Crown Court - No Stranger in Court (1974) - video Dailymotion

Jezza

Crown Court: the gripping courtroom drama from the 1970s and 1980s.  Inspector Bill Clegg, an unconventional detective, is accused of obtaining money by deception.  Loads of Doctor Who alumni in this one: William Mervyn (The War Machines), Peter Copley (Pyramids of Mars), Geoff Hinsliff (Image of the Fendahl), James Copeland (The Krotons) and even writer Arnold Yarrow was Bellal in Death to the Daleks!  #Crown Court #Courtroom #Drama # ITV #Doctor Who #War Machines #Pyramids of Mars #Krotons #Death to the Daleks.

Transcript

00:00:00Transcription by CastingWords

00:00:30Detective Inspector William Clegg is no stranger to the courts.

00:00:38He's often appeared in the witness box, giving evidence for the prosecution.

00:00:42But today, in the Fulchester Crown Court, the tables are turned.

00:00:45It is Detective Inspector Clegg himself who is the accused.

00:00:49He stands charged with obtaining money from police funds by deception.

00:00:53The charge arises from the diligence of Inspector Deakin,

00:00:55a colleague of Clegg's, who spotted the alleged discrepancies.

00:01:00In fact, all the witnesses for the prosecution are William Clegg's own colleagues,

00:01:04officers of Fulchester Police Force K Division,

00:01:07men with whom William Clegg has worked in the past,

00:01:10and who have not only been colleagues, but also close friends.

00:01:14These officers are well acquainted with the courts and their procedure,

00:01:17and in the case of the Queen against Clegg,

00:01:20they will be more than usually on their mettle,

00:01:22for Detective Inspector Clegg is no ordinary police officer.

00:01:26I swear by almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth,

00:01:29the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

00:01:32Inspector Charles Deakin, K Division, Fulchester Police Force.

00:01:37Inspector Deakin.

00:01:38Sir.

00:01:39You are the administrative officer of K Division, Fulchester Police Force.

00:01:42Yes, sir.

00:01:43Would you tell the court briefly what this entails?

00:01:45I'm directly responsible to my divisional superintendent

00:01:48for what you might call the smooth running of the divisional machine.

00:01:52Operations are planned by others.

00:01:54I make sure that the resources to carry them out are available and in good order.

00:01:58Resources of men and materials?

00:02:00Yes, sir.

00:02:00From a paperclip to a deep-sea diver?

00:02:04I have provided both, sir.

00:02:06But not finances?

00:02:06No, sir.

00:02:07But you do have certain responsibilities where finances are concerned?

00:02:09I keep a check on divisional accounts.

00:02:11Are you also a qualified accountant, Inspector?

00:02:14No, my lord.

00:02:15Just a bit of bookkeeping picked up at school.

00:02:18Is that sufficient for auditing public accounts?

00:02:20My lord, with your permission.

00:02:22By all means, Mr. Logan.

00:02:24These accounts, Inspector Deakin, are solely for payments in cash

00:02:27authorised within the division?

00:02:28Yes, sir.

00:02:29Travelling expenses, that sort of thing.

00:02:31Yes, will you tell the court exactly how such payments are made and checked?

00:02:34Yes, sir.

00:02:35The senior officer of each section authorises payments.

00:02:38The head of divisional CID, for instance,

00:02:40has to check every expense sheet put in by his detectives.

00:02:44At the end of each month, I check the sheets for accuracy.

00:02:46Every six months, they are audited by an outside firm.

00:02:49Who are qualified accountants?

00:02:52Yes, my lord.

00:02:54Yes, I want to refer to a particular occasion

00:02:56when you carried out this task at the end of February last.

00:02:59Do you remember that occasion?

00:03:00Very well, indeed, sir.

00:03:01I was totting up an expense sheet for one of our detective officers.

00:03:04Yes, one moment.

00:03:05The officer you referred to,

00:03:06would that be Detective Inspector William James Clegg,

00:03:09who is in court today?

00:03:10Yes, sir.

00:03:10The accused.

00:03:11And you're acquainted with Mr. Clegg.

00:03:14We have known each other for about seven years.

00:03:16Yes, do continue, Inspector.

00:03:17You were totting up your colleague's expense sheet

00:03:19when you came across a procedural error.

00:03:22What did you do?

00:03:23What was this?

00:03:24He put in a 24-hour away allowance claim

00:03:28for the 16th to the 17th of February.

00:03:31Before you go on,

00:03:32would you explain to the court the nature of these away allowances?

00:03:35Oh, yes, sir.

00:03:36Detective officers, by their nature,

00:03:38necessarily are often away from base,

00:03:40away from home.

00:03:41At such times,

00:03:41they are entitled to subsistence allowance.

00:03:43And it was such an allowance

00:03:44that Detective Inspector Clegg claimed

00:03:46for the 24 hours that he was away

00:03:48from the 16th to the 17th of February.

00:03:50Yes, sir.

00:03:51And which you consider to be in error.

00:03:52Yes, sir.

00:03:53Why?

00:03:53Because he wasn't away on those dates.

00:03:55How can you be so sure?

00:03:56Because I had a diary note,

00:03:58made on the evening of the 16th,

00:04:00that I had had words with him

00:04:01on his own doorstep.

00:04:03Yes.

00:04:03Now, will you look at the agreed bundle

00:04:05of expense sheets?

