“The Defence, of course, will throw in a few red herrings in an attempt to shake your resolve. That is to be expected in the absence of anything they have of their own which is even approaching substantial. Perhaps a good example of that is counsel’s attempt to raise doubts based on the consistency of the statements of the four users who came forward to testify – the fact that they were all so similar. Just how desperate must they be to resort to that?” He smiled at the jury. “Usually, on these occasions they are highlighting inconsistencies – irregularities – between testimonies.
“You might ask yourself why the Defence counsel did not exercise their prerogative to question the three people whose similar statements were read out. Was it, perhaps, that they felt their very consistency would undermine the whole argument?
“They have mentioned how much it would cost to acquire the drugs, asking you to accept that it is unlikely that the defendants would have the means to do so. How much less likely is it, though, that someone would spend the same amount of money just to place the drugs somewhere where they could never be sold, where they would have no chance to recoup the cost of purchasing them?”
“They have attempted to discredit the evidence provided by the CCTV and direct police surveillance – trivialising the point that a total of eight known users had approached one of the defendants – some on more than one occasion. You must decide whether you want to simply overlook that – although I doubt if you will.
“The defendants themselves could not identify anyone who might want to do them harm – let alone undertake such an elaborate and costly scam involving so many people. And even if they had been able to point the finger – how could the placing of the evidence in the respective houses have been achieved? The Defence says one portion was planted during the break-in at Mr Midanda’s house. And they are right – as Detective Inspector Waters agreed – that it is just possible. You have to weigh the probability of that being the case alongside the rest of the evidence against them, and ask yourselves how likely it is that someone would break in to eight houses just to plant evidence in one.
“But what of Etherington Place? The Defence points out that there was a party there the day after the break-in at the Midandas’. But we have heard that security was extremely tight on that night, with everyone accounted for – and searched – going in and out of the grounds. And for the rest of the time, well the property is like a fortress – an impregnable castle. Let us recap on what Mr Michaels, the security officer in charge of the property, told us on the first day of this trial.”
He consulted his notes.
“The house is surrounded by a wall, eight feet high and with a two-foot-high electric fence on top of it all the way round the perimeter. The only access to the grounds is through a pair of ten-foot high iron gates, the top sections of which are also electrified. These gates are alarmed and can only be opened using a hand-held remote control or by inputting a five-digit code into a keypad at the side of the entrance. The five-digit code, which is changed every seven days, also deactivates the alarm, which is re-activated as soon as the gates are closed.
“Inside the gates, between the perimeter wall and the house itself, at various points throughout the grounds, there are laser censors, criss-crossing the gardens and wooded areas, plus a total of ten CCTV cameras which together cover the whole of the grounds, including the inside of the boundary walls and the outside of the house. The live images from these cameras are monitored continuously by full-time security officers based at a control centre within one mile of the house.
“As to the house itself, there are locks and alarms on all three exterior doors, the inner door of the front porch and all windows. There are four more cameras inside – in the hall, the main living room, the kitchen, which has an exterior door, and one covering the long corridor on the first floor from which there is single access to all the upstairs rooms. As I said before, more of a fortress – an impregnable castle – than a house.
“To achieve what the Defence will ask you to believe would take something magical – and evil. A wicked wizard, perhaps! They will encourage you to ignore the facts and accept the fantasy; and on what basis? That a number of disparate, albeit well-meaning individuals – most of whom are only able to observe the defendants for a few hours a week in a crowd of people – tell us that actually these are two really good, nice, friendly people.”
He paused, looking from the jury across to the defendants then back to the jury.
“Well, I have seen little or no evidence of those glowing qualities in this court over the course of this trial.”
“Impregnable castles and wicked wizards are the stuff of fairy tales. The question you each need to ask yourself is this … Do I believe in fairies… or do I believe in justice?”
He beamed at the jury then the public gallery, then walked to his chair and sat down, swirling his gown around him with a theatrical flourish as he did so. He leant back in his seat; arms folded and face set in an expression of satisfied triumph.
There was a murmuring in the public gallery accompanied by nodding heads and knowing looks as the judge looked to the Defence counsel, inviting her to respond. Lorna Prentiss rose from her chair and walked very slowly towards the jury, stopping short and turning to address the court as a whole.
“First, let me forewarn you that I shall not be trying to amuse you with fairy tales. In my opinion, which clearly differs from that of my learned colleague, Guildford Crown Court is not a forum for entertainment. It is a place where we should be working together to make sure that one of the most important decisions that we will ever be involved with is the correct one. You,” she turned to the jury, “must decide the fate of these two young gentlemen. These are two successful, well-behaved, popular young men, the vast majority of whose lives lie before them. You have the power to decide what sort of life that will be. There can be no more serious responsibility than that.
