John Alexander Symonds
“I'd say: ‘join the KGB and see the world’ - first class. I went to all over the world on these jobs and I had a marvellous time. I stayed in the best hotels, I visited all the best beaches, I've had access to beautiful women, unlimited food, champagne, caviar whatever you like and I had a wonderful time. That was my KGB experience. I don't regret a minute of it ...”
Geoffrey Rivlin QC Closing Speech Part 2
Geoffrey Rivlin QC: Well, of course, of course, much of what I have said depends upon you accepting the tapes as being of the authentic original tapes. That is the basis upon which they are permitted in evidence members of the jury. Tapes are not permitted in evidence in a court of law unless they are authentic originals. And if you are not satisfied that these tapes are the authentic original tapes, and it would be your duty no doubt, you’ll be directed upon this by the learned judge to forget about what you’ve heard. Were they, are they, the authentic originals, or not? Yes, says Mr Perry, said Mr Lloyd, says Mr Mounter, says Mr Hawkey, and to an extent says Miss Millard. No says the defendant, they’re all fabricated, or rather he suggests that they’re all fabricated.
Do you realise members of the jury, that after all this time there isn’t one single scrap of worthwhile evidence in this case that any of those tapes have been fabricated. Consider the defendants case members of the jury: the tapes are fabricated, but do you know that in the four weeks that you have been thus far listening to the case the only specific suggestion of fabrication that has been put forward by the defendant in this, that somewhere or other there is missing that that he’d spotted a photographer. That’s the only direct specific suggestion of fabrication in relation to any one of these tapes.
To be fair members of the jury he’s also said that he never accepted any money. And so I suppose its implicit is it not that he is saying that all references to money must also be fabricated. He has suggested that the reporters may have had some hand in this, at the last count it was Mr Moody who was responsible for fabricating the evidence. Well, I think we can deal with this quite briefly and in stages. Could the police be responsible for fabricating the tapes? Answer: no they can’t be responsible for fabricating the tapes. There are many references to money on the Times transcripts that were prepared before the police ever laid their hands on these tapes. And members of the jury, I’m not going to take you to the references but, may I just give you the page numbers if you’d care to have them.
To follow the Times transcripts are concerned, you will find references to money on pages one, three, five, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, eighteen, twenty-one and twenty-five.
Mr Ford has told you that he’s listened to the Times copy tapes and that they’re exactly the same as the ones that we’ve got in court. The Times copy tapes were prepared on the second and, I think the second and fifth of December of 1969, although I can guarantee I shall be corrected if I’m wrong. Before the police got their hands on these tapes, there’s no question of the police having fabricated them. Mr Lambert, Fred Lambert - you’ll probably remember all that business the other day with Mr Lambert, when you went away at the end of the evening and he listened to all the tapes. Have these tapes been tampered with since he first listened to them, very shortly after they came into police custody? No, absolute rubbish he says. And then members of the jury that knocks the bottom doesn’t it out of the defence, that the police have in some way fabricated these tapes. And what’s left then? The reporters. They say “no, they haven’t”. You’ve heard them give evidence over a long period of time. It’s for you judge whether they were telling you the truth or not. Mr Hawkey said “no, those tapes have not been fabricated, I listened to them straight away after they were played”.
Miss Millard said in so many words, didn’t she members of the jury, although she didn’t actually hear the tapes played before us. When she listened to them, she heard corruption. Mr Hide, the expert, the speech expert, in his opinion it’s impossible that these tapes could have been fabricated. He said you could only edit conversations between two people under favourable conditions, and here we haven’t got favourable conditions. We’ve got motor cars going by in the background, all the background noise. We’ve got two people sometimes speaking at one and the same time. And if you choose to listen to these tapes again you will hear members of the jury how, when they’re talking about money, how close their voices are together, sometimes overlapping.
