The Media

10.0 THE MEDIA

10.1 TONY THOMPSON

STATEMENT DATED 12th MARCH 2004

For the sake of clarity THOMPSON'S statement is reproduced in full. He states:

"I am presently the Crime Journalist for the Observer Newspaper. I have been employed in that position since 1999. Prior to this I was a journalist for Time Out Magazine. I am also the author of several books and plays.

In November 1995, one of my books entitled Gangland Britain had been published in hardback. In June 1996 the book was then published in paperback. There were a number of additions made to the paperback version of the book, including a small section which briefly mentions the Rettendon 'Range Rover Murders' that had occurred in December 1995. At the front of the book is a small section about myself, the author, which included the fact that at time I was a journalist for Time Out magazine.

In early September 1996, I received a telephone call at the offices of Time Out from a person who did not give his name, but said that he was involved in the Rettendon murders and was currently on the Witness Protection Scheme. This person said that whilst he had been "out

and about" with his Witness Protection Officers, he had seen my book Gangland Britain in a bookshop and decided to ring me to ask if I was interested in doing a book with him. I indicated that I was and he told me that he would ring me back which he did a few days later. I then spoke to Simon Hills who is a writer for GQ magazine who I was aware had written an article about the Rettendon Murders. I asked him about the murders and told him that someone had been in touch with me and in the subsequent conversation he mentioned that the 'driver' before and after the murders had become a so called 'Supergrass' and was on the Witness Protection Scheme.

Over the next two weeks I received further phone calls from this person and I became aware that the person I was speaking to was purporting to be the 'Supergrass' Darren NICHOLLS. I am not sure whether he directly told me or I asked him "Are you Darren NICHOLLS" and he replied that he was. After he gave me more details of who he was, and what he had been involved in I confirmed that I would be interested in writing a book with him. We later agreed that I would come and visit him at the place he was being held at by Essex Police.

What sparked my interest in Darren NICHOLLS' story was the fact that I believed it would give me an opportunity to write about the Rettendon murders from a sympathetic point of view. There was also the fact that he was on the Witness Protection Scheme and that this had never been written about in the UK for some time.

At this point I would have contacted my agent and made initial approaches to publishers. At this early stage the intention would have been to produce a book which would be published directly at the end of the trial. It would most likely have been a book published under Darren's name and written entirely from his point of view.

NICHOLLS and I had agreed a collaboration agreement which stated that he would receive 50 per cent of the first £10,000 of any payment and 75 per cent of subsequent payments. We had discussed a ball park figure for how much the book might be sold for and expected it to be in the region of £10,000.

The book was sold for the sum of £20,000. This would be paid in three instalments. The first on signature of the agreement, the second on delivery of the manuscript and the third on publication of the book. This is totally standard

in publishing circles. By the time payment was agreed it was clear the trial would not take place for some time. Therefore this payment would be spread over at least three years. I was surprised at the size of the advance. One reason it was so large is because the publisher held on to the serial rights. This means that if a newspaper published an extract from the book, the money they paid would go direct to the publisher rather than to the authors. As there was a good chance that the publisher would be able to recoup a significant proportion of the advance this way, the advance was around double what it might otherwise have been.

The initial payment for the book was £7,000 of which NICHOLLS received £3500. This payment was essentially to secure his co-operation with regard to his experiences as a protected witness. This is because the detail of his evidence about the murders themselves was to be made public during the course of the trial. For this reason it was only the fact that NICHOLLS had additional information that would not be made public that made the notion of a book viable. At this time the rules and regulations regarding payments to witnesses in trials were fairly lax and this would not have been considered a breech. There are dozens of examples and newspapers, magazines and publishers signing up witnesses in a similar fashion at the time. Even under a subsequent tightening of the rules the payment would still be in line. This is because NICHOLLS had already given his 'evidence in chief to the police and also at the committal hearing.

I definitely told Darren that he would never make much money out of the books publication and we would have to sell a great deal of books to make any serious amount of money. As an illustration of this I told him how much money I had made out of my previous book Gangland Britain. I do not particularly wish to divulge my earnings from my books but suffice it to say that at that early part of my book writing career I made very little out of each book I sold. In addition to this I would have had to pay my normal 'outgoings' i.e. tax, agents commissions and National Insurance. Also because payments are spread out over such a long period of time they cannot be considered anything more than a relatively modest supplementary income.

I subsequently visited NICHOLLS at Harlow Police Station on at least two occasions. These visits were a few weeks after the second telephone call. The first was to check out that the caller was bona fide and to further verify his story.

The subsequent visit would have been for the purpose of getting NICHOLLS to sign a contract for the book which had been 'sold' to Little Brown under the working title of 'One Way Out'. This would have been a matter of some urgency as I was keen to ensure that no one else would be able to write a book from this same point of view. The proposal submitted to Little Brown would also have made it clear that I had exclusive access to NICHOLLS.

The visits took place in what I believe was one of four cells within the female 'block'. The visits took place after NICHOLLS' contacted me to arrange the visit i.e. he rang me and told me I could visit him at a given date and time. On arrival at the police station I told them who I had come to see and was then allowed to go in a see him in his cell. On one occasion I signed a custody record. My identity was never checked or confirmed and I never saw or heard anybody check whether my visit was in order. These visits were not supervised and we were simply placed in his cell together for the duration of the visit. I have no recollection of whether the cell door was locked.

I have been asked if the version of events I gave to some people about me contacting NICHOLLS for the first time through a friend or acquaintance of his in Essex after reading of his arrest are true. I can confirm that this version is not true and as indicated above my first contact and meeting with NICHOLLS was following him contacting me first. I put this and several other versions of events out because I wanted to muddy the waters about how we had first made contact. Other versions included NICHOLLS and I being old friends, drinking buddies and the like. During my visits at Harlow I believe the officers working there would have believed I was simply a friend of NICHOLLS and nothing more.

I have also been asked if I ever visited NICHOLLS with any member of his family or whether I was ever introduced as a friend of one of his family particularly his mother-in-law. I can confirm that I never visited with any member of his family and his family never facilitated any of my visits. I can also confirm that I have never met his mother-in-law and the only members of his family that I did meet were his wife and her brother who I met much later when I was writing my book Bloggs 19. I had no actual need to arrange, or carry out a visit, with any of his family because it was so easy to visit on my own once Darren had agreed me as one of his visitors.

I can confirm that as far as I know, no police officer had knowledge of or facilitated any of my meetings with NICHOLLS at Harlow Police Station. This is obviously with the exception of the custody staff who let me in for my visits. None of those officers were made aware, by me, of the reasons for my visits and the fact that I was a journalist. Darren also never gave any indication whatsoever that the police knew about who I really was and the purpose of my visits. I never met any of NICHOLLS' witness protection officers.

I became aware that Darren was being transferred to H.M. Prison "BLANKED OUT" 'Alpha' and on at least two occasions I visited him there. Darren arranged the visit with the prison staff and I turned up after he told me I could visit on a certain day. I simply turned up at the prison and told them I had a visit booked with "Bloggs 19". There were always a number of other visitors to the Bloggs unit present. On arrival, even though I was searched before I was allowed in, I was never asked for identification. The purpose of my visit, which I think lasted for about thirty minutes, was to see Darren and also to view the Protected Witness Unit. I can confirm that I visited him alone and I was not with any members of his family.

Whilst I was visiting Darren I also spoke to another Protected Witness who I knew as 'Damien'. I was aware he knew I was a journalist and we spoke for just a few minutes regarding his concerns about where he would be housed on his release from custody. Damien was also interested in me writing a book about his experiences and it was apparent that he seemed to be under the impression that if I did he would earn a great deal of money from it. I believe, he gained this impression from Darren who had been bragging about (and by that I mean exaggerating) the amount of money he though[t] [he] would receive from the book along with a documentary which we had also been discussing. I gained the impression during my visit that Darren didn't generally speak to other prisoners on the unit apart from Damien.

I can confirm that to my knowledge none of the prison staff knew that I was a journalist. I am also certain that Darren's police Witness Protection Officers never knew who I was or the fact that a journalist was visiting him.

