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

Prev Next Index