“Impossible” says Mr Hyde. Well, Mr Killick won’t go that far, but Mr Killick said, do you not remember: “it’s very difficult to believe … very difficult to believe that any of these conversations had been fabricated.” And in so far as he is able to help, Mr Hales, who was the boss at Location Sound Facilities said “no, no question of any jiggery pokery going on in my place during this time.” There’s overwhelming evidence members of the jury that these tapes are the authentic originals. And so what does it boil down to? Well, I’ll tell you what it boils down to from the defendant’s point of view, it boils down to this; this is the proposition: well, he says there is evidence that the tapes used were factory fresh; two, there is scientific evidence that three of the tapes were not factory fresh when they were put on the spools; therefore, three, the tapes are copies and are unreliable.
And what I’d like to do members of the jury is to deal with that if I may. Do you remember that the other day I said that I’m looking forward to the opportunity of reminding you what the evidence actually is on this topic. Well, this is my chance to do that members of the jury. May I say by way of preface that I accept that Mr Hawkey did say originally that he had always used factory fresh tapes, and in making the point that he did, the defendant is absolutely right. He’s making a perfectly good, perfectly fair point, and I think its right to say that the defendant pointed out to the reporters, or one of them at one stage he had said that they’d used new tapes, and in making that point he is doing no more than he’s fully entitled to, drawing to your attention a perfectly fair reasonable point.
Just let’s consider what the evidence actually was. Mr Lloyd members of the jury said with reference to Exhibit number one: “I don’t know if a new tape was used. With reference to tape number three, the batteries had run down on the Uher and therefore the recording was useless as far as we were concerned. Tape three would have gone back to Hawkey and he used it again”. Tape five: “I can’t remember if this was a new tape”, that’s Lloyd. Mounter, this is what he said: “at the beginning Hawkey did not appear to be properly equipped. In the early days he didn’t bring enough tapes, and fairly early on and we made it clear that he must come with batteries and new tapes”.
And he said the same sort of thing about the marking of these boxes and spools, he said this: “nobody devised early on a foolproof system of marking them, it developed later on. It was important that one of us could identify the tapes, I couldn’t see any possibility of a mix up.” And so Mr Mounter was making it perfectly clear that in the early days that they weren’t adopting such a strictly controlled system they devised as time moved on. And the tapes that the defendant criticises here are tapes numbers one, three and five, and members of the jury they are early days. The very first day was the 28th of October, the second one from the 31st was only two or three days later.
Let me remind you of what Mr Hawkey had to say. He said this, tape number three: “that is the original tape which was …”, and he had it in his hand, “which was used for phone calls”, and do you remember that there are some phones calls on the batteries tape. “They are just recordings of telephone calls, the rest of the tape it’d be virgin. It’s still a new tape as such if you use one half, and the second half hasn’t been used.” Well that might be a rather naïve statement of fact, but that was his reaction to the cross-examination. And he said about tape number three: “it would be quite normal to use the tape of the telephone conversation in the morning, and the incident in the afternoon, and more than one meeting or incident would be recorded on one tape.
And members of the jury this is what else Mr Hawkey had to say about this, when he was asked why did you use, start 3b immediately after 3a? His answer was “no particular reason, convenience I should think”. And it was put to him that it wasn’t, that 3b wasn’t recorded on a factory fresh tape, and he said this: “I didn’t realise it, its pure accident that we overran a conversation with another officer, we all have accidents.” And members of the jury, in relation to tape number five, this is what Mr Hawkey said: “tape five has two different conversations. I would say that there’s a recording been made and over-recorded. If it was done it was pure accident.” And in answer to the learned judge he said: “I would say that the quality would be unaffected.” And the point of that is this members of the jury, and you’ll remember that Mr Hawkey insisted that these tapes were the originals and just those that he’d at the time.
If the truth of the matter had been that Hawkey only ever used factory fresh tapes, when this was pointed out to him, he would have had no explanation, he would have had to have said wouldn’t he: “well, that’s odd, these tapes can’t be the originals then”, but he didn’t, he said: “no, that these are the originals, I heard them, I saw them being marked up, and if they weren’t factory fresh when those recordings were made, why then I must have used the same tape again. It was a pure accident.” There’s been a great deal of to do about that particular topic in this case members of the jury. I have sought to remind you of what the evidence actually was about this topic, and I hope that having done so, that will assist you in arriving at a conclusion.
