Wednesday, 14th January 1998
SUMMING-UP (Continued) Page 6

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6

They are short and I do not anticipate any real dispute, certainly between Mr Munday and myself.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Well, I realise that you need to be away. Can you indicate them now and amplify them tomorrow?

MR PARKINS: Certainly, my Lord. Can I deal with Mr Whomes first of all.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Yes.

MR PARKINS: My Lord was dealing with the phone calls at 18.59. Mr Whomes's recollection is that your Lordship was raising the question as to whether what Nicholls said was said, could have been said in the time available.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Yes, I have taken that one on board. I think, Mr Parkins, Whomes's case is that he did not get through, so the time does not matter.

MR PARKINS: Precisely the point, but of course Mr Whomes does not invite your Lordship to withdraw the comment made to the jury that they could in any event consider the alternative, as they would be entitled to do, but that is his point. My Lord, so far as the mention of the winnebago is concerned, in evidence Mr Whomes said that he was asked to deal with that on behalf of Nicholls at the end of December, beginning of January 1996 in his evidence. I do not think, with respect, Nicholls disagreed with that. Did I say 1996? I should have the said the end of December 1995, beginning of January 1996. That is his point. The next point concerns the evidence of Dennis Whomes about knocking on the door or on the letter box.

Mr Whomes's evidence, as we recall, Mr Dennis Whomes, was that habitually people either knock on the door or rattle the letter box. Of course, it was never asked of Mr Dennis Whomes what his front door looked like at the relevant time, in the sense of whether the letter box was in the position that the photographs show it to be or not. He was not asked that and, of course, one does not know because the photographs were produced later, when they were taken. They were produced after Mr Whomes left the witness box. If one seeks to make the point that Jack could not have rattled on the letter box because the letter box is not on the door, it might be thought to be a little unfair, given the evidence.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: I think it was shouted through, was it not?

MR PARKINS: Or shouted through. I think his evidence was that he knocked on the door or rattled on the letter box.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Yes.

MR PARKINS: But our point, as I said, is there is no evidence as to what it was like and Dennis Whomes's evidence clearly gave the alternative as being things that people did. It may be a small point, but it is one that occurred to Mr Whomes. The other point in considering Mr Whomes's case is in term of making inquiries for ferry times and an amount of money and so on. Mr Whomes's recollection was that his evidence was, in effect, that it was Scarlett who made the calls re the ferry times, and that he, Jack Whomes, had originally thought she had rung Customs to find out how much one could lawfully bring across, but later realised because she directed him and she checked the point with an accountant, as opposed to the Customs. The point is the same, if the jury accept it, that an inquiry was made before the trip. That is the really the point of the dispute, as I say.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: What was the state of instructions as to whether it was ever put to Scarlett?

MR PARKINS: Our recollection is that it was put to Scarlett. Mr Lederman dealt with it, but I do not have any specific instructions.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Mr Lederman will be here tomorrow, no doubt.

MR PARKINS: Those essentially are the points that Mr Whomes would invite your Lordship to consider. May I deal now with those concerning Mr Steele. A small point, perhaps -- the damage to the smoke detector in the Burlington Hotel. Your Lordship indicated that that damage was paid for on Mr Steele's credit card. The evidence was not to that effect, with respect.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: No, I think I just said credit card.

MR PARKINS: Yes, but the more specific point about the damage was, I think it was Donna Garwood who said the damage was paid for by the Tate party in cash the following morning, so it is not a matter that ties in with the booking of the Burlington by Mr Steele. Your Lordship recalls that part of the complaint Mr Steele made in evidence and throughout was that the schedule of calls had certain omissions. Your Lordship dealt with one or two out of sequence. There are certainly two that Mr Steele would invite you to consider dealing with and they are two important omissions. My Lord, on the 5th November 1995 there was a call at 20.46 hours from Darren Nicholls's mobile to Mr Steele's mobile. It is not on the schedule. I have written it in during the evidence in the grey folder, tab 4 at page 7. We say it is important because the point was being made that in the absence of that call on the schedule it might seem that it was Mr Steele who was initiating contact with Nicholls, and in fact by the inclusion of this phone call it shows the opposite, and that is point of it. Equally, the 16.36 call, Darren Nicholls to Michael Steele, similarly was omitted from the schedule. It is page 4 of tab 4, my Lord, for the reference.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: That is not the 5th November.

