Fit Up (21 page)

While Challenger flicked through his file, I took the opportunity to glance over at Cranston. His demeanour had not changed, his head was still down as he scribbled away. I then looked over to Jeremy but he was looking down at the floor; Andre and Leslie were looking through papers.

‘Mrs Clifford, first this.’ Challenger brought me back to attention. ‘The event which caused all these problems was the arrest in October 2003 of your husband, was it not? That is what set it all in motion?’

‘It was more after charge,’ I replied.

‘Would you agree – I am not going to ask you to look it up but I am simply going to read a passage to you from Dr Turner’s report. Dr Turner is the psychiatrist who examined your husband and reported on him for the purpose of these proceedings. He describes what your husband said to him during the examination. What your husband said to Dr Turner is this: Between October 2003 and about June 2004 your husband described himself as being totally dysfunctional. Does that fit with your recollection of how he was during that period?’

Finally, after all that rambling, there was a question.

I answered him, ‘Yes, more or less.’

Challenger then asked, ‘I just want to ask you this. You spoke of your short holiday which was interrupted by virtue of a telephone call to your husband’s shop, apparently from Mr Gerard. You were on holiday at the time in Spain in your own flat?’ I replied with one word – ‘yes’ – but did not expand. Keep answers short for him, I thought.

‘A flat you own together with your husband.’

‘Yes.’

‘Do you still own that?’

‘No.’

‘When was it sold?’

‘A year ago I think.’

Challenger changed track.

‘When your husband told you or informed you of what he had learned from Julie, your suggestion was that your husband should ring up Detective Constable Hopkins straight away?’

‘Yes.’

Challenger continued, ‘I think this is right. There had, over the period since your husband’s arrest and charge – because this was post-charge – been quite a number of both meetings and telephone conversations between your husband and Mr Hopkins, had there not?’

‘Yes,’ I shot back.

‘Were you present when your husband called Mr Hopkins up from Spain?’

‘Yes.’

‘The general tone of the conversation between them at that time was that when your husband got through to Mr Hopkins he would say:  “Hello, Brian.” That is how he addressed Mr Hopkins at that time, was it not?’

I replied, ‘Yes, because Mr Hopkins called him Jeremy.’

I could see that Challenger was trying to show the court that there was a fair amount of civility, rather than malice, in the relationship between Hopkins and Jeremy and I phrased my answer like this to show that Hopkins was the one trying to endear himself to Jeremy to try to catch him out. I had always thought way back at the beginning when Hopkins crash-landed into our lives that he should have been more formal, and I did not feel comfortable with Jeremy addressing him as Brian either. It had not felt like the correct protocol at all.

There was a pause from Challenger as he looked down at his notepad and I waited in anticipation for the next question, only to be surprised by him looking towards Cranston to say, ‘I have no other questions, my Lord.’

That was it! I was done. Cranston thanked me and I made my way down the wooden steps back to my seat. Such was the relief that it was over that I fled past Jeremy, Andre and Leslie and into the ladies’ washroom across the hall. I could feel the tears of relief well up in my eyes. I was desperate to pee and as I sat down it gave me a moment to analyse my testimony. I was fine with the Leslie stuff, I did not give it a second thought, and although the questioning from Challenger was short, I started to pick each of my responses apart. I had given one-word answers to most, so there was nothing much for him to gain from that. Perhaps he had expected me to say much more so that he could lead me elsewhere. What was the point about the flat in Spain? All I could think of
was that he was trying to assess our finances or tell the court that Jeremy and I had not really been so badly damaged by the events.

I returned to my seat beside Jeremy. Dr Turner smiled gently at me and looked concerned at my visible distress. Andre leaned over and squeezed my knee and said, ‘You did good. Now you can sit back and enjoy the show.’ I couldn’t agree with him about my performance – I thought I would have been so much more confident – but no matter, my part in this drama had been played and I could now relax by my husband’s side.

