The Great Train Robbery

by Andrew Cook

  With George Stanley able to operate behind the shield and legal privilege of Lessor & Co., it seems that the IB focused most of their tailing efforts on Albert Millbank in the hope of furthering the investigation and indeed recovering more of the stolen money:

  Observation Maintained by Officers of the PD/IB

  At 1.45 pm on 27 August, 1963, Mr Gray observed a man later identified as Albert Millbank to leave the address, 69 Belsize Park Gardens, Hampstead, NW3. Mr Millbank drove away in a Ford Zephyr Saloon AMH 536 which is registered in his own name. Mr Millbank was seen to frequent the Belsize Park Gardens address on a number of occasions between 27 August and 1 September, 1963, in the company of a blonde woman who appeared to have a close connection with a perfumery shop at 14 Sicilian Avenue, London, WC2.14 The motor vehicle 996 ELW was frequently to be seen at the Belsize Park Gardens address. The registered owner of this vehicle is Stanley Alfred Gooch, 19 Parliament Hill Mansions, London, NW5. Observation maintained on this address however, proved negative.15

  The ‘blonde’ referred to in the observation reports was one Catherine Mary de Guilio. She was also mentioned by informant Bernard Makowski (who refers to her as the ‘Julian woman’) in the account he related on 10 August 1963 to Inspector Peattie.16 According to IB controller Clifford Osmond she apparently lived in Brighton and had a club in Soho’s Gerrard Street.17 The IB, with police assistance, therefore turned their attention to the Brighton area, the results of which are outlined in a report written by Inspector Forsyth to Clifford Osmond:

  On the 28 August, 1963, I commenced observations on the residential premises situated at numbers 5 and 27 Goreham Way, Telscombe Cliffs, near Newhaven, Sussex. Those observations were continued until the 6 September 1963, but were broken for intermittent periods as a result of relative enquiries being made in the surrounding district the result of some of these being subsequently reported herein.

  Number 5 Goreham Way is a detached bungalow at present occupied by a Mrs Mary Catherine De Guilio widow of Anthony Paul De Guilio CRO No 14406/61, who died on the 25 September, 1962. They previously resided at No 3 Goreham Way, a semi detached bungalow next door to No 5 and Mrs De Guilio is at present endeavouring to sell No 3 at approximately £5,000. Apparently, as a result of discreet enquiries, she would also appear to be the owner of No 7 Goreham Court, a self contained flat in a block of flats opposite Nos 3 and 5 Goreham Way. No 7 Goreham Court is at present occupied by a Heather and Leslie Gale (not known to local Police).

  27 Goreham Way is a detached chalet bungalow and is occupied by Dominic and Josephine De Guilio. The former is the registered owner of a blue Vauxhall motor car index No 443 AUF. It was hoped that these observations might well reveal a link between the occupants of these premises and Albert Millbank, CRO 2019/39. However, those hopes have not been fulfilled to date as at no time during the observation has Albert Millbank been seen visiting any premises in Goreham Way.

  Before leaving London, Mr Yates, Assistant Controller, discovered that Albert Millbank was the registered owner of a blue Zephyr motor car index AMH 536A, which I ascertained was bought new by Millbank on the 22 March, 1963. However, when registering this vehicle Millbank used his usual ‘covering up’ address, namely, 127 Arlington Road, London, NW1, which is his mother’s. It is well known that any Police enquiries thereat concerning Millbank meet with negative results.

  During my observations and enquiries I have had the utmost co-operation from the local Police and in particular Superintendent Taylor of the East Sussex Constabulary. At my request he circulated the description of Millbank’s motor car in an endeavour to ‘house’ or discover what places Millbank visited.18

  With no sign of Millbank in the Brighton area, the search returned to London the following day:

  OBSERVATION REPORT

  Date 29 August 1963

  Officer(s) Reporting Fowler and Rees

  Address on which observation kept - 69 Belsize Park Gardens, NW3

  Time commenced 10.45 am

  Blue Zephyr Reg Number AMH 536A arrived at above address at 1.30 pm driver of car (Millbank) entered house. At 2.50 pm, Blue Fiat 600, Reg Number 996 ELW arrived. Driver a man about 6’ six tall, fair hair and a full beard alighted from this car, carrying a briefcase, and entered the house (Reg owner of 996 ELW is Stanley Alfred Gooch, 19 Parliament Hill Mansions, Lissenden Gardens, London, NW5). At 2.10 pm Millbank and a woman, aged about 40 years, height about 5’6”/7”, silvery blonde hair and carrying a white poodle, left the house. We followed and temporarily lost them in traffic. Zephyr was again picked up at Bloomsbury Square. Woman left the car carrying white poodle and went into 14 Sicilian Avenue, off Southampton Row. 14 Sicilian Avenue is a shop, Perfumery and Cosmetics. Apparently the woman works in or owns this shop. The Zephyr was then lost. At 6.30 pm Millbank arrived at Sicilian Avenue. At 6.50 pm Millbank and the woman left in the Zephyr and went to 69 Belsize Park Gardens, NW1. Observation was maintained on this address but they were not seen again.

  Time observation ceased 10 pm.19

  Having lost Millbank’s Zephyr in traffic, and not having located him elsewhere, Fowler and Rees returned to Belsize Park Gardens the following day, patiently waiting for him to reappear:

  OBSERVATION REPORT

  Date 30 August 1963

  Officer(s) Reporting Fowler and Rees

  Address on which observation kept - 69 Belsize Park Gardens

  Time commenced 10.45 am

  Driver of car 996 ELW arrived at 4.45 pm left car and entered house. At 4.56 pm Blue Zephyr with Millbank and silvery blonde woman carrying white poodle, left car and entered house. Millbank was carrying a few parcels. At 5.40 pm Millbank left in blue Zephyr on his own. We followed but lost him at Regents Park. We then went to 14 Sicilian Avenue but could not find him. We then went back to Belsize Park Gardens. 996 ELW had left. Millbank was not seen to return.20

  Having lost Millbank in traffic for a second time in two days, the IB was no doubt relieved to receive a brief report from the East Sussex Constabulary two days later:

  As a result of Millbank’s photograph being circulated by East Sussex Police, a sighting was made on 1 September: 9.45 am – believed car (AMH 356A) seen travelling from Newhaven to Seaford. Driver only occupant.21

  Millbank’s driving skills were in evidence the next day when he made a quick exit from the house, catching Fowler and Gray off-guard:

  OBSERVATION REPORT

  Date 2 September 1963

  Officer(s) Reporting LV Fowler and BA Gray

  Address on which observation kept: 69 Belsize Park Gardens, NW3

  Time commenced 11.30 am

  At 1.25 pm Ford Cortina 154 FLN arrives. Male and female enters above address i.e. Garden Flat. At 2.08 pm blonde woman carrying white poodle dog leaves address and enters taxi No PUV 148; we follow. She pays off taxi at Selfridges, Oxford Street; then we lost sight of her in Oxford Street. Later return to the above address. Blue Zephyr No AMH 536A parked outside. At 4.45 pm Millbank enters car and drove off at speed, unable to follow. 5.10 pm blonde woman seen at door. At 6.30 pm Austin Cambridge 940 FYX parks outside. Man enters house: Age 30-35 yrs. Height 5’.8”–9”. Dark hair, ruddy complexion, dark suit. At 7.05 pm taxi 138 EEU arrives at address. Woman enters house. Description: - Age 25–30 years, height 5’3”, dark hair, carrying suit case. Car not seen any more.

  Time observation ceased 9 pm.22

  Back in East Sussex, Millbank was again spotted by the local police:

  On 3 September – at noon AMH 356A seen travelling south in Cooden Sea Road, Bexhill. Driver only occupant, boxes in back of car. When driver saw police constable he turned round and travelled off in opposite direction. Unfortunately, in both of these cases the PCs were unable to follow the car and the wireless cars upon receiving the relative messages were unable to make contact with AMH 356A. Photographs of Millbank have been circulated to the local CID officers and any developments as a result of these steps will be passed to this branch immediately.23

