|
Geoffrey Rivlin QC: Members of the Jury you are all no
doubt very relieved indeed that we can see the light at the end of the
tunnel in this case. We have now reached the closing stages of this trial,
and my concern at this stage is to let you know how it is that the Crown
puts its case on these three charges. And I can tell you that I propose to
get straight down to business there in a minute or two and to discuss the
charges and the background to the charges and to concentrate on the charges.
Because when all is said and done that’s what you must do in this case, that
is concentrate on the charges and return verdicts in respect of them.
There may be
things; there may be many things that I shall not even mention. This is not
a competition as to who can think of the most points. It’s an exercise
members of the jury designed to enable you to arrive at the truth as to what
happened. It’s a very serious exercise. What is the truth in this case?
The defendant
himself has said that there’s always two sides to every story, and of course
there is. There’s no such thing as a case, however guilty a man may be,
where he can’t advance at least some points on his own behalf for a jury’s
consideration. There are many points that have been advanced by him in this
case, some of them fair points, some even you may think good points. If that
is the case the Crown begrudges none of them, but there are many other
points that have been advanced, of doubtful relevance and of even more
doubtful validity, and the Crown is entitled to begrudge those.
In our
submission your function in this case is to decide what the truth of the
matter was according to the evidence that you’ve heard. And members of the
jury you do that according to the principles of law enunciated by the
learned judge and of course bearing in mind that it is for the Prosecution
to prove its case against this man.
We say that no
case could really be proved more conclusively against a man than this man.
But it’s difficult enough to say that members of the jury, one has to
demonstrate it. There are three counts in this case; representing three days
upon which the defendant is said to have received money: the 28th of
October, the 31st of October, the 21st of November. Concentrate on the
payments of money that is what this case is all about. Are they proved by
the Prosecution? If so, what were those payments of money for?
Of course all
of this happened a very long time ago. Of course it makes it more difficult
for people to remember what happened. But members of the jury, merely
because it happened a long time ago is not a matter that should deflect you
from arriving at the truth in this case. What a game it would be, what a
cynical game, if people could commit crime, be involved in police
corruption, flee the country for so many years, and then come back and say:
“well the case is now an old one, you shouldn’t prosecute me, let me off.”
The charges,
members of the jury, wouldn’t it help for us to look at the charges in this
way. There were three meetings between Perry and the defendant. We know that
there were more. There were in fact at least four, but there were three with
which we are very closely concerned in this case, those on the days of the
charges. How did those meetings arise, and what were those meetings all
about? The Prosecution submit to you members of the jury that the answers to
those two questions will lead with certainty to the conclusion that those
meetings were for corrupt purposes.
Let’s consider
the first question, how did those meetings arise? Well, you know what the
Crown evidence on that is, Perry and Mr Lloyd and Mr Mounter, that these
meetings were by arrangement, and that they were meetings for corrupt
purposes. The defendant says no, and when I say the defendant said it, this
is what he said to you on Friday of last week and Monday of this week. “No,
the meeting on the 28th, the first one, was all a mistake” he said, he
thought that he was meeting a chap called Terry, who was an informant, not
Perry. And as regards the other two the defendant said: “well I normally had
lunch at the Grove” And I quote his words: “surprise, surprise, by complete
co-incidence I met Perry”.
Now what do you
make of that? Do you believe it? Can you begin to believe it? Because
members of the jury if you find that that is untrue there isn’t a very
strong foundation, is there, for the defendant’s case that he advances, that
he was not accepting corrupt payments?
Let’s consider
the first one, 28th, that he was going to meet, or believed that he was
going to meet, Terry. You’ve heard the tape for yourselves. Would you have a
look please at Exhibit 35b members of the jury? Page one at the bottom of
the page. “Hello, its Perry here, remember me do you?” “Who?” “Perry.” Do
you believe for a moment that he imagined that he was going to meet Terry?
After all members of the jury this was a conversation of some little
duration. Do you think that he didn’t know who he was talking to?