00:04:09Can you see the entry you're referring to?

00:04:13Yes, sir.

00:04:13Page 28.

00:04:15Yes, thank you.

00:04:16Now, Inspector Deakin,

00:04:16what did you do when you discovered

00:04:18this apparent discrepancy?

00:04:19Oh, I put the whole of Inspector Clegg's

00:04:21expense sheets on one side

00:04:22for a second look at them later.

00:04:24And when did you return to them

00:04:25for this second look?

00:04:26Following day.

00:04:27That would be the 1st of March?

00:04:292nd of March, sir.

00:04:30Ah.

00:04:31The routine check

00:04:33was made on the 1st of March.

00:04:34That's after the whole

00:04:35of the previous month's accounts were in.

00:04:37The particular check

00:04:38that I made on Inspector Clegg's sheets

00:04:40was on the 2nd of March.

00:04:41And what did you discover

00:04:42on that occasion?

00:04:44Well, there were three further items

00:04:45about which I had my doubts.

00:04:47Could you explain?

00:04:48Well, there were two more away claims

00:04:51for the 5th, 6th February

00:04:53and the 20th, 21st.

00:04:55To the best of my knowledge,

00:04:56Inspector Clegg wasn't away

00:04:57on either of those dates.

00:04:59Yes.

00:04:59There was also a hotel bill,

00:05:02the total of which does not accord

00:05:03with my knowledge of the class

00:05:04of hotel in question.

00:05:06Six pounds for one night.

00:05:07It's down there for the 2nd of February.

00:05:09Is that excessive?

00:05:12It is for a police officer, my lord.

00:05:13Oh.

00:05:14Hmm.

00:05:15Carry on, Mr. Logan.

00:05:16So that makes four items

00:05:18on one month's expense sheets

00:05:19that you considered

00:05:21were open to question.

00:05:21What did you do about this?

00:05:23I asked for an interview

00:05:24with my divisional superintendent

00:05:26and took Inspector Clegg's sheets

00:05:28along with me.

00:05:28A moment, members of the jury.

00:05:29Before we pass on,

00:05:31I think I should like to explain to you

00:05:32that these expense sheets

00:05:33are agreed both by the prosecution

00:05:35and by the defence.

00:05:37Their authenticity is not in question.

00:05:40Though it is open to the defence

00:05:42to challenge any interpretation

00:05:44that the prosecution

00:05:45may attempt to put upon them.

00:05:48Very well, Mr. Logan.

00:05:49Thank you, my lord.

00:05:50Now, as a result of the report

00:05:51you made,

00:05:52what happened?

00:05:53The senior detective officer

00:05:55was appointed

00:05:55to make further investigation.

00:05:57And your part in this affair

00:05:58then came to an end?

00:05:59That is correct, sir.

00:06:00Thank you, Inspector.

00:06:02Inspector Deacon,

00:06:03as I understand your part

00:06:04in this affair,

00:06:05it would appear that all you did

00:06:06was to turn up certain errors

00:06:07in one of your colleague's expense sheets

00:06:08which you then reported

00:06:09to your senior officer.

00:06:11That's it, sir.

00:06:12But is it?

00:06:12I mean, is that all?

00:06:14I'm not sure that I understand, sir.

00:06:15Well, here's a colleague

00:06:16whom you've known for several years

00:06:17in the same division

00:06:18for almost two years

00:06:19who makes some errors in his accounts,

00:06:21gets his sums wrong,

00:06:22maybe he gets his debts wrong,

00:06:23and you straight away

00:06:24carry the tale to your chief.

00:06:26It was the proper thing to do, sir.

00:06:28It was the proper thing, yes,

00:06:29but was it the natural thing?

00:06:30Sir?

00:06:31Well, why not go to your colleague

00:06:32and say,

00:06:32look, George or Tom or Harry,

00:06:34I think you've made a muck-up of this.

00:06:35Let me help you to sort it out.

00:06:36I might have done that, sir.

00:06:38Yes, you might have done that

00:06:39with George or Tom or Harry,

00:06:42but not with Bill.

00:06:43Not with Bill Clegg.

00:06:45I don't follow you, sir.

00:06:46I'm not trying to lead you anywhere, Inspector.

00:06:49You say that you are certain

00:06:51Detective Inspector Clegg

00:06:52was not away on the 16th

00:06:53because on that date

00:06:54you had words with him

00:06:56on his own doorstep.

00:06:57That is true, sir.

00:06:58Those words, what were they?

00:07:02I can't exactly say.

00:07:03Well, it must have been

00:07:04more than good evening

00:07:05to be worth noting in your diary.

00:07:06Yes, sir.

00:07:07What evening was it?

00:07:08Early evening, about 6.30.

00:07:10About 6.30.

00:07:12You say you had words.

00:07:14That is correct.

00:07:15To have words does not mean

00:07:16to converse or to pass the time of day

00:07:17means to quarrel.

00:07:18Is that not so, Inspector?

00:07:19I'm not an expert on linguistics, sir.

00:07:21Is that not so, Inspector?

00:07:24Yes, sir.

00:07:24Yes.

00:07:25And you did, in fact,

00:07:26quarrel with the defendant

00:07:26and in the course of that quarrel

00:07:27he knocked you down?

00:07:28No, sir.

00:07:30You were seen to be

00:07:31flat on the floor, Inspector.