I can confirm that, although I was aware that NICHOLLS had been transferred to HM Prison "BLANKED OUT" 'Beta', I never visited Darren there, though I did see him at Harlow on a number of occasions whist he was in custody at that police station. In my article in The Observer newspaper dated 7th March 1999, entitled "The Supergrasses; Prison in the age of the informant", I stated that I was "the first journalist to visit the secret "BLANKED OUT" 'Beta' unit where [Protected Witnesses] are held". I can confirm that on this occasion I used 'poetic Licence' to make my article more credible. The reason for this is that HMP "BLANKED OUT" 'Alpha', the prison I had been in had closed down and transferred to "BLANKED OUT" 'Beta', and it would not have read very well if I had had to acknowledge this in the opening sentence to my article!

I should clarify that I did visit the Protective Witness Unit at HMP "BLANKED OUT" 'Beta' sometime in 2001. During this visit, which had nothing to do with NICHOLLS or the Rettendon murders, I did not have any discussions about either of those matters with the people I spoke to.

Darren and I had discussed the possibility that a television company may be interested in a project which could be in the form of a 'video diary' of Darren experiences. I told him that I would personally approach television people generally about the video diary idea.

I also told him that he also would not make very much money out of any possible television programme. We had no discussions at that point, of how any fees received from either project would be split between the two of us. My impression of Darren's reasons for wanting to assist in both possible projects, was not that he expected any great financial return but that he wanted the opportunity to give his side of the story of how he was being treated on the Witness Protection Scheme. I remember saying to him that it would be a good idea to get his story in a book so it would be much harder later for his handlers to deny such treatment. In my view, there would never have been any financial incentive for Darren to change, fabricate or exaggerate his evidence against STEELE and WHOMES because it was made quite clear to him how little money he would make whatever the outcome of the trial. By this time he had also made his deposition at the committal.

I would confirm that my book would never have been written or published until after the conclusion of the trial. The same applies to any television programme.

I then met with a Geoff POPE of London Weekend Television [LWT] who was at that time their Head of Factual Drama (Geoff also went onto co-write the film Essex Boys which was a fictional film based loosely on the Rettendon 'Range Rover murders'). I cannot now remember specifically when that initial meeting was or how it came about; it may have been because I specifically approached LWT for the purpose of discussing the video diary idea with them or it may have been during or following a meeting about another project. I have a vague memory of having a meeting with LWT about a possible project connected with my book Gangland Britain. I can specifically remember Geoff POPE, at some point, having in his possession a copy of my book.

I have been asked if I can remember Geoff POPE speaking to Darren NICHOLLS by telephone during one of our meetings. I can remember them both speaking to each other and that Geoff used my mobile telephone to do so. NICHOLLS also spoke to Terry WINDSOR. The purpose of the call was so that I could prove I was in contact with Darren. I cannot now remember the exact circumstances of this call or where Darren would have been when he received the call but I can say that when the call was made Darren must have out of custody and at his new address under the Witness Protection Scheme. I only know this with certainty because I know there was no way I could have contacted Darren when he was in custody at Harlow and it was always him that had to call me. However, when he was later released from custody he was supplied with a mobile telephone by the police so that he could contact them at all times.

I also cannot now remember how many other meetings I had with LWT but at some point I also met Will SMITH and possibly Terry WINDSOR (who went on to co-write and direct the film Essex Boys). In these meetings we would have discussed the content of a possible television programme and specifically how we could use the video diary concept. My main interest at this point was ensuring that the contents of my book were used in any future film production. It was eventually decided that the video diary idea was worth pursuing. At some point months later I became aware that LWT was making the programme for Channel 4.

I should emphasise that at this point the 'theme' of the intended television programme was to be about NICHOLLS' life on the Witness Protection Scheme. Although it would have to cover his involvement in the murder case in order to explain why he was on the Scheme, it was the Scheme itself which would form the crux of the programme content. Any television company could have produced a documentary about the Rettendon murders but it was the unique access to someone on the Scheme which made this a sellable commodity.

In March 1997 NICHOLLS was granted bail and began living at his new home provided under the Witness Protection Scheme. It became very clear that the book would not work simply from NICHOLLS' own point of view and rather than a ghost-writing job, it would involve a great deal of work on my part. For this reason NICHOLLS and I agreed that the original collaboration agreement would no longer stand and that all further monies from the book would be paid directly to me. NICHOLLS wrote to PFD to confirm this change. (When the manuscript was delivered in April 1999 NICHOLLS received a further payment of around £2000. He has received no monies from the book since.)

Around this time I was provided with a Super 8 video camera by LWT with which to shoot some test footage of NICHOLLS. This proved to be too poor quality for broadcast and I was subsequently provided with a digital video camera.

Although the quality was higher, it was clear from an early stage that the idea of a video diary was not workable. Despite this negotiations continued between my agents and LWT continued and a contract was drawn up in May 1997.

I then gave NICHOLLS the video camera and he was told simply to record his experiences as a Protected Witness. Darren subsequently recorded approximately five hours of footage, which I believe was taken over a period of several weeks.

Darren recorded the first part of his diary at his home address. I believe I may have personally recorded some footage of him both at his home address and also when we were out-and-about in his car. This footage featured NICHOLLS talking about the difficulties of life on the scheme - not being able to see his family, being separated from his friends and not being able to work. I would like to confirm that at no point did he discuss his evidence for the subsequent murder trial.

Despite it becoming clear that the footage was never going to be usable, NICHOLLS decided to carry on recording as he found it extremely therapeutic.

On 22nd May 1997 Darren and myself entered into what is known as an 'Option Agreement' with London Weekend Television. The Option Agreement ensured that we were 'tied' to LWT and that we could not go to other companies with our 'material' or television ideas. The first part of the agreement states that LWT agrees to pay "KEN RUGBY" and myself £2500 for an agreed amount of video diary footage. It also states that "LWT shall be entitled to extend the option period for a further period of 6 months upon payment.... of a further sum of £2500". As with the book, signing myself and NICHOLLS up as soon as possible would have been a priority for LWT to prevent us going to another company. These monies were paid directly to me via my agent.

At this time a separate agreement was being drawn up by my agent and LWT. This stated that:

1. the fact that Darren NICHOLLS was going to be paid £15,000 and myself £5000 as a "Contributors Fee".

2.  I was also to be paid £10,000 as a "Associate Producers Fee".

3.  Both of these fees were to be paid at the following times:

a)   a third on signature of the agreement,

b)    a third on commencement of production of the programme,

c)    a third upon completion of our services.

I can confirm that Darren's duties for his Contributors Fee would have been purely to film himself for the purposes of the video diary. My only duties at this early stage as an Associate Producer would have been to facilitate the making of the video diary and then eventually handing them over to LWT.

I can confirm that the negotiations surrounding the contract would have been carried out between my agents PFD and LWT's legal staff. I never met anybody from LWT's Legal or Business Affairs departments and the agreement would have probably been sent to me by post so that I could sign it. I believe I also met with Darren so he could also sign the document. Either Caroline DAWNAY or Rosemary SCHOULAR at PFD would have dealt with the negotiations. I would have been unaware of the details of the contract until I received it for signing.

In late May 1997 £2500 was paid to my agents PFD. This fee was for the production of the video diary and was completely separate from the Contributors Fee and Associate Producers Fee mentioned above. I cannot remember specifically how much, if anything, NICHOLLS received from this fee. I think I just took him out for a meal. The reason for this is that out of the fee I would have had to pay my agents commission and all the rest of my expenses. NICHOLLS and I had also agreed that, while he would naturally receive some monies at some point as most of the work for the video diary would be down to him alone, this initial payment represented my fee for arranging the deal.

By this time NICHOLLS and I would have been aware that the video diary idea was not going to work. The footage he was able to take of himself made him far too identifiable to be usable on broadcast. Therefore we never expected to received the contributors fee mentioned in the Schedule. This fee was never paid.

A short time before the commencement of STEELE and WHOME's trial Darren was then taken to police premises, which I think was Harlow Police Station. He was housed there during the subsequent trial and again took some video footage for his diary.

(My book also shows periodic extracts from Darren's diary between 22nd May and 11th September 1997.)

I can confirm that as far as I know, no police officers were ever aware at any time of the filming of Darren's video diary.

Between September 1997 and January 1998, I sat throughout the vast majority of the trial of STEELE, WHOMES and CORRY including when NICHOLLS gave his evidence in chief and during his subsequent cross examination.

