‘Apparently,’ Leslie muttered sarcastically, which made me want to laugh but I refrained in case the judge saw me. I got the impression that he would not appreciate this kind of mockery in his courtroom.
Mackay was rapidly becoming impatient and said that he realised that Challenger was making an application to postpone proceedings at least until the following Monday when it was anticipated that a report would have been prepared by Dr Bhushan. He said he was unlikely to agree to this and that he wanted Grundy to report back by 4.30 p.m. with a response from the psychiatrist as to whether Hopkins was fit now or would he ever be fit to attend the trial. Challenger turned around to Grundy who was hastily sliding along the bench as gracefully as she could to make her exit from the court in order to carry out the judge’s request.
Challenger persisted with his arguments about Hopkins to which Leslie, although having laid it all out in the speaking note already read by Mackay, interjected, giving the judge chapter and verse of when the police knew when Hopkins proclaimed to be suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder from the previous July up until the December letter. I had been waiting anxiously for Leslie to reveal in court that Hopkins was working for the Environment Agency, with a diary of upcoming events and finally that point was made. Leslie added that this was all an unsatisfactory state of affairs and that we had every reason to be sceptical. Challenger sat with his head bowed, probably to avoid the stern gaze of Mackay, who, after hearing this, proposed to start the trial immediately and said that he would read Hopkins’s transcript when the time came to it.
Jeremy whispered in my ear a message from Andre, that he was now more comfortable with the judge. It was obvious that he was displeased with the police and we had got his attention. Leslie then proceeded to lead Mackay through Jeremy’s case until he called George Fouhey as our first witness. I had to wonder what Challenger and Grundy thought when they found out that he had come over to our side.
Leslie asked a few brief questions to Fouhey who gave his evidence as per his witness statement and meeting with Andre just over a year ago. Before Challenger could cross-examine, however, Mackay suggested a break for lunch.
After lunch and returning to our seats in the courtroom, we noticed that Challenger was extremely agitated. We found out that he had been observed in a fit of temper throwing his mobile phone into the fountain in the courtyard. Notably his trial bundles seemed to be in a state of disorder and he appeared unable to find his way around them. I assumed that he had anticipated an adjournment and was not properly prepared to start the trial.
Upon resumption of proceedings, Challenger gave us news that Dr Bhushan had seen Hopkins to confirm that he would be unfit to attend trial and had been prescribed medication which should take effect in four to six weeks. Mackay asked Leslie what he thought of this, to which he replied, ‘My immediate reaction is that this is bogus.’ He then asked what he should do, to which Leslie responded that he felt that Dr Bhushan had not been told that Hopkins was working.
Mackay looked at Challenger and said that Leslie had raised valid points where Hopkins had given evidence previously, had taken two responsible jobs in the criminal justice system and that if he got another report from Dr Bhushan that was similar to the previous one, then he would look at it with some scepticism.
Mackay was with Leslie in that there were important issues that had to be addressed and that a clear report was required from Dr Bhushan. A contrite Challenger responded, ‘My Lord is correct that this is an important issue and we will seek clarification from Dr Bhushan, but we hear from his secretary that he is fairly busy.’ I looked at Challenger in astonishment. I couldn’t believe he had offered this excuse, that the doctor might be too busy to write a report for the judge. It had not been lost on Mackay either. ‘Well, you tell Dr Bhushan that you have a thoroughly irritated judge who will not wait until his schedule is free, otherwise I will witness summons him to attend court to offer his professional opinion directly,’ he said angrily. Challenger nodded and sat down for a moment, thoroughly chastised. We dared not show it but I knew on our side of the court we were all smiling inwardly.
Challenger, gathering himself, prepared to cross-examine George Fouhey. The line of questioning was about his contact with Hopkins and what was said about the images on the disk that was handed over. Fouhey said that his conversation with Hopkins was brief. Hopkins was told that the small thumbnail pictures were found within temporary internet folders, that the files could not be relied upon as the basis for a charge because the origin of the images could not be established and that they can appear as advertisements without the computer user requesting them or even being aware that they are on the machine. Challenger asked him if he had told Hopkins that he could only charge for incitement, to which Fouhey said that the decision to charge is only made by the investigating officer. He could not have just handed over a disk and left Hopkins making assumptions, he had to explain what he had found. He also mentioned that his evidence had never changed at any time and entirely agreed with Duncan. It was what he had been saying all along.
Fouhey had been a very good witness. Calm and precise, he clearly had a good recollection of events and he was in court not just for us, but for himself – he was not going to take the fall for Hopkins.
By mid-afternoon, it was the turn of DS Bob Willcox, the author of the now famous Service Improvement Document (SID). He was a Detective Sergeant in the Fraud Squad before retiring in July the previous year. For just over two years up until December 2005, he was working in the Technical Support Unit and Computer Crime Unit, so was adequately qualified to conduct complex computer investigations.
Willcox recruited Fouhey, who had come highly recommended, to help clear the backlog of work from Operation Metropolis.
