The Great Train Robbery

by Andrew Cook

  Lewis Hawser QC, Brian Field’s counsel, sought to argue that there was not sufficient evidence on which the jury could safely convict on the charge of receiving because the Crown had not established sufficiently that Field was in possession of £100,900, or indeed any of the money found in the bags in the Dorking Woods. The fact that two of Field’s bags were found in Dorking Woods eight days after the robbery was itself, in Hawser’s view, insufficient evidence of Field having been in possession of the bags at the time the money was in them - and when they were dumped there by somebody.

  On 14 February 1964 Justice Edmund Davies was to give his judgements on all the submissions. The submissions were made on sound legal grounds and, on past precedent, no one in court that day expected anything other than an across the board rejection by the judge. As Edmund Davies dismissed each submission in turn, there was audible shock throughout the court when he arrived at the one made in respect to John Daly:

  I propose to uphold the submission in relation to Mr Daly in respect to both counts, and when the jury returns they will be directed to acquit him.21

  No one in court appeared more startled or shocked than Daly himself, who immediately left the dock with a one man police escort. Outside the court he told waiting journalists:

  I was innocent from the start … now that I have been acquitted I hope they will take down all those ‘Wanted’ posters with my photograph on them. I don’t want to get arrested again.22

  Why was John Daly’s the only submission accepted? In many ways, his circumstances were little different from those of Welch, Hussey, James and Biggs. Indeed, Hussey’s palm print on the tailboard of the truck was arguably a more persuasive submission. Was it the eloquence of Walter Raeburn that convinced the judge or was Daly just plain lucky?

  Notes

  1. County Quarter Sessions were presided over by two or more Justices of the Peace, one of whom would act as chairman, and sat with a jury. Quarter Sessions in county boroughs were usually presided over by one Recorder Judge.

  2. Courts of Assize were presided over by judges of the King’s/Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, who travelled across the seven judicial circuits of England and Wales, summoning juries at the Assize towns within each circuit.

  3. ASSI 13/643 (opened in 1996).

  4. Commons at a 1957 by-election in the Warwick and Leamington constituency, caused by the resignation of Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden after the Suez debacle. The Constituency Association were seeking another rising star to succeed Eden, and Hobson quickly gained promotion to ministerial rank in Harold Macmillan’s government. Sir John was re-elected at three General Elections and tipped for greater things when the Conservatives lost office in October 1964, but was to die an early death at the age of 55 in 1967.

  5. Letter dated 23 April 1964, from Sir John Hobson, Attorney General, Royal Courts of Justice, to The Hon. Mr Justice Edmund Davies (National Library of Wales; Lord Edmund-Davies Papers, files 10/1−10/13, opened following his death in 1992). It is apparent from the letter that Edmund Davies had written to Hobson immediately after the trial ended commending the work of the prosecution team, who seem to have been personally chosen by Hobson.

  6. Ibid; A noteworthy example are two letters from King’s College Faculty of Law, dated 2 May 1964 and 4 July 1964.

  7. While the police and the DPP held what they regarded as incontestable evidence against Reynolds (DPP 2/3717, Report 16; originally closed until 2045, redacted version opened 25/6/10) they were understandably unwilling to produce it before Reynolds had been arrested, charged and put before a court. The main consequence of not compromising such evidence was to withdraw the charges against Manson, who the DPP clearly believed was guilty of the charges against her.

  8. HO 287/1496.

  9. Brian Field had asked, when arrested on 15 September 1963, ‘Will this case go to the Old Bailey or Bucks Assize Court?’ (DPP 2/3718 6 of 6, originally closed until 2045, redacted version opened 25/6/10). He knew full well that a country jury would be more likely to convict and that conversely, a London jury would be easier to influence.