Following the trial, in February 1998 the Option Agreement was extended and another £2500 was paid to me via my agents, PFD. The agreement was backdated because the original six-month period had expired during the previous November. The renewal was just a formality and simply renewed the previous agreement. On this occasion I did not give Darren any of the money received.

I cannot remember exactly when, but Darren eventually gave me the tapes of his video diary. I can recall that within some sections of the footage Darren was wearing a false beard.

At some point I was made aware by LWT that Will SMITH had taken over the project from Geoff POPE. They also made me aware that Channel 4 had decided that they no longer wished to pursue the programme idea but they had approached the BBC, and Olivia LICHTENSTEIN the Editor of their Inside Story strand had agreed to commission the continuation of the programme idea. What this means in practice, is that LWT would produce the programme and the BBC who would then broadcast the programme as part of their Inside Story Series.

On 1st October 1998, I entered into a new contract with London weekend Television. The contact was similar to the previous one except for a number of points. These include:

a) The contract now mentions the BBC as opposed to Channel 4,

b) The contract was just between LWT and myself.

c)  I was now shown as a 'Contributor' and not an 'Associate Producer',

d)  Darren NICHOLLS (known in the previous contract as 'Ken RUGBY') was no longer referred to in the contract,

e) All payments would be paid to me, the Contributor,

f) The contract places a number of obligations on me including the requirement to secure the participation and consent of the Darren and his family (excluding his children).

My recollection of the negotiation and signing of the contact is that it was the same as the previous one i.e. negotiated by my agents PFD, and then signed by myself and the representatives of LWT via the postal system.

I believe the reason that Darren had been excluded from the contract, is because LWT no longer wanted to be in the position where they had to pay any sort of fee to him. I think this was because the Code of Conduct that applies to television companies prevents them from paying 'criminals' or words to that effect.

I was then put into contact with the programme's production team, which included the Producer/Director, Todd AUSTIN, and his Assistant Producer Karen PLUMB. I arranged their initial meeting with Darren. I gave Todd and Karen a set of instructions, which eventually resulted in them meeting with Darren in a pub.

Over the next couple of months the programme makers met with Darren and his wife and they were interviewed on film. My recollection is that the filming took about three to four days to complete and was filmed at "BLANKED OUT" a location agreed to all parties. I facilitated Darren and his wife's presence at the filming and was present throughout. That was my sole involvement and I had nothing to do with the rest of the Programmes content.

I have a recollection of Darren, fairly early on after the filming, viewing a short extract of the footage of himself and his family. I am not sure exactly when that was but I recall that Darren seemed satisfied with what he had seen.

Sometime during the period when the filming took place (October to December 1998 London Weekend Television made two further payments to my agents PFD. I do not know the exact dates they were paid but the amounts were £4,500 and £7,500 respectively. The total figure of £12,000 represents two thirds of the £18,000 "Contributors Fee" shown in the contract dated 1st October 1998. I do not know why it was paid in these denominations i.e. as opposed to two payments of £6000. I can confirm that out of the total fee of £12,000 I paid Darren a total of £9000.

In late January 1999, approximately ten days before 'Supergrass' was about to be broadcast, I viewed the final footage of the programme. My immediate reaction was that, in my view, from the footage taken of Darren, his identity would be obvious to anybody who knew him. It was also around that I was shown a letter from Essex Police in which they outlined their objections to proposed broadcast. I believe I was shown this letter by someone at LWT. After a number of discussions with the programme makers, it became obvious that they were not going to take my concerns seriously. As much as I obviously wanted the programme to be made and broadcast my primary concern was for Darren and his family's safety, and there was no way I was going to jeopardise that. It was for this reason that I decided, approximately two days before the proposed broadcast date, to pull the plug on the project. I therefor, acting as Darren's agent, I contacted a firm of solicitors and requested them to obtain an injunction to prevent the programme being shown. I cannot now remember the name of the solicitors, but I have a recollection of giving them, over the telephone, my views on the programme's content and the identity issues arising from it. In addition to my telephone calls with them, I also have a recollection of faxing documents to them. On 3rd February 1999, the day of the proposed broadcast, we were successful in obtaining the injunction and the BBC was prevented from broadcasting the programme.

On 18th February 1999, the BBC subsequently went to court and had the injunction discharged. However, we appealed and on 29 March 1999, the Court of Appeal finally ordered that the programme should not be broadcast whilst it showed any of the physical characteristics of Darren, or his immediate family.

I am aware that the programme makers re-shot the programme using actors and it was finally broadcast on 5th August 1999.

Following the broadcast, my agents requested the remaining £6000 of my 'Contributors Fee' from LWT but they refused to pay me the money as a result of the injunction.

In the summer of 1998 I began the initial preparation for my book, which was later published as Bloggs 19. During the books preparation I interviewed Darren and his wife on a number of occasions at their home address. These interviews were recorded on approximately twenty-five hours of audiotape. I no longer have these tapes or documents. I also spoke to them by telephone on a number of occasions in order that I could clarify certain things. In addition to this, I also referred to a number of statements (and other documents) that Darren had given to me as well as his video diary.

I actually began writing it the following October when LWT were filming the footage of Darren and his wife. I completed the book in May 1999 and it was finally published by Warner Books in February 2000. I can confirm that Darren had no creative or 'editorial' influence on the finished book and received no monies from its publication.

I have been asked to clarify the following points in relation to my book:

a) On page four, I state that initial meeting with NICHOLLS took place at a Macdonald's in Romford, and that he was accompanied by his 'minders' who had "tailed my car". I can confirm that this meeting never took place and that it was purely 'poetic Licence' to make that part of the book appear more interesting. In fact used similar

wording to what had been written by Nicholas PILLEGGI in his book Wise Guy, where the main character in the book had also met the author of the book . It was also a vague reference to the way I had arranged the meeting between NICHOLLS and Todd AUSTIN.

b) Also on page 4, the 'senior officer' I refer to was Detective Superintendent David BRIGHT.

c) During the writing of the book I also interviewed ex Detective Superintendent Ivan DIBLEY. I initially contacted him after I was provided with his telephone number by Todd AUSTIN the Producer/Director of Supergrass.

d) I also interviewed two Customs Officers. I had contacted them through the press office.

e) I have been asked whether I re-contacted the Protected Witness 'Damien' by telephone during the books preparation. I have no memory of doing so but if I did it would have been purely a favour to Darren to keep him 'sweet' i.e. as an indication that I had not abandoned Damien to his fate. I can confirm that I did not use 'Damien' to verify any parts of my book.

I have been asked to clarify the following general points:

a) I can confirm that I had no involvement in the film Essex Boys - the film was written by Geoff POPE and Terry WINDSOR without any input by myself.

b)  I again confirm that to my knowledge no member of Essex Police knew about my involvement with Darren during any of my visits to him whilst he was in either police or prison custody. The first time I became aware that Essex police knew about Darren's involvement with the media (ie the Television programme) was around the time of the injunction.

c)  I can confirm that I gave some of the footage of the video diary ie the tapes to London weekend television. I did not retain any copies of the tapes.

d) Throughout the video diary footage Darren never spoke about his evidence in the criminal cases against Mr STEEL and Mr WHOMES or other criminal case, past or present, that he may have been-involved in.

e)  I would like to confirm that at the time I did wear

glasses, some of them with gold rims.

f) I can confirm that I have never rung the "BLANKED OUT" 'Beta' Protected Witness Unit and declared myself to be a journalist.

I have been asked if I have any knowledge of Darren NICHOLLS being untruthful in his evidence or him being 'coached' by the police. I can confirm the following:

a)   I obviously have a very in depth knowledge of Darren's involvement in the murder and the surrounding circumstances -1 attended the committal proceedings, the whole of the subsequent trial at the Central Criminal Court (where I heard Darren's evidence in chief and his subsequent cross examination) and then interviewed him in-depth for the purposes of my book. As far as I am concerned his account remained consistent throughout all the criminal proceedings and his interviews with me. I do believe his account.

b)   However, 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 (sic) friend in the illegal importation of drugs. Darren was very concerned about this aspect of his evidence.

I have been asked if I discussed with NICHOLLS his evidence during the days that he actually gave that evidence at the Central Criminal Court. I can confirm that I did not and did not visit him during the trial until the jury had gone out on their deliberations. I can also confirm that prior to the trial I did not discuss his forthcoming evidence, though I was clearly aware of many details having attended the committal."