Challenger was still addressing Cranston. Jeremy mentioned to me again that he had a bad feeling about how our case was going just by Cranston’s body language. He said it could be the subject matter or that the police would be favoured to win through. I told him off for being so negative, that the judge had to show impartiality and look at the evidence, but I could not tell him that I too did not feel confident. I had previously looked this judge up on the internet. I found out that he had previously been in politics, at one time being an MP. More notable was the comment from a journalist, Byron Criddle, from the
Telegraph
who had called him ‘a dry, uncharismatic academic Blairite’. Compared to other judges I had encountered over the past few years, I thought ‘uncharismatic’ was an accurate description indeed.

D
r Stuart Turner, Jeremy’s psychiatrist, was called up next. He was very self-assured and obviously used to giving evidence in court. Leslie asked him to explain the joint statement – his and Dr Van Velsen’s – in what areas were agreed and which were not and why he had come to his conclusion.

Dr Turner said that he and Dr Van Velsen broadly agreed on diagnosis of a major depressive episode, that there were some anxiety symptoms. Van Velsen accepted that when she had seen Jeremy initially in 2006 he had a major depressive episode with mild to moderate severity. ‘When Dr Van Velsen and I saw Jeremy in 2008 we agreed that there was no formal psychiatric diagnosis but there were residual depressive and anxiety symptoms. So he is not free of symptoms but they are insufficient to amount to a formal diagnosis. So this is the pattern.’

Dr Turner continued, ‘My opinion, and I have to say that I was helped, I think, by being able to interview Mr Clifford’s wife, and I heard her evidence this morning which is consistent with that interview – in that there was the onset of a major depressive episode following October 2003. The evidence that I have suggests that there was then some gradual improvement. That leads up to a choice point in the middle of 2004. At that choice point, had Mr Clifford attended the police station and there
was no further action to be taken, my opinion is that he would then have continued gradually to recover. I estimate that on the evidence that I have the recovery would probably have been complete by about January 2005. Instead, he was told that there were charges and he then faced a series of court attendances for a criminal prosecution. Just stepping back and looking at the big picture, it seems to me that it would be entirely reasonable, not only based on what I have been told, but also in common sense, that that would have led someone who had already developed a depression and was beginning to recover, that that process would have led to a deterioration. That’s what I understand to be the case and that’s what I believe on the facts to be the case.’

Leslie asked him a question relating to the various court attendances that Jeremy had to attend during the criminal prosecution. ‘Can you say from a psychiatric point of view that those attendances are relevant and significant?’ Dr Turner replied, ‘I think those attendances are significant. I think trying to answer the substance of the question, it seems to me that if the exoneration came in August rather than July, that might have extended the initial period of depression by a month or two. So I might be looking at perhaps March 2005 rather than January 2005 on that scenario.’

Dr Turner confirmed to the court that his view was not altered on the cause of Jeremy’s depression and anxiety and the only change would be a matter of time scale.

Leslie had finished his questioning and sat down. Challenger rose and went into quite specific detail of Dr Turner’s report and, judging by the tone of questions, he was trying to mitigate Jeremy’s personal damage. Dr Turner, however, was unruffled by the onslaught of questions and answered quietly and meticulously how Jeremy had suffered in varying degrees from the initial police raid in October 2003 to when the charges were dropped in 2005. Challenger directed him through one page after
another to try to establish the severity of the anxiety and depression suffered at different moments in time and it turned out that my attending a session with Dr Turner had proved quite beneficial. Dr Turner had said, ‘My opinion is that the initial event in October 2003 was sufficient and did act as the initiating event for a major depressive episode and I have reviewed these facts again in my most recent report when I had the opportunity of talking to his wife.’

