| Wannabe in my gang?
- Documents |
22/11/00 - Evidence of DI Michael Latham
IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
T20000528
Old Bailey
London
EC4A 2AG
Wednesday, 22nd November 2000
Before:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE COLLINS CBE
R E G I N A
-v-
SIMON JAMES
JONATHAN REES
JAMES COOK
DAVID COURTNEY
MR B HOULDER QC ASSISTED BY MR A JAFFERJEE appeared on behalf of the Prosecution.
MR A JENNINGS ASSISTED BY MR HUSSAIN appeared on behalf of SIMON JAMES.
MR A BERRY QC ASSISTED BY MR A CALLAWAY appeared on behalf of JONATHAN REES.
THE DEFENDANT, COOK appeared on his own behalf.
MR N LITHMAN QC ASSISTED BY MR JOHNSON appeared on behalf of DAVID COURTNEY.
EVIDENCE OF DI MICHAEL LATHAM
INDEX
Examination in Chief by MR HOULDER .............. Page 3-24
Cross-examined by MR JENNINGS ................... Page 24-25
Cross-examined by MR LITHMAN .................... Page 25-55
Re-examined by MR HOULDER ....................... Page 55-65
Further re-examination by MR LITHMAN ............ Page 65
Wednesday, 22nd November 2000
Detective Inspector Michael Latham, sworn
Examined in Chief by MR HOULDER
MR HOULDER: In June of last year, were you a Detective Inspector based at Bexley Heath Police Station?
A.Indeed, I was, my Lord.
Q. In that month, did you have the job of controlling informants and the informant registers at Bexley Heath Police Station?
A.That is correct.
Q. How long had you personally been stationed at that station dealing with that area of responsibility?
A.I was stationed at Bexley Heath in October 1998 and it was in February of 1999, my Lord, that I took open the responsibility for (inaudible).
Q. Thank you. Now, on 24th May of 1999, were you concerned in -- and I am going to summarise this by agreement -- tasking the handlers of the various informants under, as it were, your dossier to see if they could gain information about burglaries being committed in your area? A, That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. That, I think, some people may be familiar with was an operation that has, for some years, been called "Operation Bumblebee", is that right?
A.That is right, my Lord, yes.
Q. If you could look, please, at an exhibit that we all have at Page Three. Page Three of our document bundle. Do you have ML1 with you?
A.I have, indeed.
Q. Take it out, would you? My Lord, the tape that has just been played of the meeting on the common, I wonder if that could be Exhibit 15 (b)' so that it goes with the film.
JUDGE COLLINS: The video is 14.
MR HOULDER: The tape; that is 15.
JUDGE COLLINS: What we said so far, I do not mind telling you, is that the video is 14 --
MR HOULDER: That is right.
JUDGE COLLINS: -- and the audio tape 15.
MR HOULDER: That is right. Yes. Perhaps the photograph could be 15(b) as that has now been introduced as well.
JUDGE COLLINS: Do you think that the -- you are not happy just for the photographs just as being Exhibit Six generally?
MR HOULDER: I really do not mind.
JUDGE COLLINS: I thought you had a specific --
MR HOULDER: No, it is just that that is the way it seems to be happening.
JUDGE COLLINS: It is a perfectly manageable file of photographs. I think it is probably easier to leave it as it is.
MR HOULDER: Very well. (To the witness) You have got the e-mail there, have you? We have all got copies of it .
A.Yes, I have.
Q. This is what you sent around. In this case, this is the one you sent to Austin Warnes(?), is that right?
A.That is right.
Q. Who was, then, a detective constable at that station?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. As we can see it says "re: above source" which is someone known in your register as "Tommy Mack".
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. "Please contact him or her to task with obtaining intelligence information on burglars and handlers for a forthcoming Bumblebee. All replies, positive or negative, to me by 7th June."
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. On 10th June, if we can move ahead to that, did you come into work and find something on your desk?
A.I did, my Lord, yes.
Q. Yes. Now I want to ask you about any notes you may have in relation to this. Did you make a statement on the same day?
A.I did, my Lord, yes.
Q. Is that your note or did you have a separate note? That is all I want to know?
A.I do have two notebooks.
Q. Yes?
A.But neither -- both of them are just sealed and, unfortunately, I would have open both of them to answer that question. They are sealed as exhibits.
Q. That is all right. All I want to know at this stage, so that we can get the evidence from the right note, you made a statement. Did you use your notes to help you make your statement or did the statement come first and the notes later?
A.I would have to open my notebook to answer that.
Q. I see. All right. A, This statement was not made on the same day.
Q. You look at your notebook and do unseal them. There is no pressure about that at all. I am sure that the Court has got some scissors for the bag.
A.Yes. The statement would be my original note, my Lord.
Q. Yes. Very well. That is your original note. Just tell us, please; when you came into work on Thursday, 10th June, what did you find on your desk?
A.I found an envelope on my desk which was addressed to myself containing two Form 5020Ds, my Lord, which are contact sheets relating to contacts with informants --
Q. Yes?
A.-- which were timed at 12:58 on 9th June 1999 at Bexley Heath.
Q. Your voice is dropping down. I wonder if the television -- unfortunately, we have lost our strorigarmed men at the request of the defence. I wonder if they can be asked in and just move those video screens while I ask some perhaps fairly simple questions? Page 57 of our exhibit bundle, members of the jury, and if you could get that contact sheet. Do you have that there?
A.I have not, my Lord.
Q. No? You will be provided with an exhibit bundle, officer.
A.Thank you.
Q. You just referred to coming into work on the 10th (?), finding these contact sheets on your desk, is that right?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. It is what we see at Page 57 and 58 of our bundle, is that right? Just check. I am not absolutely sure that that is the right one so I want your confirmation?
A.It is. The only difference, my Lord, is that the timing on my typed statement is at 12:38.
Q. You said 12:38. In fact, it appears to be 12:58, in fact?
A.It is a typing error from my original handwritten statement.
Q. This is what you are talking about?
A.Yes.
Q. The jury have had those read to them?
JUDGE COLLINS: What page is it again?
MR HOULDER: Pages 57 and 58?
JUDGE COLLINS: I see that they are not in the index.
MR HOULDER: I am so sorry. They are in mine.
JUDGE COLLINS: Are these mentioned in your index?
MR HOULDER: Pages 57 and 58.
JUDGE COLLINS: They are not in the jury's index either.
MR HOULDER: We will replace that index page then.
JUDGE COLLINS: I go up to Page 49 which is -- I go up to Page 49 and then Page 57, Page 58, Page 59 are not in. It does not matter. It looks as though they are only three pages not indexed.
MR HOULDER: That is fine.
JUDGE COLLINS: Page 57, Page 58, Page 59.
MR HOULDER: All right. (To the witness) So that -- we can see, officer, that that relates to a suggestion that two people by the name of Kim James and Lauren Mannon (?) whose addresses are provided are, it is suggested, going up to London on Fridays and Saturdays dealing in cocaine.
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Thank you. Did you speak to Detective Constable Warnes about that?
A.I did, indeed, my Lord, yes.
Q. Yes. Did you tell him to do something so far as that information is concerned?
A.I did. I told him to put the information on to a contact sheet which is a Form 5020D and to input the information on to the Police Crim Int System which is a computer system for management information.
Q. Yes. On the 19th June, if you can go on to that date, please, Detective Inspector, which is che jury's Page Five. Did you log some information relating to the information provided by Mr Warnes? Pages Four and Five in our bundle. You are trying to find your note.
A.I am trying to find my note -- my note and statement, my Lord.
