Referring to Gerard’s witness statement, Leslie’s tone was sarcastic and suggested to Hopkins that we could not be expected to believe that this statement could have been written completely out of the blue without Gerard knowing of the allegations against Jeremy. He then asked Hopkins, ‘There is one point I want to take up with you in relation to the statement and that is, did you make a personal note? You have made a personal note in relation to the witness statement, is that right?’
Hopkins replied that this was normal. Leslie then asked Hopkins to go to the note in the bundle in front of him.
‘Do you remember I said to you, you did a list of things and you said, “No, I wouldn’t do a list. You would do a list of things that you would need to get out of the witness statement.” Do you remember me saying that or not?’ Hopkins replied in the affirmative.
Leslie continued: ‘What do we see at page 439? A list of things that you want in the statement, is it not?’
Hopkins looked at the page in front of him, face flushed red, and replied, ‘Yes.’
‘So why were you telling us that you did not do a list of things?’ persisted Leslie. There was a moment’s silence as we all waited for Hopkins to reply. Witheringly, he responded, ‘I must have forgotten.’ How convenient, I thought.
Leslie concluded, ‘There are a lot of things you have forgotten, are there not?’ Unbelievably, Hopkins replied, ‘Yes.’
In Hopkins’s notes, when taking Gerard’s witness statement, he had put down that the computer had been taken away by Jeremy for two weeks to clean it, yet when the statement was finalised this had changed to several weeks. Leslie asked Hopkins, who knew that there was bad feeling between the two men, if he had taken steps to verify whether the computer had been cleaned, to which he replied that he had not. It was also established that he had not instructed Fouhey either, because if this was the case it would have boosted Jeremy’s evidence and credibility as to what he had been saying in his defence. We knew from Duncan’s report that the computer had not been cleaned, but Challenger jumped up to say that there was to be no admission of computer evidence in this case and that what is known is that on 11 February 2001 Windows 98 was reinstalled. So what? I thought, that does not prove guilt either if someone is having problems with a computer virus.
Leslie then turned to the transactions on Jeremy’s credit card in relation to the accessing of the Landslide website. He explained to Cranston that one of the key problems about the Landslide website was that there had been widespread incidence of fraud. Leslie quoted information from the BBC in May 2007, the Daily Mail and The Guardian where lawyers and computer experts said that some forces were not carrying out proper checks to see if suspects arrested as part of the investigation were fraud victims. Operation Ore was launched in May 2002 when the police received lists of people whose credit cards had been used for the purchase of child pornography. Many people had spent months under investigation before charges were dropped because of fraud and headlines included ‘Operation Ore flawed by fraud’. Leslie asked if Hopkins had this information before interviewing Jeremy and he confirmed that he had.
Leslie then drew to Hopkins’s attention a table of the transactions on Jeremy’s card and asked if he noticed that they ran in quick succession within a minute or so of each other, that the card was being credited or debited at about the same time. Did he not think that odd? Hopkins confirmed that it did seem so, to which Leslie suggested that this was the reason the incitement charge was dropped very early on. Hopkins said he was not looking at it in this way and relied on the answers he gave earlier on.
Returning to Gerard, Leslie asked what Hopkins did when Jeremy called him from Spain reporting what Gerard was saying to his staff. Hopkins said that he called Gerard and asked him not to pass on comments that he could not substantiate. Leslie then asked Hopkins why he did not say to Gerard, ‘Where did you get that from?’, and before Hopkins could answer, he finished for him: ‘Because you told him, Is that not correct?’ Hopkins denied this. Leslie persisted: ‘You did not ask him where he had got that information from because you had already told him.’ Again, Hopkins said no, but Leslie finished with: ‘Your answer is informative.’
We were now moving on to what Hopkins did with the information provided in Fouhey’s second statement, dated 21 December 2004. There is no explanation as to why this had come about but Hopkins said that the CPS had asked for more definitive information on the images resulting in this statement. Hopkins said that he had passed this on to the CPS along with a memo he wrote. However, he did not state that he had had a conversation with Fouhey where effectively he was told that he did not have a case. Leslie pointed out that the CPS are only as good as the information they receive and asked why he had not told them of the significance of the information on the statement, thus sitting on information. Hopkins said he could not comment at this time but thought he had done on 21 December. Leslie at this point became exasperated and asked Hopkins for the third time to answer the question: ‘When you learned that on 21 December and you wrote your memo, why did you not tell the CPS?’ Again Hopkins said he did not know and Leslie went on to answer for him: ‘Because you have deliberately caused this prosecution to go on for much longer than it needed to, for another five months. The information was in your hands. The very information which causes this case to collapse, namely that the files are in temporary internet files, was not given to Mr Clifford’s lawyers until a couple of weeks before the case collapses in April 2005. I am asking you to explain yourself,’ to which Hopkins said he couldn’t.
‘In fact, the only reason why this case drops is because it’s not until Mr Clifford instructs his own expert and spots the point. You would have been happy for him to have gone to trial, despite what you knew, would you not?’ Hopkins did not answer. ‘You wanted him to go to trial despite what you knew, did you not?’ persisted Leslie.
