Fit Up

by Faith Clifford

  Leslie took Stansfield through the various documents that had previously been referred to during the trial and asked pertinent questions in relation to evidence in all of them. It all led to the same thing: that the CPS can only be as good as the information and evidence they are provided with and she agreed that it would be improper if an officer withheld evidence. Then Leslie brought her to Hopkins’s statement where he had said that he liaised with the CPS prior to charging Jeremy, to which Stansfield confirmed that this had not happened. He then asked her about the throwing in of the possession and making charge to give a bit of weight to incitement and whether this would be inappropriate. She wanted to distance herself from a prosecutor making that decision and said that they would apply the code for Crown prosecutors who would charge accordingly if there was evidence and the public interest. Leslie had brought her round to evidence again to which she could only confirm yes to all the questions.

  Challenger then rose to ask a few questions and was quickly finished. Leslie asked Cranston if he could be allowed to further re-examine and this request was granted. Referring Stansfield to Fouhey’s statement of 21 December 2004, he asked her if Hopkins knew then that the prosecution’s case was having problems, would she not have expected him to inform the CPS? She confirmed that she would have expected him to inform them. Leslie pointed out that it was quite obvious that Hopkins had not informed the CPS because in her statement she was still saying that the case was proceeding. ‘In other words, the prosecution continued as long as it did for another three months because Hopkins did not tell you?’ pressed Leslie. Stansfield confirmed that it did continue until she received the letter from Jeremy’s solicitor quoting the relevant paragraphs from Duncan’s report. ‘In other words, the point I am making is there was nothing that Hopkins did that brought this prosecution to an end. It was when the defendant’s solicitor, Irene Hill, instructed their expert, Duncan Campbell, and they make the suggestion, that is where things are put into motion to bring it to an end.’ Stansfield nodded and agreed that this was the case.

  Leslie sat down and looked behind him to Andre and us with a satisfied grin. Stansfield descended from the witness box and left the courtroom. The last witness was to be DS Irene Patel.

  The last time I had seen her she was in her uniform with hair tied back from her face, but today she had allowed it to tumble loose around her shoulders. She stepped into the witness box to be sworn in and Challenger confirmed with her that her statement was truthful and accurate. Personally, I had no problem with her, but was interested to see how she would support Hopkins.

  Leslie got to his feet and took Patel through Jeremy’s criminal case and her communication with Hopkins as his supervising officer at the time. She hardly looked at Leslie and when answering questions she looked steadfastly at Cranston who was in his usual position of head down and scribbling away. From what I could tell, he was unaware of Patel’s stare.

  Leslie led her through questions relating to evidence and what she knew from Hopkins during the investigation and it became apparent that she only knew of the existence of the temporary internet files when the case collapsed. He quoted Patel’s written statement to her where she said she stated that she was horrified at the suggestions that Hopkins had maliciously withheld evidence. ‘It would be a really nasty thing to do; that is why you are horrified. It is a horrible allegation, is it not?’ Leslie said. Patel sharply turned her head away from Cranston and looked directly at Leslie. By shocking her like that, he now had her full attention. She replied, ‘It is if I thought that was true, yes.’ Her brown eyes had widened in horror as to where the questions were going as she dutifully turned the pages of the file in front of her at Leslie’s request. He was quoting from the Service Improvement Document that Hopkins had charged with possession to give weight to the incitement charge and then asked Patel how she felt about that, was she shocked? She said that she was surprised and would have expected Hopkins to have had that discussion with the CPS on deciding what charges to bring. Leslie jumped on her, asking if she was surprised that he had never spoken to the CPS as confirmed by Stansfield. She was flustered now in trying to uphold her position as a witness to defend her colleague. ‘I can only say that, based on Mr Fouhey’s statement that was within the initial case papers, there was sufficient evidence to charge for the indecent images.’

