Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 24


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.  We will resume at two o'clock.
     2        Ms. Steel, I really think, sooner rather than later this
     3        afternoon, you should stand up.  If you want to say
     4        anything about the 16th October 1989, say it to me.
     5
     6   MS. STEEL:   Yes.
     7
     8                        (Luncheon Adjournment)
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS:   Very briefly, finishing off Mr. Clare.  Day 267,
    11        page 63 at the bottom, in his statement it said, "I arrived
    12        on 1st March at 7.30."  Then he was challenged that
    13        Mr. Pocklington had said 8.34 p.m. or 8.35, or something,
    14        an hour later, which may be very significant, could be --
    15        not in terms of this meeting, but in general, this kind of
    16        mistake, if it is a mistake.
    17
    18        Then on page 65, at the top of the page, "So some of the
    19        things in your statement would be just things that you
    20        presumed the case?"  Because he had presumed that I got
    21        there at 7.30, it turned out.  He said, "It would more than
    22        likely have started at that time, the meeting."  Question,
    23        "So you assumed it, so you thought it was OK to put it in
    24        your statement?"  Answer, "When the statement was made,
    25        that is, yes, that is what I thought the time would have
    26        been."  Then I say, "So, basically it comes down to you
    27        just presumed it was 7.30?"  Answer, "There is no mention
    28        in my original notes, no."
    29
    30        So here we are, something which is basically not fact, been
    31        put into a statement as a fact and verified, but luckily we
    32        had the another witness who showed that it was wrong, and
    33        that applies in many parts of Mr. Clare's evidence.
    34
    35        Then at the bottom of page 65, line 52, there is a
    36        reference to him picking up a number of leaflets, including
    37        the leaflet complained of, at 18th January meeting.  Then,
    38        top of page 66, he was challenged over this, whether it was
    39        the leaflet complained of.  He did not write any
    40        identifying marks on the leaflet he picked up.  He said at
    41        line 22, "The leaflets were given to Mr. Spears when it was
    42        possible, because as far as I am aware he prepared the
    43        reports for the instructing solicitors."  Question, "So you
    44        have no means of identifying which leaflet it was if it was
    45        put in front of you at this stage?"  Answer, "It would have
    46        been from recollection a leaflet, even a multisided leaflet
    47        or a single page."  So here we have a recognition that even
    48        when something is stated to the leaflet complained of he
    49        does not know which leaflet he would have actually have
    50        picked up. 
    51 
    52        Then on page 67 we have, in his statement, he says, 
    53        "Aldgate Press printed the 10,000 McDonald's leaflets by
    54        mistake", and in his notes we know it said "Organic Press",
    55        which he stood by in the witness box.  Therefore, the
    56        person who has written the statement for him has actually
    57        changed his evidence.  That is how things have been
    58        transformed from notes into statements in an unreliable
    59        way.
    60

Prev Next Index