00:07:32You say you were not knocked down.

00:07:35Mr Clegg

00:07:36might have brushed into me

00:07:38and I might have tripped.

00:07:40I can't exactly remember.

00:07:42But you do remember

00:07:43the unpleasantness that occurred.

00:07:44I suggest it was very much

00:07:45in your mind

00:07:46when you next came

00:07:47to examine the defendant's expense sheets.

00:07:49Not very much.

00:07:49I suggest that you were, in fact,

00:07:50looking for any minor errors of detail

00:07:52which you could use

00:07:53as a stick to belabor the defendant.

00:07:54No, sir.

00:07:55And I suggest that

00:07:55in your diligence

00:07:56to enlarge upon those minor errors

00:07:57you failed to see

00:07:58the simplest of explanations for them.

00:08:00Sir?

00:08:01Inspector Clegg

00:08:01claimed that he was away

00:08:03from home for 24 hours

00:08:04from the 16th of February

00:08:05to the 17th of February.

00:08:06He did.

00:08:07And you were quite sure

00:08:08that he was wrong

00:08:08because you had words with him

00:08:10at 6.30 on the 16th of February.

00:08:12Quite certain, sir.

00:08:13He could have easily been away

00:08:15from 9 p.m. on the 16th

00:08:17for 24 hours

00:08:18to 9 p.m. on the 17th,

00:08:19but you won't allow that possibility.

00:08:21He could have been away, yes.

00:08:24But he wasn't.

00:08:26Oh?

00:08:27At 5.30 p.m. on the 17th, sir,

00:08:29opening time,

00:08:31he was in the clubroom

00:08:32of Divisional HQ

00:08:33with all the senior officers

00:08:34wetting the head

00:08:35of the Chief Superintendent's

00:08:36first grandchild.

00:08:39Is that right?

00:08:42Oh, I see.

00:08:46Inspector Deakin,

00:08:47your action in reporting

00:08:48that you found a number

00:08:48of disturbing errors

00:08:49in a detective's expense sheets

00:08:50was perfectly proper,

00:08:51was it not?

00:08:52Yes, sir.

00:08:52It was your duty to do so?

00:08:53Yes, sir.

00:08:54And you have done the same

00:08:55no matter what your personal feelings

00:08:56were towards the officer in question?

00:08:58Yes, sir.

00:08:59Thank you, Inspector.

00:08:59I have no further re-examination.

00:09:01I have no further re-examination, sir.

00:09:16I'm nothing but the truth.

00:09:18Detective Chief Inspector Lewis,

00:09:19Fultis to CID.

00:09:21Mr. Lewis,

00:09:21you are a Detective Chief Inspector.

00:09:23Right, sir.

00:09:24That's one step up

00:09:25from a detective, Inspector?

00:09:26Right again, sir.

00:09:28Yes.

00:09:28Now, I want to refer you

00:09:29to certain events

00:09:30which took place

00:09:31commencing on the 2nd of March

00:09:32of this year.

00:09:33Now, on that date,

00:09:33you were called to a conference

00:09:34with the Divisional

00:09:35Chief Superintendent

00:09:36and the head of Divisional CID.

00:09:39What was the purpose

00:09:39of this conference?

00:09:40From when I was called in.

00:09:42Yes.

00:09:42Yeah, I was given a dossier.

00:09:45Jack Walker handed it to me.

00:09:46So that is Detective Superintendent Walker?

00:09:47Yes, head of CID

00:09:48and one step up from me.

00:09:51He said,

00:09:51we've got a right mucking mess

00:09:53for you to sort out, Ted.

00:09:55Or something like that.

00:09:57What was this mess?

00:09:58There was a possibility

00:09:59from the notes in front of us

00:10:00that Detective Inspector Clegg

00:10:02had been regularly overdrawing

00:10:03on his expense sheets.

00:10:05You say a possibility?

00:10:06He was given the benefit

00:10:07of the doubt, sir,

00:10:07same as any other suspect.

00:10:09And you were instructed

00:10:09to question him?

00:10:10I was, sir.

00:10:11Why?

00:10:13We're old friends,

00:10:14Bill Clegg and I.

00:10:15He wouldn't lie to me.

00:10:16I see.

00:10:17Likewise,

00:10:18I wouldn't let him off the hook

00:10:19if he did try to lie.

00:10:20That's quite so.

00:10:21Now, you were given

00:10:21your instructions,

00:10:22the conference broke up

00:10:23and what happened then?

00:10:24Well, I spent the rest

00:10:25of that day

00:10:26familiarising myself

00:10:27with the contents of the dossier.

00:10:28And the following morning,

00:10:29the 3rd of March?

00:10:30I sent for Detective Inspector Clegg.

00:10:32You sent for him?

00:10:33Yes, sir.

00:10:33Go on.

00:10:34Well, I did make a note

00:10:36of the interview

00:10:37immediately afterwards,

00:10:38if I might just refresh

00:10:39my memory.

00:10:40And did Inspector Clegg

00:10:41make up his notebook

00:10:42at the same time?

00:10:43My lord?

00:10:44Oh, it's not important,

00:10:45just my own twisted curiosity.

00:10:48You may refer to your notes.

00:10:51Well, I didn't pull any punches,

00:10:52my lord.

00:10:53As soon as he came in,

00:10:54I laid his money sheets

00:10:55out in front of him

00:10:55and told him he had

00:10:56a lot of explaining to do.