MR PARKINS: No, that is the 6th December (sic), but as it is one of the sequence leading up to the alleged meeting, it is important, with respect. 16.36. There is a 16.36 call. It is a Donna Garwood to Tate call, but the other 16.36 call is omitted. My Lord, there are not many more.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: That was what date? That was the 6th December, was it?

MR PARKINS: That was the 6th December, yes. It is page 4, tab 4. I may have written on it the identity of the telephonee. I cannot recall. My Lord, again, maybe that is one that maybe we can deal with overnight because there may be some misunderstanding or dispute about it.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: What is the number of the call?
(Brief pause).
Sorry, tab 4, page 4, which you have given me, is the reference for the 6th December. We are dealing with November.

MR PARKINS: I am so sorry, did I say December?

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Yes, you did.

MR PARKINS: I am sorry. It is 16.36 Darren Nicholls to Michael Steele on his mobile.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: What date?

MR PARKINS: 6/11/95. It should come between number 278 and 279.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: It is not page 4.

MR PARKINS: Page 9, I am sorry, a ten second call on the 6th November, that is the one. I had certainly written it in the margin during the course of the evidence. It comes between 278 and 279. I think Mr Munday now has that.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Yes.

MR PARKINS: One other call, and I am sorry I cannot give your Lordship the exact date at the moment. It concerns an explanation given by Mr Steele in evidence for an early morning call, I think somewhere about two o'clock in the morning, an August call. He said in evidence it could have been the occasion when there was a call to retrieve Scarlett who had broken down somewhere or it could have been about a barbecue.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: I gave the jury that.

MR PARKINS: Your Lordship did.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Both explanations.

MR PARKINS: Your Lordship certainly did, but it is Mr Steele's impression, certainly, that it was put on the basis that he had changed his mind in evidence from it being possibly a Scarlett call to the barbecue. What he says it is, and invites you to consider, he was giving the alternative, not changing his mind, A or B. It is as simple as that.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: That is not my recollection, but I will check my note.

MR PARKINS: I would be grateful if your Lordship would.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: 2.36? What was the time of the call?

MR PARKINS: I am sorry, I have not this afternoon got that precise information. We will check that.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Very well. Are there many more? I am thinking of you, Mr Parkins. Have you many more?

MR PARKINS: Very few. Your Lordship said in summing-up, the telephone calls on the 3rd November 1995 concerning --or calls between numbers operated by Patrick Tate, Tucker and Mr Steele, was said to be in relation to an alleged previous drugs run. That was certainly our recollection of what your Lordship said. Of course, that is on the Crown's case. The Crown's case on that point is that those calls, they say, were related to the next importation, namely that of the 7th to the 8th, if that be an importation.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Yes, I cannot remember that.

MR PARKINS: My Lord, Mr Steele has also invited your Lordship, through me, to consider this: whether the jury ought to be reminded that insofar as vehicles said to have been used by him on the evening of the 6th December, that the Toyota is a diesel truck, and yet the receipt of petrol at Tesco's at 17.01 hours that day was for 4-star petrol. It is a point he invites you to consider referring to the jury to.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: I remember referring the jury to the Hi Lux as taking either leaded or unleaded petrol.

MR PARKINS: The Hi Lux, of course, is diesel.

MR MUNDAY: My Lord, the Rav 4 takes either.

MR PARKINS: Yes, the Rav 4 takes either. His point, of course, is the obvious one. Nicholls says he is there in the Hi Lux, which is diesel. The receipt the jury have clearly indicates it is for 4-star petrol. My Lord, he also, through me, invites your Lordship to remind the jury of the overall effect of three pieces of evidence taken together as presenting a picture, namely this: that when Rebecca Carter saw the Range Rover at about half past five on the relevant evening, Mr Steele invites your Lordship to, as it were, ask the jury also to focus on the fact that at that time, if Nicholls is right, Mr Steele was either on his way to Marks Tey from having got petrol, or at Marks Tey, or at the beginnings of his journey; certainly nowhere near the place where this witness claims there was a Range Rover with three men in it plus a Sierra. In other words, he, Steele, on that evidence could not possibly have been in that Range Rover at that time at that place, or having come, as her evidence indicates, from the general direction, and I emphasise that word, general direction, of Basildon. Taken together with that, the 17.16 hours call, Mr Whomes -- the 17.12 call, Mr Whomes's mobile to Mr Steele's mobile --

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: I do not think this is correction, Mr Parkins.

