Miscellaneous Issues

20.0 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES

20.1 FRANCIS READ

Although this issue is not directly subject to any of the Directions to the Investigating officer, it was felt that it was sufficiently important to investigate further and to include our finding's within this report.

During THOMPSON'S interview with the investigation team he was asked whether NICHOLLS had at any time told him that he had not told the full truth in his evidence. In THOMPSON'S statement dated 12 March 2004, he made the following comments:

".... there is one area in which I am aware that Darren was concerned about his testimony. During what I think was the second or third trip abroad to import drugs Darren stated in his testimony that the "friend" he was with, Francis READ. He went on to say that READ was unaware of the intention to import drugs and only thought that it was a 'duty free' trip. Darren told me after the trial that READ was fully aware of the intention to import drugs but he had not admitted this during his evidence because

he had no intention of implicating someone who was his a friend in the illegal importation of drugs. Darren was very concerned about this aspect of his evidence."

This issue was discussed at length during NICHOLLS' cross-examination at the Central Criminal Court. It is submitted that it would have been a critical issue because if NICHOLLS had been found to have lied in respect of READ'S involvement, it would been very significant evidence in determining whether NICHOLLS was a 'witness of truth'. The final verdict in the trial indicates that the jury believed that NICHOLLS's was a witness of truth .

During interview under caution the current Investigation team challenged NICHOLLS in respect of the issue of READ'S knowledge of the purpose of the trip to Holland , (in the light of indications given by THOMPSON ). NICHOLLS responded by insisting that THOMPSON must have misunderstood and maintained that READ had no prior knowledge of the purpose of the dutch trip

20.2 GEOFF

An issue that concerned the investigation team was the possibility that COUZENS had been 'approached' and persuaded to advance his allegations in an attempt to secure further examination of the issues surrounding the convictions of STEELE and WHOMES'. COUZENS was interviewed regarding these concerns and in reply made the following points in his witness statement:

•    "I can confirm that at no time have I ever been approached by anybody with a request for me to approach Darren NICHOLLS about his evidence, his involvement in the trial of Mr STEELE and Mr WHOMES or with a request for me to persuade him to change his evidence. My only motivation for contacting the CCRC with the Daily Mail was to make the commission aware that Darren NICHOLLS told me of his intention to give perjured evidence at the trial....."

•    ".....I can also confirm that I have not been approached, at any time, by anybody asking me to fabricate the evidence

I have given in relation to Darren NICHOLLS in this or any other of my previous statements or accounts".

It should be noted that COUZENS also volunteered the following information in his statement:

"During my period in prison I did become aware that my solicitor Mr Phil KELLY of Twitcher, Munster and Kelly was also representing either Mr STEELE or MR WHOMES. When he became aware that Darren was in the same unit as I was, he became concerned that there could be some sort of potential prejudice for his client but I was never asked or encouraged to make any sort of report".

The investigation team examined various records and intelligence material which they felt could provide information that would prove or disprove a link between COUZENS and STEELE and WHOMES. Despite an extensive search of a number of local and national intelligence systems, the only link that they did find is that (A.N.OTHER) "BLANKED OUT" is known to both COUZENS and STEELE. To be more specific:

•    It can be seen from the appended analyst's report that (A.N.OTHER) and STEELE have served periods of imprisonment together both before and after STEELE'S remand and subsequent imprisonment for the Rettendon murders.

•    It has been established from COUZEN'S de-brief notes retained by his handler that COUZENS and (A.N.OTHER) had dealings with each other in the early 1990's "BLANKED OUT". However, it appears that their proposed 'deal' never materialised and there is no evidence that there was any further contact with each other from that time onwards. (COUZENS was never in the same prison establishment as STEELE, WHOMES or (A.N.OTHER)).

In summary there is very little to connect either STEELE and WHOMES with COUZENS, other than COUZENS very brief contact with (A.N.OTHER) in the early 1990's. There is certainly no conclusive evidence that COUZENS has in any way fabricated the allegations he made to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.