The questioning droned on and I think Dr Turner was getting a little impatient. Challenger was going over the time frame of events leading up to Jeremy’s acquittal, including the fraudulent credit card transactions, Gerard and Campbell’s forensic evidence, and it seemed he was trying to illicit a different response until Dr Turner said, ‘What I have written here is what I understand he [Jeremy] told me. I am not sure that I’m getting very far by just agreeing to all of this.’

I noticed I was getting a few mentions in despatches and that Dr Turner had agreed with my evidence given previously. At one stage he said that, ‘When I went through a series of events with Mr Clifford I found his wife particularly helpful because I had the chance to interview her and talked about how bad things were at different stages.’ I remembered back to that meeting, looking over Dr Turner’s shoulder out of his office window trying not to cry.

Finally Challenger’s questioning drew to a close. Dr Turner had been a good witness for us and, instead of leaving the court, he returned to a seat behind Jeremy. Leslie then informed Cranston that Dr Turner was our last witness and that our case was formally closed. Next it was the turn of the defence witness Dr Cleo van Velsen – or ‘Van Helsing’ as we had nicknamed her – the psychiatrist acting for the police.

Dr Van Velsen was called into the witness box. She was dressed entirely in black with long jet black hair which hung long and loose around her shoulders. Her eyes were heavily made up with black eyeliner and layers
of mascara with her lips coated in a vivid red lipstick. Jeremy had never told me what she looked like so my shock at her appearance mirrored Andre’s who glanced around at us to raise his eyebrows. Leslie turned to look at all of us, showed no expression that could be read but we knew what he was thinking.

Challenger asked her to give her full name, professional address and confirm her report and the joint statement with Dr Turner. She addressed Cranston with her answers and I noted that she was another who was seemingly comfortable in this environment, remembering to answer questions looking directly at the judge. Cranston then handed her over to Leslie for questioning.

Leslie went straight in: ‘His Lordship has your joint report. I am not going to waste time by taking you through those. Can I just clarify this with you? When you did your report, did you have the opportunity of interviewing Faith Clifford?’

‘No,’ she answered, looking towards Cranston.

Leslie countered, ‘You never interviewed her?’

‘No,’ she replied, again at Cranston.

‘Did you ask to interview her?’ Leslie pressed. The wife questions were not going away and Van Velsen started to shift from one foot to another in the witness box. Leslie had got her full attention and asked, ‘You could have done?’

‘I could have done but…’ she trailed off.

Leslie jumped in to finish for her, ‘…but you did not?’

Van Velsen felt the need to clarify and did not bother looking towards Cranston but remained transfixed in Leslie’s stare. She went on to say that she did not need to see me as Jeremy had taken another family member to sit in on her interview and that he was not, as advised by his legal team, going to discuss in detail any of the aspects of the psychiatric condition during the times in question. She added, ‘I didn’t think that there was
going to be much benefit to have his wife, who naturally is by his side and supporting him.’

Leslie acknowledged that and asked, ‘Did you contact the solicitors who sent you the instructions and say to them, “I want to interview the wife?”’

Van Velsen replied that she did not think I would be useful to interview as I would not have been an independent observer and I am not a psychiatric expert.

I am expert enough to know that the man I married has changed radically since the back end of 2003, I thought, angered by this comment, and it doesn’t take a fancy title to work out why when looking at the circumstances.

Leslie soon finished his questioning of Van Velsen, which brought us neatly to a break for lunch. Hopkins would be next on the stand and we were all looking forward to it.

R
eturning to the courtroom after lunch, we took our seats. Leslie and Andre were conversing quietly while looking through papers and Challenger and Grundy were doing much the same. On their side they were joined by a male colleague whom I assumed was one of their legal team. He had not been at the court in the morning.