STATEMENT DATED 12th MARCH 2004

For the sake of clarity THOMPSON'S second statement is again reproduced in full. He states:

"Further to my statement dated 4th February 2004. There are

a number of points that I would like to clarify, namely:

In respect of the contract with LWT, taking out the Option Agreement was simply LWT's way of ensuring that Darren NICHOLLS and I did not take the video diary idea elsewhere but as I said, it became clear very early on that the idea would not work. For this reason there was no expectation that any monies (other than the option fee) would be received or that a programme would be made. Channel 4 had already rejected the idea. Therefore by the time of the trial both Darren and I were both fully aware that the idea had been dropped. The Option had, after all, been allowed to expire. No monies in the first contract had been paid and neither myself or my agent had pursued them because the project had to all intents and purposes been cancelled.

It was not the case that the idea of a TV programme was being pursued by myself and Darren both before, throughout and after the trial. At the end of the trial LWT decided to approach the BBC. Darren and I were not informed of this in advance. When the BBC accepted the idea, a new contract was drawn up and the Option was extended. This was done because without having the option in the first place LWT would not be able to offer the idea to the BBC. This is why it had to be backdated.

In conclusion, what I am saying is that the two Programmes were totally separate and that by the time of the trial Darren had no expectation of any financial reward other than the small amount he had received for the book. Again, by the time of the trial he knew he would be receiving only a little more money from the book and that future payments would be made to me and me alone.

I have been asked to clarify the following:

In the Observer article dated 7/03/99 I quoted former Detective Supt. Ivan DIBLEY who spoke in respect of police informants. I can confirm that these quotes were either the result of an interview with Mr DIBLEY some months after the trial or an interview carried out the week before the article was published.

I have been shown a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement made between myself, Ken RUGBY and the publishers Little Brown and Company. This agreement is dated 14 September 1996 and on the last page is witnessed by myself, 'Darren NICHOLLS' and Barbara BOOTE. I cannot now remember the exact details but it is highly likely that the signatures on this document were added some time after the agreement date of September 14. I cannot recall when or if Darren signed the document as there is a possibility that I signed it on his behalf in order to expedite the book contract.

There is a date on the contract by which the complete manuscript should have been delivered of 30th November 1996. My recollection is that the trial was originally listed to begin in early November. If this had been the case one option would have been to deliver a book to be published directly at the end of the trial. This idea was quickly abandoned.

The two payments to Darren NICHOLLS were made direct to a firm of solicitors, Simons, Muirhead and Burton. Darren or myself were then able to collect cash from the firm.

I would also like to clarify the following. I have been shown a financial statement showing payments made to Darren NICHOLLS in respect of the book and television project. In my first statement I said that Darren received no monies from the May 1997 option fee of £2500. The financial statement shows this is not correct and that he received half the monies. I now accept this to be the case but had not remembered it before."

11.0 LONDON WEEKEND TELEVISION

11.1 GEOFF POPE

STATEMENT DATED 9th DECEMBER 2003

For the sake of clarity POPE'S statement is reproduced in full. He states:

"In 1996 I was Head of Factual Drama at London Weekend Television [LWT]. Towards the end of that year, I think it was in the autumn, I had a conversation with a journalist who I knew as Tony THOMPSON. I cannot remember now exactly what the discussion was about but it may have been something to do with his book Gangland Britain. During, or following that discussion, he indicated to me that he had an idea for a book about the events surrounding the Rettendon murders. I knew he was referring to the murders in Rettendon, Essex where three people had been found shot dead in a Range Rover, as prior to this discussion I had already been working on the idea of a drama possibly to be based on the Rettendon murders. He said that he was thinking of writing the book with the co-operation of Darren NICHOLLS, who he informed me was the 'Supergrass' who had given information to the police about his, and others, involvement in the murders. I indicated that I might be interested in working with him on a project where the book could be converted into a film. I should emphasise that Mr THOMPSON indicated that the book was only in the 'idea stage' and that "it was on hold until after the trial", but we both agreed that the concept sounded interesting. During this initial conversation, THOMPSON indicated that he was in contact with Darren NICHOLLS, and that he had been authorised by NICHOLLS to approach London Weekend Television on his behalf. I can confirm that this authorisation was not in written form. In that initial meeting, I also have a recollection of THOMPSON asking me if I wanted to speak to Darren NICHOLLS. I indicated that I would, so THOMPSON rang NICHOLLS on his mobile telephone there and then, had a quiet and brief conversation with him, and then handed the telephone to me. I have no idea if NICHOLLS was speaking to me on a mobile or a 'landline' telephone. During my brief conversation, with NICHOLLS, which was the one and only time I spoke to him, we just spoke about a few details of his present circumstances and that the fact that he was currently on the Witness Protection Scheme. I cannot remember if he said where he was located at the time but I can remember he gave the impression of being 'under pressure'.

During this initial meeting with Tony THOMPSON two possible Programmes were discussed. One idea was a documentary programme about NICHOLLS' life in the Witness Protection Scheme, which would be based on video diaries to be recorded by NICHOLLS and THOMPSON before, during and after the trial of Mick STEELE and Jack WHOMES whom NICHOLLS was to give evidence against. The other idea was a factual drama based on the STEELE and WHOMES criminal case.

I also have a recollection of asking THOMPSON how NICHOLLS got in touch with him. THOMPSON stated that NICHOLLS had seen his book Gangland Britain in a newsagent's shop, had thought it was a well-written book, so had got in touch with him. However, he did not specifically say how the actual initial contact had taken place.

I decided that we would initially develop the 'video diary' idea, and Tony THOMPSON was loaned a small digital video palm sized video camera (DVC) with which the footage was to be recorded. I believe it was a member of my production staff who actually gave him the camera. It was intended that the programme was to focus on a person who was on the Witness Protection Scheme and it was never intended that it would in any way be about the Rettendon Murders. I was not interested in any of NICHOLLS' evidence; I was purely interested in the phenomenon of the Witness Protection Scheme and the "Supergrass". I stated that Mr NICHOLLS should express his hopes and fears, and should also give a straight description of what was happening throughout each stage of the process i.e. before, during and after the trial. This should include how exactly he was feeling, the stress he was under and how he felt when he saw members of his family.

I have no recollection of whether THOMPSON ever said to me how he intended getting the camera to NICHOLLS whilst he was in custody, but I do remember that I had the impression that his warders would 'turn a blind eye'. I can confirm that there was no formal approach to the police to make them aware of our intentions and I have no knowledge of whether or not they were aware of what was happening before, or during, the recording of the video footage. I would like to emphasise that the overall project was never secret in any way; it was purely another programme idea in which I was involved.

I should point out that the programme was going to be developed and made by us, for Channel Four Television.

I later viewed a brief section, approximately ten minutes, of the video footage produced by NICHOLLS and or THOMPSON. It was very poor quality and weak in content. I can remember that NICHOLLS was wearing some rather bizarre disguises and that overall the content was not really very interesting. I have been asked if I can recall any detail of the rooms or building that NICHOLLS appeared to be housed in during the video footage; I can only remember that it looked like an 'institution' of some kind, but I do not recall any bars on the windows. I can also remember that it looked very basic, and had a fridge, microwave and what looked like a prison 'cot'. I remember that some of the footage was in the form of a 'classic' video diary where a camera is put down and the 'subject' speaks into it, but I cannot now remember whether some of the footage was recorded by someone else filming NICHOLLS as they moved around him.

I later had some involvement in the drafting of an 'Option Agreement' between LWT, Tony THOMPSON and Darren NICHOLLS (who was referred to in the agreement as the pseudonym Ken RUGBY). I have a recollection of asking our Business Affairs Department to draft the agreement and would have given them details such as the fees to be paid to THOMPSON and NICHOLLS. I would have examined the draft agreement and agreed its content. The Option Agreement was completed on 22 May 1997. It provided for an initial payment of £2500, which was made to PETERS FRASER DUNLOP (PFD), THOMPSON'S literary agents, who were involved in the negotiations with Business Affairs regarding the agreement. It further provided that if LWT decided to exercise its option within the option period of six months, Tony THOMPSON, who was to act as an Associate Producer of the programme, was to provide as part of his services the "recording [of] a minimum of thirty hours of [video] footage before, during and after Mr RUGBY

[NICHOLLS] testifies at the murder trial and......providing the Programme Producer.. with the video cassettes of the footage". The agreed fees to be paid to THOMPSON and NICHOLLS in this event were as follows:

Mr THOMPSON was to receive £5000 and Mr NICHOLLS £15,000 as a "Contributors Fee". Mr THOMPSON was also to receive an additional "Associate Producer fee of £10,000. All the above fees were to be payable as follows: i) "One third upon signature of [the] agreement", ii) "one third upon commencement of production of the programme..." and iii) "one third upon completion of [their] services".