‘You’re trying to say that I was being malicious in that and the answer is no,’ Hopkins complained.
Leslie confirmed it was what he was alleging because that was what the case was about and made worse by the fact that in January 2005 there were two court hearings, but still the information did not get through to the CPS, enabling the case to rumble on until Jeremy got his expert, Duncan Campbell, to examine the evidence and spot the point that Fouhey had already pointed out.
Leslie’s questioning continued to be relentless but he was now nearing the end and wanted to boot the point home that two wholly independent police sources – Grundy for the police solicitors and Willcox for the Police Standards Department – had been told two different things by Hopkins, who had today not been able to recall anything.
Leslie asked if this was the best response he could give, to which Hopkins said it was. Leslie finished with: ‘The reason is because you are lying and you have been caught out, have you not?’ Hopkins, being consistent, responded, ‘No.’
Leslie looked towards Cranston, told him he had now finished and sat down. The judge had said hardly a thing or looked up during the proceedings and just nodded to Leslie with a cursory ‘very well’.
Challenger then got up to re-examine Hopkins and opened with: ‘Mr Hopkins, I hope I can be reasonably brief.’ Leslie looked round to Andre, Jeremy and me with a huge grin, which made me want to laugh out loud as Challenger had no idea how to be brief. Still with a grin on my face, I looked towards Challenger’s back as he got going with his questions, starting off with a slight at Leslie by telling Hopkins that he had lost count at how many times he had been called a liar while in the witness box. He went on to sum up the allegations against him and then said, ‘We had better just remind ourselves – given the nature of the allegations of this – when is the first occasion that you met Mr Clifford?’ I couldn’t believe it. If we were going back that far this was most definitely not going to be brief. Challenger droned on monotonously and the adrenalin rush that had been created by Leslie’s questioning was soon dissipating to the extent I could feel the shutters o
f my mind coming down. Challenger’s voice faded into the background with nothing of his questioning bringing me back to full attention. It seemed to be a damage limitation exercise for Hopkins by bringing up his 31-year police career, exemplary service and commendations. I looked towards Leslie who was leaning back on the bench, occasionally flicking through papers, looking as bored as the rest of us. Suddenly he jumped up, exclaiming, ‘My Lord, my learned friend is re-examining. All we are getting is leading question after leading question. None of these arise out of cross-examination.’
Challenger looked to Cranston and then across to Leslie, retorting, ‘It has been alleged that Mr Hopkins acted maliciously.’ Leslie sighed loudly and replied, ‘Leading questions, leading questions.’
Cranston looked up and for the first time in ages we were able to see his face as opposed to the more familiar top of his head. He looked at both Challenger and Leslie and said that they had both had quite a lot of latitude, but what Leslie was keen to establish with Cranston was that he should be allowed to cross-examine again after Challenger had finished as there was information being brought up that needed to be clarified by our side.
Challenger was taking so long and I was becoming fidgety as the benches were so hard to sit on for any length of time. I had to keep shifting from one side to the other to get some blood flowing to my feet. Finally, Challenger got my attention when I heard the words, ‘Can you wait there? I think Mr Thomas is going to be invited to ask you some more questions.’
Cranston reminded Leslie that he did not want this to be an extended exercise and just to keep his questions related to the information that came out of the re-examination. Challenger had asked Hopkins to confirm that the delay in Jeremy’s investigation was because of him changing solicitors but Leslie got him to admit that the reason was that there were problems in handing over the encrypted CD with the images for the defence forensic expert to examine.
‘Mr Hopkins, just this finally,’ said Leslie. Those words must have been music to Hopkins’s ears; his relief that this was soon to be over must have been overwhelming as he had been in the witness box for some hours. Leslie continued: ‘One of the things you charged Mr Clifford with on 19 July was that he was guilty of making or being in possession of one of those images on 30 October 2003. There was no evidence of that at all, was there?’ Hopkins replied that he did not know why he had put down that date.
‘The point is that there is no evidence of that at all. There could not have been. He did not own the machine then, did he? On 30 October, the day you interviewed him, the machine belonged to Mr Gerard, did it not?’ Hopkins confirmed that this was so.
‘So you agree there is absolutely no evidence in relation to that matter with which you charged him that he could have been guilty of it. Do you agree?’ Hopkins replied that he put the wrong date down.
‘Whether you put the wrong date down or not, that is not the question I am asking you. I am saying that there was no evidence for that charge. That is what he was charged with and there was no evidence.’ Hopkins finally said ‘yes’ and to get the point to hit home, Leslie asked, ‘Sorry?’
‘Yes, agreed.’ Triumphant, Leslie sat down and gave a nod to Andre. I felt as though I should now applaud his performance.
Challenger was again on his feet. Surely he was done with the questions, I thought to myself. Cranston must have thought the same because he joked that he thought Challenger was going to start up again. Everyone in the court laughed, even Challenger, who said he did not think that he would be allowed to ask any more questions. Cranston, smiling, said he would be happy to allow another question but Challenger put his hand up to signal he was done and Hopkins was finally able to go.