00:10:57Asked him what he had to say.

00:10:58And how did he account

00:10:59for the items challenged?

00:11:00Well, there were a lot of them.

00:11:02Four which Inspector Deakin

00:11:04turned up from

00:11:05Les February's expense sheets

00:11:06and 54 more

00:11:08starting from May

00:11:09the previous year.

00:11:10Shall I go through

00:11:11each one in detail?

00:11:13Yes, Mr Fry.

00:11:14Your lord,

00:11:14it may save time

00:11:15if I say now

00:11:15that the errors themselves

00:11:16are not disputed.

00:11:17What is disputed

00:11:18is the prosecution's suggestion

00:11:19that these errors

00:11:20were deliberate.

00:11:21What do you say to that,

00:11:22Mr Logan?

00:11:23There is a schedule

00:11:24of false claims,

00:11:24my lord,

00:11:25and it will save time,

00:11:25as my learned friend suggests,

00:11:26if this witness is allowed

00:11:27to deal with the schedule

00:11:28as a whole.

00:11:29Yes, I see no reason

00:11:30why not.

00:11:31These are the items

00:11:33on which you challenged

00:11:35the defendant.

00:11:35Yes, Mr Logan.

00:11:36Will you look at them

00:11:37carefully, please, Inspector?

00:11:38Yeah, these are the ones,

00:11:39all right, sir.

00:11:40I went through them

00:11:40often enough.

00:11:41And each time

00:11:42you challenged them,

00:11:43how did the defendant respond?

00:11:44He coughed.

00:11:45He what?

00:11:47He, er,

00:11:48admitted the mistakes.

00:11:50In what terms?

00:11:51Er, well,

00:11:52that he wasn't surprised,

00:11:53just upset.

00:11:54He expressed himself

00:11:55quite vehemently.

00:11:56How?

00:11:57Well, what he said was,

00:11:59Ted,

00:11:59I knew this sodding

00:12:00desk work

00:12:01would break me one day.

00:12:02With apologies, my lord.

00:12:04As you know, officer,

00:12:05we grow accustomed

00:12:05to these things

00:12:06in the courts.

00:12:07On you go, Mr Logan.

00:12:09You took the defendant's

00:12:10vehement remark

00:12:11to be an admission

00:12:12of error, sir.

00:12:13Yes, sir.

00:12:14Very well.

00:12:14Having obtained

00:12:15this admission,

00:12:15what did you do?

00:12:16I reported back

00:12:17to my superiors.

00:12:18I was told

00:12:19that Inspector Clegg

00:12:19would be charged

00:12:20with obtaining money

00:12:21by deception.

00:12:22Well, he could have...

00:12:23Thank you, Inspector.

00:12:23The charges were then made

00:12:24and Inspector Clegg

00:12:25was suspended from duty.

00:12:27Yes, sir.

00:12:29Lewis,

00:12:30I think you were going

00:12:30to say when my learned

00:12:31friend went on

00:12:33to a further question,

00:12:34what was the effect

00:12:35on you of the decision

00:12:36to charge the defendant?

00:12:38I was going to say, sir,

00:12:39that I was near

00:12:39bowled over.

00:12:41Dumbfounded,

00:12:41flabbergasted,

00:12:42flawed,

00:12:43any of those

00:12:43would describe your feelings?

00:12:44Yes, to put it mildly.

00:12:46Why?

00:12:47Well, Bill Clegg

00:12:48had been a fool,

00:12:49he'd been careless.

00:12:50He admitted himself

00:12:51that he kept forgetting

00:12:51what expenses

00:12:52he was entitled to,

00:12:53so he put down

00:12:53the nearest thing

00:12:54he could remember.

00:12:55From my investigation,

00:12:56I...

00:12:56You concluded

00:12:56that these were

00:12:57errors of confusion,

00:12:58not of criminal intent.

00:13:01That about sums it up, sir.

00:13:05These errors of confusion,

00:13:07how many were there?

00:13:08You have the schedule

00:13:09in front of you.

00:13:10How many separate items

00:13:11does it list?

00:13:11There are 58, sir.

00:13:13And what is the smallest

00:13:13amount of these errors?

00:13:14Well, there's nothing

00:13:15under two pounds, sir.

00:13:16And the largest amount?

00:13:18It's 12.50, sir.

00:13:19So the total is?

00:13:21237 pounds, sir.

00:13:23Thank you, Inspector.

00:13:24Does your Lordship

00:13:25have any questions?

00:13:26No.

00:13:27Thank you, Inspector.

00:13:33I call Detective

00:13:34Superintendent Jack Walker.

00:13:36Detective Superintendent

00:13:37Jack Walker, please.

00:13:48I swear by almighty God

00:13:49that the evidence I shall give

00:13:50shall be the truth,

00:13:51the whole truth,

00:13:51and nothing but the truth.

00:13:53Detective Superintendent

00:13:54Jack Walker,

00:13:55Fullchester CID.

00:13:57Good morning, Superintendent.

00:13:58Good morning, sir.

00:13:59It's a distressing occasion

00:14:00for you particularly.

00:14:01Yes, sir.

00:14:02Mr. Logan,

00:14:03will you get on?

00:14:04I beg your pardon, Mr.

00:14:05My Lord, Mr. Walker

00:14:06and I are old friends

00:14:07and sometimes adversaries.

