Fit Up (24 page)

‘Mr Hopkins, just this finally,’ said Leslie. Those words must have been music to Hopkins’s ears; his relief that this was soon to be over must have been overwhelming as he had been in the witness box for some hours. Leslie continued: ‘One of the things you charged Mr Clifford with on 19 July was that he was guilty of making or being in possession of one of those images on 30 October 2003. There was no evidence of that at all, was there?’ Hopkins replied that he did not know why he had put down that date.

‘The point is that there is no evidence of that at all. There could not have been. He did not own the machine then, did he? On 30 October, the day you interviewed him, the machine belonged to Mr Gerard, did it not?’ Hopkins confirmed that this was so.

‘So you agree there is absolutely no evidence in relation to that matter with which you charged him that he could have been guilty of it. Do you agree?’ Hopkins replied that he put the wrong date down.

‘Whether you put the wrong date down or not, that is not the question I am asking you. I am saying that there was no evidence for that charge. That is what he was charged with and there was no evidence.’ Hopkins finally said ‘yes’ and to get the point to hit home, Leslie asked, ‘Sorry?’

‘Yes, agreed.’ Triumphant, Leslie sat down and gave a nod to Andre. I felt as though I should now applaud his performance.

Challenger was again on his feet. Surely he was done with the questions, I thought to myself. Cranston must have thought the same because he joked that he thought Challenger was going to start up again. Everyone in the court laughed, even Challenger, who said he did not think that he would be allowed to ask any more questions. Cranston, smiling, said he would be happy to allow another question but Challenger put his hand up to signal he was done and Hopkins was finally able to go.

It was left for Challenger and Leslie to discuss with Cranston the next set of witnesses and when they would appear in the witness box. There was some consternation from Leslie that Sharon Girling of the National Crime Squad was unlikely to be appearing at these proceedings. Leslie informed Cranston that he wanted her there as one of the key issues was the widespread credit card fraud in the evidence of Operation Ore and that she would be the best person to clarify this. However, he was not going to hold up the trial waiting for her, he said, and would deal with the issue another way. He then reminded Cranston that he should look at the case of
Abbott
and
Atkinson
v.
DPP
.

‘All rise,’ shouted the court usher. Everyone stood up as Cranston left and then set about gathering their belongings and court files. There was a little bit of jokey banter between Leslie and Challenger while we chatted with Andre. Jeremy asked his opinion on how it was going, to which Andre said that you could never tell but he was happy with the outcome of the day’s proceedings in that we had managed to get the answers we wanted from Hopkins. Cliff came down from the back benches to come and chat with us as we were travelling home together. He thought that it was an amazing show and had gone well with the harsh cross-examination of Hopkins. All I could think of was getting out of London as soon as possible after another exhausting day, cuddling the dogs and watching mundane TV until succumbing to a deep, dreamless sleep.

T
his was to be the final day and I was thankful for it. Although I had had a good night’s sleep, I was utterly exhausted. Jeremy was much the same, the evidence of which could be clearly seen in the dark circles under his eyes.

After a quick breakfast and meeting at Leslie’s chambers, we made our way back to the High Court and again took our seats on the hard benches. We watched as Andre unpacked his large suitcase to set up his and Leslie’s files for the day’s proceedings while listening to polite conversation between both sides of the court.

We were to hear the testimonies of the final witnesses of the trial and the summing up from Leslie and Challenger. I could feel a long day stretching before me and the only way I could cope with the thought was to break it down, one witness at a time, and what time that would take us to. I started to look forward to lunch, possibly latest time of a 1 p.m. adjournment. Only three hours to go, I could cope with that.

‘All rise,’ called the clerk of the court, and we dutifully did so. Cranston nodded to us as he settled down in his lofty perch and presented the top of his head to us as he busied himself with his papers. Challenger then called in PC Baker, the duty sergeant who had charged Jeremy.

It turned out that he had travelled all the way from Middlesbrough,
where he was now working. Challenger did a brief introduction of him and asked him to confirm that his statement was in the file in front of him. He was then passed to Leslie for cross-examination.

I was thinking that he would not remember the specifics of Jeremy’s case after all the time had passed, plus the fact that he must see so many people passing through to be charged. What could he bring to these proceedings? Leslie pointed out to PC Baker that he was only as good as the information that is put before him in order to charge somebody. Baker agreed that he was reliant on the investigating officer to bring him the information of the case but could not remember Jeremy’s case specifically as it was so long ago. Leslie wanted to get out of him that there had to be evidence to charge and if there wasn’t, he could not charge, and took him through the example he gave Hopkins about linking evidence. Baker agreed that he would want proper evidence but Leslie pointed out to him that Hopkins had no link between Landslide and the making and possession charge. Leslie sympathised with Baker that there was the difficulty with the passage of time and brought him to his statement where he had said that he had charged based on what Hopkins had told him and his reliance on the credit card transactions. Leslie repeated the question he had directed at Hopkins the day before regarding the credit card transactions in 1999 and how were they relevant to the images created in 2001. ‘Do you know what his answer was to his Lordship yesterday?’ said Leslie, pausing slightly, should Baker ask. ‘They weren’t relevant,’ Leslie continued to hit the point home. ‘Hearing that now, does that trouble you? Does that cause you concern, that matters that an officer put in front of you in October 2003 and now in a court of law, judge they were not relevant, that there was no linkage? Would that trouble you as a custody officer?’

