~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TRIAL THAT NEVER WAS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the 6th of June 1999, the Solicitor having conduct of the case on behalf of the Chief Constable informed me by letter that he was of the view that it was appropriate for the action to be transferred to the Kingston upon Hull County Court.

At the hearing for directions on the 13th of July, at Hull Combined Court Centre, the District Judge did order that the action be transferred there, but for interlocutory matters only. He stated correctly, that justice should be seen to be done, whereupon he made a further order: that the trial, in due course, be listed to be heard at York County Court.

On the 21st of January, which had been the day that the District Judge had made the order inviting Mrs. West to certify her transcripts, he had made another order, which was that the action against the Chief Constable be listed to be heard with jury on the first available date subsequent to the 1st of May: namely 15th May, with a time estimate of three days. That left me approximately three months in which to obtain accurate transcripts to use as evidence at the proposed trial and I wasn't any nearer, as I then thought, to obtaining a certificate of accuracy from Mrs. West.

I had supposed that she wouldn't comply with the District Judge's order and in that I was proved correct. I suppose that she still didn't want to commit herself by certifying false transcripts, knowing that if she certified them according to the rules and they were found to be false at a later time, she would have no defence to the allegation of conspiracy. She would then have nothing to fall back on. For instance, she couldn't very well have said later, that she had acted in ignorance if she had deliberately certified false transcripts as being an accurate account of the proceedings, so she did what she must have considered to be the next best thing: she certified them as being an accurate account of her shorthand notes.

The transcript, of course, would necessarily have had to be an accurate account of her notes, but she declined to state that parts of those notes are false, with evidence having been omitted.

I believed that she must have been in something of a dilemma, because she had to make a choice, or so I though, between certifying the false transcripts as being a true account of the proceedings, or to make a clean breast of things by admitting that she had acted, perhaps in ignorance, upon Judge Simpson's instructions. I'd thought wrongly, because she couldn't, it seems, bring herself to do either. She resorted to the ostrich act hoping that somehow, the whole thing would blow over.

I thought it would be appropriate to give Mrs. West another opportunity to come clean before calling her to testify at the trial in York, so on the 27th of January 1995, I wrote to her, asking her to confirm in writing, if it was the case, that her transcripts are not partially fabricated and that Judge Simpson had played no part in fabricating parts of the evidence. It is significant that there was no response to that letter, she still wasn't prepared to say that the transcripts are not fabricated.

My thinking at that time was that when she testified and because she had refused the opportunities to say that the transcripts are accurate accounts of the evidence given by the witnesses, she would also decline to to swear that they contained only the true evidence given by the witnesses, so I did serve a witness summons upon her in order that she would have to testify and paid her for her loss of time and her expenses in the process. There was abundant evidence against the Police in any event, but if the transcripts were to be used and if I challenged the content, then my credibility would be at stake.

It had been my intention to call Mrs. West as a hostile witness immediately after I and Janice had testified, because if she had agreed, under oath, that parts of the transcripts were false, I would have been in a position to use them for the cross-exasmination of the Police witnesses. That was my hopeful intention, but things didn't quite turn out as I had planned.

Because of the shortage of Jury accommodation at York County Court, the trial of the action was scheduled to be heard in the Crown Court in York on the 15th of May 1995 and on that morning Janice and myself arrived in York by rail, leaving our Daughter: Zoe, then aged seven, in the care of our son: Gary, who was, at that time, nineteen years of age.

I recognized the Police witnesses as they arrived, but I saw no sight of the Police Officer of whom I was accused of assaulting. I supposed that he was late in arriving at the Court and I had no reason to believe that he wouldn't show up.

After the the Jurors had been called in and seated, the Reorder explained that they would be hearing a civil case and not as they had expected: a criminal trial. He then went on to explain what the trial was about, after which, I made an opening address: explaining everything that would be proved, despite knowing that they would be told, by the Recorder, in his summing up, that they must find for either party on the balance of probabilities; the issues not having to be proved as in a criminal trial.

Before entering the witness box to testify, I asked the Recorder if I was permitted to read out my testimony from my prepared notes and his reply was to the effect that I should see how I got on without using the notes, which I did.

By the time the Recorder adjourned the hearing for lunch I was approximately two thirds of the way through my testimony and everything had gone well, but not well for the Defence team, because I was in for a shock. I was not prepared for what happened after the luncheon interval.

Upon our return after lunch I didn't get the opportunity to continue to with my testimony, because Counsel for the Defendant immediately rose to his feet and requested an adjournment, explaining that one of the defence witnesses: a Police Officer, was unable to attend, because he had been involved in a fracas: in other words he was not available to testify.

I was staggered at that belated revelation and objected to the adjournment because, as far as I knew, it may have been a tactical ploy.

The Court had heard most of my evidence and I believed that those representing the Chief Constable had deliberately declined to make the Recorder aware of the fact until they had heard the strength of my evidence: which was very strong indeed, supported by indisputable documentary evidence.

Because they had heard most of my evidence, they therefore knew that I had overwhelming evidence and that there was no reasonable answer to it.

Because of my objection to the adjournment, the Recorder ordered a fax to be sent to a doctor and for the doctor's report to be faxed back to the Court, to confirm, if it was the case, that the Police Officer was incapable of giving evidence. He subsequently adjourned the hearing for that to happen.

The Court was re-convened when just prior to the entry of the Recorder, I was shown the fax sent to the Court, by a doctor, and upon reading it I noticed that the doctor had confirmed that the Officer was unable to testify, due to a throat injury, but it was very significant that the injury had occurred days earlier, which fact I pointed out to the Recorder.

The Defendant's Counsel could equally have made the Court aware of the purported throat injury at the start of the trial, but the Recorder elected not to even mildly reprimand the Defence team for not doing him aware of it. Instead he requested that Janice, myself and the Defendant's legal advisors attend him in his Chambers where, after some discussion, he decided that the trial be halted and that it be listed to be heard in Sheffield, with a time estimate of five to ten days. Needless to say, upon leaving the room, I felt cheated.

It was a little over two months later: on the 19th of July, that we were informed by the Court, that the trial of the action against the Chief Constable, would commence on the 15th of January 1996, with a time allowance of five to ten days, which was still six months into the future. That meant a fourteen month interval between the halted trial in York and the proposed trial to take place in Sheffield. It was a long wait, but I really had no idea of how long these things usually took, although I did realize that it would depend, to a large extent, on the backlog of cases waiting to be heard.

A little over three weeks before the trial was due to take place, we received a Notice from the Defendant's Solicitor's, stating that they had paid money into Court, which was intended by them, to be in full and final satisfaction of my, but noticeably, not Janice's, claim and I pointed out that omission to the Solicitor, who agreed that the sum paid into Court be for us both.

We considered whether it was advisable to accept the payment rather than face the prospect of going to trial with the probability that false transcripts would be used as evidence.

I was aware that if we did decide to accept the payment into Court, that liability would not be admitted, with the added probability of the Police Officers' escaping the consequences of their criminal conduct.

We also understood that the payment into Court would be a whole lot less than a Jury would award in exemplary damages, but with the alternative being to use Mrs. West's false transcripts at the trial, we reluctantly accepted the payment with our own and our Solicitor's costs, which Solicitor's costs having been paid by the Legal Aid Board,, were subsequently paid back to that body.
~~~~~~~
Chapter 5
~~~~~~~