Fit Up (30 page)

Leslie had come to the end of his questioning and Mr Justice Mackay indicated that this would be an appropriate place to stop for the day. I quite liked this judge; he was taking no nonsense from Challenger and he was very much involved with the trial, looking around the court and interjecting on a regular basis. Quite a refreshing contrast to Cranston's style.

Before leaving the court, we gathered together with our legal
team for a summary of the day's events. In all, it could not have gone better.

C
ontinuing on from the previous day, Leslie addressed Jeremy on the series of events when dealing with Hopkins after his arrest, the demands for the return of property in order to run his business and the threats that he would sue the police for their behaviour.

Then it was Challenger's turn to cross-examine. Although there was evidence in play regarding refunds of the Landslide credit card transactions, unbelievably he was still extensively questioning Jeremy about them. Our preparation was paying off and Jeremy responded with short answers, and admitting when he couldn't recall something. These responses were making it difficult for Challenger. However, he messed up a little when he was asked if he contacted the credit card companies to complain of the fraud and replied that he could not remember as it was back in 1999. I frowned in puzzlement because we knew he had, so I just put it down to misinterpreting the question due to nerves.

Challenger tried to get Jeremy to admit that he had received emails from Landslide to gain access to their site and that Hopkins and DS Crook, during his first interview, had made it clear that a password assigned to Jeremy by Landslide had been used.

Mackay interrupted proceedings and said that he had now read Hopkins's transcript of evidence the previous evening and he could not see him saying this. He went on to say that he was becoming sceptical about this line of questioning and now that the Landslide issue had been fully explored he did not know what else could be asked of Jeremy. He then turned to Leslie to ask if it was accepted that for each transaction there were corresponding credits. Leslie answered that there were.

Despite this, Challenger returned to his line of enquiry about Jeremy's bank statements, showing the offending transactions and asking him what he did about them. Jeremy kept replying that he could not remember or recall and even the judge had to ask him why not. He responded that it was such a long time ago he could not remember what he did. Challenger then picked out a transaction not related to Landslide and said that it was quite a substantial amount and wanted to know what it was for. Again Jeremy said it was over ten years ago and so he was unlikely to remember purchases from that time. Challenger paused and flicked through the trial bundles for a moment, trying to find what he wanted. He then apologised to the judge for the time he was taking and said that he was dealing with a ‘rather difficult witness'. I for one was pleased that Jeremy was causing him some consternation.

Then Challenger moved on to Jeremy's state of mind and the joint report by the psychiatrists, which described his feelings at different stages of the criminal investigation. Challenger then made a critical mistake by asking, ‘Surely there was not a lot of difference in your wellbeing after being arrested as opposed to being charged?' Jeremy's response was to let out, with full, pent-up force, the misery of years of persecution and frustration:

‘How dare you say that? There was the worry of attending court, my name in the press, my business was failing, family occasions ruined, the fear of having to sign the sex offenders register…' He paused because he
was choking with emotion and then continued: ‘I love my wife and this has been the most terrible thing that has happened to me. You have no idea how much damage has been done. You should know what it's like, Mr Challenger. You were arrested for assault not so long ago.'

Challenger was visibly shocked by Jeremy's outburst and presumably embarrassed. He looked down at the floor waiting for the tirade to be over and he had to have been regretting the phrasing of his question – perhaps even asking it in the first place. Mackay had looked up from his writing when the mention of Challenger's arrest was brought up and gave him a look of disapproval. Leslie turned round to Andre, shielding his big grin from Mackay. Jeremy had always felt emotional about what had been done to him and the impact on me, but this had not come across at the first trial. However, the way that Challenger put the question this time had obviously become a tipping point.

Jeremy's last time on the stand was at an end and the court adjourned for lunch. In the corridor Leslie came up to me and said, ‘Wow, your husband! Where did all that come from? We are so proud of him, he was like a tiger out there.' I laughed and wondered what Challenger must be thinking.

I looked around for Jeremy but I could see him disappearing out of the front entrance of the building. He wanted to be alone for a while and I understood that.

J
ust after lunch, Challenger gave Leslie a report from Dr Bhushan with the update of Hopkins's condition.

I watched him read it with an expression of bemusement. With an arched brow and a look of disbelief, he passed the document to Andre who, after a cursory look, handed it to Jeremy. Reading over his shoulder
I could hear Leslie muttering and, although not quite audible, I picked up the word ‘bogus'. This was his favourite word regarding Hopkins's purported illness.

Dr Bhushan had said that Hopkins's symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder had started a few months previously, when he found out that there was to be a retrial and that his condition had worsened the nearer the date became. Thinking about returning to court was giving him flashbacks of images from his time in the Child Protection Unit. Hopkins had said that if he didn't have to attend court then he wouldn't have to think about the images and that the last trial was very distressing to him.

While I understood entirely how horribly distressing this type of police work was for those involved, it had now been many years since Hopkins had left the Child Protection Unit and it just seemed all too convenient that he had post-traumatic stress symptoms associated with images he had seen. As Leslie had repeatedly told the court, the case was not about any detail of images and Hopkins was not even questioned on the subject. We just wanted to know who knew and did what and when.

Three questions had been put to Dr Bhushan. The first was to ask why, in December 2008, when Hopkins gave evidence with no apparent adverse effect on his mental health, was he unfit now? Dr Bhushan had replied that Hopkins found the first trial distressing and the memory of it made him anxious, thus worsening his symptoms.

The second question was: why has the impact of the indecent images seen by Mr Hopkins while working in the Child Protection Unit become greater as time has moved on? Dr Bhushan replied that there is evidence that symptoms can develop more than six months after the traumatic event. There can be fluctuations during the course of the illness and relapses in response to stress or memories of the traumatic event.