00:14:10Now, Superintendent,

00:14:11as a result of certain

00:14:12investigations carried out

00:14:13between the 1st and the 3rd

00:14:15of March of this year,

00:14:15a confidential report

00:14:16was submitted to you

00:14:17concerning one of your officers.

00:14:19That is correct.

00:14:21Concerning Detective

00:14:21Inspector Clegg,

00:14:23the same William James Clegg

00:14:24whom I know

00:14:25see sitting in the dock.

00:14:27And did that report

00:14:27contain the schedule

00:14:28of claims

00:14:29which the defendant

00:14:29admitted to be false?

00:14:30Yes, sir.

00:14:31I think you have

00:14:32that schedule there.

00:14:32Yes.

00:14:34Inspector Clegg

00:14:35had made false

00:14:36expense claims

00:14:36to the tune

00:14:37of nearly 240 pounds.

00:14:40He had been interviewed

00:14:40by Chief Inspector Lewis

00:14:42and had told him

00:14:43that the false claims

00:14:44were all errors.

00:14:46However,

00:14:47I felt that

00:14:47what was laid before me

00:14:48was a prima facie case

00:14:50for Clegg to answer.

00:14:52I therefore give instructions

00:14:53for the charges

00:14:54to be brought.

00:14:54Yes, Superintendent.

00:14:56Sir.

00:14:56Before you go any further,

00:14:58it might be as well

00:14:59in the fashion of the day

00:14:59to declare your interest.

00:15:01There is an element

00:15:02of personal feelings

00:15:03in this case

00:15:03and a witness's hostile act

00:15:05has been deduced

00:15:06from his supposed ill will

00:15:07towards the defendant.

00:15:08Now, your decision

00:15:09to prefer charges

00:15:10could scarcely be due

00:15:11to any dislike

00:15:12or even lack of sympathy

00:15:13for William Jack Clegg,

00:15:15James Clegg.

00:15:16No, sir.

00:15:17Why not?

00:15:18Well, we've worked together

00:15:19for long enough.

00:15:21When I was Inspector,

00:15:22he was my Sergeant

00:15:23and when I pulled super

00:15:25in this division

00:15:26I asked for him

00:15:27to be brought along

00:15:28as Inspector.

00:15:29I have not a word

00:15:30to say against him.

00:15:31And there is another reason

00:15:32why you might,

00:15:33if anything,

00:15:34be inclined in his favour,

00:15:35is there not?

00:15:36Yes, sir.

00:15:36He is my son-in-law.

00:15:38So two good reasons

00:15:39for giving him

00:15:39the benefit of the doubt

00:15:40but nonetheless

00:15:40you felt you must

00:15:42prefer charges.

00:15:43I have no option, sir.

00:15:44The police get exactly

00:15:45the same treatment

00:15:46as any member of the public

00:15:47in this respect.

00:15:48It wasn't a case

00:15:49of bending backwards

00:15:49to show your impartiality.

00:15:51No, sir.

00:15:52I don't need to do that.

00:15:54Now, can you assist us

00:15:54with the background

00:15:55to all this,

00:15:56the sort of expenses

00:15:57that a detective

00:15:58can be expected

00:15:59to incur?

00:16:00Yes, sir.

00:16:01Well, first of all

00:16:03it's important to remember

00:16:04just how the detective

00:16:05officer works.

00:16:06He's on the job

00:16:07at all hours,

00:16:08dashing here,

00:16:09dashing there,

00:16:10keeping his head on

00:16:11because he's got to.

00:16:13Now, he's not going

00:16:14to stop every five minutes

00:16:16in the middle of

00:16:17wherever it is

00:16:18to jot down 6p

00:16:20spent on bus fares

00:16:21or 50p

00:16:23for a taxi ride

00:16:24and he can hardly

00:16:26wait for some

00:16:26dozy hotel receptionist

00:16:28to receipt his bill

00:16:29when the man

00:16:30he's interested in

00:16:30is already halfway

00:16:31round the corner.

00:16:33Am I going too fast,

00:16:34my lord?

00:16:35I'm listening with

00:16:35fascination,

00:16:36Superintendent.

00:16:37How does a detective

00:16:38officer make up

00:16:39his expense sheet?

00:16:41Well, he knows

00:16:42pretty well how much

00:16:43he's going to claim,

00:16:44which is usually

00:16:45less than what he spent.

00:16:47He knows the jobs

00:16:48he's been on

00:16:48and there's a kind

00:16:50of logic,

00:16:52do you see,

00:16:53in the way that

00:16:53one fits the other,

00:16:55a kind of common sense,

00:16:56my lord.

00:16:57And from your experience

00:16:58of 23 years

00:16:59as a detective officer,

00:17:01was this logic present

00:17:02in Inspector Clegg's claims?

00:17:04No, sir.

00:17:05You knew exactly

00:17:06what sort of jobs

00:17:06he'd been on?

00:17:07I did.

00:17:08And was there any

00:17:08relationship between

00:17:10those jobs

00:17:10and the sort of expenses

00:17:12that he had claimed

00:17:12in carrying them out?

00:17:13No, sir.

00:17:15Could he possibly

00:17:15have made that many journeys

00:17:16or slept in that many

00:17:17strange beds

00:17:18or drunk that many

00:17:19pints of beer?

00:17:20Not a chance.