Q. Yes. If you get the relevant document.
A.Can you repeat the date, sir, please?
Q. 19th June.
JUDGE COLLINS: The 16th. 16th June.
MR HOULDER: It may be that my note is wrong. It may well be the 16th. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. (To the witness) Do you have that? Do you have the exhibit there in front of you? If you turn to Page Four and Five of the bundle in front of you, may be that is all you need to answer my question.
A.That is an intelligence report which has got my name on it but it is not one I was associated with inputting.
Q. Did -- this, of course, was printed out for the purpose of this case 'but do you have anything to do with this document? We can see that the source of the information is you, Detective Inspector Latham. The officer source was Detective Constable Warnes. Did you have any part to play, not necessarily in the creation of this document but did you see this document?
A.I have seen it.
Q. Yes. What is it, please?
A.It is a document relating to the result from a search.
Q. Very well. Was that information that you had around about that time, the 16th June?
A.That was on the 17th June.
JUDGE COLLINS: Hold on. Just hold on a minute. Look at the document on Page Four.
MR HOULDER: I think your Lordship -- if I can refer your Lordship to Page 81 of the bundle I think the officer's answer may be correct with respect.
JUDGE COLLINS: May be. But let us look at the document for a moment. It says on it, "Date created, 16th June 1999". Is that correct or incorrect?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. It is correct. It says that you are the source. Can you explain why it says that?
A.That is an administrative matter. The source of the information, if it relates to an informant is normally put down as the controller of the sources. So it would be done on my instructions because I would have to look at each one of these pieces of information when it is put on the system and to ensure that it had been sanitised in a correct version. It is purely administrative, my Lord.
Q. But who would have physically put this on the system? Anybody in particular?
A.DC Warnes.
MR HOULDER: Yes. You had told him earlier to put this, as you have already told the jury, on the Grim Int system.
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. The first part of this document relates to the same information that is in that handwritten form; not quite the -- worded quite the same way but, in effect, it is the same information?
A.It is, my Lord, yes.
Q. The second half of Page Five and the top of Page Six, relates to something that happened a little later on on 15th June about which the jury have already heard something at any rate; namely, the fact that search warrants were executed at the address of Kim James in particular. A, That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. All right. You have mentioned the 17th June as the occasion when you first saw this.
A.That is correct, my Lord.
Q. How was it that you came to discover this document, please?
A.It was left in an envelope on my desk with a following writing, "To DI Latham from DC Warnes".
Q. That being the 17th June, were you aware, yourself, at that stage, that Detective Constable Warnes had departed on holiday on that day?
A.No, sir, -I was not.
Q. Very well. Had you been on duty, yourself, the preceding day, the 16th? A, I was not on duty on 16th.
Q. Thank you very much. On 24th June, this is Page 187, did you hand various documents I have been asking you about, in particular, that e-mail that you sent Detective Constable Warnes which was marked as ML1 on to the exhibits officer in this case?
A.I did, my Lord, yes.
Q. Detective Constable Collins?
A.That is correct.
Q. If I can go ahead now to 25th June. Officer, on 25th June, as we all know, you were concerned in a meeting with a registered informant, is that correct?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. And I am going to call him "Detective Constable Warnes" because that is what he was at the time, Detective Constable Austin Warnes, is that right?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Why was it that you decided that that meeting needed to be held?
A.I was briefed by officers from the Complaints Bureau to hold that meeting with him. Q1. Were you put into the picture, as it were, as to what the nature of those complaints investigation officers what their investigations were all about?
A.I had been given a general over view, my Lord, yes I had.
Q. Yes. Your task was to do what, please, Inspector Latham, if you could?
A.On this particular day, my task was to ring DC Warnes, try and arrange a meeting with his informant telling him that there had been problems at a High Court in relation or the arrest of a lady concerning whom he had supplied information about.
Q. Yes. What would your meeting with, as it turned out, Mr Courtney and Detective Constable Warnes achieve so far as the problem in the High Court was concerned?
A.It was a twofold intention of that meeting. One was to get him to sign what is, in effect, a contract; terms and conditions between police and informants and, secondly, it was to question him, or the informant, about the information so that I was in a position to brief anyone at court; in particular, the judge, my Lord.
Q. Why was the verification of that information of relevance to the Court as you understood it?
A.As I understood it?
Q. Yes?
A.It was that allegations had been made that drugs had been planted and it was over a custody battle and my purpose was, essentially, to speak to the informant to try and ascertain directly his knowledge information so that I was in a position to answer any questions which were indeed asked of me, my Lord.
Q. All right. Very well. Did you manage to contact Detective Constable Warnes; just yes or no?
A.I did, my Lord, yes.
Q. We have not recorded absolutely everything that passed between -- we have not given the jury absolutely every thing that passed between you and Detective Constable Warnes but if you can be given a transcript bundle at Page 187, (Handed) we can play this in a minute. May I just establish this; did you ring Detective Constable Warnes on 25th June in the morning and ask him to arrange a meeting with his informant?
A.I did, my Lord, yes.
Q. Again, I am going to take this fairly shortly. Are you -- were you aware that a listening device had been placed in that police officer's car, Detective Constable Warnes's car at the airport?
A.I was, my Lord, yes
Q. You were. So far as you are concerned, were your provided, when you eventually went to this meeting, with any taping facility yourself?
A.I was, my Lord, yes.
Q. Is that a body tape -- a body recorder that you had on your person?
A.Indeed, it was, my Lord, yes.
Q. Something that -- a device that is standard police issue; something police use from time to time at any rate?
A.It is. 0. All right. Again, I do not need to go through the -- trouble the jury with the whole tape which the defence have been provided with but did you give Detective Constable Warnes any information as to why you wanted this meeting to happen with the informant, Mr Courtney and his handler, Detective Constable Walkers? I do not want verbatim unless you are asked, but did you tell Detective Constable Warnes why it was that you needed to establish this meeting?
A.Well, I did, my Lord. It was -- the basic conversation resolved around my need to speak to him and his informant to get the contract signed and to ask him about the information specifically.
Q. Did you tell him anything about the allegation that was being made; that drugs had been planted on this woman, Kim James?
A.I did mention that, my Lord, yes.
Q. You did mention that to Detective Constable Warnes?
A.I did.
Q. Thank you. That is all that I wanted to ask you about that. Now, I understand that the operator of the tape has been asked to leave court. "That is Detective Constable Collins. I have no criticism of that. I wonder if he could come back?
JUDGE COLLINS: Do we want the tape actually played or is the transcript sufficient?
MR HOULDER: The earlier part, I think I can summarise. I will not, obviously, summarise the meeting with Tommy Mack, the informant. May I just summarise Page 187 and 188 while the officer is being brought into court, please? (To the witness) That morning, do we see, here, a record of Mr Warnes's phoning you, first of all, or trying to phone you? "Okay. Is Mick Latham there, please? Okay I will try and contact him on his pager."
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. All right and then, "Hello? Hello, governor. Right. I can set up a meet with him. What time do you want to do it?" Then we have, "Hello. It is Austin, governor. I needed time. I saw him this morning. He is ever so nervous about meeting but, I mean, he said -- I mean, he has got no choice but to meet you but I said that I cleared with you a time and then arranged to meet. We can do it anywhere really as long as it is not the nick. Yeah, Plumstead Commonish. Right. Do you want to meet me first and then we will drive to it? Is that a big job to do then? Right. Okay. Well, I will get him to come to us, if you would like. That will probably be easier, out of his own are
A.So, if you want to meet down the Jacobean, we can meet down there." You say, "About midday." Mr Warnes says, "Have you got that form that he needs to sign? Right." He says, "Fine. Okay, governor. I will get hold of him. Meet you down there at 12:00." Says, "Goodbye".
