Monday, 19th January 1998
(The jury return to court at 10.20 am)

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Members of the jury, good morning. I hope you have benefited by your day of relaxation. I am sorry we could not do anything about the weather which certainly where I was, was distinctly damp. I hope it did not spoil the day off.I am going to ask you to go out and consider your verdict again. If at any time I can give you help then you know you have only to ask. I do not say that to indicate you should ask questions, merely to tell you that you can if you wish and you know I said that before, but if you would like to go out now and consider your verdict.

(The jury retire to consider their verdict at 10.26)

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN:
I will rise now.

(The court adjourns)
(In the absence of the jury)

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Mr Munday, Mr Parkins, Mr Lederman, Mr Rees, I have had a note from the jury which I do not think causes any major problems. I will tell you about the way I am considering answering the matter. You have all seen the note I know. It says, ”Would it be possible to have a copy of Jackie Steele's statement that has been referred to in the court?" Normally the position would be that if a jury asked that question in relation to the statement of any witness who had given oral evidence in this trial the answer would be, "No, I'm sorry, members of the jury, you can't see the statement, but will remind you of my note of what was said." In the case, however, of Jackie Street the only evidence from her has come in a statement from her which I permitted to be read under the terms of the Criminal Justice Act, 1988, and therefore the only evidence she gave is in that statement. My first view, subject to any argument from either side, is that in this case it would be entirely appropriate for the jury to see that statement. The alternative would be to read it to them at dictation speed which seems really rather a waste of judicial and jury time. Mr Munday, I ask you first really because you are nearest, what is your view?

MR MUNDAY:
My Lord, I have not considered the matter until your Lordship raised it.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
You saw the note.

MR MUNDAY:
I did. The normal rule is they should not have it.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
That would be because it was not the evidence given in this Court.

MR MUNDAY:
My Lord, the same would be the case if a judicial witness statement were read and again would not justify in our submission the jury being given a copy of such a statement.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
I will come back to you Mr Monday. I am grateful to you for your indicating a preliminary view, but I want a final view before I decide. Mr Parkins?

MR PARKINS:
It is our respectful submission, my Lord, given the terms of Section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 it is the statement which becomes admissible.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Which paragraph?

MR PARKINS:
I am referring to chapter 9, paragraph 127 page 1124. I still have the 1997 edition. My Lord, one has to read the full sentence: "A statement made by a person in a document shall be admissible in any criminal proceedings as evidence as any fact as to record...” I need not go through the requirements because it is before the jury. As your Lordship says there are two ways of doing it: that the statement goes in as it is, or that if the jury want to be reminded of the content at such speed as they can write it down.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Thank you Mr Parkins. Mr Lederman?

MR LEDERMAN:
We have no view on this matter.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
I would still value your view. If you wish to stay silent you may of course do that.

MR LEDERMAN:
We would submit the jury are entitled to see it.

MR REES:
My Lord, simply this: whether it is exceptional or not for the jury to have the document, exceptional courses can be agreed upon. If there is agreement, in my submission, those things can be achieved.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Is there?

MR PARKINS:
There is from me, but it really rests with the Crown.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
There is obviously agreement from your point of view Mr Parkins.

MR PARKINS:
Certainly.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Mr Lederman?

MR LEDERMAN:
Yes.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Mr Munday, I do not want to force your position.

MR MUNDAY:
My Lord, Section 23 cannot be read in the way which my learned friend has indicated it should be read. It is a statement in a document, not the document itself, that becomes admissible in evidence. If your Lordship takes the view that in order to facilitate the jury's deliberations a copy should go, that is a matter that in that it merely reiterates what has already been read by your Lordship and does not introduce anything new, not being admissible.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Of course it would not.

MR MUNDAY:
It would be within ----

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
---- looking at the document there is nothing new but the question of signature and name. I do believe I actually read the address. I cannot remember if I read *** ****** Avenue, ***********, Clacton-on-sea.

MR MUNDAY:
I think your Lordship did.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
I cannot remember reading the postal district.

MR PARKINS:
I just introduced it as Clacton. I do not recall your Lordship having read the full address.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
I cannot remember certainly dealing with postal codes.

MR MUNDAY:
In fact at the time the statement was read there was a request from the dock that the full address not be read. Whether your Lordship would have heard, I do not think your Lordship did.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
I didn’t hear any such request.

MR MUNDAY:
My Lord, it did come. My Lord, the Crown does not oppose your Lordship providing the jury with a copy. It is a matter for your Lordship's discretion, it does not introduce new material. We would ask your Lordship to add the caveat which your Lordship already has to that particular evidence if the jury is to have a copy an advantage, as it were, or potential advantage. Your Lordship should balance the advantage, if such advantage there be, of the caveat direction your Lordship ought to give.

JUSTICE HlDDEN:
So on the matter of the statement itself you take no contrary position.

