The Defence

9.0 THE DEFENCE

9.0a LEE CRADDOCK

Lee CRADDOCK acted as NICHOLLS solicitor in the early part of his detention when NICHOLLS was interviewed under caution regarding his involvement in the murders, and the offences for which he had been arrested. Because of the importance of his evidence, his statement is shown almost in its entirety. He states:

"Between September 1995 and December 1997 I was employed, as an assistant solicitor, by Maudsley, Wright and Pearson....

During my employment with Maudsley Wright & Pearson, I think in or around May 1996, my firm acquired a client by the name of Darren NICHOLLS. I first learnt of this new client when I received a telephone call at home from Mark PEARSON (who was the partner in charge of the Criminal Department.) Mark informed me that he had been in contact with Darren NICHOLLS. (I cannot recall whether Mark had attended the police station and met with Darren NICHOLLS or whether he had just spoken to him over the telephone). From memory, I believe that Mark informed me that Darren had been arrested in possession of a large quantity of cannabis resin, but had been subsequently arrested, whilst in custody, in connection with a triple murder which had occurred, I think earlier that year or late the previous year, at Rettenden, Essex. Mark PEARSON was a very experienced criminal practitioner who had previous experience of advising clients on the operation of the witness protection scheme. As such I relied on his experience and advice to formulate my approach to dealing with Darren NICHOLLS whilst he was in custody.

As I recall there were a number of other people in custody, throughout that part of Essex, for linked matters, which meant that there was a shortage of local solicitors who were able, because of conflicts of interest, to represent NICHOLLS. I believe that either the Police or Darren NICHOLLS had contacted the Chairman of the Mid-Essex Law Society who had then recommended my firm. Darren had already been interviewed by the Police in the presence of a solicitor's representative called Mr ODDY. I cannot remember exactly why Darren decided that he no longer wished to be represented by Mr ODDY, but believe it may be because Darren NICHOLLS felt that ODDY was out of his depth. In my opinion it would have been unlikely that the police would have encouraged Darren to use my firm. At the time as I would describe the relationship between my firm and the police, and in particular HQ CID, as "uneasy".

I attended Rayleigh Police Station where initially I met the Police officers leading the investigation. I think that I met, in the first instance, Detective Superintendents BRIGHT and STOREY. I asked both of these officers a number of questions in relation to the evidence they had obtained in relation to Darren NICHOLLS. As far as I can recall they provided me with satisfactory answers to all of my questions. I then met Darren NICHOLLS who during the consultation told me his version of events leading to him being in custody for drugs offences and a triple murder. I have been asked about specific parts of the account that Darren gave to me, and it is accurate to say that his account to me was in substance the same, although briefer, than the one he gave to the police during subsequent tape recorded interviews.

I have been asked by DC POWELL about a number of specific points. Firstly, did Darren NICHOLLS ever tell me that he knew that the murders were going to happen before they actually occurred? I distinctly remember Darren NICHOLLS saying that he had no idea that the murders were going to take place beforehand. Secondly, I have been asked whether Darren NICHOLLS ever informed me that he had told ex-DC Wolfgang BIRD about the murders (after they had been committed) but before Darren had been arrested. (Darren had been an informant for this officer) Again I can recall discussing Darren NICHOLLS contact with BIRD in some detail. As far as I can recall Darren had never discussed the murders with BIRD. Finally, I have been asked about Francis REID and whether he had a knowledgeable role in Darren NICHOLLS involvement in drugs offences. From memory I think, but cannot be certain, that Darren told me that that [sic] REID was unaware of his activities in his decision but eventually decided that he would assist the police. A major factor in this decision was that Darren was extremely worried for the safety of his wife and children and felt that he should do all he could to ensure their safety.

From then onwards I am able to state that I believe I was present at all of the taped interviews that Darren NICHOLLS subsequently had with the police. I am able to state that at no time during any interview did Darren NICHOLLS give answers from a prepared script. During the course of those interviews between Darren NICHOLLS and the police, Darren gave his replies to the questions being asked without prompting. However, Darren would sometimes pause to consider the question before making his reply. Darren was not, in my presence, supplied with information either verbally or in writing by the police. Each interview between Darren NICHOLLS and the police was conducted in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Codes of Practice. I was not aware of any breaches and the officers conducting the interviews conducted themselves in a correct manner. Had I have suspected that Darren and the police had concocted his account or any part of his account together then I would not have continued to represent him.

Obviously I could not be with Darren all the time whilst he was in custody but while I was there I did all I could to ensure that I was present while Darren was with his interviewers. An example of this was that during the breaks from interviews I would occasionally need to make calls on my mobile telephone to my office or home, but I would position myself just outside the interview room, with the door open, so I was within earshot of any conversation between Darren and the police officers.