And then would
you please go on members of the jury and look beyond that in the same
meeting, bottom of page two: “We’re going to meet late”. “Yes”, says
Symonds, “that’s alright, about ten o’clockish?” “Alright, yeah”. So that
they are going to meet at about ten o’clock at the Rose; but we know that
they didn’t meet at ten o’clock. We know that they met at five-thirty - why?
- because Perry had telephoned to bring the meeting forward. So that it
wasn’t just one chat that the defendant had had with Perry, it was two. And
do you still believe after two telephone conversations, the second one to
bring the meeting forward, that he still didn’t know who he was going to
meet that evening?
Well members of
the jury, what happened at the meeting on the 28th, that afternoon? What did
happen? We know that Mr Perry got into the defendant’s motor car. Never
suggested that the defendant, to Perry, that the defendant thought he was
meeting the wrong person. “And what are you doing here; I’m supposed to be
meeting a man called Terry? I can’t speak to you; I’m waiting to speak to
somebody called Terry”. This all came up for the very first time. I think it
was last Friday.
And members of
the jury you’ve only got to look at the transcript of what we have on tape 2
to appreciate that the two men were on terms of some intimacy in relation to
that which they were talking about. Sergeant Symonds: “sort of seeing the
customers and that’s why you get the money. See you on a nice little fraud.
It doesn’t matter how hard you work or how much you go out thieving, and how
many people you fucking turn over, you still won’t get as much in ten”. Is
this the man who has arranged to meet a man called Terry, and who is
surprised to find that one of the Likely Lads had come into his motor car,
as it were, almost by mistake?
What about the
three meetings as a whole: the 28th and the 31st and the 21st? Mr Perry and
Mr Lloyd and Mr Mounter told you that these meetings were by appointment, in
the sense that they knew when the meetings were going to take place. They
had all the equipment set up, Perry was wired, they organised the money,
took the numbers of the money, gave Perry the money back, the photographers
were there, Hawkey was there, Miss Millard was there, Barry Owen was there
on the first occasion. Was all this, did all this happen by magic on the
off-chance that Sergeant Symonds might be taking his lunch at the Grove
public house that day? Or isn’t it clearly the case members of the jury that
these meetings were arranged with Mr Perry has told you they were.
Why would the
defendant have you think otherwise? Why does he want you to think that they
may have been, they may have met, not may but that they did meet by
co-incidence. Well members of the jury the answer may be this you may think
that if these were pre-arranged meetings there’s got to be some reason for
them, there’s got to be some good reason at that with this man, who was then
on bail, and who was suspected of being one of the Likely Lads. If they had
met purely by chance there’s rather less explaining to do, is there not?
And so that
brings us to the next question, which is perhaps the vital question in the
case. What were these meetings for, what were they all about? It was put to
Mr Perry, members of the jury that the meetings may have been that the
defendant wished to use Perry as an informant - that is one possibility. The
only other possibility in this case is that the meetings were for
corruption. And you may think there can be no doubt about it members of the
jury, either the defendant met Perry because he wished to use him as an
informant, or corruption was in the air.
Now, let’s
consider which of those two it really was, but before that members of the
jury may I just point to that which was said by the defendant in his
statement from the dock on Friday and Monday. Because it was suggested to
Perry, you understand, that Perry was to be used as an informant. Let us
consider what the defendant had to say about this. Do you know what he had
to say about it members of the jury? Nothing.
There are four
vital days in this case: the 24th September, the 28th October, the 31st
October and the 21st November. There are four vital days in this case, and
we have all spent weeks in this case, considering what happened on those
four vital days. As to the 24th September, that’s the time that Perry and
the defendant met at Camberwell police station in the cells. What did the
defendant say about that in his statement from the dock? Nothing.
As to the 28th
October, this is what he said to you in his statement from the dock: “all I
remember of that conversation is that Perry was talking to me in a friendly
fashion about nothing in particular.”