00:17:21That was your

00:17:22inescapable conclusion,

00:17:23was it?

00:17:24Regrettably, yes, sir.

00:17:25Regrettable indeed,

00:17:26because in all other respects

00:17:27he was a first-rate officer.

00:17:29A first-rate thief-catcher, sir.

00:17:31You seem to make

00:17:31a distinction,

00:17:32Superintendent.

00:17:33Yes, my lord.

00:17:34Well, there are some officers

00:17:36who can't hardly

00:17:36turn a corner

00:17:37without bumping into a thief.

00:17:39Inspector Clegg's

00:17:40one of those.

00:17:41If there's a villain about,

00:17:43Cleggie will find him.

00:17:44Well, isn't that good enough?

00:17:45Oh, when the villains

00:17:46are about, my lord,

00:17:48but there's a great deal

00:17:49of painstaking work

00:17:50goes into finding them

00:17:51when they're not.

00:17:52Monotonous work.

00:17:54One percent inspiration,

00:17:55ninety-nine percent

00:17:56perspiration.

00:17:58But, uh,

00:17:59Inspector Clegg favors that

00:18:00the other way around.

00:18:02You mean to imply

00:18:03that he is a lazy officer?

00:18:05No, my lord,

00:18:06I do not mean that.

00:18:06Certainly not.

00:18:07What I mean is

00:18:08he believes in following

00:18:09haunches,

00:18:10like eighteen months ago.

00:18:13Go on, Superintendent.

00:18:15Well, about that time,

00:18:16my lord,

00:18:16we'd had a heavy team

00:18:18bothering us.

00:18:20Bank raiders.

00:18:21One job a month,

00:18:22lads,

00:18:23getting away with

00:18:23large amounts

00:18:24and not shy of

00:18:25a bit of violence either.

00:18:27I couldn't get a line

00:18:28on them anyhow.

00:18:29Then Bill Clegg

00:18:30came up with a lead.

00:18:32An informant,

00:18:33ready and willing

00:18:34to give advance warning

00:18:35of the next bank raid.

00:18:36Superintendent,

00:18:37is this something

00:18:37that the court

00:18:38should be hearing?

00:18:39Oh, perfectly proper,

00:18:41my lord.

00:18:41No suggestion

00:18:41of setting the job up.

00:18:43However,

00:18:44I,

00:18:45I couldn't wear it.

00:18:46Why not?

00:18:47Well, there was nothing

00:18:48the informant

00:18:49had so far said

00:18:50to back up his yarn.

00:18:51Now, that's what I mean

00:18:52about Inspector Clegg.

00:18:53He was prepared

00:18:54to take it on trust,

00:18:55follow his nose,

00:18:56back his hunch.

00:18:58He didn't even know

00:18:58the informant's name,

00:19:00save that it was

00:19:00one Harry

00:19:01from the smoke.

00:19:02The jury might wish

00:19:04to know the meaning

00:19:04of the smoke.

00:19:06Yes, my lord.

00:19:07It's a thief slang

00:19:08for London.

00:19:09And as much of a libel

00:19:10on that city

00:19:11as old Reekie

00:19:12is upon Edinburgh.

00:19:14Do go on,

00:19:15Mr Logan.

00:19:17Thank you, my lord.

00:19:18From what you've been

00:19:19telling his lordship

00:19:20about the defendant,

00:19:21would it be accurate

00:19:22to describe him

00:19:22as a somewhat

00:19:23unorthodox officer?

00:19:25Yes, sir.

00:19:26But so is

00:19:27Chief Inspector Lewis.

00:19:28So am I.

00:19:29At least,

00:19:30that's what they say

00:19:31about me.

00:19:35Superintendent.

00:19:35Sir.

00:19:36In your

00:19:37admirable explanation

00:19:38of the somewhat

00:19:38cavalier fashion

00:19:39in which a detective

00:19:40officer makes out

00:19:41his expense claims,

00:19:42you referred to

00:19:43a catalogue of items.

00:19:45Did I, sir?

00:19:46I don't think so.

00:19:47Oh, I beg your pardon.

00:19:48You responded to

00:19:49a suggestion put to you

00:19:50by my learned friend.

00:19:51He could not

00:19:51possibly have made

00:19:52that many journeys,

00:19:53slept in so many

00:19:54strange beds,

00:19:55drunk so many

00:19:56pints of beer.

00:19:57Yes, sir.

00:19:58That catalogue

00:19:58of the detective's

00:19:59expenses was put to me.

00:20:01Was there not

00:20:01one important item missing?

00:20:03Is there, sir?

00:20:04Now, what would that be?

00:20:06You referred later on

00:20:07to payments to informers.

00:20:10Informants,

00:20:11we say, sir.

00:20:11Yes, I did refer

00:20:13to a request

00:20:13for payment

00:20:14by an informant.

00:20:15But I did not,

00:20:16however, say

00:20:16that he got anything.

00:20:17I should like

00:20:18to make it perfectly

00:20:18clear that I refused

00:20:19to authorise

00:20:20such payment.

00:20:21Why?

00:20:22Because I wasn't

00:20:23convinced the yarn

00:20:23was worth tuppence,

00:20:25far less than

00:20:25£250 asked for.

00:20:28How much?

00:20:28£250, my lord.

00:20:30Yes, but that's

00:20:31near enough

00:20:32of the amount

00:20:33covered by the charges.