A.That is correct, my Lord.
Q. Then, a little later, there is more discussion about where precisely you are going to meet and the time. All right?
A.That is correct.
Q. And then another call from Mr Warnes, again, about meeting in the Black Prince or near the Black Prince and further details about the time.
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Then, at the bottom of the page, if we can go straight to that. Mr Warnes rings in; "Hello. How are you? I am down at the Black Prince just waiting for a meeting with my governor and Dave." First of all, this is not some -- it is not a conversation with you, is that right?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Not a conversation with you. I think, in that case, we will want to play it from this point on so that we can give context to what follows, please. Before it is turned on, may I just establish what you did so that we know what we are listening to? You drove down to a meeting with Austin Warnes and his informant that was known on your files as "Tommy Mack".
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. There is no dispute in this case that that, in fact, was Dave Courtney, the defendant in this case. Is that right?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Very well. Did you meet either Dave Courtney, or Detective Constable Warnes first or did you meet them both at the same time?
A.Both at the same time, effectively.
Q. Where did you meet them?
A.In the carpark of the Jacobean Barn public house.
Q. When you had the conversation that we will hear with them, where did that conversation take place?
A.Mainly in Mr Warnes's car, my Lord.
Q. And, in fact, it was recorded both on your body tape and open Mr Warnes's car tape?
A.As I understand it, yes, my Lord.
Q. I think what we are going to play is, in fact, the one minute that was recorded in the car. Perhaps we can lead in with what we have on CD11 at the bottom of Page 188?
JUDGE COLLINS: This tape will be Exhibit --
MR HOULDER: My Lord, if it is necessary to exhibit. It is all on a CD, my Lord. What we have done: is --
JUDGE COLLINS: No. This is the one that has been put on the CD.
MR HOULDER: Yes. Certainly, if there is any issue raised, we have got all the original tapes.
JUDGE COLLINS: I did not realise that this one had been --
MR HOULDER: Yes. (The tape evidence was played before the Court) (The Court rose for the luncheon adjournment at 13:00) (The Court reconvened at 14:05)
MR HOULDER: We had just got to the bottom of Page 195, if we come from there please. (The tape evidence was played before the Court)
MR HOULDER: May be if we can turn it off there. My Lord, I am at the bottom of Page 188 of the statement bundles?
JUDGE COLLINS: Thank you.
MR HOULDER: (To the witness) I do not think that there was anything else of significance that happened there and as we can see on the tape, there was discussion about something that had been used to leap on while someone was -- while Mr Courtney was signing the document that you had, is that right?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. That is all the rest of all that is about. Subsequently to that -- you may need your statement of 16th July if you have a notebook, 30th June, please. Just one little matter I would like to ask you about there. 30th June?
A.Yes, sir.
Q. On that day, did you see Detective Constable Warnes in the CID office at Bexley Heath Police Station?
A.Yes. I did, my Lord, yes.
Q. Did you speak to him about Tommy Mack, his informant?
A.I did. He asked me if --
Q. You are looking at a note. When did you make a note of this conversation?
A.On 30th January at 17.46.
Q. So, later that afternoon?
A.Indeed, sir, yes.
Q. Just to deal very briefly with it, I think you were asked by him whether you had heard anything about Tommy Mack, is that right?
A.It is, sir, yes.
Q. Did you give him any information at all?
A.I just told him that I had no further news but reminded him not to contact Tommy Mack at any stage.
Q. You told Warnes that he must not contact Courtney at all?
A.Indeed, that is correct, my Lord.
Q. Under any circumstances?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Tell us this; you, of course, had asked Detective Constable Warnes to arrange a meeting, a meeting that we have just heard a tape of. We have seen, in evidence, that, before you met them, they had a separate meeting outside a public house not very far away called "the Prince Albert". You may not have been aware of that. Would that kind of meeting, if it had not been logged, have been permitted by -- from the police officer's point of view, with a registered informant?
A.I would have expected DC Warnes to have informed me of any unauthorised meetings that he had at the earliest opportunity.
Q. Very well. So you were not aware of that meeting at the Prince Albert public house?
A.I was not, my Lord, no.
Q. Very well. Thank you. Page 271, finally, with you, Mr Latham.
JUDGE COLLINS: 271?
MR HOULDER: 271 of the statement bundles. (To the witness) On 22nd September -- that is what I want to ask you about.
JUDGE COLLINS: You have not got this note, Members of the jury.
MR HOULDER: On that day, did you speak again to Detective Constable Warnes about this case?
A.I did, my Lord, yes.
Q. The note relates to 2:19 in the afternoon, is that right? If you find that. Are you looking at your notes. Yes?
A.Indeed, that is right, yes. 2:19.
Q. Did you make your notes that day or not?
A.They were made the next day, my Lord.
Q. The next day. Is that the same day as you made as you made your statement?
A.Indeed, it is.
Q. Were the facts that you have recorded -- I think it is only a small piece of information -- fresh in your mind when you recorded them?
A.They were, my Lord, yes.
Q. With leave, you can refresh your memory, I am sure. Did you, in fact, telephone Mr Warnes?
A.I did, my Lord, yes.
Q. Did you give him any information about whether or not any drugs had been identified as having been seized by the police in respect of Kim James's car?
A.I did, my Lord. The gist of the conversation was that no drugs were present in the articles that had been seized.
Q. When her car were searched, you were telling him that nothing --no drugs had been found?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Did you provide him or see that he was provided with any confirmatory document to show that no drugs were in the package that was subsequently analysed?
A.Yes, my Lord. He was provided with a photocopy of a statement from a scientist confirming that.
Q. He had got a 'copy of the scientist's statement that gave the result of the examination of the package that was found in the car?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Thank you. That is all I want to ask. Thank you.
Cross-examined by MR JENNINGS
Q. Mr Latham, just one question. Before the 25th June when you had your meeting, at what stage did you become aware of the involvement of Anti-corruption Officers?
A.That was on 10th June, my Lord.
Q. 10th June. You became aware then?
A.Yes, my Lord.
Q. Who brought that to your attention?
A.Mr Quick (?) who was then a detective superintendent.
Q. And is he from the Anti-corruption Branch?
A.He is, my Lord, yes.
Q. Did he speak to you about Mrs James's knowledge?
A.No, sir.
Q. Did he tell you whether she was aware or not of the involve of Anti-corruption Officers?
A.He did not tell me that.
Q. Did he ever discuss that with you?
A.Not to my memory, my Lord, no.
Q. Was it discussed at the meeting of the 25th June?
A.No, my Lord.•
Q. Thank you.
MR BERRY: No questions.
JUDGE COLLINS: Mr Cook?
THE DEFENDANT, COOK: I have no questions.
JUDGE COLLINS: Mr Lithman?
Cross-examined by MR LITHMAN
MR LITHMAN: May it please, my Lord. (To the witness) Now, Mr Latham, by 25th June, you, therefore, it would follow, were aware -- we know this -- that police had entered a vehicle, the one in question in this case and found drugs that had been placed there to falsely implicate the woman, Kim James. You were aware of that, were you not?
A.I was, rny Lord, yes.
Q. Of course, from what you tell us, you would have been made aware that that raid had taken place on 15th June?
A.I was unaware of the date it had actually taken place.
Q. I beg your pardon?
A.I was unaware of the actual date it had taken place, my Lord.