MR MUNDAY:
It is a matter for your Lordship's discretion in that the jury will not gain anything additional to that they already have. But we would ask your Lordship to consider reiterating the direction as to the way in which they should approach it with the caveats there are attached to the material.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Thank you. Mr Parkins, have you anything to say against the entire statement in the form it is in. Let Mr Parkins see the copy which has been made. A further copy has been made, Mr Parkins, because the only copy available had highlighter on certain lines and I caused other copies to be made.

MR PARKlNS:
Grateful. We understood that was being done.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
That of course has the address. I take it you did not object to the address because of course it was read out but not in the form of the postal code.

MR PARKINS:
It is a matter for the jury. It has not been, as it were, published.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
I take it that you accept that it would be right to remind the jury of the position in law again, in particular of course so that the jury hear again the word "think" rather than "are sure".

MR PARKINS:
No, with respect we do not. The jury have asked a specific question: can they have the document. Twice they have been certainly informed the way we have been directed as to their approach. They are not asking an additional question as to how they should approach, they are simply asking for the document. I certainly do not object if your Lordship felt it appropriate to have the document in its entirety.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Anything further to say Mr Lederman?

MR LEDERMAN:
No.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Or Mr Rees?

MR REES:
No.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Or Mr Munday?

MR MUNDAY:
My Lord, in that your Lordship will be taking a course of action which although not exceptional or wholly exceptional is unusual, we would ask that your Lordship give the proper direction; for example, so that the time that the jury should be reminded in our submission of the way in which they should approach that document.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
The next request is this: "Could we please have acetates in connection with cell site information brought to the jury room?" My provisional response to that is yes, they can, but I shall indicate to them what is on the exhibit and the way to get out what is underneath. What is on at the moment is the cell site acetate in relation to Rayden. If they take off those two screws which I will do for them and remove the metal plate and the present acetate and the present map they will find underneath what is Exhibit 189 which are the four acetates for Upminster, Basildon, Brentwood and Childerditch which will need a little manipulation to get them in the right position from where they are now. That is what I propose to tell them.

MR MUNDAY:
Yes.

MR PARKINS:
Yes.

MR LEDERMAN:
Yes.

MR REES:
Yes.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
The other two matters, one has been overtaken by history, a short walk at lunch did take place. Very well, my ruling in relation to Jackie Street's statement is that as I have indicated when a jury ask such a question normally in relation to a named witness the judge's answer is no, but I will read you what I have in my notebook as a record of their evidence because it is their evidence that matters not their statements. In fact in this case the only evidence given by Jackie Street is her statement because it was ruled to be admissible under the Criminal Justice Act of 1988 and it therefore is the evidence of Jackie Street. By consent of all defence counsel and with consent as a matter of my discretion by the prosecution, with caveats as to the unusual nature of the request and its proposed answer, I propose to allow the jury to see the statement. It seems to me the other alternative would be to dictate it to them which would be a waste of judicial and jury time. Since they are out in their retiring room and are making a request which I have referred to counsel purely as that request I do not think it would be necessary for me to give them again the direction in law which I gave them before. They are aware from the underlining of it in the summing-up that they should only act upon it if having taken the limitations of the account they nevertheless think it is reliable. Jury please. I propose nonetheless to refer them to the fact I have given them a direction already on the contents of the statement and to invite them if they want anything further to ask in a set request.

(The jury returned into court at 2.40 PM)

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Members of the jury, you sent me a note some little time ago. I say some little time because the last of the four requests referred to a walk before lunch and I know that that has in fact happened. The third request for blue tack I think that has in fact happened as well.The first question is: "Would it please be possible to have a copy of Jackie Street's statement that has been referred to in court." I have spoken to counsel and the answer is yes, of course you may. It will be taken out to you by the jury bailiffs in just a moment or two. You can then read it. It is unusual for a statement to be provided. Normally what the judge has in his notebook is all the jury gets, but you will remember in the case of Jacqueline Street her evidence in this case was the statement. So I have taken the view that you can therefore have it. You will remember I gave you a direction in law as to what should be your approach to that statement. I am not going to remind you of it now, you have probably got it noted or you have it in your memory. If you have any doubt about the direction I gave you about that statement would you please send me another note if you would like to hear the short direction again. If I receive such a note again I will give you that short direction; in the absence of any request I will not.The other matter, and you can see I am about to answer it by what is on my left: "Could we please have the acetates in connection with cell site information brought to the jury room." The answer is yes, of course you may, but before I do that I thought I ought to give you some help with it so that you know what is on that easel.I know that you know the two exhibit numbers. What you can see is Exhibit 181 at the moment. That is the acetate in relation to the Rayden cell site. I have to get up and demonstrate I am afraid members of the jury. This top one over that map shows you Rayden in the middle there. Is the Rayden one which is A76 and where I am pointing you can see when you have got it closer to you the triple circular sign A76. So that is that one. If you take it off you will get from 181 to exhibit 189. What you need to do that is to take the acetate and the map. Take them both off. When you do you will get to Exhibit 189 which you will have to gigger about a bit to achieve the jigsaw. That is the acetate for the four cell sites: Upminster, Basildon, Brentwood and Childerditch.You will remember before if you lift them up individually they show their individual sites and that when they come back the four should be like that. I have to indicate it in that way because there is nothing holding the top of the acetates there. So if I may I will put them back. (Pause) You have got that now, members of the jury, have you? That is fine. It will be brought out to you by the ushers and if you would like to return to your jury room we will have Jackie Street's statement. As I say I will give you a further direction on it if you request one in a moment.