Both Leslie and Challenger asked a variety of questions of Willcox regarding his investigation and compilation of the SID report. Willcox confirmed that in 2004 it was standard practice not to make reference to temporary internet folders in any initial statement as there may have been other evidence linking the individual to an offence. Therefore, the technician (in this case Fouhey) would accompany the written statement with a verbal handover to the investigating officer, where it would be stated clearly what was found and the significance of these findings. The officer would then have to make a judgement as to whether to charge, take no further action or make further enquiries.
Willcox specifically recalled speaking to Fouhey, but with the passing of time since writing his report he could not recall meeting Hopkins or speaking to him on the telephone. However, according to the way he had written his report and the references made, he definitely had as he could not have compiled it without him. The whole of the SID document indicated that he had spoken to both parties in order to come to his conclusion and this report would be a reflection of him and his unit so it had to be right.
Willcox had been another good witness in supporting the truth. Both he and Fouhey remembered the events surrounding Jeremy’s case and the investigation afterwards.
We were heading towards late afternoon and Jeremy was next to be called. Looking at the time, I doubted he would be on the stand for very long. I gave him an encouraging squeeze of his hand as he left my side.
Leslie asked if he still stood by his witness statement, to which he agreed. Then the tape was played of the conversations between Gerard and Julie Cullivan of 10 September 2004. He had been dead some years now and, although he was no longer a threat, hearing his voice reignited my feelings of hatred against him. Leslie’s questioning was related to the misfeasance claim against Hopkins in how he dealt with the return of Jeremy’s property, Gerard as a witness and informing another police officer, whose family were known to us, when there was no reason to do so.
Leslie had come to the end of his questioning and Mr Justice Mackay indicated that this would be an appropriate place to stop for the day. I quite liked this judge; he was taking no nonsense from Challenger and he was very much involved with the tri
al, looking around the court and interjecting on a regular basis. Quite a refreshing contrast to Cranston’s style.
Before leaving the court, we gathered together with our legal team for a summary of the day’s events. In all, it could not have gone better.
Chapter 55
RETRIAL – DAY TWO, THURSDAY 13 JANUARY 2011
Continuing on from the previous day, Leslie addressed Jeremy on the series of events when dealing with Hopkins after his arrest, the demands for the return of property in order to run his business and the threats that he would sue the police for their behaviour.
Then it was Challenger’s turn to cross-examine. Although there was evidence in play regarding refunds of the Landslide credit card transactions, unbelievably he was still extensively questioning Jeremy about them. Our preparation was paying off and Jeremy responded with short answers, and admitting when he couldn’t recall something. These responses were making it difficult for Challenger. However, he messed up a little when he was asked if he contacted the credit card companies to complain of the fraud and replied that he could not remember as it was back in 1999. I frowned in puzzlement because we knew he had, so I just put it down to misinterpreting the question due to nerves.
Challenger tried to get Jeremy to admit that he had received emails from Landslide to gain access to their site and that Hopkins and DS Crook, during his first interview, had made it clear that a password assigned to Jeremy by Landslide had been used.
Mackay interrupted proceedings and said that he had now read Hopkins’s transcript of evidence the previous evening and he could not see him saying this. He went on to say that he was becoming sceptical about this line of questioning and now that the Landslide issue had been fully explored he did not know what else could be asked of Jeremy. He then turned to Leslie to ask if it was accepted that for each transaction there were corresponding credits. Leslie answered that there were.
Despite this, Challenger returned to his line of enquiry about Jeremy’s bank statements, showing the offending transactions and asking him what he did about them. Jeremy kept replying that he could not remember or recall and even the judge had to ask him why not. He responded that it was such a long time ago he could not remember what he did. Challenger then picked out a transaction not related to Landslide and said that it was quite a substantial amount and wanted to know what it was for. Again Jeremy said it was over ten years ago and so he was unlikely to remember purchases from that time. Challenger paused and flicked through the trial bundles for a moment, trying to find what he wanted. He then apologised to the judge for the time he was taking and said that he was dealing with a ‘rather difficult witness’. I for one was pleased that Jeremy was causing him some consternation.
Then Challenger moved on to Jeremy’s state of mind and the joint report by the psychiatrists, which described his feelings at different stages of the criminal investigation. Challenger then made a critical mistake by asking, ‘Surely there was not a lot of difference in your wellbeing after being arrested as opposed to being charged?’ Jeremy’s response was to let out, with full, pent-up force, the misery of years of persecution and frustration:
‘How dare you say that? There was the worry of attending court, my name in the press, my business was failing, family occasions ruined, the fear of having to sign the sex offenders register…’ He paused because he was choking with emotion and then continued: ‘I love my wife and this has been the most terrible thing that has happened to me. You have no idea how much damage has been done. You should know what it’s like, Mr Challenger. You were arrested for assault not so long ago.’