Q. Once you were given information on 10th June, you tell us by the Anti-corruption Squad, CIB3. Was that information then updated from time to time?
A.It was, my Lord, yes.
Q. Did you know'that there had been covert police recordings in relation to the conspiracy to plant drugs on her?
A.I was riot aware of that, my Lord, no.
Q. When did you become aware of that for the first time?
A.I cannot say, my Lord. I honestly cannot remember. I would be giving an opinion rather than a fact.
Q. Did you know this by 25th June?
A.No, my Lord.
Q. Did you -- the information that you were given then for it to have any meaning, did it relate to the suggested corrupt behaviour of Mr Warnes?
A.The briefing I was given, my Lord, was in general terms of a plot to plant drugs on a lady which involved Mr Warnes and an informant. I was given very little direct instructions or accurate briefing.
Q. Were you aware that, by 25th June, Mr Courtney had not featured in any police surveillance or being overheard in relation to this enquiry?
A.I was not aware of that, my Lord, no.
Q. You do not know one way or the other?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. But you tell us that you were aware by 25th June by information you were given on the 10th, about the potential involvement of Warnes in an implication to -- in an implication against the woman which is now the subject matter of this case?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Had you been given information that related to how he, Warnes, had become involved?
A.I had not, my Lord, no. Q, How he had been approached by the alleged conspirators; those that wanted the deed done?
A.No, my Lord, I had not.
Q. Had you heard the name "Nigel Grayston"(?)?
A.In relation to this enquiry, I had not.
Q. Yes. Pardon?
A.In relation to this enquiry, I had not.
Q. You had not. Do you know that he was someone who, prior to 25th June, certainly, had been seen in company with Warnes?
A.I was unaware of that, my Lord.
Q. Arid that the suggestion is, is that Grayston is the conduit, the go-between, between the conspirators and Warnes?
A.Again, I am unaware of that, my Lord.
Q. You were aware, of course, were you not, that -- let me just ask you this; Mr Grayston is another policeman, is that right or was at the time?
A.I think he is an expoliceman, my Lord. I have never met the gentleman.
Q. Retired in 1997, I am told by Mr Jafferjee. Were you aware of that?
A.I was aware he was an expoliceman.
Q. When were you aware of that?
JUDGE COLLINS: I do not know how far this officer can help you, Mr Lithman. He has already told you that (a), he did not know how Warnes became involved and (b), that he did not know Mr Grayston in relation to this case. It seems to me that he cannot really help with you this line of this enquiry.
MR LITHMAN: Quite so. Perhaps we can be given assistance elsewhere.
JUDGE COLLINS: There may be other officers elsewhere.
MR LITHMAN: Your Lordship is quite right. (To the witness) In any event, by the time the -- you have see for the first time what the jury has in its bundle. So could you turn to it, at Pages 57 and 59; namely, the document time dated the 9th and 16th June. You knew, did you not, that those documents contained false information?
A.I knew that they contained information which had been investigated by CIB3.
Q. But which was -- you had been given information that the information in these documents was false; saying that two girls are dealing in cocaine, Kim James and the girl, Lauren Mannon, giving their addresses and the car registration vehicle. You knew, did you not, that this information was false? These girls were not trading in cocaine.
A.In that respect, yes, my Lord.
Q. All right?
A.That it was a plot to plant drugs on them.
Q. All right. So you knew that this, from the information you were being given, was false. These were false documents.
A.The general gist of it was false but some of the names and addresses of the people involved may have been true but - -
JUDGE COLLINS: The essential allegation --
A.Indeed, your Lordship.
Q. -- was false?
A.Yes.
MR LITHMAN:False in as false as it can be, because here are two people who are apparently wholly innocent -- it is not suggested, of course, otherwise by us -- here are two people who are wholly innocent who are being referred to as drug dealers. Drug suppliers. So thoroughly false, misleading information.
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Of course, you knew that when you saw it, did you not? You knew that to be the position when you saw it?
A.Yes, my Lord. Yes.
Q. All right. Of course, when you looked at them and here are sheets apparently put in, based on information from "a source", you had no evidence -- and the alleged source is supposed to be Mr Courtney -- you had no evidence whatever that he had provided this information?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. So where these forms had been put in, saying that he was the informant providing this information, you, at that time, of course, took no steps whatever to verify that to be the position, did you, at that time?
A.That is correct, my Lord.
Q. So, of course, if we have a look for a moment as to what the true position was, if we look at the document at Page 57; the one that is time dated 9th June, which begins, if the jury would be so kind to look at it, "Telephone conversation with source yesterday." In other words, here is Warnes saying that he has spoken to Courtney?
JUDGE COLLINS: No, he does not. He does not say who his source is. He does not mention it. That is the point, is it not? You asked the officer whether he had taken any steps to verify it. Of course, it does not actually say in the document who the source is, does it?
MR LITHMAN: That is quite right. That is quite right. (To the witness) But did you believe him to be referring to Courtney as his source at this time?
A.My Lord, when I received these documents on the morning of the 10th, I was unaware of any involvement by CIB3. I took them on face value. I dealt with them as I do all others.
JUDGE COLLINS: You say that. You must clarify this because you told Mr Lithman a little earlier that, when you first saw them, you realised that it was false information. Are you now saying that that answer was not correct?
A.There are two there, my Lord. There is one for the 16th and there is one for the 9th. I was confused there, my Lord. I apologise.
MR HOULDER: Page 59 is the 16th.
JUDGE COLLINS: (To the witness) Would you like -- can you clarify it now so that we know exactly what the position was?
A.That I received these two sheets which are 57 and 58 on the morning of the 10th on my desk, prior to my knowledge of any involvement, my Lord, by CIB3. I had dealt with it in the ordinary course as 1 do in the course of my daily work.
Q. And for the purpose of attempts at clarification, when you first saw 57 and 58 on the morning of the 10th, did you then have any reason to believe that the information being passed on in these documents was false?
A.No, my Lord.
Q. You did not. When did you first receive information from Detective Superintendent Quick?
A.On the 10th. Later that day.
Q. Later on the same day. All right.
MR LITHMAN: To follow that through -- thank you, my Lord. (To the witness) We can say that, by 16th June, certainly, you knew that not only is the information at our Page 59 in the document dated 16th June false, but also backdating it. So is the information that had been brought to your attention earlier on the 9th.
A.Yes, that is correct.
Q. All right. So, certainly, by the 16th, there is no mistake that the content of two informant contact sheets, if that is what they are called, is false information alleged to be being given you -- sorry given to Warnes by a source.
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. The person who was put to you as the source on 25th June was Mr Courtney.
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Yet it is right, you have told us, you took no steps, of course, to verify whether Courtney was involved before 25th June?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. You had no way of knowing whether Warnes is telling the truth when he says that he is being given, in this document, information by a source.
A.That is correct, my Lord.
Q. So, for instance, have you had an opportunity to look at the jury schedule in this particular case; the one of events?
A.I have not, my Lord, no.
Q. I wonder if you could be given it, please. We can through you -- well, the telephone observations schedule.
JUDGE COLLINS: The schedule or the transcripts themselves?
MR LITHMAN: The schedule, my Lord.
JUDGE COLLINS: The schedule, thank you. If the jury would be so kind to look at Page Eight, they can marry up the box that refers to the 8th June. If they look back then to the apparent information that Warnes was claiming he had from a source in a telephone conversation, there certainly appears to have been no telephone call monitored, obtained through the records between Courtney and Warnes on 8th June, is there? There is no telephone reference there whatever.