“Let me start by saying that what was so casually discarded as an impossibility by the Crown is what really did happen at Jack Tomlinson-Brown’s home in Etherington Place. Someone did breach security; someone did put the drugs there. It must have happened like that, because the drugs were there and the defendant knew nothing about them.
“And similarly with Jason, whose home is as secure as most houses, I’m sure, but certainly not a fortress. He won’t mind my saying that access to it would be easier, far easier, than the Tomlinson-Browns’.
“Why they have been targeted together, I do not pretend to know. They are close friends; very close friends. It is quite conceivable that a grudge against one would manifest itself in action against both, cruelly adding to the hurt and the anguish of each.
“As to how the planting of the evidence could have happened, you know about the party at the Tomlinson-Browns’ house just over a week before the discovery of the drugs, and, less than two days prior to that, the break-in at Jason Midanda’s home. The Crown has contemptuously dismissed these events as irrelevances, but it’s rather a coincidence, you must think, that both properties were, in effect, entered within a couple of days of each other and that the drugs were found so shortly afterwards following a tip-off just four days after the party. You have also been told that the CCTV camera which covered the upstairs corridor in Jack’s home was deliberately tampered with before or during the party. Another coincidence? I think not.
“The person or persons who perpetrated this callous conspiracy were clever enough to collate a surprising amount of evidence in an attempt to achieve their intended outcome. But one thing he – or she – or they – were not able to create is the rationale and background for such a crime. They cannot change retrospectively these young men’s characters, their personalities, their clean and exemplary lives. They cannot – could never – place this crime into the context of their existence up to that date. It simply does not fit; it simply does not make any sense at all.
“The world of illegal drug dealing is a hard and brutal one, where life
expectancy for the majority of those involved – statistics will confirm – is short, where the risk of violent death is high and where hardened criminals vie for supremacy in dark corners of our society. Take a long, close look at the defendants, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, and decide if they belong to that world. And then come to the only verdict that does make any sense at all…
“Not guilty!”
Tom and Mags sensed a positive impact in the room, the knowing nods of a short time ago replaced by questioning shrugs to each other by the people around them, their body language reflecting at least a partial acceptance of the argument they had just heard.
“Thank you, Ms Prentiss,” said Miles Pendle.
He looked at his watch. “We will take a break now and resume at twelve o’clock precisely.”
“The Court will rise!”
*
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.” Miles Pendle looked even larger and more imposing as his booming voice launched the penultimate act of the drama. “You have a particularly difficult task today. I know all of you have been in this situation before, but today, as I said at the start of these proceedings, there is an added dimension to this case – your knowledge of the background of one of the defendants. Knowing Tom Brown as we do, it is inevitable that we should feel considerable sympathy for him, and for the rest of his family. However – and this is the challenge you must meet today – I ask you to put that aside. Only at one stage in your deliberations must you take into consideration the background of either of the defendants, and I will refer to that later.
“You have heard the details of the case, presented by the Crown and the Defence, and the evidence from fifteen different witnesses. You have also heard from the two defendants. There is nothing material I can add to that wealth of information. However, I should like to share with you a few comments and observations following the summing up of the two counsels.
“The Defence, quite properly, has drawn your attention to the fact that, contrary to the picture of impregnability painted by the Prosecution, the household of the Tomlinson-Browns was made deliberately accessible for guests attending a party just ten days before the discovery of the drugs and at a time when both parents were away. She also pointed out that one of the security cameras – the very one which monitored the area where the bedroom in which the drugs were found is situated – had been tampered with sometime during the party. The Defence suggests that these facts are enough to raise doubts as to how the drugs came to be in the room. She also asks you to consider that the break-in at Jason Midanda’s house so close to the time of the party was more than a coincidence, but in fact was part of a concerted operation to place the incriminating evidence in such a way as to implicate both defendants. The Defence is right in asking you to consider this.”
He paused, looking intensely along the line of jurors.
“However, you must place these facts into the context of the overall timescale of the police operation which led to these charges. The seven separate phone calls to the police which activated the investigation in the first place were made within a period of ten days, the last one of these being a full eight weeks prior to the arrests; that is six weeks before both the break-in and the party. During that intervening period – between the last of the calls and the break-in – the two defendants had already been identified by four of the initial callers, all of whom had also provided mobile phone contact numbers which later checked out with the phones found at the two houses. Also during that time CCTV footage and direct police surveillance had revealed approaches made to Mr Tomlinson-Brown by eight known drug users. And finally, as to the party itself, we have heard from Mr Midanda, under cross-examination, that the decision to hold it was made only a few days before the event itself; six days before, to be precise.
“You must ask yourselves the following questions.
“One, how probable is it that such an extensive deception, involving so many people and diverse elements, would be carried out, which was reliant to succeed on an opportunity to place these substances in the houses of the two defendants, bearing in mind that if the party had never taken place all that effort could have been a waste of time?