Challenger was visibly shocked by Jeremy’s outburst and presumably embarrassed. He looked down at the floor waiting for the tirade to be over and he had to have been regretting the phrasing of his question – perhaps even asking it in the first place. Mackay had looked up from his writing when the mention of Challenger’s arrest was brought up and gave him a look of disapproval. Leslie turned round to Andre, shielding his big grin from Mackay. Jeremy had always felt emotional about what had been done to him and the impact on me, but this had not come across at the first trial. However, the way that Challenger put the question this time had obviously become a tipping point.
Jeremy’s last time on the stand was at an end and the court adjourned for lunch. In the corridor Leslie came up to me and said, ‘Wow, your husband! Where did all that come from? We are so proud of him, he was like a tiger out there.’ I laughed and wondered what Challenger must be thinking.
I looked around for Jeremy but I could see him disappearing out of the front entrance of the building. He wanted to be alone for a while and I understood that.
* * *
Just after lunch, Challenger gave Leslie a report from Dr Bhushan with the update of Hopkins’s condition.
I watched him read it with an expression of bemusement. With an arched brow and a look of disbelief, he passed the document to Andre who, after a cursory look, handed it to Jeremy. Reading over his shoulder I could hear Leslie muttering and, although not quite audible, I picked up the word ‘bogus’. This was his favourite word regarding Hopkins’s purported illness.
Dr Bhushan had said that Hopkins’s symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder had started a few months previously, when he found out that there was to be a retrial and that his condition had worsened the nearer the date became. Thinking about returning to court was giving him flashbacks of images from his time in the Child Protection Unit. Hopkins had said that if he didn’t have to attend court then he wouldn’t have to think about the images and that the last trial was very distressing to him.
While I understood entirely how horribly distressing this type of police work was for those involved, it had now been many years since Hopkins had left the Child Protection Unit and it just seemed all too convenient that he had post-traumatic stress symptoms associated with images he had seen. As Leslie had repeatedly told the court, the case was not about any detail of images and Hopkins was not even questioned on the subject. We just wanted to know who knew and did what and when.
Three questions had been put to Dr Bhushan. The first was to ask why, in December 2008, when Hopkins gave evidence with no apparent adverse effect on his mental health, was he unfit now? Dr Bhushan had replied that Hopkins found the first trial distressing and the memory of it made him anxious, thus worsening his symptoms.
The second question was: why has the impact of the indecent images seen by Mr Hopkins while working in the Child Protection Unit become greater as time has moved on? Dr Bhushan replied that there is evidence that symptoms can develop more than six months after the traumatic event. There can be fluctuations during the course of the illness and relapses in response to stress or memories of the traumatic event.
Thirdly, it was pointed out that Hopkins was working up to Friday 7 January. Dr Bhushan was asked to comment on why Hopkins was able to work but not come to court, to which he had responded that Hopkins continued to work to provide a distraction from the thoughts of distressing images.
What a crock, I thought. Hopkins’s real distress was the thought of having to come to court to face the formidable Leslie again.
It was still not clear who would be attending court – whether it would be Dr Bhushan or, as had been suggested, Hopkins possibly giving evidence via video link, which would make him feel ‘more comfortable’!
Mr Justice Mackay had also read the report and with a look of scepticism asked for Dr Bhushan to be witness summoned.
The rest of the afternoon was spent going over the issues of compensation.
Chapter 56
THE FORENSIC EXPERTS – DAY THREE, FRIDAY 14 JANUARY 2011
This was going to be an interesting day. This case had never needed to involve forensics but Challenger had pushed hard for it and here we were. Mackay had already indicated the day before that he did not feel that he would be assisted much by expert witnesses in this area. Leslie had been saying this all along – and so had all the other judges of
many case management hearings. However, I was looking forward to meeting Duncan again.
Fellows would be on the stand first this morning and I looked over to the other side of the court to see if I could identify him. I saw a silver-haired man sitting next to Challenger, having a bit of a joke with him. I presumed this was the man who had written a report in such a fashion as to label my husband a paedophile. He looked very nervous, leaning backwards then forwards repetitively with his eyes darting around the room and it was apparent he was not really listening to Challenger, just nodding and smiling politely in appropriate places. When the court clerk called ‘all rise’, he looked like he would collapse.
Mackay nodded for us all to sit and commented that the joint experts report was one of the longest he had ever read but where it appeared that both experts had more or less agreed it, there was some confusion that
Fellows had gone back on some points. Fellows made his way to the witness box and was sworn in. Challenger asked him if his witness statement remained his opinion and he confirmed that it did.
Leslie posed various questions to Fellows, who gripped the sides of the witness box for dear life while answering. This behaviour had not gone unnoticed by Mackay as he had stopped writing to stare intently at Fellows. Some questions appeared more difficult than others as he tried to find the right response. I got the impression that he was a man who was trying to retain his integrity, but at the same time aware of the fact that he was there to support the police in their defence.
Leslie asked, ‘Mr Fellows, it has been suggested by my learned friend, Mr Challenger, many times during these proceedings that the claimant had undertaken a “night long trawl of the internet”, searching and purchasing child pornography. I have read your report and the joint report but can find no reference to this. What do you say?’
Fit Up Page 31