The boxes and the spools and the batch numbers, they are points for the defendant to make. He has made them, they are fair points for him to make. Please consider them members of the jury, but it hardly bespeaks does it some vast conspiracy when we do find one or two spools in the wrong boxes. It doesn’t suggest, does it, that some evil genius has got down to spending time to concoct the whole thing.
There’s more than one tape in relation to the events of the 31st and the 21st. And you know from the expert evidence that the noise levels on those tapes are entirely consistent with the microphones being positioned in different places. Well now, Mr. Lloyd referred to that policy as belt and braces, more than one tape with the same conversation. It hasn’t unhappily afforded the reporters an escape route from cross-examination that all of these things were fabricated because you may think it doesn’t matter how many recordings they’ve of this particular conversation, or these conversations, they’d still be criticised up hill and down dale. But what are you going to believe about it, that whereas it would have been so easily for some, this evil genius, for putting one tape for each conversation, he’s gone and made life ten times more difficult for himself by putting two tapes in or three tapes in, and made life twenty times more difficult for himself by trying to fabricate the different noise levels on the different tapes. It just doesn’t begin to make sense, does it members of the jury.
Another point, and that’s this. Do you remember those little snatches of conversation at the end of these tapes, when after the conversations had finished and when the motor cars arrived at its destination, and there’s a little of chatter between the reporters and Perry and Hawkey? Well, what kind of evil genius is it members of the jury who would present fabricated tapes and leave stuff like that in. Mr Mounter said: “look, I’m not particularly proud that I used such language” when certain words were put to him by the defendant, “but we left everything in, there was to be no editing out. I wouldn’t have anyone touch the tapes under any circumstances.” And so it is members of the jury that left on the tapes we have the bits and pieces of conversation to which you’ve listened.
The leaders weren’t marked, criticises the defendant - so what? If the leaders had been marked, he’d have only said that they had been fabricated and it was a no win situation isn’t it. You just can’t win. I mean, who is said to have done all this fabricating. Well members of the jury, I’ve already dealt with that.
And finally on the question of the tapes, this missing tape “X” that the defendant talks about, you know, the one on the 21st, the mobile that was in the motor car, the Nagra that was in Hawkey’s motor car. Hawkey has looked at his original schedule, Lloyd has, and Mounter. They’ve all there seen what they wrote in 1969: this recording didn’t come out. And the defendant shows you where the box Exhibit 44, we know about a number crossed out. And he says: “there must have been another tape”. Why he said it, goodness only knows, but he does, “he says there must have been another tape”, and what’s more that is the clue to the whole case because “if only we had that tape, why we’d see what the truth of this case was.”
Well, members of the jury, we’ve got three already of that meeting, and there is an absolutely cast-iron reason for the fact that you haven’t got four, namely that the one in the mobile didn’t come out, and you actually hear Hawkey saying at the end of tape thirteen, that it hadn’t come out.
Now members of the jury, I’m going to come on finally to the four days with which we are most closely concerned in this case: the 24th of September, the 28th of October, the 31st and the 21st, and I know that you must be feeling terribly weary by now, and I know that this is probably the first day of Spring, or first worthwhile day we’ve got, and so I’ll do my best to cut it short, but you know this case has gone on for week after week after week, and its rather important, and its rather important that I should draw certain matters to your attention.
The 24th members of the jury. The 24th was the day of that meeting between the two men in the cell below. Perry has given you evidence as to what happened at that meeting. The defendant seeks to brush the whole thing aside as all sorts of nonsense: “Do you think this was the favour I was going to do for you? Do you think was worth any money and the like?” Let me deal with that.
One of the most notorious cases in our criminal law is a case in which a Lord Chancellor no less was prosecuted for corruption. A very great Lord Chancellor, Bacon, who was sitting in judgement in the case, and one of the litigants members of the jury gave him a bribe, to decide the case in his favour. And Lord Chancellor Bacon decided the case, and he decided the case against the litigant, who had given him a bribe, and the litigant you might think was rather upset about and he went and spilled the beans.
