‘About six or seven years, yes.’
‘Your relationship developed after the mortgage fraud…’
‘Alleged mortgage fraud. He was acquitted.’
Cronshaw smiled, accepting the correction. ‘I do apologise. The alleged mortgage fraud. The firm you then worked for represented him I believe?’
‘Yes.’
‘Your relationship was obviously a sexual one?’
‘Yes. It developed into a sexual relationship after the case was concluded. My employers would not have tolerated a relationship with a client who was still on trial. That would have been quite unethical.’
‘Doyle had a motorcycle did he not?’
‘When I first knew him, yes. But he sold it quite some time ago.’
‘And you would sometimes ride on that motorcycle as a pillion passenger?’
‘Yes. What of it?’
‘The exhibited leather clothing uplifted from your mother’s home was yours?’
‘Yes.’
‘And you would wear that whenever you rode on his motorcycle?’
‘Yes. That’s what it was for.’
‘Although, as you stated, he sold his motorcycle some years ago, you kept that clothing?’
‘I did, but I haven’t worn it in ages.’
‘No-one else seems to have worn it? There is no-one else’s DNA present on any part of it. And I include the helmet.’
‘So I believe, but that is hardly surprising because no-one else, to my certain knowledge has ever used it and DNA cannot be aged, at least that is my understanding.’
‘You are correct about that.’ He smiled. ‘I suppose that is something you picked up during your time as a paralegal?’
‘Yes.’
‘You have worked as a paralegal for many years, either as an employee of a solicitor’s firm or in a self-employed capacity?’
‘I have.’
‘And although you are not a qualified lawyer, you have instructed counsel in many, many criminal cases.’
‘I’ve sat behind counsel in court, yes, but I wouldn’t say I was instructing them.’
‘But your function was to represent the solicitor who was instructing them?’
She hesitated. She had worked out where the questions were leading
‘I suppose you could say that, but my main function was to make a note and keep a running record, particularly in a legal-aid case. Time is money, you know.’
‘But you would also take statements from clients and witnesses?’
‘Yes.’
‘Sometimes visit defendants in prison for that purpose?’
‘Yes.’
‘And in that way you would learn quite a lot about the system? The criminal justice system?’
‘It depends what you mean by “quite a lot.” I’ve had no particular training other than secretarial.’
‘Come, Miss Hamilton, you are an intelligent woman, are you not?’
‘That’s surely for others to judge.’
‘Three years ago you sat behind counsel at Northampton Crown Court in the case of Stephen Gifford who was charged with aggravated burglary.’
‘I sat behind counsel in so many cases, it’s difficult to remember them all.’
‘This barrister was James Beaton. By chance he’s in this court building today. If it assists I can ask someone to find him and bring him into court to refresh your memory?’
She re-considered her position. ‘That won’t be necessary. I remember him. He’s very good looking.’ She smiled towards the jury.
‘His looks are neither here nor there. The case involved the admissibility of DNA evidence, remember?’
‘Vaguely, yes.’
‘Your client had previously been involved in a trial in which his DNA had been obtained and placed on the national DNA data base.’
‘Had it?’
‘Yes, it had. And it had not been removed following his acquittal, as it should have been?’
She screwed her face up as if she were thinking back in time.
‘So I believe. It’s coming back to be now.’
‘Let me help your recollection. The Recorder of Northampton ruled against the prosecution and did not admit his DNA in evidence. The prosecution then offered no further evidence against him, is that not so?’
‘Yes, I remember now, but it was a long time ago.’
‘Exactly the same point that was in issue in the trial of Michael Doyle and Charles Benson?’
‘Similar, yes.’
‘No, Miss Hamilton, not similar, the same. Exactly the same point.’
She did not answer.
‘And yet this morning, you stated from that very witness box that this was a legal point of which you had little understanding, not being a qualified lawyer.’
‘What I said or meant to say was that I did not understand it in detail because I was not a qualified lawyer. We were just happy to be acquitted.’
‘But you did understand it, didn’t you? You discussed it in great detail with James Beaton and he with you. You assisted him with his research on the subject?’
‘If I recall, I typed some notes up for him.’
‘Miss Hamilton, you went with him to the University Library in Leicester the day before the trial started and assisted him directly with his research?’
‘I don’t remember doing that. I do remember he took me out for lunch and tried to explain the point to me. But I was more interested in him. As I said, he’s very good looking.’
She smiled then looked down
‘A point you fully understood, I suggest?’
She glared at Cronshaw. ‘No, I did not. I left it up to him. That’s what he was paid for. He was an experienced barrister.’
Cronshaw paused and glanced at the jury.
‘You were also familiar with the judgement of Mr Justice Willoughby, as he then was, in the Carlisle case, as it’s become known?’
‘I’ve heard of it, yes. But only as a result of my previous employer mentioning it to me.’