I can specifically remember that the Option Agreement was worded so that any later drama programme could be specifically separated from the video diary idea. This was so that THOMPSON could not later say that he had any 'claim' to any subsequent drama production.

I have no memory of dealing with THOMPSON'S literary agents PFD, as this would have been left to the Business Affairs Department.

I am aware that in February 1998, following the conviction of STEELE and WHOMES of the Rettendon Murders, the Option Agreement was extended for a further six months. A further payment of £2500 was made to PFD in respect of this extension.

As the quality of the video footage was so poor it was very unlikely that any programme in the form of a video diary would be a success. However, I believed a documentary programme might still be possible, and I passed the project to Will SMITH in the Factual programme department at LWT for his consideration.

I later produced the feature film Essex Boys which was an entirely fictional film that drew some inspiration from the murder story but at no time purported to be an actual account of the murders. I had decided to move away from the actual facts and persons involved in the real life story because of various legal issues and because the actual story did not work well as a drama. During the making of the film I had no dealings whatsoever with either Darren NICHOLLS or Tony THOMPSON. I was however, assisted by an ex Detective Inspector from Essex Police, George FLORENCE.

I would like to confirm that at no time did I, in my own view, do anything in respect of either programme ideas or the Option Agreement that I thought might be prejudicial to any future criminal trial or the judicial process. I am originally a journalist by trade and the experience I gained whilst engaged in that profession, as well as my wide-ranging experience in television and film production, has provided me with the knowledge and experience to be fully aware of all subjudice issues and the laws of contempt of court and libel. All of these issues would have been at the front of my mind whilst I was dealing with programme ideas of this kind.

I was told by my colleague Terry WINDSOR, who directed Essex Boys, that he saw Tony THOMPSON at the Central Criminal Court during the trial of the two people, STEELE and WHOMES, who were later convicted of the murders at Rettendon, Essex.

I have been asked if the making of the television programme would have been affected if STEELE and WHOMES had been found not guilty. In the case of the video diary it would have made no difference whatsoever. The programme would have depended on the quality of the video diary material itself, and the programme could have still been produced if they had been found not guilty, and in my view could even have made the programme more dramatic. But in the event, the actual material was so poor that it would have been unlikely to form the basis of a viable programme whatever the outcome of the trial. In relation to the drama project that eventually became Essex Boys, this might have been affected by a not guilty verdict in the sense that there could have been further possible defamation issues to consider. But as I have said, no agreement with NICHOLLS or THOMPSON was ever entered into in relation to the drama project, as in the event it was not a film about NICHOLLS (or indeed about STEELE and WHOMES)."

11.1a STATEMENT DATED 23rd JANUARY 2004

In this statement POPE was asked if he could remember anything more of NICHOLLS' video diary, especially in relation to whether NICHOLLS mentioned, within the footage, anything about his evidence in relation to the criminal case against STEELE and WHOMES or any other criminal case he was involved in. He states:

"My recollection is that within the footage I viewed, NICHOLLS at no time mentioned anything to do with the criminal cases that he was involved in, either in respect of his evidence or indeed anything to do with STEELE or WHOMES.

I would also confirm that in discussions with Tony THOMPSON prior to arranging the loan of the video camera, I specifically asked him to tell NICHOLLS not to discuss on camera any aspect of the evidence he was due to give in the forthcoming court case against STEELE and WHOMES. I asked him to concentrate solely on describing the conditions he was living in and the impact they were having on himself and his family."

11.2 WILL SMITH

STATEMENT DATED 9™ DECEMBER 2003

Mr SMITH states: "In May 1998 I took up the position of Head of Current Affairs at London Weekend Television [LWT].

At that time I became aware Geoff POPE had been working on a possible programme on the Protected Witness Scheme and that a Protected Witness or 'Supergrass' was involved in the making of the programme. I later became aware that the Protected Witness, Darren NICHOLLS, had given evidence in the trial of the two men, Michael STEELE and Jack WHOMES who had been convicted of the Rettendon 'Range Rover' Murders.

In 1998 Geoff POPE left the department to take up another position within the Granada group, and I inherited

the "Supergrass" project from him. I was at that time aware that there was an Option Agreement in existence between London Weekend Television, the Protected Witness Darren NICHOLLS (known within the Option Agreement as the pseudonym 'Ken RUGBY') and the journalist (acting as NICHOLLS' 'agent') Tony THOMPSON. This agreement had originally been signed in May 1997 (00/05/1997) and later extended in February 1998 (00/02/1998). At that point the programme was going to be developed and made by LWT for Channel Four Television. I believe the people involved in the proposed programme at Channel Four were Charles FURNEAUX and Peter MOORE.

When I inherited the project, I viewed approximately ten minutes of video diary footage that had been edited by one of my staff. This was the edited 'highlights', of what I believe was originally over twelve hours of footage, taken by NICHOLLS whilst he was in Protective Custody. The overall content of the footage can only be described as very poor; NICHOLLS in some sections of the footage appeared dressed in ridiculous disguises.

I have been asked if I can recall any of the locations where the video footage was taken. My only recollection is that during the footage there was a 'tour' of the cell area in which he was housed, the area looked quite 'homely' and there was a fridge in one of the rooms. I can also recall that during the footage NICHOLLS sounded quite boastful of the "special treatment" he was receiving. I cannot remember anyone asking him questions during the footage; it was purely NICHOLLS himself talking to the camera.

I do not know where the video tapes are now.

In about October 1998, following a changing in the commissioning personnel at Channel Four they decided that they did not want to proceed with the project any longer.

Because of the poor content of the video footage I considered a programme based on this material to be of very limited potential. I decided we would make a broader based documentary about NICHOLLS' overall involvement in the murder case, his experiences on the Witness Protection Programme and the campaign by Jack WHOMES' family to establish his innocence. I was aware that Jack WHOMES and Michael STEELE had been convicted of the murders in January 1998.

Todd AUSTIN was engaged as the Producer and Director of the programme. We then offered the project to Olivia LICHTENSTEIN, Editor of the Inside Story documentary strand at the BBC, and the BBC agreed to broadcast it as an edition of Inside Story.

At around this time, October 1998, LWT entered into a new agreement with THOMPSON alone, in which it was indicated that he was to act as a 'consultant' to the production and also for arranging access to NICHOLLS and his family. The agreement was made with THOMPSON alone this time, and all of our 'business' dealings during the subsequent making of the programme were therefore with THOMPSON and his literary agents PETERS FRASER DUNLOP, not with NICHOLLS. LWT's business affairs department would have been involved in the negotiation of this agreement with THOMPSON'S literary agents.

Between late October and December 1998, there were a number of face-to-face meetings between LWT's production team and NICHOLLS and his family. During these meetings a number of security arrangements were agreed to protect the new identity of NICHOLLS and his family. These measures included extreme close up shots to disguise their faces, filming their interviews in a neutral seaside town, and the use of visual 'red herrings' such as uncharacteristic jewellery and make up.

Filming of NICHOLLS took place between November 1998 and January 1999. It was at some time during this period that Todd AUSTIN and I decided that we would definitely not use any of the video diary material that had been produced by NICHOLLS.

In late January 1999 we sent a rough 'cut' of the interview sequences with NICHOLLS that were to be used in the programme to Mr THOMPSON. I believe he forwarded the material to NICHOLLS. Mr THOMPSON later attended our offices and viewed a rough version of the complete programme. I think that THOMPSON viewed the footage on two separate occasions. Following these viewings he raised a number of specific concerns about particular shots and made suggestions as to how to better protect NICHOLLS' anonymity, for example, treating his voice electronically and 'tightening' close up shots.

It was around this time that officers from Essex Police became involved and requesteda viewing of the programme. Todd AUSTIN and myself travelled to Essex

and showed the police officers the proposed footage. At their request we re-recorded the soundtrack with actors voices. I believe the Essex police officers also attended at our offices for a further viewing of the re-cut programme in one of our edit suites. I cannot now remember the names of the police officers involved, but I believe one of them was a Detective Inspector and there were two police protective witness 'handlers'.