A.Not in this document, no, my Lord.
Q. No. Let us go on and look at the same exercise by looking at the apparent so-called information received by us from a source that has been put on to the information file at Page 59 which starts, "Telephone conversation with source on Sunday, 13th June." So let us go then to what are the events of 13th of June. Again, no telephone contact between Warnes and Courtney on 13th June.
A.Not on this document, no, my Lord.
Q. No. Of course, we know that Warnes was being monitored. So what it comes to, so far as these documents is concerned, is that there is nothing within the forms that would verify the fact that he had actually spoken to an informant or to a source and that this information may well have been put down by him entirely off his own back.
A.That is correct, my Lord.
Q. All right. Perhaps, I had better ask you this --
MR HOULDER: If I may correct one thing because I do not want anyone to be misled; we know that Mr Warnes was being monitored. It is his home telephone that was being monitored. That is the only thing that was being monitored.
MR LITHMAN: If my learned friend would like to point to some information that links Mr Warnes to Mr Courtney on 13th June.
MR HOULDER: I am not giving evidence. I am correcting the impression that was being led.
MR LITHMAN: There is no evidence whatever of any telephone contact between the two on those two dates. If there was, it would be in the schedule. Now let us then, please, move on. (To the witness) Does it come to this -- what I was trying to ask you about a moment ago; that there is nothing within the forms that would verify that he had actually spoken to a source?
A.There is nothing in this schedule, my Lord.
Q. All right. Let me ask you this general question then; is there anything to stop dishonest policemen putting in forms referring to information that, in fact, they had not received from anyone?
A.It is possible to do occasional checks via myself who would be the controller and ask to meet an informant at regular stages to check that everything was running okay and that the information had been passed, my Lord.
JUDGE COLLINS: I do not think it -- yes, I think that there is a slightly different point. The suggestion that is being made is that if an officer wants to put false information on to a system, he has to say that he got it from a source in order for anybody to believe him. He has to say, "I have got it from a source," even though he may have made it up himself.
A.I believe that that is correct, my Lord, but there are ways of verifying it after the event.
Q. Of course. Of course. Yes.
MR LITHMAN: That is what, you see, I am suggesting has happened in this case. Indeed, in other cases in relation to the association between Warnes and Courtney. You see, Warnes is a thoroughly dishonest policeman, is not he, to your knowledge?
A.At the time of this operation, I was unaware of any dishonesty involving Austin Warnes.
Q. From what you know now, would you rely open him as a policeman?
A.No, my Lord.
Q. No. If he says that he has been given information from a particular source, would you now take that at face value?
A.I certainly would not, my Lord.
Q. You would not. Of course, you are aware, are you not, that in relation to this conspiracy, that Warnes has had to say that he has got his information from someone?
A.That would be the case, yes, my Lord.
Q. Of course. You would assume that he would not name his true principals if he is in cahoots with them, would you not? If he is in a conspiracy with 'X1 and 'Y', you would not assume him to say, "And I got the information"
JUDGE COLLINS: This is really argument, is it not, Mr Lithman? I do not mean to be difficult but this is not, you know -- I suppose, if you could argue the case with any officer, it would be the officer in charge of the case, but I am thinking that Mr Latham --
MR LITHMAN: Perhaps it is unnecessary to make the point in the form of a question. (To the witness) In any event, once you have realised that the information that Warnes is claiming he has been given and he has put on to information sheets -- informer sheets is false; namely, by the 16th June, you then, do you not, Mr Latham, go on to press Warnes about it by telephoning him or trying to speak to him about it?
A.That is correct, my Lord.
Q. All right. We have not, as Mr Houlder rightly says, for the sake of brevity, got every telephone call transcribed but, for instance, there is a call, is there not, where you phone him on 20th June to Portugal? You get through to him in Portugal. Do you remember that?
A.I do, my Lord, yes.
Q. The references of it, in case others want to find it, is ML/3W(5). But do you recollect that what -- the message that you left was that "it was that business where the TSG had been on to him and the drugs found may belong to the husband. Do we know anything about the husband?" So you want to task the informant to find out about the husband. Now we can play that tape because that is what I suggest it says?
A.That is the effect of it, my Lord.
Q. All right. In other words, you are pushing Warnes on the basis, "Do we know anything about the husband?",'and to task the informant to find out about the husband. Now, of course, in your mind at that time, is the fact that Warnes either is or may well be implicated in this offence.
A.That is in my mind, yes, my Lord.
Q. All right. Indeed, you spur him, would you agree -- I do not mean that in any bad or pejorative sense. You simply put some persistence by putting in other telephone calls including one on 25th June where you say that you want Warnes to bring his informant?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. All right. You make it quite apparent, do you not, (a) he knows that you are his superior officer and (b), it is quite obvious that you are not just going to let this go. He is not going to fob you off with this. You want to speak to the source?
A.Correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. All right. Of course, in part, you are aware, are you not, that the conversation that you are going to have with Warnes and quote -- and it is in quotes -- "the source", may well provide evidence in the trial of one or both.
A.There was that possibility, certainly, my Lord, yes.
Q. You knew that, did you not? It was almost bound to happen. It was bound to be of evidential significance.
A.I would not go as far as to say that I knew it, my Lord. I was not aware how any - -
JUDGE COLLINS: It was obviously a real possibility • depending on how things turned out.
A.Indeed, sir, yes.
MR LITHMAN: You knew that Warnes -- I am sorry to be crude about this but I may well be forgiven -- was well in the frame for this by this stage?
A.I had my suspicions, my Lord, and I was trying to maintain an open mind.
Q. It was not your suspicions as a senior officer. This is the Anti-corruption Squad focusing on him, targeting on him and being able to say that.
JUDGE COLLINS: He has agreed with you that there was a real possibility of --
MR LITHMAN: All right. You then realise, do you not, that once you have, very sensibly, pressured him to produce his source, that he has a number of options either to confess, "Actually my source are the principals of the conspiracy," or to get the person from whom he has said he got the information to come and verify it. Those are his options, are they not?
A.There are probably a number of options open to him, my Lord, but those are some of them, yes.
Q. Did you not pause to think that this might make the "the source" -- if you were someone who had not given the information at the outset, that it might put him in a very difficult position?
A.My Lord, I did not know who was going to turn up at that meeting.
Q. Did you not think that whoever it was that Warnes nagged to come along to it, was going to be placed in a very difficult position? He has got a policeman, on the one hand, Warnes, telling him that his governor wants to see a source arid, on the other hand, you, a senior officer, asking him about it. Did you not think that this might put him in a difficult position?
A.My Lord, I did not know the full range of the investigation or the absolute involvement of those within it. I was given a short briefing and was not given an awful lot of information. So the position of whoever would have turned up, I had somewhat of appear open mind to.
Q. Now you have told us that you were not aware that Courtney had had a conversation -- that Warnes had met with Mr Courtney a little while earlier on Plumstead Common, is that right?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Did you -- forgive me, how much notice did you have of the meeting of the 25th?
A.I knew that I was to make the calls to Mr Warnes -- to Austin Warnes prior to the day -- but I cannot remember exactly when -- and the meeting, itself, is recorded on the -- in the telephone conversations -- I think it was around about ten or 11 o'clock -- that Austin Warnes said that he could bring his source to the meeting.
Q. Yes. But was there no way that there could have been the communication between the officers that had seen Warnes with Courtney obviously trying to set this up and then coming to speak to you?