Lord Chancellor Bacon was convicted of accepting a corrupt payment, even though he’d done nothing. Even though, not merely had he done nothing, but he decided the case against the man who had given him the corrupt payment - why? Because members of the jury, it’s what’s going on in the mind of the person who accepts the payment that matters, and if you know that you’re receiving a payment you shouldn’t, a corrupt payment, you’re guilty, and it doesn’t matter whether you seriously intend to do anything for it; whether you believe that you can do something for it; or not - it doesn’t matter tuppence. That was my submission to you at the beginning of the case, and I’ll repeat that to you now.
The defendant said through Fred Lambert: “you know if I was corrupt then the Nuneaton officers were corrupt.” And members of the jury if the Nuneaton officers had had anything on Perry, had any worthwhile evidence against the man that might have been so, but the defendant knew that they hadn’t, and the defendant knew that he wasn’t going to have to do anything to persuade the Nuneaton officers to drop the charge against Perry. The defendant had already tipped Perry off to say nothing, and once given that tip-off, members of the jury, Perry’s no fool; he said nothing. That was it. The next thing that happened was that the defendant very quickly learned, a letter went on its way to Perry saying that he wasn’t going to be prosecuted.
There is no need to involve the Nuneaton officers in corruption in this case at all, and the defendant knew it. Perry was seen by the defendant at Camberwell, members of the jury - why? Why did the defendant ask to go and see him? “Well”, says the defendant, “d’you think I would have been having words like this with Perry, after all he was the Likely Lads; I was out to get him; I was out to have him arrested”. That members of the jury you know is one of the basic flaws of what he’s saying to you, and one of the evils of the offence of corruption, that if you are involved in corruption you can claim both ends against the middle, on the one hand there are fellow officers in your force, who believe that you’re striving to get the fellow. On the other hand there’s the criminal himself who knows that you are giving him help.
What happened in that police cell? Well, just think about it members of the jury. When Perry was cross-examined about this he told you, he gave you his version as to what happened and do remember how he insisted that he’d used that word “if”. “If they’ve got a fingerprint on you then plead guilty”, and how the defendant insisted to him: no the word “if” wasn’t there, and what had been said was “they’ve got a fingerprint on you, plead guilty to Section One theft”.
When the defendant was interviewed by the police about this, this is what he was asked members of the jury, page 327. And, you know, the police put to the defendant the defendant’s version of what happened, not Perry’s, because what happened was quite clearly this, that the typewritten copy of Perry’s statement didn’t include the “if”: ‘did you say to Perry: “I don’t think they’ve got a lot on you, they won’t tell me a lot. They’ve got a fingerprint of yours. Tell them you’ll plead guilty to Section One theft, the most you’ll get is twelve months for that.” “Definitely not”, said the defendant to the police. The exact opposite of that which he was putting to Perry, when Perry gave evidence about this matter.
What did he see him about? Didn’t spend any time, did he, trying to get an admission from him? Didn’t spend any time interviewing him about the clothes that had been found in Perry’s flat, or the knives that were there, or the bolt croppers that were there? It was a two minute, perhaps thirty second conversation between the two of them. What did he say to him, and what did he have in mind?
The defendant will say: “well, all very improbable if you know”. But there’s an easy answer to that one members of the jury, and I’m afraid that it goes back to the defendant’s own words: “I’m in a little firm in a firm”, and you may think members of the jury that in a business such as this, it takes one to know one, and the defendant had sized up the situation very nicely for himself.
The favour, the favour said Mr Perry when he was cross-examined by the defendant was: “they didn’t think that they’d got a lot on me. But if they have a fingerprint on me, plead guilty to Section One theft and you’ll only get twelve months.”
Now members of the jury, if I may be permitted another idiosyncratic expression: a nod is as good as a wink. And somebody like Perry, who’s told something like that, knows perfectly well what the score is. You remember James giving evidence about this; you remember yesterday officer Clarkson giving evidence about it. One thing that a police officer would never ever do is to even hint to a chap he’s under suspicion, but they’ve got nothing on him, because if they do he’ll just clamp up immediately. The defendant was giving him a tip-off. It wasn’t worth £200. Perry didn’t think that it worth £200. The defendant’s big mistake was that he thought that he could get £200. He got a hundred and fifty.