Now I’m going
to come to the 31st and the 21st, the dates that are the subject of counts
two and three. What did he say about those? Nothing. This is what he said,
and these were the vital days in this case about which no doubt if he was
going to say anything from the dock we would have been anxiously listening.
This is all he said: “I met him many more times than has come out in the
evidence”. And that’s all that you heard about the 31st October and the 21st
of October. And may I respectfully remind you members of the jury that you
decide this case according to the evidence that you’ve heard. And the
defendant in his statement from the dock chose to say nothing about those
days.
So members of
the jury what is the position, what are you left with? Well, I’ll tell you
what you are left with if I may. You are left with the evidence on the one
side and on the other side you are left with a suggestion that was made to
Perry that they were met for the purposes of the defendant getting
information from him, and so I’m going to investigate that possibility with
you now.
There are three
points that I wish to make about the suggestion to Perry, that Perry was
being used as an informant. And incidentally members of the jury, against
that you will remember this, that Perry said in his evidence when this was
put to him: “No, they were meetings between a criminal and a corrupt police
officer”, the criminal involved himself.
The three
points that I wish to make are as follows. First. In all of the transcripts
that are before you, there isn’t one single word that could possibly lead
one to believe that the defendant was trying to get information out of
Perry. Not one single question did the defendant ask of Perry which could
have helped him in any way to obtain information.
The second
point that I make is this, and I would ask you to look please at page 24 of
Exhibit No. 35b. Top of the page. Mr Symonds: “you see the thing is, what,
you know, I don’t mind helping out, but er if there’s a fucking grass
amongst them, you see I’m putting my ... see what I’ve said that McDonald,
you know, trying to get at McDonald grassed them because, em, if he’s
standing up collected up then he’s grassed them right. I start steaming in
and fucking doing things ...” “Yeah that’s right, yeah.” “… to get them all
out then he’s just as likely to fucking grass me isn’t he?” “Yeah but I
can’t see him doing that.” “So if I’m going to help out it’s got to be that
McDonald. McDonald’s, anyway, knowing fuck all about it.” “I got you yeah.”
“He doesn’t even want to fucking know he’s had any help. Well I’ll find out
who, if, who is the grass, and if he is the grass then he can be seen to
afterwards, can’t he?” “Yeah, yeah.” “By, by the fellers.”
And so members
of the jury, the only reference to grassing, informing, in any of these
transcripts goes directly the other way, the defendant is making it crystal
clear to Perry that he is not going to be involved with having anything to
do with people who are grasses because they can’t be trusted. And isn’t that
interesting members of the jury against the background that the defendant
says that there was, what, criminal fantasy land. “He can be seen to
afterwards can’t he?” “Yeah yeah.” “By, by the fellers.” Criminal fantasy
indeed.
And the third
point members of the jury, that I make about informants is this. Would you
please pick up Exhibit No. 31, which is the diary? And there’s no need for
us to go through all of this, I assure you. Can we start in October, because
that’s where all of this begins. Would you go to the 2nd October please,
9.30 p.m., do you have the 2nd October, 9.30 p.m., entered Walmer Castle
public house, purchased refreshments for informant. Next day members of the
jury, 3rd October, 9.30 p.m. to Rose public house, purchased refreshments
for informant, left public house. Next day, the 4th October, 9.20 p.m., the
Walmer Castle public house, purchased refreshments for informant. Next day,
the 5th October, 9.00 p.m., to Tiger public house, purchased refreshments
for informant, left public house. Next day, the 6th October, 9.40 p.m.,
Hermits Cave, purchased refreshments for informant.
Nothing in the
next page, or the next, or I think the next, 10th October, 9.00 p.m., to
Walmer Castle, purchased refreshments for informant, then there’s a week
with leave members of the jury. Then he comes back on the 15th October.