There was a lot of shuffling from the benches behind me and I turned to see what was going on. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Cliff had come along to support us. I saw Dr Turner, too, who had evidently decided to remain for the afternoon’s proceedings at the court to observe the man who had caused us so much grief. While those on the police’s side of the court numbered four in total, I was looking at a sea of faces on ours. Leslie was smiling broadly at his audience who were some of the staff from Tuckers who had also been involved or knew about our case and were keen to watch Leslie in action against Hopkins. I felt like I was at the theatre waiting for the curtains to open for a matinee performance when all of a sudden the clerk of the court came in and asked us to ‘all rise’. Mr Justice Cranston took his seat and cast his eye over the benches. I cannot imagine what he thought upon seeing a packed audience one side behind Leslie and mostly empty seating on the police side. Jeremy and I held hands and sat back to watch the show.

As soon as Cranston appeared settled Challenger was on his feet to say that he would be calling Hopkins as his first defence witness. We eagerly looked towards the court doors behind Challenger for the emergence of Hopkins walking to the witness box, only to hear, ‘Before I do that I think we need to review where we are in the evidence so far as the issues are concerned, although I think I must try to ration any debate on these points to ten minutes or so otherwise…’ Challenger was gearing up for a lengthy pre-amble and ten minutes would probably be an understatement we thought.

As he gently rocked from side to side, shifting weight from one foot to the other, fingers laced together in front of him, Challenger burbled on in his droning voice which, in my opinion, should be recorded and sold as a cure for insomniacs everywhere. It was easy for my mind to drift. He was boring me and I was impatient for the proceedings to get under way but I sighed with resignation when I heard him say, ‘Secondly, so far as Fouhey is concerned…’

Oh my days, I thought, we are only at ‘secondly’ and you have been going on for so long…

‘It follows as night follows day that allegations of either species against Mr Fouhey do not, in our respectful submission, get beyond half time. We say on this side of the court the claim or claims – we are not sure whether there are one or two on the pleading as it is drafted – against Mr Fouhey fail. My Lord, slightly less stridently, we invite the court to assist by giving an indication as to whether really at this juncture the allegations against Mr Hopkins can proceed…’ My head shot up to look at Challenger while Leslie had turned round to Andre with a note that I could not read from where I was sat. I thought it must be about this attempt to halt the trial here and now, to prevent Hopkins from going on the stand.

Leslie and Andre were looking toward him in a kind of astonishment as to how long he was going on and wondering how much latitude Cranston
was going to give him. Challenger at last said, ‘My Lord, that is all I am going to say…’ and then trailed off. Great, are we done? I thought. I was a little worried that his ramblings may have had some influence but I knew Leslie would put a stop to that. It probably came as no surprise to our legal team that the police were going to try to get this whole case thrown out. I was drifting again, when suddenly I heard Challenger crank up: ‘…but so far as Mr Hopkins is concerned, the fact that our case throughout has been suspicion was based both on what was in the Tiny and the other material too, means, we say at this juncture, that this claim or these claims really are hopeless.’ Challenger looked up towards Cranston in a beseeching manner, obviously hoping that his words had hit the mark and that the trial would be over. I could only see the top of Cranston’s wig and thought that perhaps he had nodded off with his forehead rested on the bench but he looked up towards Leslie and said, ‘Mr Thomas, my view is we need to hear Mr Hopkins. I said yesterday I am going to give you quite a lot of latitude but I do not think we have to be all day, as it were.’ That was surely a barb at Challenger whose shoulders had visibly slumped as he realised his efforts had not got him anywhere. The trial would be continuing. The male colleague who had joined the police camp that afternoon rubbed his fingers through his hair in exasperation. If they were so sure that we had no case, why were they so afraid of Hopkins giving evidence?

Leslie responded to Cranston by saying, ‘My Lord, I hope from this side of the Bar I have been very short,’ while giving a smirk towards Challenger. He continued, ‘Can I just say this? I will flag it up one last time for my learned friend. My learned friend has missed the point completely. Let me spell it out for Mr Challenger so he can deal with this when we come to submissions.’

Cranston smiled at Leslie and said, ‘I think he might have heard this before.’ I was laughing inside at the judge’s dry humour.