MR PARKINS: No, it is not correction, my Lord, it is not correction. It is a point that the defendant invites your Lordship to consider reminding the jury of in the round. But there it is. I put it and I respectfully invite your Lordship to deal with it. Two other points only. Yes, the evidence of the police officer Long was given. I, on Mr Steele's behalf, disputed that there was conversation. His point is if the jury are to be reminded of it, and of course they can be, it is evidence, would your Lordship think it right also, bearing in mind there is a dispute about it, simply to remind the jury what Steele said to the police at the police station: "I've done nothing more than give them my name age and address to three different people, and that has landed me in custody"; in other words, the balance, if it is to be stressed, the evidence of Mr Long.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Yes, it is accepted that he did give that evidence.

MR PARKINS: My Lord, the last point. Of course Mr Burns said yes, it could be shortened, but would present difficulties in terms of the muzzle or at least the magazine length, and it must follow, with respect, it can be shortened to any particular length, depending on preference.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Depending on the position of the magazine.

MR PARKINS: My Lord, indeed, as to how far he can go and even how many shots -- two, three, four, five, as the case may be. So it would not be right to leave the jury, in our respectful submission, with the impression that just because Burns said there would be a difficulty that it could not be done. Maybe it is a point that in a sense matters little because in his view the seven shots, as we know, despatching those three men all came from the same gun, but the point was made, raised by the Crown and dealt with in that way, on the basis that if it is going to be dealt with, then the point perhaps ought, with respect, to be made that it can be shortened, depending on preference. My Lord, those are the points we would invite you to consider. There may be the odd one or two in the morning, on reflection, but I hope we have dealt adequately with the matters that at the moment concern the defendants.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Yes, thank you.

MR MUNDAY: My Lord, can I just assist on this one matter for the moment, as to whether or not the matter of telephoning Customs or an accountant was put to Scarlett. My note reads as follows: that it was put to her, after about ten minutes or so of cross-examination by Mr Lederman on behalf of Mr Whomes. "I can't remember that. I would have thought if I wanted to know that, I would have telephoned my accountant." That is my note.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: You think that was cross-examined to by Mr Lederman?

MR MUNDAY: Yes, about five or ten minutes into it. "I would have telephoned my accountant."

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Actually, the way that the matter was raised first this afternoon was on the basis of what was said about Tate.

MR PARKINS: Yes, it was.

MR MUNDAY: My Lord, that is right.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: And as to that, he was saying that Scarlett got them and if he said anything else -- I thought it was Gordon Stevens from my note, but it may have been Gail -- if he said anything else, if may have been a slip. What is the note of whether it was Gordon Stevens or Gail?

MR MUNDAY: My Lord, my note is that it was Gail rather than Gordon. That is in relation to Customs and the limit of £15,000. That is my note

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: And where does that come from, Mr Munday?

MR MUNDAY: My Lord, that was in chief from Mr Whomes. My note reads follows: "I asked Gail to find out ferry times and to find out how much money I could bring back, if it was legal." He said that she phoned the ferry company.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: The later evidence was if he said Gail, that was a slip.

MR MUNDAY: My Lord, yes.

MR JUSTICE HIDDEN: Yes, well I will sit again tomorrow morning at 9.30, Mr Munday and Mr Parkins. I have to confess that the matters you put this evening have not been as crystal as normally your submissions are. That is the speed at which you are having to work. So I will perhaps have them again tomorrow. If you can put them in note form, that would be of assistance. I do not say for a moment that I shall react to all of those because some of them seem to be argument and speeches are relevant to that, but if there are in fact any corrections I will deal with them. Very well, until 9.30.

(The court adjourned until Thursday, 15th January 1998)