18th October if
you please, 8.15 p.m., purchased refreshments for informer while seeking
information about local crime. 25th October members of the jury. We’re
getting close to the day. 9.45 p.m., entered Walmer Castle, met informant
for whom purchased refreshments. Next day 26th October, 9.00 p.m., entered
Walmer Castle, met informant. Could we have this switched off please?
We leave out
the 27th October members of the jury. 28th October, would you look at 5.15
p.m. please, that’s the time 5.30 that he met Perry. Not a word there, is
there, about Perry being an informant? But just look at 8.30 that day, same
day took up the pays they’re owed re Jackson and Reed and while seeking
information entered Plough public house and met informant for whom purchased
refreshments. Next reference that he’s meeting an informant on that day at
8.30 - no reference at all to the facts that he is meeting an informant at
5.30.
Then we go on
members of the jury. 3rd of November 9.00 p.m. Of course you’ll appreciate,
I’ll say go on, but we’ve gone past the 31st October, which is the second
vital day in this case. If you look at 2.45 p.m. on that day, 2.00 p.m. -
2.45 p.m., no reference to the fact that he’s meeting an informant. He
doesn’t have to give the informant’s name, just to say that it’s an
informant, that wasn’t how he saw Perry at all, was it?
3rd of
November, Artichoke public house, refreshments for informant. Then he takes
some leave members of the jury, and then if we can go on please to the 11th
of November, 7.00 p.m., and that informant for whom purchased refreshments.
13th of November, 9 p.m. met informant. 15th, 9.15, met informant. 16th,
9.00 p.m., met informant. 17th, 6.15, met informant. 19th, 9.30, met
informant. 20th, the day before count three, 10.00 p.m., met informant. 21st
of November, count three, 12.30 was the time of the meeting members of the
jury, not a word about meeting an informant. And finally, and now I tell you
on the last two pages, 24th of November and the 25th at 8.00 p.m. and 9.00
p.m., met informant.
This man
regularly made entries in his diaries every time he met an informant, as you
can see members of the jury, and lo and behold in so far as his meetings
with Perry are concerned, not a mention of the fact that he was considered
to be an informant. Why not, if he was a genuine police informant, who was
there to give him, the defendant, information? We say to you members of the
jury that you really need to have no doubt about this, but that there is
very strong evidence indeed that Perry was not being treated as an informant
by the defendant, and if he wasn’t, then what on earth were those meetings
all about. There’s no excuse for them, there’s no explanation for them. Well
the crown say that we’ve now got to turn to the second alternative, that is
corruption.
The evidence
members of the jury, the direct evidence of Perry and Lloyd and Mounter, and
Miss Millard; the evidence is all one way here. The tapes are obviously
important evidence if you accept them, and it’s not for me to say whether
you should accept them. I shall advance arguments in due course, arguments
on which the prosecution base the view that you should, but in the end it’s
for you to decide whether to accept those tapes or not. But if you do accept
those tapes members of the jury, why then there’s no question whatsoever in
our submission that this was corruption.
Let’s, shall
we, examine what the name of this game really was. And let’s forget for a
moment about counts numbers one, two and three. Would you pick up those
tapes, those transcripts again members of the jury please? Page six, which
is tape number two. This is Robson, the Robson matter and the gelignite.
Look at the top of page six, and this is the …
Judge
Stroyan: 35d to …?
Rivlin:
I’m sorry
Judge
Stroyan: 35d?
Rivlin:
35d, page six. This is Robson, the Robson gelignite matter, and this is the
second, this is the very first meeting that was recorded, the date of count
number one, the top of the page: “I’ll see you about the other thing later
on”. Perry said that that was money; what else could it have been, but let’s
go on. “If you get anything like, any problems, let me know Steve, because I
…” “It was only that yard, and the jelly like, it’s what I’m worried about”.
“Yeah”. “It carries a bit of bird don’t it? If I can scrape up a few quid.
If it comes to a few quid, I mean, I can scrape it up”. “Yeah” “I can borrow
it, like. I mean I can always borrow it. If it’s right important, I mean,
like”. That’s money members of the jury, money that’s to be paid to a police
officer for corrupt purposes. Can we please go on.