‘In both cases, the one in Carlisle and the one in Northampton, the judge ruled the DNA evidence inadmissible?’
‘If you say so.’
‘For exactly the same reason that those representing Michael Doyle were submitting Judge Campion should rule out the DNA evidence in his case?’
‘But I had no part in that. He had a top QC representing him – Harriet Lassiter.’
‘Why are you so adamant that you do not understand the point when it is quite obvious that you do? It’s not that difficult to understand.’
Everdene stood up. ‘Whether it is such an easy concept to understand is a matter for the jury, my Lord. It is not for my friend to comment.’
The judge nodded his agreement.
‘I think that must be right, Mr Cronshaw.’
But the judge would not have the last word on the issue. Julia saw to that.
‘If it’s so straightforward, why did it need two QCs to argue the point? I am not qualified. My view on the subject is of no consequence.’
She was now showing signs of irritation. Cronshaw remained quite relaxed as he continued with his questioning.
‘When you were interviewed by Chief Inspector Hood you agreed that you understood that a judge who was blackmailed into deciding a case could have his decision overturned without difficulty. You said as much again this morning?’
‘I don’t think you need to be much of an expert to understand that. I’d be very surprised if the position were otherwise.’
‘But you would know from your experience that would take some time?’
‘Would I?’
‘Time enough for Doyle to make good his escape and disappear – with you, perhaps?’
‘I don’t know what the position would be. I
do know that Doyle owns a lot of valuable property in this country. I can’t see him simply disappearing. And neither would I. I wanted my son to be born here in England.’
‘But it may explain why you entered into this plan to force Judge Campion to dismiss the charges against Doyle and Benson? Or at least a plan that gave the impression that was its purpose?’
‘I don’t follow. If, as you say, I was so knowledgeable on the subject why not leave it to the lawyers? The precedents were in favour of the evidence being excluded. You’ve just made that clear.’
‘Unless, of course the real object was to make sure Doyle stayed safely locked up and the key, so to speak, thrown away?’
‘And why would I want to do something like that? I was expecting his child.’
‘But you had told him the child was not his?’
She dropped her head and sighed. She then looked directly at counsel. Her voice was softer and she blinked rapidly as if trying to hold back her tears.
‘That’s right. He had been refused bail and I knew he would find prison very difficult, especially if he thought I was pregnant by him. I only discovered I was pregnant after he’d been remanded, so I told him the child was not his. I thought it would make it easier for him if he hated me.’
She took a tissue from the box in front of her and wiped her eyes.
‘How would it make things easier for him if he hated you?’
‘I don’t know. That’s just what I thought at the time. Doyle can get very angry if he feels he’s been betrayed. I thought he’d manage better in prison if he was angry rather than falling apart with depression. Prisons are very unpleasant places Mr Cronshaw, as I know to my cost.’
‘So you lied to help him?’
‘If you like.’
‘When you told him the child was not his, were you actually lying or telling him the truth?’
‘I was lying, of course. The child is his.’
‘So you tell us. You registered him as the father and called your son after him?’
‘Yes. It’s not exactly unusual to name a child after his father. Weren’t you named after your father? I looked you up in an old copy of Who’s Who?’
Cronshaw ignored her
‘You wrote the letter we looked at this morning?’
‘Yes.’
‘And you told us that he never even replied?’
‘Well he didn’t.’
‘As a remand prisoner, you are entitled to make phone calls are you not?’
‘Yes.’ Julia appeared a little unsettled. She knew what was coming.
‘You have to disclose the identity of the individual and their telephone number?’
‘Yes.’
‘A convicted prisoner has a similar entitlement?’
‘So I understand.’
She hesitated as she replied.
‘Michael Doyle sent several requests of you to be permitted to contact you in Holloway Prison by telephone did he not?’
She paused and her voice dropped. ‘Yes.’
‘He had no direct contact with you, but his request was drawn to your attention by the prison authorities. All of which you refused?’
She looked away.
‘I did.’
‘Why?’
The jurors were now all watching for her reaction. She let them wait as she considered her response.
‘Because I didn’t want to be accused of having any sort of contact with him that might affect my trial. It almost destroyed me not speaking to him when I knew he wanted to speak with me, but I had to think long term. If I’d had contact with him, you’d have been the first to accuse me of trying to use that contact to my advantage. Anyway, when I was first remanded, I was told I was to have no communication with him until his case was resolved.’
‘But after he pleaded guilty and was sentenced, you were permitted to have telephone contact with him, were you not?’
‘Yes, but I decided not to do so, for the reasons I have explained.’
‘You told the jury this morning that you were not sure how you felt about him?’
‘Because I’m not sure how he feels about me. We have not spoken to each other in months. For all I know he could still hate me.’