The Nuneaton officers say that Mr Perry was interviewed about it the following day, but said nothing. The defendant makes a very valid point, perfectly proper and fair point. He says look at the records here there’s nothing to the effect that Perry was interviewed the following day at Nuneaton police station. And you give weight to that point. In fact members of the jury give due weight to any proper, fair point. But those Nuneaton officers all say that they, that he was interviewed several times, not just once, but several times the following day.
What did Perry say about this? And there’s motive for him to have said it. “In all my dealings with the police”, he said, “I’ve never been questioned more than I was up there. I must have been questioned a dozen times”. We know members of the jury, that those Nuneaton officers were very surprised indeed that they got no admissions from Perry. We know how upset they were. We know from them, do we not, of the conversations with the defendant, afterwards, when the defendant was interested to know if they knew who this Metropolitan officer was who told him to say nothing. We know that the defendant said that he didn’t want Robson to know that he, the defendant, knew about it. Why? What was it all about?
There was a favour members of the jury. You may or may not think that it was worth £200, but with great respect that doesn’t matter. The fact is that the defendant was prepared to ask for £200, and the fact is that the defendant got one hundred and fifty of that £200.
Can I come to the specific offences, and just say two things to you about them, and that is first what the evidence is, and second what the corroboration is that we say is before you which is capable of supporting Perry’s evidence. Perry says that money was paid each time to the defendant - is there any evidence capable of corroborating that? In our submission there could hardly be better corroboration.
The corroboration comes in the following forms members of the jury I would respectfully submit to you: first the searchings of Perry before and afterwards: the evidence there from Mr Lloyd, Mr Mounter and Mr Hawkey; then the evidence of the tapes, and there can be no better support for a man’s evidence can there, but the fact that the conversations were actually recorded. Can I just pause there to say this members of the jury. It’s a matter that may I know not please Mr Ford and Mr Killick.
They say, well, you know, in our opinion we wouldn’t allow tape recordings to go before a jury in a criminal case. Certainly Mr Ford holds that view. Well, they are admissible in law before a jury if they are properly proved. And you know members of the jury there is no such thing in this world as evidence that cannot be fixed or rigged. There’s a very serious move a foot at the present time to ensure that all interviews with defendants are tape recorded, so that it can’t be said that police officers are putting words into the mouths of people who are being interviewed. But in relation to tape recordings we’re likely to hear a good deal more of those than a good deal less, which should keep Mr Hawkey and Mr Killick busy for a few years won’t it.
The fact is that any evidence brought before a court, any evidence, can be fabricated, can be tampered with. There’s no such thing as evidence that can’t be. What you as a jury have to do is to consider the nature and quality of the evidence that proves the tapes and to decide whether you can accept it or not as being reliable.
Tape five, page seven members of the jury, tape five, page seven. Corroboration of count number one, top of the page: “you know a bit more dough, see, more dough, I see”. That’s Perry: “a bit more dough”. That’s corroboration of the fact that there had already been some dough. His words aren’t corroboration, or capable of being corroboration, it’s the defendant’s reaction to them that is, members of the jury, “yeah”. It’s the assent; it’s the agreement by the defendant. It’s his reaction. And those words are also in my submission capable of corroborating count number two.
Page fifteen please. Perry: “I still ain’t got it all yet. I got another fifty, alright”. Now this is on the 31st members of the jury, and Perry said that there had already been one payment of fifty on the 28th. The defendant’s reaction, “yeah, fine, yeah”. And in our submission to you, in our respectful submission to you, because its the judge who will tell you what this evidence is capable of amounting to corroboration. The defendant’s reaction to that, “yeah, fine, yeah”, is capable of amounting to not merely corroboration, but overwhelming corroboration on Perry’s evidence, both in relation to count numbers one and two. In relation to count number one, its that word ‘another’ that you see there members of the jury.