Baker looked up towards Leslie with a furrowed brow and said, ‘It would do, yes.’

‘I have no further questions,’ concluded Leslie.

Challenger then got up to re-examine briefly, asking Baker if it was the decision of the officer in charge of the case or the duty sergeant to charge, to which Baker replied that it was ultimately his. Challenger ended his questioning there but Leslie was quickly on his feet addressing Cranston to complain that he had been patient thus far with Challenger in that he had been breaching the rules of procedure in civil proceedings. After the previous day with Hopkins, today had started off a little tediously until this interjection renewed our interest. Challenger had been getting away with the practice of cross-examining his own witnesses on issues that Leslie had not touched upon in his own questioning. At least Cranston acknowledged this and asked Leslie to let him know of any further problems. Leslie was staring sternly at Challenger, who looked like he did not care one iota.

Next up was Jane Stansfield, the head of the CPS unit in Hertfordshire based in St Albans. Leslie questioned her about evidence and she confirmed that they too are reliant on what police officers are presenting to them, that it’s crucial for police offers in charge of the investigation to be truthful and honest otherwise it’s a waste of public money pursuing prosecutions, with the added distress to everyone involved.

Leslie took Stansfield through the various documents that had previously been referred to during the trial and asked pertinent questions in relation to evidence in all of them. It all led to the same thing: that the CPS can only be as good as the information and evidence they are provided with and she agreed that it would be improper if an officer withheld evidence. Then Leslie brought her to Hopkins’s statement where he had said that he liaised with the CPS prior to charging Jeremy, to which Stansfield confirmed that this had not happened. He then asked her about the throwing in of the possession and making charge to give a bit of weight to incitement and whether this would be inappropriate. She wanted to distance herself from a prosecutor making that decision and
said that they would apply the code for Crown prosecutors who would charge accordingly if there was evidence and the public interest. Leslie had brought her round to evidence again to which she could only confirm yes to all the questions.

Challenger then rose to ask a few questions and was quickly finished. Leslie asked Cranston if he could be allowed to further re-examine and this request was granted. Referring Stansfield to Fouhey’s statement of 21 December 2004, he asked her if Hopkins knew then that the prosecution’s case was having problems, would she not have expected him to inform the CPS? She confirmed that she would have expected him to inform them. Leslie pointed out that it was quite obvious that Hopkins had not informed the CPS because in her statement she was still saying that the case was proceeding. ‘In other words, the prosecution continued as long as it did for another three months because Hopkins did not tell you?’ pressed Leslie. Stansfield confirmed that it did continue until she received the letter from Jeremy’s solicitor quoting the relevant paragraphs from Duncan’s report. ‘In other words, the point I am making is there was nothing that Hopkins did that brought this prosecution to an end. It was when the defendant’s solicitor, Irene Hill, instructed their expert, Duncan Campbell, and they make the suggestion, that is where things are put into motion to bring it to an end.’ Stansfield nodded and agreed that this was the case.

Leslie sat down and looked behind him to Andre and us with a satisfied grin. Stansfield descended from the witness box and left the courtroom. The last witness was to be DS Irene Patel.

The last time I had seen her she was in her uniform with hair tied back from her face, but today she had allowed it to tumble loose around her shoulders. She stepped into the witness box to be sworn in and Challenger confirmed with her that her statement was truthful and accurate. Personally, I had no problem with her, but was interested to see how she would support Hopkins.

Leslie got to his feet and took Patel through Jeremy’s criminal case and her communication with Hopkins as his supervising officer at the time. She hardly looked at Leslie and when answering questions she looked steadfastly at Cranston who was in his usual position of head down and scribbling away. From what I could tell, he was unaware of Patel’s stare.

Leslie led her through questions relating to evidence and what she knew from Hopkins during the investigation and it became apparent that she only knew of the existence of the temporary internet files when the case collapsed. He quoted Patel’s written statement to her where she said she stated that she was horrified at the suggestions that Hopkins had maliciously withheld evidence. ‘It would be a really nasty thing to do; that is why you are horrified. It is a horrible allegation, is it not?’ Leslie said. Patel sharply turned her head away from Cranston and looked directly at Leslie. By shocking her like that, he now had her full attention. She replied, ‘It is if I thought that was true, yes.’ Her brown eyes had widened in horror as to where the questions were going as she dutifully turned the pages of the file in front of her at Leslie’s request. He was quoting from the Service Improvement Document that Hopkins had charged with possession to give weight to the incitement charge and then asked Patel how she felt about that, was she shocked? She said that she was surprised and would have expected Hopkins to have had that discussion with the CPS on deciding what charges to bring. Leslie jumped on her, asking if she was surprised that he had never spoken to the CPS as confirmed by Stansfield. She was flustered now in trying to uphold her position as a witness to defend her colleague. ‘I can only say that, based on Mr Fouhey’s statement that was within the initial case papers, there was sufficient evidence to charge for the indecent images.’