  Leslie, voice raised, responded, ‘Sergeant Patel, please do not sidestep the issue. We are not just talking about what was on the face of the papers, we are talking about what the officer was told.’ Obviously trying to distance herself, she replied that she was not party to that conversation and confirmed that she had never seen the SID document. If this was the case, Leslie informed her, she had written her witness statement in ignorance of this document.

  ‘If Mr Hopkins did know all of this as contained in the SID document, produced as a result of an interview with Detective Sergeant Willcox, it’s pretty shocking, is it not?’ countered Leslie, to which Patel agreed that it was and would have expected Hopkins to have discussed it with her. He hadn’t.

  Leslie was coming to the end of his cross-examination of Patel and finished on a rather poignant note for me. He brought up the subject of the suicide statutory notice which was handed to Jeremy when he was arrested because it had been known that charges of child porn offences had resulted in a number of the accused taking their own lives. I remember opening the crumpled typed sheet filled with anger that the police had already made up their minds that he was a paedophile requiring some sort of salvation. If it wasn’t for my unwavering support and that of his close family and friends, he may well have succumbed to the option of putting himself out of his misery because of the accusations, even though he was completely innocent. I had read in the papers that one man had taken his life over Operation Ore and there was no evidence on him either. How tragic.

  I knew Leslie had finished on this point so that Cranston could consider the enormity of what had been done to Jeremy when considering damages.

  Then it was Challenger’s turn, at which point he went through a series of soft questions confirming parts of Patel’s statement and asking whether she still stood by it. However, in his usual wordy way he asked a question by which Patel did not understand what he was asking of her. Join the club, I thought. He then bumbled on about being restricted in the manner he could ask questions because it would be leading and treading on Leslie’s toes. Leslie interjected that it was because it was improper, that it was not how it was done and not because it stepped on his toes. ‘Those are the rules,’ he said as he rolled his eyes, looking at Challenger.

  Challenger tried again to re-shape his questions, only going over the same ground of the charges against Jeremy, and did Patel have any comment about Hopkins’s decision on the charges? She said she saw no issue with it, she had reviewed the case papers and considered that there was enough evidence to charge and supported Hopkins on that. Challenger indicated to the court that he had finished with the witness. Patel looked relieved as she left the stand but I thought that after what she had heard in court of the SID document, she had to have had her doubts about Hopkins.

  Challenger and Leslie then addressed Cranston as to how they were going to approach their summing up, identifying the facts of the case, the evidence, what papers to look at and to discuss damages at this hearing rather than return for a further court session, which would increase costs further. Cranston acknowledged this and adjourned for lunch.

  Leslie returned to his chambers with his staff and Andre found a quiet corner of the halls with his assistant to prepare for that afternoon. Jeremy and I went to the café for lunch, making sure we avoided Challenger and Grundy. Only an afternoon to go now, we thought, and it would be over one way or another.

  Returning to the courtroom just before 2 p.m. we settled down for the final run. Cranston was seated and Challenger was up first to make his address. He said he had some criticisms of Leslie’s opening submissions and observations to make which he deem
ed important. Then, as we had come to know, he said that he hoped that this exercise would not take too long. All our side glanced around with knowing looks that it wouldn’t be, and so the monotone voice commenced, with Challenger all the while swaying gently from side to side. Watching him was hypnotic and I had soon tuned out, drifting into a bored, comatose state, but was brought back to attention with statements from him that infuriated me. They had had the same effect on Andre and Leslie but we had to wait our turn, there was no jumping up and commenting at this stage.