The programme was due to be transmitted on Wednesday 3rd February 1999, but the broadcast was prevented by NICHOLLS who was successful in obtaining an ex-parte injunction to prevent the transmission. The main grounds for NICHOLLS application was that he did not believe the steps taken by ourselves to obscure his identity had been adequate. The granting of this injunction was later upheld in the Court of Appeal. As a result of the injunction we completely re-shot the original interviews with NICHOLLS, using actors in his place but speaking the exact words originally spoken by him. Following these changes, the programme was finally transmitted on 5th August 1999.

I can confirm that the following payments were made by LWT to THOMPSON'S literary agents PETERS FRASER DUNLOP:

1.   In May 1997, a cheque for £2500 was paid in relation to the joint THOMPSON / NICHOLLS Option Agreement.

2.   In February 1998 the Option Agreement was extended and a further cheque was paid to PFD for a further £2500.

3.   Between October and December 1998, following the new 'Consultancy agreement' with THOMPSON alone two payments were made to PFD - one for £4500 and the other for £7500. Again both were paid by cheque.

Following the eventual broadcast of the BBC programme, there was a demand for a further £6000 (in respect of the THOMPSON agreement) from PFD. I believe this was rejected by LWT because THOMPSON had given active assistance to NICHOLLS in preventing the broadcast via the injunction proceedings.

I am unaware of any agreement between THOMPSON and NICHOLLS where they had agreed to divide the monies received by THOMPSON alone.

I have been asked if I can clarify the following points;

1.   My recollection is that NICHOLLS claimed, throughout the programme production process, that his police 'handlers' were aware of the making of our programme and also the recording of the original video diary footage produced whilst he was in custody.

2.   In the event that STEELE and WHOMES had been found not guilty our programme could have still been transmitted. We would of course have reflected their acquittal in the programme.

3.   I am fully aware of all of the relevant subjudice, contempt of court and defamation issues that may have been relevant in this case and would have considered these issues throughout the production process. I would point out that the original proposed date of transmission was after STEELE and WHOMES had lost their appeal."

11.2a STATEMENT DATED 15TH JANUARY 2004

In this statement SMITH was asked if he could remember anything more of NICHOLLS' video diary, especially in relation to whether NICHOLLS mentioned, within the footage he viewed, anything about his evidence in relation to the criminal case against STEELE and WHOMES or any other criminal case that he was involved in.

He stated "My recollection is that within the footage I viewed, NICHOLLS at no time mentioned anything to do with his evidence or anything else in relation to the trial of STEELE and WHOMES."

11.3 TODD AUSTIN

STATEMENT DATED 15™ DECEMBER 2003

Mr AUSTIN is currently employed as a Series Editor for the BBC.

In October 1998, Mr AUSTIN was a freelance television Producer and Director. His statement gives details of the production of the post trial television programme entitled 'Inside Story- Supergrass', his production team, and the BBC's involvement.

In respect of the video diary, he states:" I viewed the 'highlights' of some 'video diary1 footage that I was lead to believe had been taken whilst NICHOLLS was in Protective Custody. The quality of the footage was very poor. I can recall that NICHOLLS was wearing a cap and a false ginger beard and was continually giggling. The footage was of such poor quality that it would have been of no use in the making of our, or in my view any other, programme. I have a vague recollection of a person, who I presumed to be NICHOLLS, filming some footage in the form of a 'tour' of his living quarters. I have very little recollection of his living area apart from in one particular room was there was a door on the left hand side of the far wall i.e. the opposite wall from the position where he was recording the footage from. I formed the impression that it had been taken in some sort of police cell and that the area had been made up (i.e. furnished) purely for his benefit."

In respect of Essex Police's involvement he states: "A few weeks before that date I was made aware that Essex Police had indicated that they had concerns about the programme. As a result of their concerns, there were approximately two or three meetings between ourselves and Essex Police. I cannot now remember exactly how many of those meetings I actually attended, but I think it may be two. I can remember one occasion when I went to Essex accompanied by Will Smith. During that meeting, we met with two of NICHOLLS' Witness Protection Officers and they viewed the proposed programme content, including the footage of NICHOLLS. They stated that they could recognise NICHOLLS from the footage and requested a number of changes.....

.....I also cannot remember if they [the police officers] told me when they first become aware of any media or journalistic involvement with NICHOLLS i.e. Tony THOMPSON, the video diary or the production of our programme.....

.....As a result of their concerns we made a number of visual changes (i.e. 'tighter' shots) and also recorded over NICHOLLS', and his wife's, voices with that of actors. I have no recollection of whether the police viewed the amended footage after the changes had been made."

Mr AUSTIN then gives details of the injunction proceeding instituted by NICHOLLS and the subsequent re-filming that took place prior to the eventual broadcast of the programme.

11.3a STATEMENT DATED 15th JANUARY 2004

In his statement dated 15th December 2003, Mr AUSTIN states: "I can confirm I have no recollection of what was said by NICHOLLS within the video footage."

11.4 KAREN PLUMB

Karen PLUMB was Todd AUSTIN'S Assistant Producer during the production of the television programme "Supergrass".

She states: "As part of my research for the programme I viewed some footage of a 'video diary' that had been filmed by NICHOLLS whilst he had been in Protective Custody. I only had a brief look at the footage because it had been badly shot and the overall quality was very poor. My only real recollection of the footage is of NICHOLLS wearing a ginger beard. I can confirm that I have no recollection of what NICHOLLS exactly said during the footage. I also have a recollection of someone, possibly NICHOLLS, later telling me that the video footage had been taken in some form of 'holding cell' that I believe was in a court building."

She also confirms: "I have no recollection of whether NICHOLLS or THOMPSON ever told me that Essex Police were aware of the filming of the video diary whilst NICHOLLS had been in protective custody."

11.5 DIENSEN PAMBEN

Diensen PAMBEN worked for London Weekend Television as a Research Assistant during the making of the television programme Inside Story - Supergrass. His main responsibilities were to support Todd AUSTIN and a Karen PLUMB during the making of the programme and to set up locations for filming.

In respect of the video diary he states: "I remember watching some footage of video diaries recorded of Darren NICHOLLS. The recordings were very basic indeed, I think Darren was talking about his feelings. I do not think that Darren spoke about the case in which he was a witness at all but I cannot be certain. I remember that Darren was wearing a fake beard and disguise in the recordings which seemed to take place in a prison cell or

a police interview room, I also seem to remember a mirror being in the room. I cannot comment on how long the video diaries were or as to whether I saw all of them. Overall it is fair to say that Darren looked stupid in his

disguise and the video was almost comical.....I have no idea what happened to Darren's video diaries after the filming. The usual practice would have been for all materials used in the production to be placed in a box and stored at London Weekend Television premises. Having said that items such as video diaries could be returned to their owners."

He also confirms that "During the filming I looked after Darren who as far as I remember never discussed with me any issues of the case in which he was a witness."

11.6 ADAM OLIVER

On 1st May 1997, Adam OLIVER commenced employment at London Weekend Television as a Business Affairs Manager in their Business Affairs Department. His responsibilities included overseeing and writing contracts in relation to company projects. He states:

"I have been shown some apparent copy documentation by Dl David FANTOM and DC Dave POWELL of Hertfordshire Constabulary. Firstly, there is a letter dated 22nd May 1997 addressed to Ken RUGBY and Tony THOMPSON. This letter makes reference to an attached agreement between RUGBY, THOMPSON and London Weekend Television, this being the second copy document that I was shown. I am now aware that 'RUGBY' is a pseudonym for Darren NICHOLLS.....

.....The letter very briefly summarises an agreement

whereby THOMPSON and 'RUGBY would be paid monies in return for London Weekend Television having an 'option' to produce a television programme called "SUPERGRASS". The copy I have been shown is signed by myself as well as apparently 'RUGBY' and THOMPSON.....

The agreement which is written as contract number C51752/GA/JN, contains the finer points of the exact monies that should be paid to THOMPSON and 'RUGBY and what would be expected in return. This included the fact that THOMPSON would act as Associate Producer of the programme and would supply video footage of 'RUGBY' before, during and after the murder trial. Also the contract stipulates that the programme would not be broadcast or otherwise exploited until the trial had ended.....