  10. HO 287/1496.

  11. ASSI 13/643 (opened 1996).

  12. HO 287/1496.

  13. Ibid.

  14. Ibid.

  15. Ibid.

  16. Ibid.

  17. ASSI 13/643 (opened 1996).

  18. J 82/420−441 (opened 1994).

  19. HO 287/1496 reveals that the banks were extremely remiss in that of all the banknotes totalling £2,631,684, only £1,579 of the notes had their serial numbers recorded by the respective bank branches before transit to the TPO pick-up point.

  20. HO 287/1496.

  21. J 82/420−441 (opened 1994).

  22. Daily Mirror, 15 February 1964, p. 1.

  12

  CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

  John Daly’s acquittal was apparently ‘a great blow to the Police and to everyone connected with the prosecution – especially to those who were aware of the true position’.1

  The report, written by IB assistant controller R.F. Yates, goes on to say that:

  It was felt that Daly’s case should have been allowed to go forward to the jury for consideration of a verdict. It is of interest to note that after his acquittal, a celebration party was arranged for Daly by Mrs Mary Manson and that criminal associates of both Daly and Manson were present.

  Immediately on news of Daly’s acquittal, Bill Goodwin and Michael Black went to Endelstowe, the house in Cornwall:

  They dug up the cash containers, took them into the house and split the cash content two ways. Half was put into a suitcase and carried off by Black. The remaining cash was counted and amounted to just on £50,000. This was placed into a large briefcase and hidden in the aperture of an old boiler in the kitchen, and the hole cemented in and painted to cover traces of new work.2

  Following the party, Daly and his friend Billy Still drove down to Cornwall at top speed to retrieve the £100,000 that had been buried in the back garden of Bill Goodwin’s house near Boscastle. One can imagine how the elation of Daly’s acquittal immediately turned to shock and disbelief when on arrival he was told by Goodwin’s niece, Kathleen Sleep, that shortly after his arrest in December, Michael Black had double-crossed him, dug up the money and disappeared. Black apparently went abroad but returned due to ill health and died in London of a heart attack.

  According to police reports: ‘Daly apparently accepted Miss Sleep’s story that Michael Black had collected all of it [the money] following his arrest. The local police knew that Daly and Still were in the area because their car was stopped for a traffic infringement but they were allowed to proceed.’ The IB was told by Scotland Yard that: ‘Chief Superintendent Butler is of the opinion that Daly is not aware of Black’s death and is still looking for him.’3

  Back in Aylesbury, the proceedings were now in their twentieth day and the case for the defence was about to begin. The defendants were cautiously optimistic, as were their counsel. Each of them had a well thought out, logical explanation as to why their fingerprints were found at Leatherslade Farm. Had their cases been held separately and in London, some of these defences may well have been viewed as plausible and resulted in not-guilty verdicts. However, put together, they seemed less believable. In the same way that the sum of the prosecution case was greater than its constituent parts, the defence case was the opposite and, in retrospect, suffered for this disadvantage.

  In the witness box Bill Boal told the court that he had been beaten up on arrest and denied a number of statements that police alleged he had made, such as, ‘fair enough, it [the money found in his possession] came from the train job’. He also made clear that he didn’t know Leatherslade Farm and had never been there. Neither had he been ‘... anywhere near the train spot. And if you were to offer me my freedom now, I wouldn’t be able to find my way there.’ He claimed he was a dupe of Cordrey who owed him money and that remaining with Cordrey was the best way of ensuring that he got his money b
ack. His story, while uniquely true, lacked corroboration. There appears to have been some consideration given by his counsel to calling Cordrey as a witness to back up Boal’s account. However, it was considered in retrospect that this might do more harm than good; they clearly feared that Arthur James QC would respond by asking Cordrey, who then was guilty, why Boal was not. Cordrey could only respond to this by refusing to answer, which would inevitably lose him the credit he had built up by pleading guilty. Boal was therefore caught between a rock and a hard place.