“Two, when the opportunity did arise, how likely is it that the planting of the evidence could have been planned and executed at such short notice – five days in the case of the Midanda home, and six in the case of the Tomlinson-Brown’s, especially with the latter being subject to such stringent security?
“And three, why would anyone have gone to so much trouble if, as the Defence claims, the lifestyle of these two young gentlemen appears, on the surface at least, to be so ordinary and innocuous?
“It is for you to answer these, and other questions, to your collective satisfaction, remembering that if you are in any doubt as to the answers, then you must not find the defendants guilty. On the other hand, of course, you may find these questions very easy to answer when you consider them carefully.
“I am sure that you are aware,” he continued, “that under new provisions, introduced within the last two months, the selling of certain drugs carries with it a mandatory sentence of the severest kind. Those found guilty of this crime, may be condemned to the status of Life Exiles. That is the law – the new law.”
He glanced around the courtroom again, this time his eyes remaining on Tom for the most fleeting of moments.
“However, let me stress that this is no concern of yours. I cannot put it more bluntly than that. The resultant sentence, dependant on your verdict, is not your responsibility; it is mine. Your job is to decide on the verdict – or verdicts – based on the evidence you have heard. That decision will enable me then to do my job. Under the terms of the new regime, you must state, for each of the defendants, one of the following verdicts;
“Not guilty, if you feel that the evidence presented clearly indicates that the defendant is innocent of the crime with which he is charged.
“Not proven, if you feel that the evidence presented is insufficient to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was responsible for the crime. Until recently this option has only applied in Scotland, but has been adopted across the UK as part of the new justice reforms. This verdict would apply even if you accepted that there was a strong possibility that he could have committed the offence.
“Guilty with mitigation, if you agree that the evidence clearly proves that he is guilty of the charges brought against him, but – and this is where it is appropriate for you to consider the defendant’s personal and family circumstances – there are understandable reasons which may touch the sympathy of this court, as to why this crime was committed.
“And finally, guilty without mitigation, where you conclude that, not only is the defendant guilty of the crime, but there are no such mitigating circumstances which might excuse his actions.
“Please be clear that you are not required to bring the same verdict for both defendants. You may feel it necessary to differentiate between the two, in spite of their close personal relationship, their common associates and their seemingly parallel lives. It is for you to decide. I do not require a unanimous decision, but I will only accept a verdict agreed by a minimum of ten members of the jury.
“I will now ask you to leave the courtroom to consider your verdict or verdicts. Under the recent Jurors’ Charter, let me remind you that you are entitled to reconvene this court in order to ask for clarification of any information received during the presentation of the case or to request any additional data you may feel essential in reaching your decision. Please inform the Clerk of the Court if you wish this to happen. Otherwise, we await your decision forthwith.
“The time is now,” the judge glanced at his watch, “12.25. The court will adjourn until at least 1.30 pm, at which time you may all return to your places in readiness for the verdicts which will follow as soon as the jury have completed their deliberations. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, please rise and leave the courtroom. Thank you.”
The jury rose and filed out through a side door into their anteroom.
“The court is adjourned.”
“All rise!”
*
Tom watched as Mags left the room, supported by Megan, and followed by her mother and father – Jack’s grandparents – who had been present in court since the previous day. Katey followed them, her arms tightly clasped around Leila Midanda who was crying loudly, her whole body shaking with the agony of unbearable anticipation.
Tom did not move for the whole of the interminably long hour of the recess. His mind seemed incapable of holding on to any rational thought for more than a few seconds as they oscillated, out-of-control, between the extremes of a complete surrender to despair and constructive planning for his change of policy. The overall effect was a waking nightmare of confusion, the sort he experienced in restless sleep during an illness, where problems and challenges whirl with ethereal complexity; ill-defined and unresolved.
He felt a hand on his shoulder. He had completely forgotten the presence of his own parents, who had been seated behind him with his in-laws. He reached up and put his own hand on top of his father’s.
No words were spoken.
There was nothing to say.
*
At 1.35 pm the jury filed solemnly in, their heads lowered to avoid making eye contact with anyone in the courtroom. They remained standing until all had reached their places and then sat down together.
“Have you concluded your deliberations?” asked the judge.
The foreman of the jury got to his feet again and replied. “Yes, m’lord.”
“And have you reached a verdict for each of the defendants?”
“Yes, we have, m’lord.”
“Are the verdicts unanimous?”
“Yes, m’lord.”
“How do you find the defendant, Hugh Jacob Tomlinson-Brown?”
“Guilty, without mitigation.”
Mags slumped sideways across Tom’s knees. He held on to her tightly, as much to steady himself as to give her comfort. There was a rustle of activity in the press gallery and Tom looked across. People were frantically tapping their electronic notepads and scribbling with pencils, with one exception; Tony Dobson’s eyes were riveted on him, wide, staring and filled with sadness, like tiny mirrors reflecting Tom’s own desolation straight back at him.
Heaven's Door Page 24