.....I refer to the copy documentation as exhibit number AO/1 in my evidence.....

.....I would have dealt directly with the company called PETERS FRASER DUNLOP mentioned in the letter, and the letter and contract would have been sent to them by post for signing. I do not believe that at any stage I would have met or spoken to THOMPSON or 'RUGBY'.....

.....I do not recall any other personal involvement in relation to the project after the letter and contract was signed. In fact I terminated my employment with London Weekend Television in September 1998."

11.7 ADAM SMITH

At the beginning of 1996, Adam SMITH began working as a Business Affairs executive within the Business Affairs Department at London Weekend Television. His responsibilities included overseeing contracts drawn up between the company and third parties. One of his colleagues at the time was Adam OLIVER. He states:

"I have read a copy of an option letter dated 22nd May 1997, from London Weekend Television to Peters Fraser Dunlop with an accompanying contract number C51752/GA/JN attached as a Schedule 1. I have also read what appears to be a later version of the same Schedule 1 contract dated 1st October 1998. Firstly I would point out that my memory of the events surrounding the contract dated 1st October 1998 are (sic) vague, to say the least, due to the passage of time. I would confirm that I believe I had nothing to do with the creation of the first version of the contract.

Both contracts are concerning the making of a television programme called Supergrass. The first contract is between London Weekend Television and persons called Tony THOMPSON and 'Ken RUGBY' (which I am now aware is a pseudonym for Darren NICHOLLS). The second contract is just between London Weekend Television and Tony THOMPSON. Save for this fact, the contracts are very similar in their content, the first version sets out the payments to be made to THOMPSON and "RUGBY and the fact that both would be given the title Associate Producer' of the proposed programme. The contract also sets out the expectation that THOMPSON should provide video-recorded footage of 'RUGBY' before, during and after his testimony at a murder trial. It suggests that the programme would be made for Channel 4.

The essential difference with the second version of the contract is that it now sets out the fact that all payments would be made to THOMPSON alone and 'RUGBY' would no longer be an Associate Producer of the programme. This contract places an obligation on Tony THOMPSON to secure the participation and consent of the "Supergrass" and his family (excluding children). It now suggests the programme would be made for the BBC.

The first version appears to have been signed by Adam OLIVER, THOMPSON and 'RUGBY'. The second version appears to have been signed by THOMPSON and is also signed by myself on behalf of London Weekend Television.

I believe I would have drawn up the second contract after liaising with, Will SMITH, who at that time was Head of Current Affairs at LWT and perhaps Adam OLIVER who had previously worked on the project. I may also have liaised with other relevant executives. Will would have briefed me as to what specifically he wanted in the agreement. I can only speculate upon the reasons why 'RUGBY' was no longer to be a party to, paid or made an Associate Producer in the second version of the contract. The reasons could be a) we, as a company, did not want to have any form of business relationship with "RUGBY" as at that time there was and (and still is) some sensitivity in paying monies to people associated with criminal activity, b) The BBC had the same concerns and insisted that we only dealt with THOMPSON, or c) THOMPSON re-negotiated the contract.

I am sure that at some time NICHOLLS would have had to agree, in a binding form, to footage of himself being used in the programme. This would normally be in the form of some sort of 'release form' or similar document. However, I have no recollection of preparing or seeing any such document. This could have been resolved by using 'implied consent' from the first signed Option Agreement, but I am (sic) think this is doubtful as I expect that we would know the BBC would have wanted a written agreement. I would also have expected that the BBC would have wanted to see and approve any other form of contract i.e. the second version of the contract referred to above.

The signing of the contracts would have probably been facilitated by the use of telephones, fax machines or normal post. I do not remember meeting anybody from Peters Fraser Dunlop or indeed THOMPSON or 'RUGBY'. The only unusual thing about the contracts was as a result of the subject of the proposed programme. The contracts were probably written using a 'pro-forma' for the vast majority of the content.

I refer to a copy of the second version of the contract as exhibit AS/1 in my evidence.

I would have had nothing to do with the actual facilitation of any payments to any parties resulting from either contracts although I may have been involved to confirm if any particular payment arising out of the second contract was actually due. I do not believe or remember that I saw any video diaries made by 'RUGBY' but cannot discount that I may have seen them by way of 'background."

12.0 CHANNEL FOUR TELEVISION

CHARLES FURNEUX

STATEMENT DATED 9th DECEMBER 2003

Charles FURNEUX is currently the Commissioning Editor for the Specialist Factual Department at Channel Four Television.

In May 1997, he was the Commissioning Editor for their Cutting Edge Strand. He states:

".....I was approached by London Weekend Television

(LWT) who asked me if I might be interested in a proposed programme about someone on the Witness Protection Scheme......After I expressed interested in the programme he put me in touch with either Jeff POPE or Will SMITH, both of whom later came to see me.

They explained that a journalist from Time Out magazine had access to someone who was currently on the Witness Protection Scheme. I was told the journalist was writing a book about the Protected Witness, and that the Protected Witness could compile a 'video diary' whilst he was in the scheme. Their proposal was quite simply - could we do anything in programme terms with the video diary?

They confirmed that they would allow me to view the 'rushes' of the video diary i.e. the un-editored material. There were a number of editorial and regulatory issues that I had to consider, which raised doubts in my mind about whether a programme of this type would ever see the light of day.

For this reason we decided to go for an 'Option' between LWT and ourselves. An 'option' is an agreement/contract where we retain some proprietary rights to the proposed programme whilst we make a decision as to whether we wish to pursue the idea any further. In this case the 'option' would achieve a number of things, namely;

a)   We would have access to the 'rushes' of the video diary, which would then enable us to see how good the footage was,

b)  We could then decide whether a decent programme [could] be made out of the material,

c) We would be able to consider the programme in business affairs terms (i.e. legally and contractually).

I later viewed some of the footage of the video diary which was disappointing. I now have little recollection of the content of the footage but I do remember that NICHOLLS was not very 'engaging'.

At this point I had my doubts whether a decent programme could ever be made from any of the material available. However, the matter was taken then taken out of my hands because I moved on to my present role within Channel 4 and Peter DALE took over the project.

I can confirm the following:

a)   I never met either Darren NICHOLLS or Tony THOMPSON.

b)  I have no recollection of ever being aware of the contractual arrangements between LWT and either THOMPSON or NICHOLLS (or both of them)."

STATEMENT DATED 9th DECEMBER 2003

In this statement Mr FURNEUX states "My recollection is that within the [video diary] footage I viewed NICHOLLS at no time mentioned anything about his evidence in relation to the criminal case against STEELE or WHOMES or indeed any other criminal cases that he may have been involved in."

12.1 PETER DALE

STATEMENT DATED 9th DECEMBER 2003

Peter DALE is currently Head of Documentaries at Channel Four Television.

In May 1998 he was employed as their Commissioning Editor - Documentaries. He gives details of how he inherited a 'development project' which was to explore the possibility of a programme centred on the experiences of Darren NICHOLLS

He states: "I was made aware that Channel Four had already taken out an 'option' on the programme with London Weekend Television.....I recall that ...Todd AUSTIN of LWT

showed me a pilot tape which was an extract from a 'video diary' that had been recorded by NICHOLLS. I can remember that the footage was of very poor quality and that my immediate view was that it would not sustain a programme because the likely restrictions placed on NICHOLLS and the programme makers would have prevented viewers getting a rounded impression of the Witness Protection Scheme.....

......My other recollections of the video footage are that it appeared to have been shot in what appeared to be a police station and that NICHOLLS was housed in an 'extended' cell area. / formed the impression that it had been taken 'stealthily' and without the knowledge of the police. Because of this alarm bells started ringing and I was immediately cautious about whether it would be possible to make such a programme.....

.....There were also a number of editorial and legal issues that I had to consider, namely:

a)   How can you make a programme where you are not able to identify the participants?

b)   The viewer would want to know what the protected Witness had actually done and the context of his 'story'.

c)   How can you make a programme with an individual, when it appears that the police don't have any knowledge of the production?

d) That given our Licence obligations to abide by our regulatory code (the Independent Television Commission's Programme Code) provisions on payments to criminals and witnesses in a criminal trial, our lawyers would have had very strong objections to Channel Four paying any monies to NICHOLLS (who was possibly an active criminal and in any event a witness in a forthcoming criminal trial) and would have had advised against any payment or commitment to pay him.....