  Welch, Hussey and Wisbey had banded together to concoct a joint defence. According to Hussey’s statement on 10 August, a friend known as ‘Dark Ronnie’ wanted help in delivering some groceries. When ‘Dark Ronnie’ arrived at Hussey’s flat, Wisbey and Welch arrived about the same time to see if Hussey wanted to go for a drink:

  Hussey said a friend of his, a Mr Dark, had to take a lorry to somewhere in Oxford and whilst they were discussing as to how he would get back, Hussey, innocently put his hand on the tailboard. At that time, which was lunch time on Saturday 10 August 1963, Welch, who was in his own car and accompanied by Wisbey arrived on the scene. Hussey asked Welch if he would follow Dark in the lorry to where he had to deliver it, and then bring him back. Welch agreed and Wisbey went along for the ride. Hussey himself remained at home in London.

  Welch accompanied by Wisbey, then followed Dark into Oxfordshire where they met a Land Rover and the three vehicles continued on to a house in the country which both Welch and Wisbey later identified as Leatherslade Farm. Upon arrival they unloaded the lorry which contained vegetables etc., and the driver of the Land Rover took them into the house where Wisbey washed his hands and innocently left his palm impression on the bath rail. Welch was offered a drink from ‘Pipkin’ can of beer but he refused. He did, however, take hold of the can out of curiosity and examined it and thus his palm impressions, quite innocently, remained upon it. Dark attended Court the following day and gave evidence for Welch, Wisbey and Hussey.4

  While Dark fully corroborated this story in the witness box, he did not perform well under cross-examination and was not the type of witness to impress a jury.

  On 19 February 1964, the defence of Roy James commenced. One of the witnesses called was Derek Brown, who swore under oath that at 10.30 p.m. on 7 August he had picked up James from his flat at Nell Gwyn House in Chelsea and taken him to the Bagatelle Club. He also claimed to have picked up James from the club at 2.30 a.m. and taken him back to his flat where the two stayed up talking and drinking tea until 4 a.m. He went on to say that he visited James on seven occasions at Aylesbury Prison but that he had not discussed the case with him because of the presence of two warders at each visit. Like Ronnie Dark, Brown did not go down well in the witness box when cross-examined by Niall MacDermot QC for the prosecution. Brown admitted that he was a cab driver employed by the same company as a man who was an associate of James. He also admitted that he paid not seven visits to James in prison but seventeen. James, however, offered no explanation for how his fingerprints came to be on a cat dish, a first aid kit and a tin of salt.5

  While it was not disclosed at the time, the DPP had a witness statement from one Arthur Eeles, who had previously made a statement about seeing the lorry used in the robbery on 8 August. According to Eeles, at around 2 p.m. he was driving between Ashendon and Brill when he saw a Vauxhall motor car and a green six-wheel lorry facing each other in the middle of the road. He saw two men and a woman standing by the vehicle. One of the men got into the lorry and the woman got into the car. The second man walked across the field towards Dorton. On 11 September, after photographs of the wanted men had been published in the press, he approached the police and gave the following statement:

  I would like to say that I have seen several photographs in the daily newspapers of Roy John James. There is definitely no doubt in my mind that he was one of the two men I saw with the lorry in Westcott Brill Road, on 8 August 1963; in fact he was the man [who] walked away across the fields. I am prepared to give evidence if necessary.6

  The DPP, being satisfied that James’s fingerprints constituted a sufficiently strong case on their own to establish his guilt, decided not to use Eeles’s statement as evidence.