00:20:35Yes, my lord.

00:20:37Superintendent.

00:20:38Yes, I'd just

00:20:39like to add something.

00:20:40Never mind about that.

00:20:41I want to ask you,

00:20:45there is one aspect

00:20:47of this case

00:20:48that puzzles me.

00:20:49You say there is

00:20:49a kind of logic

00:20:50between the detective

00:20:51officer's expenses

00:20:52and the duties

00:20:52he performs.

00:20:54Yes, sir,

00:20:55but it takes

00:20:55experience to see it.

00:20:57And your experience

00:20:58told you that this

00:20:58logic was missing

00:20:59from Detective

00:21:00Inspector Clegg's

00:21:01expense claims?

00:21:02It did.

00:21:03After it had been

00:21:03brought to your notice?

00:21:05Yes.

00:21:06Well, why did you

00:21:06not see this absence

00:21:07of logic at the time

00:21:08you certified the

00:21:09expense claims?

00:21:10Because you wouldn't

00:21:11notice the discrepancy

00:21:12in individual items.

00:21:14But surely you

00:21:15would be on the alert

00:21:16for an accumulation

00:21:17of such discrepancies?

00:21:19Well, to be

00:21:20perfectly frank, sir,

00:21:21it never occurred to me

00:21:22that anyone would

00:21:23try to fiddle his sheets

00:21:24for such paltry amounts.

00:21:25Superintendent.

00:21:26No sum of money

00:21:27is too paltry

00:21:28to be worth

00:21:28the searching inquiry

00:21:29of a court of law.

00:21:31No, sir.

00:21:32That's why we're

00:21:33all here, sir,

00:21:34isn't it?

00:21:34Well, what is that?

00:21:38What?

00:21:39John Begarden.

00:21:40Lord, I have no

00:21:41further questions

00:21:42for Superintendent Walker.

00:21:44Do you wish to

00:21:44re-examine Mr. Logan?

00:21:46I do, my lord.

00:21:48Superintendent,

00:21:48this coincidence

00:21:49referred to

00:21:50by his lordship

00:21:51that 237 pounds

00:21:53falsely claimed

00:21:54on the defendant's

00:21:55expenses

00:21:55and 250 pounds

00:21:57that he wanted

00:21:58to give to the informant

00:21:59and which you refused.

00:21:59These two sums

00:22:00are remarkably close,

00:22:01are they not?

00:22:02Yes, sir.

00:22:02They're near enough.

00:22:03And when you interviewed

00:22:04the defendant,

00:22:05did you refer

00:22:06to this apparent coincidence?

00:22:07I did not.

00:22:08Did he volunteer

00:22:09any reference to it?

00:22:10He did not.

00:22:11Yes, could it be

00:22:11possible that the

00:22:13deficiency on the one hand

00:22:14could be accounted for

00:22:16by the proposed payment

00:22:17on the other?

00:22:19It shouldn't be possible, sir.

00:22:20Why not?

00:22:22Because the informant's

00:22:23fund is kept

00:22:23strictly separate.

00:22:24Because no payments

00:22:25can be made from it

00:22:27without the extreme

00:22:27authority of a senior officer.

00:22:30Because payments

00:22:31made to an informant

00:22:31by any other means

00:22:32would be highly improper.

00:22:33Indeed, but then

00:22:34you've agreed that

00:22:35Mr. Clegg is a highly

00:22:36unorthodox officer.

00:22:38I have no further

00:22:39questions, my lord.

00:22:48The case of the

00:23:15Queen against Clegg

00:23:16will be resumed tomorrow

00:23:17in the Crown Court.

00:23:19ORCHESTRA PLAYS

00:23:49Detective Inspector William Clegg

00:24:06is no stranger

00:24:06to the courts.

00:24:07He's often appeared

00:24:08in the witness box

00:24:09giving evidence

00:24:09for the prosecution.

00:24:11But today,

00:24:11in the Forchester Crown Court,

00:24:13the tables are turned.

00:24:15It is Detective Inspector Clegg

00:24:16himself who is the accused.

00:24:17He stands charged

00:24:19with obtaining money

00:24:20from police funds

00:24:21by deception.

00:24:22The charge arises

00:24:23from the diligence

00:24:24of Inspector Deakin,

00:24:25a colleague of Clegg's

00:24:26who spotted the discrepancies.

00:24:28But it has been alleged

00:24:29that there is ill feeling

00:24:30between the two men.

00:24:32All the witnesses

00:24:33for the prosecution

00:24:34are William Clegg's

00:24:35own colleagues.

00:24:36Officers of

00:24:37Forchester's Police Force

00:24:38K Division,

00:24:39men with whom

00:24:40William Clegg

00:24:40has worked in the past,

00:24:42men who are his close friends,

00:24:43and one of whom

00:24:44is his father-in-law.

00:24:46These officers

00:24:47are well acquainted

00:24:48with the courts

00:24:48and their procedure,

00:24:49and in the case

00:24:50of the Queen

00:24:51against Clegg,

00:24:52they are more than usually

00:24:53on their mettle.

00:24:54For Detective Inspector Clegg

00:24:55is, by the admission

00:24:56of his fellow officers,

00:24:58no ordinary policeman.

00:24:59The defence

00:25:00opens its case

00:25:01by calling the defendant

00:25:02William James Clegg

00:25:03to the witness box.