It was left for Challenger and Leslie to discuss with Cranston the next set of witnesses and when they would appear in the witness box. There was some consternation from Leslie that Sharon Girling of the National Crime Squad was unlikely to be appearing at these proceedings. Leslie informed Cranston that he wanted her there as one of the key issues was the widespread credit card fraud in the evidence of Operation Ore and that she would be the best person to clarify this. However, he was not going to hold up the trial waiting for her, he said, and would deal with the issue another way. He then reminded Cranston that he should look at the case of Abbott and Atkinson v. DPP.
‘All rise,’ shouted the court usher. Everyone stood up as Cranston left and then set about gathering their belongings and court files. There was a little bit of jokey banter between Leslie and Challenger while we chatted with Andre. Jeremy asked his opinion on how it was going, to which Andre said that you could never tell but he was happy with the outcome of the day’s proceedings in that we had managed to get the answers we wanted from Hopkins. Cliff came down from the back benches to come and chat with us as we were travelling home together. He thought that it was an amazing show and had gone well with the harsh cross-examination of Hopkins. All I could think of was getting out of London as soon as possible after another exhausting day, cuddling the dogs and watching mundane TV until succumbing to a deep, dreamless sleep.
Chapter 40
FINAL DAY OF TRIAL
This was to be the final day and I was thankful for it. Although I had had a good night’s sleep, I was utterly exhausted. Jeremy was much the same, the evidence of which could be clearly seen in the dark circles under his eyes.
After a quick breakfast and meeting at Leslie’s chambers, we made our way back to the High Court and again took our seats on the hard benches. We watched as Andre unpacked his large suitcase to set up his and Leslie’s files for the day’s proceedings while listening to polite conversation between both sides of the court.
We were to hear the testimonies of the final witnesses of the trial and the summing up from Leslie and Challenger. I could feel a long day stretching before me and the only way I could cope with the thought was to break it down, one witness at a time, and what time that would take us to. I started to look forward to lunch, possibly latest time of a 1 p.m. adjournment. Only three hours to go, I could cope with that.
‘All rise,’ called the clerk of the court, and we dutifully did so. Cranston nodded to us as he settled down in his lofty perch and presented the top of his head to us as he busied himself with his papers. Challenger then called in PC Baker, the duty sergeant who had charged Jeremy.
It turned out that he had travelled all the way from Middlesbrough, where he was now working. Challenger did a brief introduction of him and asked him to confirm that his statement was in the file in front of him. He was then passed to Leslie for cross-examination.
I was thinking that he would not remember the specifics of Jeremy’s case after all the time had passed, plus the fact that he must see so many people passing through to be charged. What could he bring to these proceedings? Leslie pointed out to PC Baker that he was only as good as the information that is put before him in order to charge somebody. Baker agreed that he was reliant on the investigating officer to bring him the information of the case but could not remember Jeremy’s case specifically as it was so long ago. Leslie wanted to get out of him that there had to be evidence to charge and if there wasn’t, he could not charge, and took him through the example he gave Hopkins about linking evidence. Baker agreed that he would want proper evidence but Leslie pointed out to him that Hopkins had no link between Landslide and the making and possession charge. Leslie sympathised with Baker that there was the difficulty with the passage of time and brought him to his statement where he had said that he had charged based on what Hopkins had told him and his reliance on the credit card transactions. Leslie repeated the question he had directed at Hopkins the day before regarding the credit card transactions in 1999 and how were they relevant to the images created in 2001. ‘Do you know what his answer was to his Lordship yesterday?’ said Leslie, pausing slightly, should Baker ask. ‘They weren’t relevant,’ Leslie continued to hit the point home. ‘Hearing that now, does that trouble you? Does that cause you concern, that mat
ters that an officer put in front of you in October 2003 and now in a court of law, judge they were not relevant, that there was no linkage? Would that trouble you as a custody officer?’
Baker looked up towards Leslie with a furrowed brow and said, ‘It would do, yes.’
‘I have no further questions,’ concluded Leslie.
Challenger then got up to re-examine briefly, asking Baker if it was the decision of the officer in charge of the case or the duty sergeant to charge, to which Baker replied that it was ultimately his. Challenger ended his questioning there but Leslie was quickly on his feet addressing Cranston to complain that he had been patient thus far with Challenger in that he had been breaching the rules of procedure in civil proceedings. After the previous day with Hopkins, today had started off a little tediously until this interjection renewed our interest. Challenger had been getting away with the practice of cross-examining his own witnesses on issues that Leslie had not touched upon in his own questioning. At least Cranston acknowledged this and asked Leslie to let him know of any further problems. Leslie was staring sternly at Challenger, who looked like he did not care one iota.
Next up was Jane Stansfield, the head of the CPS unit in Hertfordshire based in St Albans. Leslie questioned her about evidence and she confirmed that they too are reliant on what police officers are presenting to them, that it’s crucial for police offers in charge of the investigation to be truthful and honest otherwise it’s a waste of public money pursuing prosecutions, with the added distress to everyone involved.
Fit Up Page 25