(The jury retired again to consider their verdicts at 2.45 PM)

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Mr Monday, Mr Parkins, Mr Lederman and Mr Rees, another matter has occurred to me which I want to bring to your attention. Again I do not think it is anything that need cause any difficulty. But you will remember when I spoke to the jury this morning I spoke about the dyer or rather extremely damp weather that they had on their day of relaxation. It occurs to me, now I know the full details of what the jury did, but I ought to bring it to your attention because whereas it had been intended that all twelve would go for a walk in the open air, because of the weather in the event that did not happen – six did and six did not so that there was a coach trip for the half dozen and the other half dozen stayed at the hotel. The rules are of course different now that there is separation of the jury, but I thought I ought to draw your attention to paragraph 4425 in Archbold at page 431. The jury were of course not deliberating in this case and so the various cases mentioned there. What I will do is give you the opportunity to read that paragraph and return into court in about 10 minutes for you to address me if you wish.

(The court adjourned)
(The court reconvened in the absence of the jury at 3.10 PM)

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Gentlemen, you have had a chance to consider the matter. May I enquire if there are any views.

MR MUNDAY:
The bar's view is what was done was entirely appropriate. There can be no complaint certainly not in the light of Section 13.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Subject?

MR MUNDAY:
And especially in the light of Section 13.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Section 13 deals with what a court does in the future. Section 13 refers to the fact, I have not got it in front of me, that the court may order something in the future.

MR MUNDAY:
Yes, the Crown's position would be that in that Parliament now allow jury who are deliberating to go home overnight, there can be no criticism.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Thank you. I am grateful.

MR PARKINS:
I agree.

MR LEDERMAN:
Nothing from me.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Mr Maidment?

MR MAIDMENT:
Nothing, my Lord.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
I am grateful about that. May I indicate another matter while I am here. I had proposed not to remind the jury of my direction about the statement of Jackie Street if they had just gone out with it as it were, because I had given them an indication that if they wished me to remind them of it they could send me a note.I have thought again about that ruling and the trouble is the jury immediately had not just the statement of Jackie Street but the acetates which are inevitable an attraction and may well be what they are looking at at the moment. I propose, subject again to hearing argument, to consider calling them back and giving them that direction since this is the first time since the summing-up ended some days ago that they will have been looking at the very statement of Jackie Street which they are now and will shortly be looking at. Mr Munday I know what your views are because you were the one seeking to get me to repeat the direction in any event. I take it that is still your view.

MR MUNDAY:
All one can say it was noticed from behind me that when your Lordship said that the jurors will be aware and remember the directions your Lordship gave there were nods from jurors.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
There were nods.

MR MUNDAY:
There were nods.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Very well. That reassures me. You are content with the position as it is Mr Munday.

MR MUNDAY:
My Lord, in that your Lordship has done what your Lordship has I would not invite the Court to go back on that.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
You would not.

MR MUNDAY:
No.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Mr Parkins?

MR PARKINS:
I haven't anything to say, my Lord.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
You think Mr Parkins has scored your goal for you.

MR PARKINS:
Perhaps he did not intend to but he has.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Mr Lederman?

MR LEDERMAN:
It was an own goal for the Essex Regional Crime Squad, I am happy to have it kicked into the appropriate penalty point.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Mr Maidment?

MR MAIDMENT:
Nothing, my Lord.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Mr Munday, in those circumstances I am content to leave the matter as I have.

(The court adjourned)
(The court reconvened without the jury at 4 PM)
(The jury returned into court at 4.02 PM)

THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Will the Foreman please stand. Madam Foreman, will you please confine yourself to answering my first question only yes or no. Members of the jury, have you reached a verdict upon all counts in respect of all three defendants upon which you are all agreed?

THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY:
No.

THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Thank you. Please sit down.

JUSTICE HIDDEN:
Thank you. Members of the jury, I think probably at this time you have done enough for today. So I now direct you to cease your deliberations and to switch off until tomorrow. I hope the transport will be here shortly to take you back to the hotel. We shall return tomorrow again please and start your deliberations as soon after 9.45 as the transport manages to get you here. Would you like to leave court now.

(The jury retired overnight at 4.04 PM)
(The court adjourned until the following day)