A.I was in telephone conversation but I have no record of
Q. I am sorry, I did not hear what you said.
A.I was in contact with one of the officers in the case who did phone me but I have no recollection of being told anything about any meeting on Plumstead Common.
Q. Did you say an officer in the case or the officer in the case?
A.PC I Nicholson on that day.
Q. All right. The officer in the case -- on that day, phoned you and spoke to you before the meeting?
A.That is correct, my Lord.
Q. But you were not told that there had been a meeting between Warnes and Courtney?
A.No, my Lord.
Q. Did you have your suspicions by that day that, in fact, there had been no real source but that this was Warnes acting off his own bat?
A.As I said, my Lord, I did not know the full extent of the investigation or all the lines it involved so --
Q. I simply ask you that because, no doubt, it will be wondered as to why it is that you gave all of the assurances that you did to Mr Courtney in the motorcar?
A.That was part of the briefing that I was given by officers from CIB3, my Lord.
Q. Let us just remind ourselves of the assurances that he has given. Page 189. Down the foot of the page. "Putting matters shortly, my primary concern you say" -- second line of the large answer at the bottom -- "My primary concern, as in all those situations, is about your security. I will tell you at the end of the day, you will remain anonymous. You will always be" -- I am so sorry, you have not got there yet. (To the jury) Page 189. Thank you very much. Foot of the page; "ML", it says, meaning Mr Latham. Second line, "My primary concern" -- I am not reading every word -- "is about your security. At the end of the day, you will remain anonymous, you will always be Tommy Mack. Should anything ever (inaudible) go to court for a case or it comes up, we drop the Court case rather than go ahead." Were you instructed to give these assurances?
A.I was, my Lord.
Q. That is after he has just said to you, having looked at the answer above, "All of this is a little bit more than I expected would happen out of this (inaudible)."
A.I should explain, my Lord, that the assurances that were given to him were part of a contract which had recently come into existence as a form of operation to deal with informants. That had never been put to the person who was Tommy Mack as he had been registered for quite some time and that -- had not been an opportunity to do it. So it was an opportunity to put those things to him.
Q. But, here, these assurances were being given to him by you, notwithstanding the possibility that he was not doing anything other than giving you back what had been given to him; namely, information from Warnes.
JUDGE COLLINS: Could you repeat that, please?
MR LITHMAN: Yes, certainly. (To the witness) You knew the possibility was that this was not genuine information from someone acting as a genuine informant. This is him giving back to you information given to him by Warnes.
JUDGE COLLINS: What is the question? I do not understand the question.
MR LITHMAN: As to whether or not these are appropriate -- if these are appropriate observations to make in this particular case.
JUDGE COLLINS: As I understand it, the nature of the contract that you are explaining to Mr Courtney was that, if a prosecution was brought against somebody based on the information that he was provided, the fact that he had provided that information would not be revealed --
MR LITHMAN: Correct.
JUDGE COLLINS: -- provided that it was provided by him, was -- if a prosecution was brought against one of those persons based on his information, the fact that he had given the information would not be real. That was the nature of the contract?
MR LITHMAN: Indeed. (To the witness) My question was whether or not that was an appropriate contract to be entered into where he may be giving back information. Do you understand what I mean; simply repeating what he has been told by his --
JUDGE COLLINS: I do not think that it is a question this officer can possibly answer. It is a question really, I think, if it is for anybody, it is a question for the jury to make their own judgment about. I do not think it is for the officer.
MR LITHMAN: Thank you very much. (To the witness) In any event, let us carry on with the information that he gave you, what he told you. Let us just follow that through. First of all, may I just ask you to confirm that, if we look at the top of Page 194. After you have explained to him why you say you had to meet him, we see there that the telephone rings.
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Have you seen another version, another transcription of the same conversation that is, in part, on occasions clearer than this? Have you seen a different version of the same conversation in transcription?
A.I do not believe I have, my Lord.
Q. All right. Because there is one that exists. Perhaps, we can just ask, as I have asked the officer in advance, if we could play again the conversation that takes place at 12:44 that is at our Page One, 12 minutes 44 that is at our Page 194 when the telephone rings. The part I am going to ask the jury to listen for is where he says, "You understand, I did not want all this." (The tape evidence was played before the Court)
MR LITHMAN: Can you just play those few seconds just again, please?
(The tape evidence was played before the Court)
MR LITHMAN: Members of the jury, that is just, as the telephone is ringing, as you can hear in the background, marked at 12 minutes 44. Let us just review for a moment if we may, please, the actual "information" that he gives you which is at Page 196, four lines down, four lines down, he says -- he described, "It is a couple of birds' names given to me". A little later, "I do not know if they got boyfriends. I do not know who she is," and then the next answer, "Kim and Lauren, they live in Mitcham and Tooting." Question; "Do you know their husband?" Answer; "I do not even know them," and he says, does he not, at Page 194 -- that was at Page 196 -- but at Page 194, he has said -- asked, "Have you seen the girls, yourself?" He said, "I would not know who they were if you showed me." Asked for their addresses, he says that he has not got the addresses off by heart. He says, "I have got them at home on a piece of paper." We will hear whether that is true. But he does not give you an address. So he does not know them, does not know their husbands, does not know their address, does not provide the car make or the car registration, is that right?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. So it must have occurred to you that what you knew in any event that as evidence, of course, it would be wholly useless, would it not, what you were being told?
A.I am sorry, would you repeat that for me?
Q. What you were being told would have no evidential value, would it, in a court? There is a couple of girls, couple of birds in the Mitcham, Tooting area called Lauren and Kim?
A.The evidence that he told me then certainly did not match up with what was read on the contact sheets.
Q. I am sorry?
A.The evidence that he told me then was different or did not match up with what was on the contact sheets.
Q. It had no detail. A couple of birds called Lauren and Kim. That is what you were being told by him. Did you think of saying to him, "What is the car vehicle? What is the registration number?"
A.There were a number of questions that I could have gone on to ask, my Lord, yes.
Q. And all he has told you is a couple of birds who live in Mitcham called Lauren and Kim.
JUDGE COLLINS: I did not understand what your question is then, Mr Lithman.
MR LITHMAN: He is trying to find out, we assume, my Lord, one of the persons -- to find out if he is really the source of the information and, if he is making that enquiry, the question is to see if he can find out what the information is, how much he knows about it.
MR HOULDER: My Lord, in my respectful submission, my learned friend is putting the question on an entirely false premise because what this man is telling this officer starts at Page 192 and he goes into quite a lot of detail about how the information came to him -- if I may finish. This is relevant in the light of my learned friend's suggestion to this officer that all he was doing was repeating what Warnes had apparently told him to say. In the light of that, one has to look very closely at what he did say. I will re-examine on it but my learned friend's question is on a false premise. That is all what he said.
JUDGE COLLINS: Perhaps the best way to tackle it is by asking Mr Latham, again, to say what he understood to be his own objective in asking the questions.
MR LITHMAN: That is an entirely different point, if I may respectfully say so.
JUDGE COLLINS: If you know what his objective was, then that puts your questions into context.
MR LITHMAN: That can be a starting place.
JUDGE COLLINS: (To the witness) We start off, do we not, on the basis as I understand the replies which you have given to Mr Lithman so far. You did not believe that the information, whoever it came from, was true information.
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. That was your belief. So that is the premise on which you conducted this interview with Courtney, as I understand it?
A.Indeed, my Lord, yes.
Q. Then, on the basis that that was your premise that you did not believe the information was true, what were you actually trying to get out of Courtney by asking the questions?
A.I had been briefed by members from the CIB3 to asking questions about the source of the information. I was keeping an open mind as to where it has come from. I was in no position to say who provided it, my Lord.