  On 20 February Mr Sebag Shaw QC presented the defence case for Gordon Goody. His contention that Goody was in Ireland smuggling watches was very much a compromise defence following the downfall of Goody’s Irish alibi. It also involved admitting to dishonesty, which in turn allowed the prosecution to imply that Goody had been fortunate to avoid prosecution for the London Airport robbery the previous year. The following day Goody, who was immaculately dressed and wearing a Royal Artillery tie, was recalled to the witness box. He was cross-examined about the shoes that had been taken by police from The Windmill public house and the evidence given by landlord Charles Alexander. Justice Edmund Davies interjected during the cross-examination:

  One of the ugliest issues in this case is the assertion by Mr Alexander that on 23 August 1963, when Dr Holden came, there were no marks on the shoes. Therefore, the suggestion is implicit that after the shoes were collected somebody had applied khaki paint and somebody had applied yellow paint to those shoes after they got into the hands of the police. There is no bucking that issue. The defence are not as I gather withdrawing any suggestion which the jury might like to draw from that evidence of Mr Alexander.7

  Mr Sebag Shaw QC, defending Goody, agreed that the judge had represented the position accurately. After the prosecution’s cross-examination, he re-examined Goody at some length, and one of the questions he asked was if he had any idea of how the paint came to be on the shoes. Goody replied that he had no idea. Sebag Shaw then called Raymond Brown, of Lessor & Co., Goody’s solicitor, to the witness box. Brown confirmed that on Goody’s arrest DCS Butler had refused to allow Goody to try on the suede shoes and that he had not disclosed that there was any paint on them. Sebag Shaw then gave notice that expert evidence regarding the paint would be presented to the court on a later date.

  On 6 March 1964, the expert evidence on behalf of Goody was presented to the court. Cecil Robbins BSc FRIC, a director of Hehner & Cox Ltd, took the stand to confirm that his company was an established firm of analytical chemists. He summarised his evidence by saying that the paint on the Land Rover and the paint on the shoes were two different paints. The defence then called Douglas Nicholas of the Fulmer Research Institute. He also took the view that there were differences in the compositions of the paint on the shoes and that taken from the Land Rover.

  Arthur James QC for the prosecution then asked for permission to call Dr Holden to give evidence of rebuttal. Holden reiterated his previous conclusions made in his statement of 24 October 1963, in which he asserted that the khaki paints came from the same source and that the yellow paints could also have come from the same source. These expert testimonies can be seen in Appendix 4.

  On 24 February the defence for Brian Field commenced:

  Field’s QC, Lewis Hawser, agreed that two of the four bags found at Dorking Woods, containing £100,900 of stolen money were his but that he did not put the bags there and had indeed lost them sometime before. He admitted that he had lied to Detective Chief Superintendent Butler when he said it was not Leonard Field who went to the farm with him. Another witness, Brenda Field,8 a secretary at TW James and Wheater, gave evidence to show that he had left the two bags in the office at 3 New Quebec Street, W1 and that he discovered them to be missing from that office before the robbery. The remainder of the evidence was an attempt to prove an alibi.9

  On 28 February the defence for Leonard Field began, led by Michael Argyle QC. Unlike previous defences, Argyle chose not to make an opening address but immediately called Field into the witness box, where he remained for most of the day:

  He immediately told the Court that in certain matters he had lied and that in fact he learnt from Brian Field on 9 August 1963 that Leatherslade Farm had been used by the robbers. He said that on that date Brian Fi
eld told him that the farm had been bought in his [Leonard Field’s] name, that it had been used by the robbers and that he [Leonard Field] would get a considerable sum of money if he would just stay away from the office. Brian Field added that Wheater and he would take care of everything and see that he [Leonard Field] was not involved. When he heard Wheater and Brian Field deny his identity he was satisfied that they were keeping to their agreement not to disclose he was the person who bought the farm. He continued by saying that he had not bought the farm, knew nothing of the conspiracy or the robbery and that his only error was in refusing to disclose to police the true position, and that he had entered an agreement with Wheater and Field not to disclose the information.10

  According to Leonard Field, Brian Field had told him that he would get £5,000 if he kept his mouth shut about his involvement in the Leatherslade purchase, but as it turned out he was never in fact paid a penny:

  I knew I wasn’t doing this for nothing, and that something would be involved. I asked him [Brian Field] there and then what would happen if anything came about the police. I was assured that I couldn’t be implicated. I was told to stay away from the office and that Mr Wheater would take care of everything.11