Thirdly, it was pointed out that Hopkins was working up to Friday 7 January. Dr Bhushan was asked to comment on why Hopkins was able
to work but not come to court, to which he had responded that Hopkins continued to work to provide a distraction from the thoughts of distressing images.

What a crock, I thought. Hopkins's real distress was the thought of having to come to court to face the formidable Leslie again.

It was still not clear who would be attending court – whether it would be Dr Bhushan or, as had been suggested, Hopkins possibly giving evidence via video link, which would make him feel ‘more comfortable'!

Mr Justice Mackay had also read the report and with a look of scepticism asked for Dr Bhushan to be witness summoned.

The rest of the afternoon was spent going over the issues of compensation.

T
his was going to be an interesting day. This case had never needed to involve forensics but Challenger had pushed hard for it and here we were. Mackay had already indicated the day before that he did not feel that he would be assisted much by expert witnesses in this area. Leslie had been saying this all along – and so had all the other judges of many case management hearings. However, I was looking forward to meeting Duncan again.

Fellows would be on the stand first this morning and I looked over to the other side of the court to see if I could identify him. I saw a silver-haired man sitting next to Challenger, having a bit of a joke with him. I presumed this was the man who had written a report in such a fashion as to label my husband a paedophile. He looked very nervous, leaning backwards then forwards repetitively with his eyes darting around the room and it was apparent he was not really listening to Challenger, just nodding and smiling politely in appropriate places. When the court clerk called ‘all rise', he looked like he would collapse.

Mackay nodded for us all to sit and commented that the joint experts report was one of the longest he had ever read but where it appeared that both experts had more or less agreed it, there was some confusion that

Fellows had gone back on some points. Fellows made his way to the witness box and was sworn in. Challenger asked him if his witness statement remained his opinion and he confirmed that it did.

Leslie posed various questions to Fellows, who gripped the sides of the witness box for dear life while answering. This behaviour had not gone unnoticed by Mackay as he had stopped writing to stare intently at Fellows. Some questions appeared more difficult than others as he tried to find the right response. I got the impression that he was a man who was trying to retain his integrity, but at the same time aware of the fact that he was there to support the police in their defence.

Leslie asked, ‘Mr Fellows, it has been suggested by my learned friend, Mr Challenger, many times during these proceedings that the claimant had undertaken a “night long trawl of the internet”, searching and purchasing child pornography. I have read your report and the joint report but can find no reference to this. What do you say?'

Fellows looked perturbed and said that in his view there was no evidence of sites which contained child porn. The images found on the Tiny were pop-ups and not as a result of deliberate searching. ‘I couldn't find any evidence that he was searching for child porn.'

‘Thank you, Mr Fellows, I have nothing further,' said Leslie as he sat down. Fellows descended the witness box steps and left the courtroom in a hurry without looking back.

Next Duncan was called. His style in the witness box was to just look at Mackay as though they were the only two people in the room, while questions were directed at him by both Leslie and Challenger. Duncan had had many years of experience of giving evidence, which he delivered
in a methodical and clear manner. When the subject of the Landslide credit card transactions came up again, Mackay seemed to take over with the questions. He talked directly to Duncan and asked for help in being clear of the dates of the transactions and where the refunds were.

Duncan confirmed that the refunds did not appear on Jeremy's credit card statements because shortly after Landslide had refunded all the transactions, their merchant account was closed down by the FBI's raid. This meant the credits never appeared on Jeremy's account. However, when the FBI retrieved Landslide's database, this evidence was there and it was clear that refunds to Jeremy's account had been attempted. Step by step, Mr Justice Mackay went through the transactions that applied to Jeremy and Duncan confirmed each refund with Mackay ticking them off, ending in a kind of flourish with the fifth and final one.

‘Tell me, Mr Campbell, where did you find these refunds?' asked Mackay. Duncan responded that he had been in possession of Landslide's database for some time as a result of his dealings with Operation Ore. The judge was thoroughly engaged with Duncan by now and asked him if the refunds took a long time to find. Challenger had said it would have taken hundreds of hours to find, so it was a humorous moment when Duncan informed Mackay that all the information was on an Excel spreadsheet and all he had to do was type the name ‘Clifford' in a search and it took him to the relevant part to see the refund information. Allowing a moment for Mr Justice Mackay to write this down, Duncan looked to us and then Challenger and said, ‘The police already have it, they have
always
had it.'

‘Duncan, you wonderful man,' I thought.

Now was my turn in the witness box, and I found I was nowhere near as nervous as the first time, just a little apprehensive. The questions from Leslie and Challenger were aimed at assessing damages in how the criminal case and subsequent proceedings had affected Jeremy. There was
no doubt that he had been badly affected by the arrest and subsequent charge. My evidence was completed very quickly and I was relieved to be making my way back to Jeremy's side.

Last up was the chap who had sat in the court at the first trial running his fingers through his hair, and appeared to show deep concern for Hopkins who was being grilled by Leslie. This man had not been required to give evidence at the first trial but was now introduced by Challenger as DC Girling (no relation to Sharon Girling from the National Crime Squad) and was to answer questions as to how PC Siggery's name came to be included on a computer report sent by Hopkins with details of Jeremy's arrest. This was in answer to our accusation of Hopkins's misfeasance.

Girling's evidence was short and in summary indicated that at some stage most officers working at the station got to do some computer entry work. In the case of Siggery, he was entering in the system four notifications, three of which were being dealt with by Hopkins. And if you believe that, you will believe anything, I was thinking, but it could be enough to plant seeds of doubt for the judge.