Would you go on
please to pages 26 and 27. This is the third meeting. The third meeting,
bottom of page 26, and we’re talking members of the jury about Robson, and
you will remember all that business about don’t go and meet him at the
police station and we’ll get, take, he’ll be taken into a deal. That’s not
criminal fantasy land, that was good solid advice that he was being given,
bottom of page 26. Perry: “yeah, he’s alright that way but then he might.”
“Is he”? “Yeah, I’ve given him money before. But he might this time, he
might want a body or something, you know what I mean? But I don’t
particularly trust him like.” This is the defendant talking about another
police officer, members of the jury. “That’s another thing they do to you,
d’you see? Once they get in with you they, they try, start using you as a
grass. But once, you see, like for instance, supposing I was talking to you
now, you know, sort of did a bit of business. Alright, I might reckon you
now, but as soon as you started fucking, I might say to you if I was a keen
bloke I might say ‘here who did so and so and so’, and if you tell me, I
wouldn’t think fuck all of you after that.”
That goes
straight to the heart of the question as to whether the defendant ever even
considered using Perry as an informant. He’s telling him I wouldn’t think
tuppence of you if you gave me information. “No they’ve tried that already
on him.” “Because if you’re a grass you’re a fucking grass and if you’re a
grass that means you’re likely, just as likely to fucking grass me as any
cunt, see what I mean.” Perry: “Yeah like, the minute he, the first time
they put the jelly on me you see, and he was trying to get the names off me
that way, you see. I wouldn’t give him no names, so we done it money-wise,
right.” “Yeah.” “And if he wants”, and then just look at this members of the
jury, “well, what could he want you for, if you’ve done your business,
there’s nothing owing is there?” “No his had his poor wretch.” “He’s got
nothing on you. I wouldn’t fucking see the cunt quite honestly. Like it, say
if you owed him money, see, and he said oh well he’s got to meet you, then
of course you’ll go, got to go and that’s it.” “Yeah, yeah.” “Because
otherwise he’ll think you’re fucking him up about the money, and he’ll fit
you up. But you’ve done the business and you just want to drop the man out
of it, because what he’s doing, he might try to bleed you. He might think,
oh this, you know, I’m on to a good one here, and, because we’ve got more
villains in our game than you’ve got in yours.”
And then
members of the jury, the very next paragraph of the defendant’s talk there’s
reference again to him bleeding him dry, and all the time they’re talking
about Perry paying money to Robson, and I know that I’ve emphasised the word
money, but you understand this is my chance to draw to your attention just
what the name of the of the game really was between these two men. All the
time the defendant and Perry here are talking about money, money going to
police for corrupt purposes.
And members of
the jury just go over the page please to the bottom of page 39, 29 sorry:
“But then again, that’s alright, but then again he might also have half
heard something about you and sort of try and bring it round and say we know
all about this, that and the other, conning you, you know. Then sort of con
dough out of, you know. But he doesn’t really know fuck all at all really,
he’s only half heard you’d done something.” “Yeah.” “You’ve got to watch all
this because otherwise you’ll be fucking, you’ll be fucking skint all your
life, you know. Send a mate up to see Robson, and if says, and if he says to
the mate, em, you know, the other thing is don’t let the mate show out to
Robson that he knows you’ve paid him dough, or anything you see, because
then Robson will think, well if he’s fucking told this bloke, he’s told
every cunt, you know, and he won’t deal with you any more.” “No, no, he
don’t know, none of the others know.” “But, but as I say if you, if you paid
all your dough, all it can be is a tip off. It’s either a tip-off about
something else, or he’s going to try and blag you for some money because
Christmas is coming.”
And then over
the page members of the jury, third line down: “but he’s not on your back,
is he?” “No, not really.” “You’ve finished the business”. Now members of the
jury, this was the situation here you know, that there was a great deal of
chat about Robson and the money that Perry was having to pay to Robson,
Robson being a police officer, the money being paid for corrupt purposes.