Q. One or two of the questions that Mr Latham was beginning to ask you are on the basis that you might have been actually trying to get information which could actually lead to a prosecution of the two ladies in question and that you might have been seeking evidence towards that end. Was that any part of what you were doing?
A.I was trying to ascertain where the information come from and the voracity of it and those people who were instructing me (the members from CIB3) had given me the information about the High Court case and told me to go to this meeting and to try and get what information I could out from it and from the person who turned up who I had never met before.
MR LITHMAN: All right. Did you consider -- and I will take you, of course, because it does not make a jot of difference to 192 and we will start from there in a second -- but did you think of asking Mr Courtney questions that would tell you whether he was a true informant in relation to the information?
A.I did and I was going to continue this interview or this meeting in the (inaudible) but what happened was that a car went past twice. Mr Warnes and Mr Courtney seemed to get the impression that they were being followed and that those were police officers in the car that went past and it was at that point that I made the decision in my own mind that there might have been a compromise of that situation so I decided that was the time to finish the conversation.
Q. You say that the conversation ended prematurely. Let us look -- because I was going to take you to it in any event -- let us look at that moment. If you look at Page 199, we can see that moment. Towards the bottom of Page 199, Mr Warnes says, "That is another one. Take that one because I swear to God he was a fucking 4-2 -- 4-2 driver. What the fuck are they doing round here?," namely, that some police officer or may be a policeman was looking at them, and Mr Courtney says, "They are looking at me and you, mate," and Mr Warnes replies, "They are looking at me. They are not looking at you." Do you hear this conversation?
A.No, I do not, my Lord.
Q. All right. Warnes says, "They are looking at me. They are riot looking at you." Of course, as far as you were aware, that was probably right, was it not? Did you not understand that Warnes was being looked at? I am sorry, Mr Latham, is that difficult. Were you not aware that they were looking at Warnes?
A.When you say looking at --
Q. They had him'under observation, under surveillance.
A.Yes.
Q. All right. We have got films of it. We have got tapes of it. All right. So that, you say, brings the matter to ari end prematurely but let us see if that is right for a moment. Let us see the information that Mr Houlder wants us to look back at 192 about. What he is saying to you, is this right, is that in a club of his, he says, he has been given a couple of names of a couple of women who are providing drugs. We can read every word. That is what it comes to. He says in a club in Mitcham, in his boxing club, he has been told by a couple of people that a couple of birds, are selling drugs. Supplying drugs for them to sell. Correct?
A.Correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. All right. Does not know them, would not recognise them if he saw them, does not know their husbands, does not have an address, does not know a car, does not know a registration. All I am asking is, officer, did you think of trying to test him and probe him by saying "What is the information about the car? What colour is it? What is its registration?"
A.I did not, my Lord. That conversation in the car was, as I say, ended prematurely.
Q. Well, sorry. Let us see if that is right. Page 194; he says, "I would not know who they were if you showed me. I have not got their address." Page 196; "Do not know their husbands. I do not know them." You have got all the time in the world between then and three pages later to further question him about this so-called information that he has provided but you do not because he has, obviously, got no detail at all, has he?
A.The car driving past is on (inaudible) top of Page 198, my Lord.
Q. All right. But what about after the foot of Page 196? I mean, why not just go -- why not ask him and you are telling him about, "It only ends up in going to a PI. What do you mean by that?" A Public Interest Immunity, I should think.
A.That is correct, my Lord.
Q. The foot of Page 198. The policeman driving past does riot stop you from saying to Courtney, "What is the car registration number that they are selling it from? What is the vehicle?"
A.I decided that if that was what they thought, I was going to terminate the conversation.
Q. You knew, did you not, from the conversation you had with Courtney, that he had just did not have the detail?
A.That is not correct, my Lord.
Q. You show us the detail you had?
A.The detail is not there in the same way that it is in the contact sheets. However, one is often given pieces of information which are incomplete in relation to informants who sometimes only give first names, who do not know everything and those pieces of information are -- can be researched, verified, offered by the officer who puts the information in.
Q. All right. But, here, you know, do you not, here, you know, it is the other way around. The detail of the information that has been put in by the corrupt policeman and he is looking for someone to verify it who can only give a couple of bits of it. That is what has happened.
A.No. I am afraid, my Lord, I did not know that at the time .
Q. But you know it now, do you not?
A.I believe that to be true at this moment in time.
Q. All right. Thank you very much. May I just ask you this; do you know whether there are occasions and, if so, how many, when, in fact, Warnes was used by Courtney to get information?
A.I do not know, my Lord, no.
Q. Would your Lordship just give me a moment? May I just have a word with Mr Courtney?
JUDGE COLLINS: Yes, of course.
MR LITHMAN: I have no other questions.
JUDGE COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Lithman.
Re-examined by MR HOULDER
MR HOULDER: was put to you a moment ago and you were asked whether you knew it, whether Courtney was using Detective Constable Warnes to get information out of the police. Did you know that?
A.I did not, my Lord, no.
Q. That was what was being put to you. Now you have been asked about whether or not our schedule -- of course, you have only just seen it in this court. Have you got the schedule there? I am not going to ask you about the dates you have been asked about so far. You were asked, specifically, whether there were phone calls between the 8th and the 13th between Courtney and Warnes and you have shown that there are none on the schedule but you were telling us about the 16th when you were being cross-examined. I wonder if you would, first of all, take our folder of documents which you have got there, I think. Have you still got it?
A.This one?
Q. I do not think that is it, no. Yes, there it is. That is it. Page 59. Do you have that?
A.I have, yes.
Q. All right. Now Page 59, we have not looked at very closely although it is the continuation of what we did look at earlier -- if we go back to the preceding page. You told us all about the 9th June there. Do you have it?
A.I have, sir, yes.
Q. Page 58. You told us all about that and how it was date stamped 12:58 on 9th June but you did not tell us very much about Page 59. Again, it appears to be a continuation, does it not, of the criminal intelligence sheet. That is the contact sheet, I think, you call them, is that right?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. When did you first see that, please, Mr Latham? You told us something about coming and finding something on 17th June. I just want to know whether this was what you found or not.
A.That is correct, my Lord. It was on 17th June.
Q. This is what you came into work and found, not having been on duty on 16th?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. It bears a time stamp, we can see, 22:49 on Wednesday, 16th June. Now, who puts the time stamp on these documents normally? Who should put it on?
A.The officer will put it on when he puts the information on arid, when I receive it as a controller, then I would also time stamp it, saying that I have received it.
Q. Very well. What we have got here is the document that he would have time stamped on 16th because you were not on duty then?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Going back to the schedule of contacts between Warnes and Courtney or apparent contracts. We cannot, of course, say whether they spoke; simply that a phone call was made. If we go, I think, it is Page 16, is it, of the schedule? Do you have that?
A.I have, my Lord, yes.
Q. The top of the page should be, "Starting 14:23 hours," is that right? I am just checking because our pages have been printed slightly differently sometimes. Is it 14?
A.14:23 at the bottom.
Q. I hope that corresponds with everybody else. Now that is the 16th June. If we go down to the second one, we can see that there is a call apparently between Warnes and Courtney at 6:18 that evening?
A.That appears to be correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Two further calls not long before the date stamp on Page 59 that we have just been looking at; namely phone calls at 9:54 and 10:01 that evening.