  ‘This may be a comment which offends my learned friend, I do not know, but as a matter of common sense the background which suggested that there was evidence indicating that from time to time Mr Clifford had purchased child pornography over the internet and plainly had a connection with the offences charged of both incitement and possession,’ said Challenger. There were five fraudulent purchases, some on the same day so not exactly ‘from time to time’. He made it sound like a regular habit. Jeremy was called a liar many times throughout and this was difficult to hear. Although forensics were not to be mentioned at this trial, Challenger could not resist making reference to the report from Duncan Campbell and that the defence had never seen it. He made great emphasis on this point which implied that by us not submitting the report we had something to hide, which let him open the door to making further comments that Jeremy had been ‘serial trawling child pornography for ten or eleven hours’ and ‘this Royal Bank of Scotland enquiry is mixed up with a ten-hour trawl of child pornography sites’. The police were obviously enraged that the courts had not allowed them sight of Duncan’s report. I was as astonished as our legal team. Where, in the bundles of papers, was that evidence in order that he could state it? He went on to say that the assertion that Hopkins behaved improperly and withheld information was extraordinarily far-fetched, as was the whole case, and that it was ‘always appropriate for summary disposal’.

  Challenger finally sat down and shut up. It was good to be relieved from his style of presentation and his insinuations that held no water and I hoped that Cranston would be able to see that. We now looked to Leslie to go back out to bat for us.

  ‘I must have been sitting hearing a different trial completely and different evidence, but there it is. My Lord, can I just remind you of the matters? My learned friend has closed his case, we are now on submissions and he makes some assertions to you. I scratch my head and wonder, where is the evidence? For instance, where is the evidence that you have heard that the claimant spent ten hours trawling his computer? No evidence has been called. I remind you of the fact that counsel’s questions are not evidence. Where is the evidence in relation to the timings on the computer’s clock? There is no evidence. This case must be decided on the evidence that is relied on in the agreed bundle.’ Leslie paused, watching Cranston as he made his notes before he proceeded. He reminded him that Mr Justice Wyn Williams clearly identified what the issues were of this case and that forensics were not required, that Jeremy’s credibility was not a central issue to the case but Hopkins’s was. Leslie managed to get a dig into Challenger regarding him calling Jeremy a liar. ‘We have been here for the past hour and a quarter listening to Mr Challenger and for the last half an hour of which talking about lies the claimant has told.’ To Cranston, Leslie said, ‘When you come to determine the narrow issues of the case, I invite you to ask yourself: How does it assist me if it is said that the claimant lied, because it does not assist you.’ He carried on for about twenty minutes re-asserting Jeremy’s case, referring to his submitted skeleton argument and indicating case law papers to read to assist Cranston in drawing his conclusions. After the disturbing comments from Challenger, we were uplifted by Leslie’s performance in painstakingly righting the wrongs that had been said. ‘Can I finish by saying this?’ he said. ‘These were unpleasant allegations. Child pornography is an emotive issue. Police officers are like anybody else, they can be affected by emotions. Perhaps, and I do not know, I do not need to prove it and I am just floating this, Mr Hopkins thought: “This is my man, I think he is guilty of this because of Landslide. Let me throw some other charges in, I do not have the evidence but perhaps he will just cough. Perhaps he will plead to the Magistrates’ Court early…” That is not the basis of charging anybody and it is wrong. It is also not a basis for telling somebody about the charges because you do not like the particular nature of the offence. There is no such thing as noble corruption. All corruption is corruption. The police are not beyond the law. They should not charge when they do not have evidence. They should not withhold evidence and they should not suppress evidence.’

  Leslie finally sat down and I resisted the urge to give him a standing ovation for an inspirational performance. His submissions had taken a fraction of the time that Challenger’s had and Cranston thanked them both, thus ending the trial. Andre tapped Leslie’s shoulder and whispered something to him, to which he reacted swiftly by asking Cranston how long it would be before we would get judgment. Cranston acknowledged that Jeremy was anxious to know and that it would most likely be the next day – Friday 5 December.