What did the defendant do about it: he advised Perry on his own behalf? He
didn’t, did he members of jury, act the hero, if I can use the defendant’s
own expression, and say to Perry: “my goodness me, what on earth’s going on
here. You tell me about it, I’ll investigate it.”
Do you remember
how the defendant criticised the Nuneaton officers because they hadn’t
immediately cautioned Perry when he offered them a bribe and said I’ll give
you some money to get out of here? Why didn’t he the caution them? A
criminal offence was being committed. This was the defendant’s chance
members of the jury, to show his true mettle, when he was told over and over
and over again that a fellow police officer was receiving corrupt payments.
Not a word about this. It was all to this end wasn’t it: “well I hope you do
your business and finish your business with him as soon as possible, and
then we can get down to our business in earnest.”
Why didn’t the
defendant do something about this situation? If it was left to the Times
reporters to do something about the situation, why didn’t the defendant, a
serving police officer, do something about the situation? Well, the answer
to that, members of the jury, unhappily, again is to be found in the words
of Mr Symonds himself: “I’m in a little firm within a firm you know.” And,
I’ve just pointed out to you the passages where Perry is telling the
defendant about the gelignite, and Robson and the money.
Can I remind
you members of the jury of what the defendant told the police when he was
interviewed? This is what he was asked, and it’s the bottom of page 337:
“Did Perry tell you he was asked that Inspector Robson had planted jelly,
meaning gelignite on him”? “No”. “Did Perry tell you that he was prepared to
pay money to Inspector Robson to avoid prosecution for possessing
gelignite?” Defendant’s answer: “No.” Well he did, it’s all there. Why was
he telling those untruths in evidence to the witness?
And so members
of the jury, you can look outside the immediate facts of this case to see
what the name of the game was. It’s all there, in all of those references to
gelignite, and Robson, and Perry paying Robson money. In relation members of
the jury to the instant case, however, as you know, there are a number of
passages upon which the prosecution rely. In cross-examination this is what
Perry said to the defendant, and this was with reference to tape number one,
members of the jury, and you will remember that, do you not, it’s on page
number two. “I’d like to see you about, well you know”. “Yeah, where are you
now”?
The defendant
put it to Perry that they could have been talking about information. He
didn’t then put it to him that he believed that it was somebody else called
Terry, but he put it to him that they could have been talking about
information. What was Perry’s answer, do you remember? “We both knew what we
were talking about.” “Could this sentence have applied to information,”
asked the defendant? “Not coming from me, it couldn’t”, said Perry. “We both
knew what we were talking about.” And when you listen to the tape do you not
hear with your own ears a sound of recognition in the defendant when Perry
says “I’d like to see you about, er, you know.”
Tape 5 members
of the jury, page 7, top of the page: “How you doing Mickey.” “You know a
bit more dough.” “I see.”
Page 15, about
a third of the way down: “I still ain’t got it all yet. I got another 50,
alright?” “Yeah, fine, yeah.”
Page 19, and
this is the money between Perry and the defendant, bottom of the page: “Do
alright then Mick, get anything you, er, you know keep in touch.” “I’ll get
it, and I’m going to definitely get it next week, but I couldn’t get my
hands on it.” “Yes that’s alright. As I say, don’t do anything silly, just
sort of, you know.”
Tape 14, page
22, top of the page: “How you doing Mickey”. “Alright there, I ain’t got,
er, actually I’ve only got 50, alright.” “Pardon?” “I’ve only got 50 again,
alright?” “Yeah. Some of your mates are in trouble, aren’t they?”
Had you
noticed, or have you noticed members of the jury that every time the subject
of money does crop up between them, the way that the voice drops and the way
that the conversation hurries on, to something else just as you’d expect it
to be, if you, a corrupt police officer was sitting in the car, and taking
fivers or tenners from some lend to you crook.