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Thank you. You were also asked about a conversation which we had not, at that stage, bothered the jury with, where you said that you phoned Detective Constable Warnes on holiday, is that right?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. If there is no objection, I am going to ask you to look at a transcript which I think you personally checked. I am going to provide his Lordship with a copy. For counsel's benefit, it is Page 621 of our papers. (Handed) First of all, it bears a police exhibit number ML14, is that right?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
JUDGE COLLINS: Is the jury to be provided with copies of it?
MR HOULDER: It may be they can be but I am not going to go through it all. It is to establish --
JUDGE COLLINS: If it necessary --if anybody wants it.
MR HOULDER: -- some basic facts.
MR LITHMAN: This was not the one I was referring to.
MR HOULDER: (To the witness) Is this a conversation you had, first of all? Would you look, please, at the second page of this transcript? At the third line, I think you apologise for having rung him while on holiday, is that right?
A.This is when he was -- this is when he had come back from holiday.'
Q. That is right.
MR LITHMAN: The one I am asking about is in Portugal.
MR HOULDER: I know. But I want to ask about this arising from those questions. (To the witness) Did you phone him -- and you can see this on the first page -- I think you say, right at the beginning, "25th June 1999, the time is approximately 8:28. I have just unwrapped a fresh cassette tape and inserted it into the tape-recording facility and I am just about to dial the number." Is that right?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. That is the time you dial this number and speak to Detective Constable Warnes, is it?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. What we have here is a transcript of your conversation with him, is that right?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. I do not want to deal with all the hellos and so on that you go through. At the bottom of Page 622, the second page, do you tell Detective Constable Warnes this -- and we can play the tape if necessary but I think we can shortcut it; "Right, the lady has been arrested, has really been kicking up a stink, saying the stuff that was found by 'the TSG in the car was something that was not hers. It was her husband's. It has all been planted because it is due -- it is all over
A.custody argument with the kid."
A.I did say that, my Lord, yes.
Q. Over the page, four lines down, you go on to say, "The kid was snatched by the husband."
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. He says, "Oh God."
A.That is correct.
Q. You go on to say, "There has been a couple of High Court cases already this week up at the Strand in front of the judge to try and get the kid back," and you tell him, "I am going to have to do a PRI hearing on the source of the information."
A.That should be PII.
Q. PII. All right. But it has been typed, "PRI hearing on the source of the information"?
A.That is correct, my Lord.
Q. Did you go on to say, "So, effectively, what I must do because it may be this afternoon or even Monday morning, is that I have got to go face to face with your man, sign them up to do the terms and conditions and have a quick chat about the information." Did you tell him that?
A.I did, my Lord, yes.
Q. Then, later on, exchange or, rather, give him your pager and mobile number; the bottom of Page 624?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. All right. Now, it has been suggested that all Mr Courtney was doing when you saw him was merely passing on what he had been told by Detective Constable Warnes. Can you go back to the transcript, please, of your conversation when you met the two of them at -- in your car -- in Warnes's car. Page 194, go to that. No, let us start at Page 192. I am going not going to read it all but I just want to see whether or not the suggestion is accurate. Page 192, towards -- about eight lines down, Tommy Mack or Mr Courtney is saying, "It is just a little problem I had in a club. Everyone I was grabbing hold of. I own the place. Park Royal in Mitcham. I also supply doormen. Not that I am running the drugs myself but because I have been it a long time and I know how to stop the problem." You try to stop him as he is telling you this information, is that right?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. You see, it seemed to be suggested that he was under some kind of obligation to tell you this false information because that is common ground. That is what it was; false. Was he under any obligation to line himself up with Detective Constable Warnes and tell false information to you?
A.Not that I was aware, my Lord.
Q. Did you prevent him having any free choice in that matter?
A.No.
Q. Does he go on then to say, "People I have been catching in my club have been putting up the names of people they have been working for. So I much rather you got rid of the people they are working for when it was two women," and so on. He mentions two women. Over the page. Go on to Page 194. We see Tommy Mack just above the halfway point. "At least two different people I have caught selling gear in the past. The person they got the gear from, not that they were actually doing it for them but, as their supplier, you know, I would actually rather get rid of the supplier then the dealers do not come. Then I will deal with myself. The two girls, I am fucked." And then you go on to deal with the passages that you have been asked about.
A.That is correct, my Lord.
Q. The top of Page 195. Tommy Mack says, "Because that is where they said they hide it in the car." You say, "Those are some people you caught in your club." He said, "These are the people I have caught in the Park Royal in Mitcham High Street," and then, of course, you go on, on the next page, to get from him further details which include halfway down the page, the names, Kim and Lauren who live in Mitcham and Tooting.
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. That, of course, matched is information that was on that that contact sheet that we have looked at at Page 56 and Page 57 a moment ago.
A.Indeed, my Lord, yes.
Q. Yes. Did he have a free choice as to whether or not to tell you that false information as it turns out?
A.He did have, yes, my Lord.
Q. Arid you have already drawn our attention to the fact that you mentioned to him that you had to do a PII hearing in front of a judge or may have to.
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes
Q. Yes. Thank you.
JUDGE COLLINS: Can I ask you this, Mr Latham? You were asked some questions about the quality of the information which Mr Courtney gave you. In particular, it was suggested, as I am sure correctly, that the information which he gave you would not have been very good as evidence in a criminal case against the two girls that they were prosecuting. What I wanted to ask you was this; the basis which you put to Mr Courtney for having the discussion was that you were required to go to the High Court and give evidence to a family judge about the source of the information --
A.(witness nodded).
Q. -- which might or might not justify it; the child being taken away from the mother and given to the father. The question which I wanted to ask you was this; supposing there had been no suspicion at all that the information was false and supposing you had believed that the information, such as it was, was genuine and that he genuinely was dealing with drugs, was the quality of the information which Courtney gave you such that you would have been able to go to the High Court with your hand on your heart and say, "I got this information from a reliable informant. I believed it to be true and it has a bearing on the case before the High Court"?
A.I would have had to have gone back and look at his informant's folder to see how many times he had been reliable, my Lord. It was not specific information. However, as I have tried to explain, information is not always specific but it can be verified by other means. Or I may have be to go back and tell the High Court judge that I had spoken to him, he had told me the names of the people and what they had been up to and I would have been reasonably happy.
Q. (inaudible) to your checking and subject to your checking whether he had been reliable in the past.
A.Indeed, my Lord, yes.
Q. If you had discovered that he had been reliable in the past, you would have said that.
A.That is correct, my Lord.
Further cross-examination by MR LITHMAN
MR LITHMAN: My Lord, may I ask one or two questions that really do arise out of the matters you have asked and further from what I have just spoken to my client about.
JUDGE COLLINS: Yes.
MR LITHMAN: Thank you very much. (To the witness) You knew that, of course, he was not -- this was your state of mind -- that he was not telling the truth about the girls if those were the same girls that were referred to in the information sheets. You knew that there were not two girls selling drugs from the clubs?
A.I knew the information was false, my Lord.
Q. All right. You did not know whether he believed the information to be true, did you? You did not know whether he actually, himself, believed it to be true?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. Or even, for 'instance, if the club that he referred to existed.
A.That is correct as well, my Lord. I knew very little about the gentleman.
Q. All right. Or what his state of mind was and whether he believed the information he was giving you was true or not .
A.That is correct, my Lord.
Q. You did not know about what he had been told a little earlier that we have heard by Warnes on Plumstead Common?
A.That is correct, my Lord, yes.
Q. All right. Thank you very much.
JUDGE COLLINS: Thank you very much, Mr Latham.
(The witness withdrew) |
| Back
to Documents |
|
|
|