The interviewing officers were DC WINSTONE and DC BROWN, from what I remember Darren gave his account of events without the need for too many questions from the pair. I do remember that Darren was asked various questions about what mobile telephone he was using at the time of the offences and as to whether he was carrying it and whether it would have been turned on or off. Darren asked me why he was being asked such in depth questions about his mobile telephone and I think I advised him that the police would be seeking to obtain and check his calls against an itemised billing list. Having said that the questions appeared to be very detailed for this purpose and it was only some time later that I became aware that the police were to use cell site analysis to plot the movements of mobile telephones. At the time I did not know that such analysis was possible and I am certain, from Darren NICHOLLS reactions and questions to me, neither did he.

Subsequently Darren was charged with the drug offences and used, as I had anticipated, a protected witness in the murder case. I was invited by the police to be present whilst witness statements were taken from Darren but after consultation with junior counsel, Elizabeth MARSH, declined as this would be an unusual action to take which could possibly prejudice our position should Darren decide, at a later date, to contest the charges in relation to the drugs found in his possession.

At the trial I never saw Darren give evidence as I was to be called to give evidence myself later in the trial. My firm continued to represent Darren who was later sentenced for the drug offences. In all the time I had contact with Darren it is fair to say he was someone who liked to chat. At some stage Darren mentioned to me that he was going to either make a film or write a book about his experiences and as a result hopefully become rich. I didn't take Darren too seriously. I took this to be a throwaway comment. I had no idea that Darren was in the process of meeting an author or a journalist and signing contracts for a book and television programme prior to the trial. At the time I believe that I had read articles by the journalist and crime writer Tony THOMPSON. Accordingly, had I heard or seen his name on any paperwork (i.e. a custody record) then there is a possibility that I would have realised that Darren had had been in contact with a journalist. I have never met Tony THOMPSON and have been told that he is a black man. I was present with Darren on occasions in police cells when he had or was about to receive visits; I have no recollection of any black people visiting Darren.

Had I have been aware of Darren's contact with the media prior to the trial I would have strongly advised him that he should cut all contact with them as it would obviously have caused him serious difficulties when he came to give his evidence.

I did subsequently become aware of the book about Darren, which I read in part. I don't think, from memory, that there was anything in the book that I recall as being inconsistent with what I knew of Darren's version of events......"

9.0b THE HONOURABLE MRS ANNE RAFFERTY

The Honourable Mrs Anne RAFFERTY is presently a High Court Judge. In 1998, she was the Queens Counsel who represented NICHOLLS during the sentencing hearing in relation to offences of drug importation to which he had pleaded guilty.

She states:".....I would guess that I met NICHOLLS on two occasions to confirm with him my instructions. Prior to these meetings NICHOLLS had been represented by Miss Elizabeth MARSH who was my junior.

At some point prior to the sentencing of NICHOLLS I was aware that he was proposing to appear in a television programme. NICHOLLS never told me of this or of any involvement with the press or a journalist. I was informed of this by Elizabeth MARSH."

9.0c ELIZABETH MARSH QC

Elizabeth MARSH assisted in NICHOLLS legal representation in relation to the drugs offences for which he had been arrested. She states:

".....Darren NICHOLLS had initially been arrested in connection with the murders and other drugs importation offences. Thereafter no further action was taken against Darren NICHOLLS in relation to the murders and he was used as a witness in that case. Darren was however charged with drugs offences. I first visited Darren in a police station in the early days after his initial arrest.

Over the course of the next few months I had various discussions and meetings with Darren. Darren gave evidence in the case of the murders before some time later he was sentenced for the drugs offences. During the course of the conversations and meetings I had with Darren he did mention at some stage that he was in the future intending to write a book about his experiences in relation to the offences I have described. This did not surprise me at all as his experiences were an extraordinary sequence of events which I felt were worthy of being put into a book or even a film. Darren did not mention at this stage that he had made any contact with any author, journalist, or member of the media. I did not seek to stop Darren from-writing his story but I certainly did not encourage him to make contact with any such member of the media.

I am sure it was after Darren was sentenced for the drugs offences, that he contacted me to ask for my advice in relation to seeking an injunction against a television company to prevent the screening of a television programme about himself I believe this was the first time that I became aware that Darren had in fact made contact with the media. Up until then I had no idea that Darren had entered into any formal contract to sell his experiences.

I have today been informed by DI FANTOM and DC POWELL that allegations have been made that Darren NICHOLLS lied in his evidence and concocted lies with the police who dealt with him at the time. I can say through all my dealings with Darren NICHOLLS, his case, the solicitors and officers involved nothing happened which gave me any indication that any such concoction had taken place or any such lies had been told."