Count number three, page 19, bottom of the page. This is still on the 31st, but just look what appears here: “I’ll get it, I’m definitely going to get it next week, but I couldn’t get my hands on it.” - talking about more money that’s to come. Page 22 on tape 14: “Alright there, I ain’t got a, actually I’ve only got fifty, alright?” “Pardon?” “I’ve only got fifty again, alright?” “Yeah”. That “yeah”, members of the jury, is in our submission capable of amounting to very powerful corroboration of Perry’s evidence, and indeed members of the jury what more could one possibly wish for. Can you imagine for one moment what would have been said about these conversations with Perry if we hadn’t got these tape recordings?
Page 24, bottom of the page. Perry told you that he could hear the words: “here’s the other thing, I can’t get fuck all lately.” According to Mr Penna and Mr Eley: “yeah, here you are. I may as well give you that now. I can’t, I can’t get fuck all lately”. Well you decide what you can hear on these tapes members of the jury, if you can hear reference to money there, further corroboration.
Page 36, bottom of the page: “Anyway Mick, thanks very much for that.” In our submission, evidence which is clearly capable of corroborating the defendant’s, er Perry’s account of what happened.
Is there anything that’s relevant on these counts? Well yes, of course, members of the jury, there’s the diary isn’t there. Shall we just concentrate on those three days now, the 28th, firstly. On the 28th say the prosecution the defendant is very nicely and very neatly fudging it. Two p.m. to section re Oppenheim inquiry and engaged until return to MC at 5.15. To Edmond Street re inquiry - what inquiry? I’ve already gone through this, he wasn’t meeting an informant according to him. What inquiry was he engaged on at Edmond Street? No reference you’ll note members of the jury there to the fact that it was arranged. And may I tell you that in all of these pages here there are fifteen references to the Rose public house and one to the Grove, on other days.
Let’s look at the 31st shall we, 2.45, 2 p.m. sorry. Remember that the meeting was at half past two. 2 p.m. a meal, 2.45 to MC, High Street, re inquiry and return to MC at 3 p.m.
The 21st of November, and remember that the meeting was at 2.30. 12 noon, to West Dulwich re inquiry and return to MC - that’s home base at Camberwell - to return to MC at 12.30, meal. There’s no such thing. And the defendant asked, as he was entitled to, of some of his fellow officers: “did you ever notice I was corrupt, or did you ever think that I was being corrupt?” And hear what they say. He wasn’t doing too badly in his own records was he members of the jury, when it came to hiding what he was doing, these three rather important moments of dark.
Judge Stroyan: Those are tangible records which you might corroborate too.
Rivlin: I’d say your honour …
Judge Stroyan: Capable of corroboration, yes.
Rivlin: … that they are capable of amounting to corroboration, if the jury, if the jury took the view that the prosecution would like them to take about it. Of course if they don’t, if they think that they were innocent, or maybe innocent, why then of course they wouldn’t regard these as being capable of corroboration.
And so members of the jury, may I tell you I’ve nearly done. What is left to the defence and what has been left to them in this case in the face of such evidence? Well, it’s time for the Crown to call a spade a spade. What has been left to him? In the first place it’s been left to him has it not to throw as much dirt as he possibly could during the course of this case in the hope that some of it might stick. The following people have been accused of dishonesty: Mr Perry, Mr Lloyd, Mr Mounter, the Nuneaton officers, and Mr Moody, and by a side wind the following people have been accused of dishonesty: Brennan, a question mark over Hawkey and Lord Thompson.
Mr Lloyd, he came in for a bit of a battering didn’t he members of the jury, more than once. Now, the defendant may well not like Mr Lloyd, because Mr Lloyd after all started this thing going. But he said a great many things to Mr Lloyd, and fairly early on in his evidence he put it to him that, you remember that he was, had a history of mental disorder, and had been mentally deranged. Absolutely nonsense said Mr Lloyd, an evil suggestion. And there was a great to do about that when the learned judge said to the defendant, you know: “I hope we’re going to hear some evidence about this, if it’s true”. “We are”, said the defendant. Have you heard it members of the jury? Mr Lloyd you may think was goaded by the defendant. He rose to the bait it’s fair to say, but he was goaded by the defendant.