  On
the same day that Millbank had once again eluded his tailers on the streets of Bexhill, a new witness, Reginald Billington, came forward. He had spent the best part of three weeks mulling over whether or not he should do so. Being a post office employee he eventually spoke to his supervisor, who called in the IB. Clifford Osmond decided to interview Billington personally:

  Memorandum

  On the 3 September 1963, Mr R N Billington, Inspector of Wireless Telegraphy, Wireless Telegraphy Section, RSD came to see me in order to appraise me of some happenings which occurred on the 8 August 1963, at a house next door to him – ie, 99 Pollards Hill South, Norbury, London, SW, occupied by a Mrs Willard who is supposed to be a physiotherapist.24 Mr Billington said that at 9.10 pm on the 8 August an open Mini-bus drew up outside 99, Pollards Hill South, Norbury. He was unable to see the registration number but he thought that it was a blue Volkswagen. He saw that it contained about 30 pillow cases (stripped ticking) and each of them was filled with something or other and each had its neck tied with string or rope. He said that two men were in the Mini-bus and that his wife saw the men take the pillow cases, together with some sacks or bags, into the house. He wondered whether this had any significance in view of the fact that he knows Mrs Willard to be a prostitute and that some 18 months ago he was instrumental in assisting the police to arrest a criminal who had frequented that house and who eventually was prosecuted to conviction for violence. Mr Billington explained that this background story was necessary in order to show that his next door neighbour is no ordinary neighbour. At about the same time a Mini-van, green in colour, stopped on the other side of the road with two men in it. He could not say whether or not those two men had any connexion with 99 Pollards Hill South. There is apparently a son of Mrs Willard about 16 years of age and there are two friends who call frequently at the house – a blonde woman and a balding man, middle aged.25 Mr Billington says that he thought there might be something extraordinary going on because he had seen a black Anglia car some distance from the house with a man in it who seemed to be keeping observation on his next door neighbour’s house. He emphasised that this information was given for what it is worth and that in no circumstances should his name or his wife’s be made known to the police without his consent. I promised that his wishes should be met and that we would look into the possibility that the pillow cases might have contained some of the proceeds of the mail train robbery, although I did point out to Mr Billington that the information so far received suggests that the money was taken in bulk to Leatherslade Farm and kept there until Friday the 9 August.

  C Osmond26

  The police were particularly intrigued with this report, having recently interviewed a number of Brian Field’s neighbours. Kenneth Barnes, who lived close to Brian Field in Whitchurch Hill, mentioned in his statement that he saw a dark blue dormobile at Field’s house at 7 p.m. on 9 August 1963. The police report concludes that: ‘the point of interest is that Field was insistent that the van should be put in the garage whilst the Jaguar car was left outside in the open. Mr Barnes saw inside the back of the van. It was empty.’27

  Another Whitchurch Hill resident, Peter Rance, also mentions seeing ‘a Dormobile type of vehicle driven into Brian Field’s garage before 11 August 1963’.28 Field’s next door neighbour, Miss Patricia Higley, also saw the Dormobile van being driven into the Field’s driveway at ‘8.30 pm on 9 August’.29 While noting that Higley and Barnes gave different times for the arrival of the Dormobile, the police concluded that the accounts given by all three witnesses were essentially consistent. Miss Higley was clear that the driver of the Dormobile was not Brian Field, and described him as being ‘aged 30 years and dark haired’. She also saw the Dormobile depart from Field’s house on 11 August at 10.30 a.m. Again it was driven by the man she saw driving it on 9 August; this time, however, he was accompanied by a young blonde woman.30

  Although, as Clifford Osmond states, information received thus far was that the money remained at the farm until 9 August, the police did not rule out that some of it might have been moved beforehand, and belatedly conducted a search of 99 Pollards Hill South. However, unsurprisingly, given the three-week impasse, nothing was found at the address.

  This development and Millbank’s association with previous mail offences further reinforced the postmaster general’s suspicion that the train robbery was indeed an ‘inside job’. Conscious of the grilling he would no doubt receive when the House of Commons resumed after the summer recess, and in particular MP’s questions on the possibility of an inside job, Bevins and his post office officials set about trying to tie up loose ends.