Page 24, bottom
of the page. If you’ve written something in members of the jury, so be it,
but you’ll remember the evidence about that from both Perry, and from Mr
Penna and Mr Eley. Reference to money. I’m sorry to say that I may have to
return to these particular references in due course.
Page 30, bottom
of the page: “I only got the Section ones coming up that’s all, but I can’t,
I don’t know when I’ll get the money. It could be this week like, but no
it’s a bit late this week now, not this week now. But that other cunt on me
back from the yard, he’s a … I can’t do fuck all.” “No, what Robson?” And
then they go onto the business of Robson and Harris.
Page 36, bottom
of the page, something for which no explanation has ever been advanced in
this case: “Anyway Mick, thanks very much for that”. You know what, and so
it goes on.
And look
members of the jury, if you like, at page 13. This is the last reference
that I’m going to give you on the transcripts just for the time being.
Rather interesting and ironical little bit of conversation that comes in the
middle of the page, on page 13. “The thing to do, you see, is if you, you
know like once you’ve sort of got yourself all square and that, fucking work
in with us you know”. “Yeah” “But I know like, you know, I can’t give you no
- you haven’t got this thing bugged or something have you, so I talk in a
false voice, you know? Talk with a Scotch accent”, and you’ll probably
remember that little bit of laughter for a long time. He wouldn’t be saying
that would he members of the jury if they were talking about information
that Perry was giving him: “You haven’t got this thing bugged have you?”
Just an interesting little vignette, this is corruption. And that was what
was in the defendant’s mind. And there are so many references to money, in
these tapes members of the jury, that it could only conceivably have been
corruption that those two men were on about.
Well, the
defendant seeks does he not, and did so, and you’ll probably remember it, in
his cross-examination of the witnesses. Shrug it all off, and to pour scorn
on these tapes and to brush them aside, the whole lot aside with that
expression: ‘it’s all criminal fantasy land’. That’s what he says, but you
know members of the jury it’s interesting to consider whether it really was
all criminal fantasy land. Some of it may have been very silly talk, some of
it may have been insincere on the defendant’s part. Maybe that he had no
intentions whatsoever of going out with Perry and committing crime, but you
just think about it. Do you remember Mr Harley giving evidence yesterday,
that one of the things that they were concerned about was that these Likely
Lads were changing addresses and they couldn’t keep track on them. Do you
remember that message?
Well, let’s
consider shall will what the position was there. If you look please at page
31 of the transcript and page 32, bottom of page 31: “Yeah I got nicked the
last time I moved.” “As soon as everyone knows where you live you might just
as well fucking pack it all in. There you know, because the, and the other
thing like, when you went to Nunhead Lane, I tell you now you know, you sort
of showed out straight away that you’d arrived.” And what a business it was,
wasn’t it members of the jury that police officers were desperately, it
would seem, trying to keep track on the Likely Lads, to find out where they
were living and where they were stashing their gear, if I can be permitted
to use that expression. And the defendant’s giving Perry the advice that
he’s all too conspicuous, that it’s no good when the police know where he’s
living, and that the best thing to do is to stash away the stolen gear in
some lock-up garage or another.
You may think
members of the jury that the one bit of advice that an honest police officer
might have been inclined to give is: “stay where you are, don’t worry stay
where you are”. Tricking Perry into believing that he’s all right where he
is, but knowing in his own mind that at least the police can keep track of
him where he is.
And all that
business about committing offences out of town - did that sound to you like
criminal fantasy land? There may be one or two little bits in this lot, that
were in fact and in truth criminal fantasy land, but the vast majority of it
members of the jury made good sound practical common sense. This is what Mr
Perry said in evidence, when he was asked about this, and whether all this
was criminal fantasy land: “We just started having dealings with each other.
You were just telling me what sort of things we could do, hoping to get
further money out of me later on.” And Perry you may think hit the nail on
the head when he said that, did he not members of the jury.
|