Leslie, voice raised, responded, ‘Sergeant Patel, please do not sidestep the issue. We are not just talking about what was on the face of the papers, we are talking about what the officer was told.’ Obviously trying
to distance herself, she replied that she was not party to that conversation and confirmed that she had never seen the SID document. If this was the case, Leslie informed her, she had written her witness statement in ignorance of this document.

‘If Mr Hopkins did know all of this as contained in the SID document, produced as a result of an interview with Detective Sergeant Willcox, it’s pretty shocking, is it not?’ countered Leslie, to which Patel agreed that it was and would have expected Hopkins to have discussed it with her. He hadn’t.

Leslie was coming to the end of his cross-examination of Patel and finished on a rather poignant note for me. He brought up the subject of the suicide statutory notice which was handed to Jeremy when he was arrested because it had been known that charges of child porn offences had resulted in a number of the accused taking their own lives. I remember opening the crumpled typed sheet filled with anger that the police had already made up their minds that he was a paedophile requiring some sort of salvation. If it wasn’t for my unwavering support and that of his close family and friends, he may well have succumbed to the option of putting himself out of his misery because of the accusations, even though he was completely innocent. I had read in the papers that one man had taken his life over Operation Ore and there was no evidence on him either. How tragic.

I knew Leslie had finished on this point so that Cranston could consider the enormity of what had been done to Jeremy when considering damages.

Then it was Challenger’s turn, at which point he went through a series of soft questions confirming parts of Patel’s statement and asking whether she still stood by it. However, in his usual wordy way he asked a question by which Patel did not understand what he was asking of her. Join the club, I thought. He then bumbled on about being restricted in the
manner he could ask questions because it would be leading and treading on Leslie’s toes. Leslie interjected that it was because it was improper, that it was not how it was done and not because it stepped on his toes. ‘Those are the rules,’ he said as he rolled his eyes, looking at Challenger.

Challenger tried again to re-shape his questions, only going over the same ground of the charges against Jeremy, and did Patel have any comment about Hopkins’s decision on the charges? She said she saw no issue with it, she had reviewed the case papers and considered that there was enough evidence to charge and supported Hopkins on that. Challenger indicated to the court that he had finished with the witness. Patel looked relieved as she left the stand but I thought that after what she had heard in court of the SID document, she had to have had her doubts about Hopkins.

Challenger and Leslie then addressed Cranston as to how they were going to approach their summing up, identifying the facts of the case, the evidence, what papers to look at and to discuss damages at this hearing rather than return for a further court session, which would increase costs further. Cranston acknowledged this and adjourned for lunch.

Leslie returned to his chambers with his staff and Andre found a quiet corner of the halls with his assistant to prepare for that afternoon. Jeremy and I went to the café for lunch, making sure we avoided Challenger and Grundy. Only an afternoon to go now, we thought, and it would be over one way or another.

Returning to the courtroom just before 2 p.m. we settled down for the final run. Cranston was seated and Challenger was up first to make his address. He said he had some criticisms of Leslie’s opening submissions and observations to make which he deemed important. Then, as we had come to know, he said that he hoped that this exercise would not take too long. All our side glanced around with knowing looks that it wouldn’t be, and so the monotone voice commenced, with Challenger all the while swaying gently from side to side. Watching him was hypnotic
and I had soon tuned out, drifting into a bored, comatose state, but was brought back to attention with statements from him that infuriated me. They had had the same effect on Andre and Leslie but we had to wait our turn, there was no jumping up and commenting at this stage.

‘This may be a comment which offends my learned friend, I do not know, but as a matter of common sense the background which suggested that there was evidence indicating that from time to time Mr Clifford had purchased child pornography over the internet and plainly had a connection with the offences charged of both incitement and possession,’ said Challenger. There were five fraudulent purchases, some on the same day so not exactly ‘from time to time’. He made it sound like a regular habit. Jeremy was called a liar many times throughout and this was difficult to hear. Although forensics were not to be mentioned at this trial, Challenger could not resist making reference to the report from Duncan Campbell and that the defence had never seen it. He made great emphasis on this point which implied that by us not submitting the report we had something to hide, which let him open the door to making further comments that Jeremy had been ‘serial trawling child pornography for ten or eleven hours’ and ‘this Royal Bank of Scotland enquiry is mixed up with a ten-hour trawl of child pornography sites’. The police were obviously enraged that the courts had not allowed them sight of Duncan’s report. I was as astonished as our legal team. Where, in the bundles of papers, was that evidence in order that he could state it? He went on to say that the assertion that Hopkins behaved improperly and withheld information was extraordinarily far-fetched, as was the whole case, and that it was ‘always appropriate for summary disposal’.