  On 30 September, after several weeks of memos circulating around the Post Office, British Railways were, for the first time, formally pressed to respond to the sabotage issue:

  Dear Mr Ibbotson

  As you know, a good deal of play was in the press about the fact that on the night of the attack on the Up Special TPO all three of the specially fitted HVP coaches were out of service.

  We have not previously asked the Board in correspondence to give reasons for this, but as the Postmaster General will possibly be questioned on these matters when the House resumes, I should be grateful if you would be good enough to let me have an explanation for all the coaches being out for the delay in having them repaired. It would be most helpful to us if you could let me have this soon.

  Yours sincerely

  D Wesil31

  British Railways were quick to respond, and did so the following day:

  Dear Mr Wesil

  It is the case that the three vehicles in question were out of traffic as a result of defects for varying periods prior to the incident on the morning of 8 August, viz:-

  39. Stopped at Carlisle on 4 July due to hot axle box. Repaired and sent south but again stopped at Wigan for the same cause. Repaired and returned to Willesden. In service 9 August.

  81. Stopped at Euston on 1 August with flat tyres. After examination was ordered to Swindon Works on 9 August and despatched on the 10 August.

  1177. Stopped at Wigan on 23 June with hot axle box. Necessary materials ordered but later vehicle found to have bogie defects and required at Swindon. Some delay in arranging this, and vehicle stopped three times en route due to hot axle box.

  As was pointed out in discussion at Willesden when the Postmaster General was present, the vehicles which had been taken out due to defects were replaced by others as agreed with Post Office representatives and our staff had no knowledge that they were specially fitted from a security point of view. The total number of vehicles available was never less than that required to cater for requirements, and there was no indication that any special urgency attached to the reinstatement of these particular coaches. The first intimation of this was a letter received on 6 August, but even this made no mention of security.

  Yours Sincerely

  Ibbotson32

  British Railways were clearly on the back foot as they and the Post Office sought to shift the blame for this unfortunate chain of events. It is clear from IB records that while they were never able to establish anything more than a highly circumstantial case for sabotage, the belief remained that this was indeed the reason why on the night of the hold-up, an inferior HVP coach, lacking the updated security features, was used on the train. The police, too, seem to have taken a similar line. Commander Hatherill expressed this view in his contemporary reports and later stated publicly that:

  Shortly before the robbery was due to take place, a preliminary operation was performed. Although it was later suspected that there might have been tampering with three vans specially built for carrying HVP, we could find no proof at the time.33

  After the re-arrest of Charlie Wilson in 1968, his wife Patricia was questioned by police, and later published her story in a newspaper serialisation. According to Hatherill, Mrs Wilson had ‘confirmed that our suspicions were correct’ with regards to sabotage; ‘the vans were put out of action so as to ensure that an older and less secure type of van
without corridor access to the following coach would be in use for the Glasgow-Euston run on the night on 7-8 August’.34

  While the IB and the police had a growing stack of files containing unproven or uncorroborated suspicions, phone-tap transcripts and informants reports, they now had a dossier of forensic evidence that would enable them to arrest more of the names on Hatherill’s list of suspects during the months of September and October.

  Notes

  1. POST 120/146 (opened in 2011; some material still closed until 2017).

  2. Ibid.

  3. Ibid.

  4. Ibid.

  5. POST 120/146 (opened in 2011; some material still closed until 2017) – Millbank’s mother, Louisa Millbank, resided at 127 Arlington Road, London N1.

  6. POST 120/146 (opened 2011; some material still closed until 2017).

  7. Millbank and McGuinness were subsequently found not guilty in relation to the two charges; Millbank was released and McGuinness sent to Glasgow under the terms of the arrest warrant (CRO File 2019/39). See also The Times, 17 September 1955, p. 4 and The Times, 21 September 1955, p. 4.

  8. See Reynolds’s accounts of 22 August 1963 and in his book Crossing the Line, p. 204 ff.

  9. POST 120/146 (opened in 2011; some material still closed until 2017).

  10. Ibid.

  11. POST 120/95 (closed until 2001; opened 2002).

  12. DPP 2/3717, Report 5 (originally closed until 2045; redacted version opened 25/6/10). See Chapter 4, note 11.