of ‘knowledge’, which is one of the important factors in an investigation.
Leslie asked, ‘You need the information [from the expert] to interview the individual, do you not?’ Hopkins agreed and was then asked to read a sentence from one of the files in front of him with regard to the questioning of Jeremy on the images found on his computer. He read, ‘I therefore resolved to question Mr Clifford about these matters and see if there was an innocent explanation for it.’
‘You had to arm yourself as a police officer – the reason why you wanted to see whether there was an innocent explanation for the matters is to see whether there is any good reason or whether Mr Clifford may have had any knowledge about the images. That is right, is it not?’ Hopkins again agreed.
‘Which is precisely why location [of the images] would be relevant. You ask your expert: “Where were they?” If your expert says to you, “They were in his folders, his favourites,” that is something you are going to put to the individual or you may put to the individual in interview, is it not? It is highly relevant, is it not?’
‘Yes,’ replied Hopkins, who looked quite petrified.
Leslie leaned forward on his lectern, head cocked to one side, looking at Hopkins as he formed his next question: ‘So you have just accepted it is highly relevant. Now we can come to the specifics of this case. When you met with Mr Fouhey on 8 June he gives you a CD or a series of CDs, it does not matter how many, but he gives you a CD with the images on it. Let us take it from there. What happened on your version of events?’
‘I honestly can’t recall,’ replied Hopkins.
Incredulously, Leslie countered, ‘You have no recollection?’
‘Not at all. Sorry,’ said Hopkins apologetically.
I whispered to Jeremy, ‘If he has no recollection, how can he deny it?’ Surely Cranston would have difficulty in believing that Hopkins had no recollection of events re. Fouhey’s account, who clearly demonstrated a step-by-step guide of his actions, corroborated by the SID document written by DS Willcox, who could never have made it up?
‘Did you have a recollection when you wrote your statement?’ Leslie pressed, to which Hopkins answered that he would hope so.
‘So, at the time you wrote this statement in August 2008, you had no recollection as to what was discussed?’ ‘No,’ was the short answer Hopkins gave. This contradiction would be the very thing that caught him out in the end.
Leslie continued: ‘Mr Hopkins, you were told, were you not, that these images were in temporary internet files. Does that refresh your memory?’
Hopkins did not respond, so Leslie continued: ‘It does not mean anything to you?’ Hopkins replied with another emphatic ‘no’.
Unfazed, Leslie continued: ‘Not only were you told that these images were in temporary internet files, you were told that this meant that the user did not even know they were there because they are deeply buried in the machine. You were told that, were you not?’ As anticipated, Hopkins replied that he did not recall this conversation.
‘Not that you recall.’ Leslie paused with a slight smile and looked around the court to see if we were as amazed as he was. He then raised his voice to say, ‘Mr Fouhey took the stand yesterday and gave evidence exactly where you are now standing and said, “This is the first thing I told him [Hopkins]. It would be ridiculous not to tell him because he would need to know.”’
Leslie continued: ‘Location [within a computer] is of the utmost importance. It goes to knowledge, does it not?’ Hopkins had stopped saying ‘no’ and now replied with a ‘yes’.
Upon this admission, Leslie quickly came in with: ‘And knowledge was one of the factors you needed to have evidence in order to charge, was it not?’
‘Yes,’ replied Hopkins.
‘And without evidence of knowledge you could not charge. You only had half the offence, did you not?’ Again Hopkins agreed.
Leslie glanced down at his file, pausing for a moment as he read, then turned side-on to look at his audience, resting his elbow on the lectern and poising himself for the next question.
‘Let me see if I can just refresh your memory, Mr Hopkins. You knew that Mr Clifford was very upset with you after his criminal case collapsed and since 2005 you have had a long time to think about this case because shortly after its collapse this man has been jumping up and down making complaints against yo
u, saying that you had maliciously and aggressively pursued a prosecution against him.’
‘Yes,’ Hopkins said.
‘So, even though we are now three years down the line, you have had the last three years to think about your actions and what you have done, have you not?’ finished Leslie.
Hopkins answered and said, ‘Three years. I haven’t thought about it much, no.’
‘This actually does not bother you?’ asked Leslie. Hopkins replied that he wouldn’t say that but Leslie was impatient. He raised himself up to full height and shouted louder. ‘No, that is not the question, Mr Hopkins. Will you answer the question? Shall I repeat it?’
Hopkins meekly replied, ‘Yes please.’
‘The fact that Mr Clifford is bringing an allegation of malicious prosecution against you and a misfeasance claim that has been going on for the last three years, are you saying that this has not bothered you?’
With what Hopkins said next I could have cried. He said, ‘It’s not bothered me. I’ve thought about it but it’s not bothered me, no.’ If he had known the pain Jeremy and I had gone through he would not have passed that comment so flippantly. My heart felt real pain and I looked at Jeremy, sensing he was feeling the same.
‘Do you have many claims of malicious prosecution brought against you?’ pressed Leslie. He was trying to get Hopkins to remember information that appeared to be conveniently forgotten. Hopkins replied negatively and said that this was the first.
‘Even more reason why you would remember what happened, is it not?’ Hopkins kept up with the negatives and Leslie continued, ‘You see, I am going to suggest that in the last three years this action has not gone away. It has been relentless in terms of complaining, there had been an internal investigation with the police, Hertfordshire carried out their own investigation and then you have the civil proceedings. You say that you cannot remember what took place but would you agree that most people’s memories at the time of the event or nearer to the event are reasonably good? So your memory nearer to the event would be reasonably good.’ Hopkins answered that he would hope so.
Fit Up Page 23