Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 38
1 MR. MORRIS: If I just say a couple of other things about
2 Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Carroll. They both admitted getting
3 information about people from the Special Branch and also,
4 in Mr. Nicholson's case, from the police in general. As
5 ex-police officers with high rank, they would know that
6 that was unlawful on behalf of the officers that were
7 contacting them and they were contacting and they should
8 not have done that.
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: We will take our break there.
11
12 (Short Adjournment)
13
14 MS. STEEL: Just a couple of other points about Mr. Carroll,
15 that he was very hazy about when he first saw the fact
16 sheet. His statement said 1987, but he gave evidence that
17 it was 1985 or 1986. I would say, just generally, I do not
18 think that his evidence is clear enough to be able to
19 attach sufficient weight to it to say that, on the balance
20 of probabilities, I had been handing out the fact sheet.
21 Obviously, it is not just for that reason; that is for all
22 the reasons I have been through.
23
24 Mr. Morris has sort of made this point, but it does trouble
25 me that in the witnesses' statements, it would not
26 particularly be normal language for a witness to refer to
27 the leaflet complained of and it is no doubt that they
28 actually said a "What's wrong with McDonald's" leaflet, and
29 the leaflet complained of have been added by the
30 solicitor. Now, that does not necessarily have to be for
31 an improper reason, but it can be because the solicitors
32 are making the assumption that if they are referring to the
33 leaflet "What's wrong with McDonald's", they must be
34 referring to the fact sheet. I just think it is extremely
35 dangerous for that reason to find that it was, in fact, the
36 fact sheet that they were referring to, unless you have
37 concrete evidence showing the history of the document,
38 where it was obtained, and what had happened to it since,
39 that a note had been made of, you know, some identifying
40 mark had been made on it or it had been put in an envelope
41 and labelled clearly "Copy obtained by Terry Carroll on
42 16th October 1989", or something like that, which the
43 witness could then identify in court. That has not been
44 done with any of the fact sheets that have been produced.
45
46 MR. MORRIS: Can I just say that in paragraph 12 of his
47 statement he only refers to what he calls "What's wrong
48 with McDonald's" leaflet complained of as the only leaflet
49 he refers to seeing being given out on that day, and it is
50 clear it can only be the A5 because it is just not credible
51 that he could have seen the fact sheet, only the fact sheet
52 being handed out on that day.
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: He does not say that, does he?
55
56 MR. MORRIS: It is worded to give that impression; whether one
57 could read by careful ambiguous analysis. The impression
58 given is that was the only leaflet given out on that day.
59 I would say it would have to mean the A5.
60