‘You also told the jury that he had not replied to your letter. You did not reveal that you had refused to accept contact from him by telephone?’
‘Had he written, I would have replied. Anything he wrote or I wrote would have been inspected. There would have been no problem. Telephoning is different.’
‘But your calls would have been recorded and listened to?’
‘Not necessarily. The notice by the telephones in Holloway warns prisoners that calls may be recorded. It does not state that all calls will be recorded.’
‘Do you really think calls to or from you would not have been recorded?’
‘I simply don’t know.’
‘Did you not write to him again, after your October letter?’
‘No.’
‘Why not?’
‘I thought it better not to.’
‘Because you were considering ending your relationship with him?’
She looked up.
‘You seem to forget. I had already ended it.’
‘In your October letter, after writing “We’ll always have Paris,” you added something didn’t you?’
‘Yes. We’ll be there again sooner than anyone can imagine or words to that effect.’
‘What did that mean?’
Julia paused to collect her thoughts. She appreciated she would have to be careful how she replied. Her eyes were cast down as she spoke.
‘Nothing. It was just written to give him some hope. We all need a bit of hope, especially when everything seems so desperate, don’t we? He’d been sentenced to fifteen years and I was awaiting trial. The future looked pretty bleak for both of us. I thought it might raise his spirits. It certainly cheered me up.’
She raised her head and faced the jury, a soulful look in those deep blue eyes.
‘Please tell us then, Miss Hamilton, was your relationship with Doyle over or not?’
‘I had not spoken with him since I told him the child was not his, so I suppose it was over, yes. And he won’t be paroled for at least seven years. It’s a long time to wait.’
‘That was certainly the impression you were trying to give, wasn’t it? That it was all over between you?’
‘That was what I wanted him to think.’
‘Not only him. When you were interviewed by Chief Inspector Hood last year you insisted your relationship was over, didn’t you? That’s what you wanted everyone to think?’
‘As I recall, I was essentially telling the inspector to mind his own business.’
‘It was part of your plan, wasn’t it? To give the impression your relationship was at an end while you went about organising the kidnap and blackmail?’
‘No. It was not.’
‘You made the call to Grayling on the twelfth of March last, didn’t you?’
‘I did not.’
‘If, as you suggest, you were set up, whoever set you up would have to have known of your appointment at the salon?’
‘Perhaps.’
‘Are you suggesting that Grayling or Duffy had such detailed knowledge of your movements?’
‘I don’t know. I can’t think why they would have.’
‘It would not be sufficient for someone simply to know your mother had a house in the village. The set-up would have to take place when you were known to be there?’
‘But I was there all week-end.’
‘I think you misunderstand my meaning, Miss Hamilton. If the call to Grayling had been at, say, twelve noon on the Friday, it could not have implicated you. You were in court here in Nottingham at that time?’
> ‘I see what you mean, yes.’
‘I think you knew what I meant, didn’t you?’
She gave Cronshaw a withering look and clutched her pearl necklace. She’d just about had enough of his constant needling and lashed out angrily.
‘How could I have phoned Grayling? His number is ex-directory.’
She suddenly realised what she had said. Oh shit! I’ve broken the golden rule of cross-examination. Never elaborate. The best answers are ‘Yes’, ‘No” or ‘I don’t know’. Never volunteer information. She must have advised a hundred or more clients not to do what she had just done.
There comes a moment in most expertly conducted cross-examinations when everyone in the courtroom knows what the next question is going to be. Almost as if everyone in court is urging that the question be put. This was such a moment. Cronshaw waited until Julia’s answer had had time to sink in, looked at the jury then at the judge and leaning forward over his lectern concentrated his gaze on the witness. The jurors were looking at her intently, too.
‘Tell us, Miss Hamilton, how did you know that Grayling’s telephone number was ex-directory?’
‘How did I know?’ she repeated, breaking the other cardinal rule of cross-examination. Never repeat the question. It looks as if you are struggling for an answer.
‘Well I suppose it was an assumption on my part?’
‘An assumption?’
‘Yes. Someone like Grayling is hardly likely to be listed in the telephone directory, is he?’
‘You think not?’
‘I know not. He isn’t. I checked it out.’
‘You checked it out? And how did you do that? I don’t think you will find a copy of the Hastings telephone directory in Holloway Prison?’
‘I’m aware of that,’ snapped Julia. ‘I asked someone to do it for me.’
‘Who?’
She looked around the courtroom to see if her mother was present. There was no sign of her.
‘My mother. She checked it out for me seeing as it was clear from the prosecution papers that the police had never got round to doing so.’
Julia smiled. She thought she had retrieved the situation pretty well.
‘So you never knew Grayling’s number?’ asked Cronshaw in an avuncular tone, shaking his head as if this were a matter of some regret.
A Private and Convenient Place Page 33