Leslie replied, leaning on his books and looking towards Challenger, ‘My Lord, I am not too sure he has. He has heard it but I am not sure he understands it. My case is not about whether or not the officers had reasonable suspicion. I concede that. I do not say that Mr Hopkins did not have reasonable suspicion – that is accepted. But reasonable suspicion is a completely different legal concept to reasonable and probable cause, which is what he needed to have for each specific charge he brought. The case is
Abbott
; my learned friend ought to read it.’

‘I am sure he has,’ Cranston responded. ‘I think we will just hear Mr Hopkins.’

Finally, after much procrastination from the police defence, Challenger called in Hopkins. Hopkins looked nervous as he was sworn in. I could see the red flush just above his collar creeping up to his jawbone and I felt a deep satisfaction from this. I squeezed Jeremy’s hand and looked at him. He whispered, ‘This is going to be interesting.’

Challenger took Hopkins through a few questions to identify himself and his service within the police. He was then diverted to a part of his statement relating to questioning Jeremy about his credit card statements, but Hopkins replied that he could not remember. Leslie’s cross-examination was just about to start and it appeared that Hopkins was going to have a convenient memory lapse. How could he forget anything of this case, I thought, when he knows that we have been pursuing him since April 2005, just after Jeremy’s acquittal from the criminal case?

Leslie commenced his questioning of Hopkins by taking him through his basic knowledge of computers and the internet in particular. It transpired that Hopkins had never purchased anything off the internet and had left all that to his wife. I thought if that was the case, how could he be familiar with its possible perils?

In his thirty-one years in the police force, Hopkins’s career had been involved in other departments but, as Leslie established, he was not green
when it came to policing matters. He had not joined Operation Metropolis, the name Hertfordshire Constabulary gave to their investigation of Operation Ore cases, at the roll-out stage where he would have been fully briefed. He had learned on the job by sitting with other officers senior to himself and Jeremy’s case was the second that he had managed on his own, the first one being a similar case. He admitted that he was a bit of a rookie compared to other officers, to which Leslie led him to the fact that he would have to have been very dependent on his expert, George Fouhey. Hopkins had agreed. Then Leslie moved on to the subject of ‘knowledge’, which is one of the important factors in an investigation.

Leslie asked, ‘You need the information [from the expert] to interview the individual, do you not?’ Hopkins agreed and was then asked to read a sentence from one of the files in front of him with regard to the questioning of Jeremy on the images found on his computer. He read, ‘I therefore resolved to question Mr Clifford about these matters and see if there was an innocent explanation for it.’

‘You had to arm yourself as a police officer – the reason why you wanted to see whether there was an innocent explanation for the matters is to see whether there is any good reason or whether Mr Clifford may have had any knowledge about the images. That is right, is it not?’ Hopkins again agreed.

‘Which is precisely why location [of the images] would be relevant. You ask your expert: “Where were they?” If your expert says to you, “They were in his folders, his favourites,” that is something you are going to put to the individual or you may put to the individual in interview, is it not? It is highly relevant, is it not?’

‘Yes,’ replied Hopkins, who looked quite petrified.

Leslie leaned forward on his lectern, head cocked to one side, looking at Hopkins as he formed his next question: ‘So you have just accepted it is highly relevant. Now we can come to the specifics of this case. When
you met with Mr Fouhey on 8 June he gives you a CD or a series of CDs, it does not matter how many, but he gives you a CD with the images on it. Let us take it from there. What happened on your version of events?’

‘I honestly can’t recall,’ replied Hopkins.

Incredulously, Leslie countered, ‘You have no recollection?’

‘Not at all. Sorry,’ said Hopkins apologetically.

I whispered to Jeremy, ‘If he has no recollection, how can he deny it?’ Surely Cranston would have difficulty in believing that Hopkins had no recollection of events re. Fouhey’s account, who clearly demonstrated a step-by-step guide of his actions, corroborated by the SID document written by DS Willcox, who could never have made it up?