“Mr Mounter, you are more interested”, said the defendant, “in writing scandalous stories than in bringing a corrupt police officer to justice”. Do you remember Mr Mounter, could you really imagine a more impressive witness?
The Nuneaton officers were accused of dishonesty. Mr Moody was. The defendant tackled Mr Moody in a rather clever way, do you remember this? During the first part of Mr Moody’s evidence, Mr Moody was asked a whole series of questions about other people’s conduct, as if he were some expert from on high, who could help the court about the conduct of other people in the case. And do you remember him saying, when he was asked about the control exercised by the reporters on the various exhibits. Well he said the control devised by the reporters wasn’t what I would have expected from the police, but it was adequate. A whole series of questions, and then just towards the end of his cross-examination, when the defendant had been able to extract as much out of him as he possibly could, he accused him of fabricating everything. What a business, what a business.
Well Mr Moody members of the jury it would seem is not merely responsible for fabricating much of the evidence in this case, in some way, but he is also responsible for the fact that shortly before his trial was due to start Mr Symonds left the country and wasn’t seen again for a number of years. It seems that Mr. Moody has even got to bear the blame for that.
What else has been suggested? That the reporters were acting as agente provocateurs. Nonsense members of the jury, that question doesn’t even arise in this case. Do you remember what Mr Mounter said: “Throughout the investigation we were very careful not in any way to be agente provocateur. We were careful not to give Perry any money. We didn’t want to be accused of influencing him.”
What’s all that about, that suggestion? Is it designed to make you believe that in some way the reporters were responsible for all of this? What a twisted situation it would be members of the jury if you came to the conclusion that that was so. They didn’t seek out Mr Perry, Mr Perry sought out Mr Brennan, who sought out them, and you may think from what little you’ve heard about the Robson Harris matter, Mr Perry was in pretty desperate straits when did.
And finally, the absolute last resort, although unhappily it’s been resorted to on a number of occasions: “I haven’t had a fair trial.” How many times have we heard in this case, how many times have we heard “it’s a cover-up”, “I haven’t had a fair trial”, “it’s a farce”. Well I’m very pleased indeed to say that I don’t have to make any comment about that, because you gentleman have been here during the course of this trial, and you’ve been able to see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears, whether this defendant has had a fair trial or not. All that I propose to say about it is in our submission the absolute last resort of a guilty man, who can think of no other way to secure his acquittal than to persuade his judges, namely you, that he’s not getting a fair trial.
The defendant said to you members of the jury on Monday of this week, I think it was, “you know, I’ve worked it all out”. He said this to you in so many words: “I’ve worked it all out. I’ve done eighteen months of my sentence in real terms. I’m not worried about my sentence. I’m just worried about a criminal conviction being recorded against me, a matter of principle”. Well members of the jury, there it is, that’s what he says to you.
There’s only one thing in this case that counts and that’s the truth, and in our submission, if one considers the evidence in this case it takes you to the truth. And the truth of this matter is, and it’s as much a matter of principle, I suppose as the other side, as a matter of truth, is that the defendant was a corrupt police officer, and that the prosecution ask you to say so in the verdicts that you return on the charges in this case.
Please comment: If you have any comment to make about the above page, or want to ask John Symonds a question, then please go to our Contact Us page
|Home||About Me||About Me 2||About Me 3||About Me 4||1981 Trial||Trial Records|
|Angus Stroyan||Geoffrey Rivlin QC||Christopher Andrew||Comments||Related Links||Contact Us||Stroyan Speech 1|
|Stroyan Speech 2||Stroyan Speech 3||Stroyan Speech 4||Stroyan Speech 5||Stroyan Speech 6||Rivlin Speech 1||Rivlin Speech 2|
|Sunny Jim||Scotland Yard Intro||Scotland Yard 1||Scotland Yard 2||Scotland Yard 3||Scotland Yard 4||Romeo Spy 1|
|Romeo Spy 2||Romeo Spy 3||Romeo Spy 4||Romeo Spy 5||Romeo Spy 6||Romeo Spy 7||Romeo Spy 8|
|Romeo Spy 9|
|Raleigh Spy Conference||Jon Ronson Spying|
© 2011 John Alexander Symonds