  After four long, hard, tiring, stressful days, it was over. Cranston retired, which allowed the court usher to tidy up and the rest of us to pack up for departure. Jeremy had asked Andre many times in the past few years if he thought we had a good chance of winning and the response was always, ‘We have a good case but you can never tell.’ Jeremy asked him again and, for the very first time, both Andre and Leslie felt confident enough to let down their guard and admitted that, overall, the trial had gone well. We had all done as much as we could and that, in their opinion, if there was any justice, we had won. Hopkins had admitted that there was never any evidence against Jeremy and had brought charges to protect his own position, so it should be a relatively easy decision for Cranston to make. We felt very positive as we all gathered around Leslie for one final revision of the proceedings before we went our separate ways.

  As we headed off towards the underground, Andre called out that he would contact Jeremy the next day once he had received Cranston’s judgment.

  Feeling both relieved but uplifted that the trial was at an end and buoyed by the positive analysis from Andre and Leslie, we both slept soundly that night. We had come so far and could not believe that we only had another day to go before we could get litigation out of our lives and make a fresh start.

  Chapter 41

  JUDGMENT DAY

  With Christmas only just under three weeks away, the next day we decided to catch up on some gift shopping and have a leisurely lunch. Returning home, we put up the tree and decorated the house which, for the first time in six years, we did with happy hearts.

  When we had not heard anything from Andre by 4 p.m., however, we were starting to get a little anxious and impatient for his call. Jeremy decided to ring him first. There had been no news and Andre had already been ringing the court to find out if we would be definitely hearing that day.

  Darkness had fallen and I looked at the clock approaching 5 p.m., the working day was closing and in my heart I knew we would not hear anything. Perhaps Cranston had been a little hasty in his promise to be able to give us the result. After all, he would have a lot to dictate and get typed up in just a day. Andre said that he would contact the court again first thing the following Monday and although he spoke with encouragement and was not unduly worried, we were disappointed with the weekend looming. It would be a long two days, but we would just have to keep busy like we had always done.

  However, there was no result to be had on Monday, the next day or the one after that. Annoyance started to take over from impatience, but Andre continued to be optimistic and said that these things can take time and that possibly Cranston had other commitments that hampered him from finishing his judgment.

  We were heading into the second weekend after the trial had ended and still there was no news. By this time, I had put it to the back of my mind and I told Jeremy to stop pestering Andre daily. The 24-
hour judgment promised by Cranston was not to be. It was easier for me because I could lose myself in my work, but for Jeremy, working alone at home with little distraction, each passing day was becoming more and more tortuous.

  On 18 December, two weeks since the end of the trial, I was sitting at my desk dealing with some building issues when Jeremy appeared at my office door. His arrival took me by surprise as he had not been announced by the receptionist. I smiled and said, ‘What a surprise, what brings you here?’ I studied his face and before he could say anything I felt my heart pound, and not in a good way. He stepped forward, took my hand and said, ‘We have lost the case on all counts and costs awarded to the police.’ My blood ran cold, my mouth went dry and I tried not to let my legs buckle. Jeremy’s eyes mirrored the pain that I felt. How could we have lost? All the court hearings that had been won prior to this, all that evidence – the SID document, Fouhey’s testimony, Hopkins’s admission – how could all this have been dismissed? It was after 3 p.m. and knowing that I would be unable to continue to work or drive myself after the devastating impact of this news, I left with Jeremy to go home.

  The shock had rendered me unable to speak and the only thing I heard Jeremy say was that Andre had asked him to call as soon as he could. I took off my coat, although the house was cold as the heating had not come on, which did not help as I was shaking so much. Sasha and Nancy greeted us excitedly but I could not return their cheer. Sensing something was very wrong they followed me to the bedroom where I crawled under the duvet, fully dressed, pulling it tightly around me. The dogs jumped up to my side and leaned their warm bodies against mine, waiting patiently for me to emerge. I had always thought that should I ever hear of our losing the case I would be crying forever, and yet I lay in the darkness, my dry eyes wide open, staring out of the window into the darkness, filled with dread at what was to come. Whatever we had lost before would be nothing compared to this. I felt utter despair that we were facing bankruptcy in between the rage of thinking of Challenger and Grundy gloating over their surprising win and Jeremy not clearing his name.