‘Did you have a recollection when you wrote your statement?’ Leslie pressed, to which Hopkins answered that he would hope so.

‘So, at the time you wrote this statement in August 2008, you had no recollection as to what was discussed?’ ‘No,’ was the short answer Hopkins gave. This contradiction would be the very thing that caught him out in the end.

Leslie continued: ‘Mr Hopkins, you were told, were you not, that these images were in temporary internet files. Does that refresh your memory?’

Hopkins did not respond, so Leslie continued: ‘It does not mean anything to you?’ Hopkins replied with another emphatic ‘no’.

Unfazed, Leslie continued: ‘Not only were you told that these images were in temporary internet files, you were told that this meant that the user did not even know they were there because they are deeply buried in the machine. You were told that, were you not?’ As anticipated, Hopkins replied that he did not recall this conversation.

‘Not that you recall.’ Leslie paused with a slight smile and looked around the court to see if we were as amazed as he was. He then raised his voice to say, ‘Mr Fouhey took the stand yesterday and gave evidence exactly where you are now standing and said, “This is the first thing I
told him [Hopkins]. It would be ridiculous not to tell him because he would need to know.”’

Leslie continued: ‘Location [within a computer] is of the utmost importance. It goes to knowledge, does it not?’ Hopkins had stopped saying ‘no’ and now replied with a ‘yes’.

Upon this admission, Leslie quickly came in with: ‘And knowledge was one of the factors you needed to have evidence in order to charge, was it not?’

‘Yes,’ replied Hopkins.

‘And without evidence of knowledge you could not charge. You only had half the offence, did you not?’ Again Hopkins agreed.

Leslie glanced down at his file, pausing for a moment as he read, then turned side-on to look at his audience, resting his elbow on the lectern and poising himself for the next question.

‘Let me see if I can just refresh your memory, Mr Hopkins. You knew that Mr Clifford was very upset with you after his criminal case collapsed and since 2005 you have had a long time to think about this case because shortly after its collapse this man has been jumping up and down making complaints against you, saying that you had maliciously and aggressively pursued a prosecution against him.’

‘Yes,’ Hopkins said.

‘So, even though we are now three years down the line, you have had the last three years to think about your actions and what you have done, have you not?’ finished Leslie.

Hopkins answered and said, ‘Three years. I haven’t thought about it much, no.’

‘This actually does not bother you?’ asked Leslie. Hopkins replied that he wouldn’t say that but Leslie was impatient. He raised himself up to full height and shouted louder. ‘No, that is not the question, Mr Hopkins. Will you answer the question? Shall I repeat it?’

Hopkins meekly replied, ‘Yes please.’

‘The fact that Mr Clifford is bringing an allegation of malicious prosecution against you and a misfeasance claim that has been going on for the last three years, are you saying that this has not bothered you?’

With what Hopkins said next I could have cried. He said, ‘It’s not bothered me. I’ve thought about it but it’s not bothered me, no.’ If he had known the pain Jeremy and I had gone through he would not have passed that comment so flippantly. My heart felt real pain and I looked at Jeremy, sensing he was feeling the same.

‘Do you have many claims of malicious prosecution brought against you?’ pressed Leslie. He was trying to get Hopkins to remember information that appeared to be conveniently forgotten. Hopkins replied negatively and said that this was the first.

‘Even more reason why you would remember what happened, is it not?’ Hopkins kept up with the negatives and Leslie continued, ‘You see, I am going to suggest that in the last three years this action has not gone away. It has been relentless in terms of complaining, there had been an internal investigation with the police, Hertfordshire carried out their own investigation and then you have the civil proceedings. You say that you cannot remember what took place but would you agree that most people’s memories at the time of the event or nearer to the event are reasonably good? So your memory nearer to the event would be reasonably good.’ Hopkins answered that he would hope so.