......For these reasons I made a decision that Channel Four would no longer pursue the programme idea and LWT were informed of my decision and reasons in writing. From that point Channel Four took no further part in the Programmes development or production.

Mr DALE also confirms following:

a) "I am unaware of any specific details of any monies paid to either THOMPSON or NICHOLLS by LWT

b) I have no recollection of the detail of any agreement or contract between ourselves and LWT but I am sure that we would have insisted, for the reasons outlined above, that no monies were paid to NICHOLLS.

c) Throughout our dealings with LWT, Channel Four would have insisted that the programme could not have been broadcast until after any related criminal or court proceedings had been fully completed."

12.1a STATEMENT DATED 15TH JANUARY 2004

In this statement Mr DALE confirms that he does not recall NICHOLLS saying anything about any aspect of his evidence within the video diary footage.

13.0 B.B.C. TELEVISION

13.1 OLIVIA LICHTENSTEIN

In 1995 Olivia LICHTENSTEIN was appointed Editor of the BBC's leading documentary strands, "Inside Story". She gives details of the BBC's post trial dealings with London Weekend Television and the Programmes subsequent production and broadcast.

In respect of her initial dealing with London Weekend Television, she states: "In October 1998, Todd AUSTIN and William SMITH of London Weekend Television... approached me with an idea for a film for broadcast in the "Inside Story" strand, entitled "Supergrass", which would focus on the story of Darren NICHOLLS. Todd AUSTIN was the Producer/Director of the programme and Will SMITH was the

Deputy Head of Factual Programmes at LWT. They informed me that they had already conducted substantial preparatory research into the story. They explained that in the early part of 1997, LWT had been approached by a journalist named Tony THOMPSON in relation to potential projects arising from the murder of three drug dealers in Essex in 1995 and the criminal proceedings which had ensued.....

......One of the projects which THOMPSON had proposed to LWT was a factual programme, in the form of a "video diary" of Darren NICHOLLS, dealing with NICHOLLS' life as a "supergrass", and in particular his experiences on the police's Witness Protection Programme. It had originally been envisaged that LWT would produce this film for broadcast on Channel 4 Television. As I understood it from Mr AUSTIN and Mr SMITH, THOMPSON had cultivated a close association with Mr NICHOLLS and, with NICHOLLS' cooperation, was writing a book based on the circumstances and aftermath of the murders. THOMPSON was also acting as NICHOLLS' 'agent' in his dealings with LWT. I was not * provided with a detailed account of the contractual arrangements which had been made between NICHOLLS, THOMPSON and LWT. It was, however, explained to me that when LWT started developing the programme in May 1997 a contract had been entered into between LWT and THOMPSON, with a view to the programme's production, whereby THOMPSON would act as a consultant and associate producer of the film.....

.....I was informed that extensive preparatory filming for the programme had been carried out from May 1997 onwards, but in October 1998, after a change of personnel at Channel 4, the channel's new commissioning editor had decided not to proceed with the project. It was at this point that I was approached by Mr AUSTIN and Mr SMITH who wanted to know whether the BBC might be interested in a programme about NICHOLLS. The programme they proposed to me was not limited to a "video diary", but was to encompass NICHOLLS' involvement in the murder case, his life on the Witness Protection Programme, and the view of NICHOLLS held by members of the family of Jack WHOMES, in the context of their campaign against his conviction.

I considered that this programme would be of interest to the BBC's viewers and decided to commission the film for broadcast in the "Inside Story" strand. No contract was entered into by the BBC with either NICHOLLS or THOMPSON in relation to this commission. In practice this actual production of the programme would be undertaken independently by LWT but I would retain editorial and creative control."

Ms LICHTENSTEIN then goes on to provide details of the programmes production, the injunction NICHOLLS obtained at the High Court and the action taken prior to the programmes eventual broadcast.

She also confirms that she also has no memory of the video diary footage and that the BBC never paid either THOMPSON or NICHOLLS any monies for the programme.

14.0 PETERS, FRASER AND DUNLOP GROUP

14.1 ROSEMARY SCOULAR

Rosemary SCOULAR is employed by PETERS, FRASER and DUNLOP who act as Tony THOMPSON'S literary agents. Because of the importance of her statement and for the sake of clarity her statement is shown almost in its entirety.

She states:

".....Some of the basic roles of my company are to sell books for the authors, find publishers for the books and to collect monies owed to the authors.

My specific area of responsibility at work is to look after book authors where the subjects of the books are used in television documentaries. I have been asked by the police to recall dealings with Tony THOMPSON, I can confirm I have personally worked with Tony THOMPSON in relation to the book "Bloggs 19" and the subsequent television documentary "Supergrass". I have caused the following documents to be copied, the copies of which I have handed to the police;

1.  A memorandum of agreement between Tony THOMPSON and a publishing company dated 13th July 1993 in relation to a book to be written by THOMPSON called "Gangland Britain". I refer to this copy document as exhibit RS/1 in my evidence. Section 16G indicates that THOMPSON would have received advances totalling £11000 up until the point of publication.

2.  A memorandum of agreement between Tony THOMPSON and Ken RUGBY and a publishing company in relation to a book to be written by THOMPSON called "One Way Out". I refer to this copy document as exhibit RS/2 in my evidence. The agreement states that the manuscript of the book should be delivered to the publisher by 30th November 1996 and that changes would be acceptable prior to the end of the murder trial. Section 16G clarifies that THOMPSON and RUGBY should receive payments totalling £20000 up until the time of the publication.

The following described documents are all computer generated company records of the movement of monies in relation to THOMPSON'S work. All the payments by my company to THOMPSON or RUGBY would have 10% commission and VAT deducted. Again I have cause[d] these documents to be created upon request of the police.

3. This two page document I refer to in my evidence as exhibit RS/3. On page one the document refers to a payment being made from my company of £3500 to Tony THOMPSON on 7th October 1996. This payment is shown as an advance due on signature in relation to the book "One Way Out".

On the second page of this document payments by our company to Ken RUGBY are listed. On 7th October 1996 a payment of £3,500 is recorded as an advance due to signature in relation to the book "One Way Out". On 20th June 1997 a payment of £1250 is recorded to Ken RUGBY as an option fee in relation to a programme called "Supergrass" being made by London Weekend Television.

4.   This three page document I refer to in my evidence as exhibit RS/4. The first page of this document refers to my company being paid two payments of £2500 from LWT as part of the option agreement and then the extension to this agreement for the programme "Supergrass" on 20.06.97 and 17.02.98.

The second page of the document refers to a payment to Tony THOMPSON by my company of £1250 on 20th June 1997 again in relation to the option fee for "Supergrass".

The third page of the document refers to a payment to Tony THOMPSON of £2500 by my company on 17th February 1998 as a six month extension fee in relation to "Supergrass".

5.  This eight page document I refer to in my evidence as exhibit RS/5. The first page refers to three payments in relation to "Supergrass" made by LWT to my company of £4500 on 3rd November 1998, £6000 on 3rd December 1998 and £1500 on 3rd December 1998.

The second page then refers to the payments mentioned in the above paragraph being paid by my company to Tony THOMPSON on the same dates in relation to "Supergrass". The first payment is shown as first payment due, the second as commencement of production and the third as 1/3 due on signature.

The third page refers to my company paying Tony THOMPSON £6000 on 17th August 1998 as a delivery advance for "One Way Out".

The fourth page refers to my company paying Tony THOMPSON £7000 on 3rd February 2000 as an advance upon publication for"Bloggs 19".

The fifth page shows a payment of £465.63 to Tony THOMPSON on 30th September 2002 by my company as royalties for "Bloggs l9".

The sixth page shows a payment of £506.62 to Tony THOMPSON on 14th April 2003 by my company as royalties for "Bloggs 19".

The eighth page shows a payment of £436.19 to Tony THOMPSON on 2nd October 2003 by my company as royalties for "Bloggs 19".

I can confirm that the book "One Way Out" was renamed "Bloggs 19" prior to publication.

All those payments shown as for Tony THOMPSON would have been paid directly into his bank account. Payments for Ken RUGBY would have been made by sending a cheque to Tony THOMPSON, he obviously would have been expected to complete the payment to RUGBY."