00:25:05William James Clegg,

00:25:0614 Spring Parade,

00:25:07Forchester.

00:25:08Mr. Clegg,

00:25:09you are in fact

00:25:09a detective officer

00:25:10of the Forchester Police Force.

00:25:12I'm on the strength, yes.

00:25:13I'm suspended

00:25:13until further notice.

00:25:14And that suspension

00:25:15was a consequence

00:25:16of certain events

00:25:17which took place

00:25:17on the 3rd of March

00:25:18this year?

00:25:19It was, yes.

00:25:20Would you tell the court

00:25:21what you recall

00:25:21of those events, please?

00:25:22Well, it all started

00:25:23when Ted Lewis

00:25:24asked to see me.

00:25:25Asked to see you?

00:25:27Well, it wasn't exactly

00:25:28a gold-edged invitation.

00:25:29No, I don't suppose it was.

00:25:30Do you recall

00:25:30the nature of that request?

00:25:31Yeah, as the message

00:25:32came to me,

00:25:33it was something like

00:25:34tell up bonehead

00:25:36to get the urine

00:25:38out of his legs.

00:25:39I want to see him

00:25:39in my office.

00:25:40Inspector Lewis

00:25:41is a close friend,

00:25:42I gather.

00:25:43Well, he'd have to be

00:25:44to send me a message

00:25:44like that, my lord.

00:25:45Was he equally forthright

00:25:47in the interview

00:25:47that followed?

00:25:48Yeah, well, he spoke

00:25:48his mind

00:25:49and I spoke mine.

00:25:51What state of mind

00:25:52were you in?

00:25:52I was angry.

00:25:53With him?

00:25:54No, no, with myself.

00:25:55Why?

00:25:56Well, Inspector Lewis

00:25:57pointed out certain

00:25:58discrepancies

00:25:59in my expense claims.

00:26:01I couldn't deny them

00:26:01but I couldn't rightly

00:26:02explain them either.

00:26:03Did you try to explain them?

00:26:04Yeah, well, I went

00:26:05through all my records,

00:26:06both personal

00:26:07and official ones

00:26:08but it was no good.

00:26:09You think...

00:26:09Well, I've never been

00:26:10much of a one

00:26:11for keeping records.

00:26:12Yes, you consider that

00:26:13to be an intrusion

00:26:13upon the more vital work

00:26:14of detecting crime?

00:26:16Yes, as things stand, yes.

00:26:18I mean, if every detective

00:26:19had a secretary...

00:26:20Yes, yes, yes, Mr. Clegg.

00:26:22I doubt if the Home Office

00:26:23however is likely

00:26:23to consider that recommendation.

00:26:26After the interview

00:26:27with Inspector Lewis,

00:26:28what happened next?

00:26:29My boss sent for me.

00:26:30Your boss?

00:26:32Yes, Detective Superintendent Walker.

00:26:34Who is also

00:26:34your father-in-law.

00:26:35That must have been

00:26:36a rather distressing interview.

00:26:37Well, there weren't

00:26:38many laughs in it.

00:26:39What was its attitude?

00:26:41Sympathetic?

00:26:42Outraged?

00:26:42Indignant?

00:26:44My lord, am I allowed

00:26:45to express...

00:26:45Quite right, Mr. Clegg.

00:26:46Would you redirect

00:26:47your questioning, Mr. Fryer?

00:26:49As you wish, my lord.

00:26:50Thank you, Mr. Clegg,

00:26:51for your vigilance.

00:26:52At any event,

00:26:53you can tell us

00:26:54what was the outcome

00:26:54of that interview.

00:26:56Yes, I was charged

00:26:57with the presumed offences,

00:27:00relieved of my duties

00:27:01and told to go home.

00:27:02By Superintendent Walker?

00:27:04On his instructions, yes.

00:27:05Now, throughout all this,

00:27:06did you raise any objection

00:27:07to this questioning

00:27:07of your expense, Clegg?

00:27:08No, sir.

00:27:09Did you conceal

00:27:09any relevant information?

00:27:11No, sir.

00:27:11Did you, in fact,

00:27:12give every assistance

00:27:13in this unravelling,

00:27:14this entanglement of trivia?

00:27:15Forty pence for lunches,

00:27:17two twenty-five for bed

00:27:18and breakfast,

00:27:19five for the bus rides here,

00:27:20Tuppeny telephone calls there.

00:27:21Yes, I'm as anxious

00:27:22as anybody else

00:27:23to get the records straight, sir.

00:27:24I'm sure you are, Inspector.

00:27:25Now, these errors

00:27:27first began to appear

00:27:27in March of 1973

00:27:29and continued

00:27:30until Inspector Deakin

00:27:31began his ferreting operations

00:27:33at the end of February 1974.

00:27:34Tell me, Mr. Clegg,

00:27:36were you under considerable stress

00:27:38during that period?

00:27:40Well, yes,

00:27:40I've had happier times.

00:27:42Well, I'd like to examine

00:27:43the nature of that stress.

00:27:45It began with two different circumstances

00:27:46which occurred

00:27:47about the same time,

00:27:48did it not?

00:27:48One of them was to do

00:27:49with promotion

00:27:50within your division.

00:27:51Would you tell the court

00:27:51about that?

00:27:53Well, there was a vacancy

00:27:55for Chief Inspector.

00:27:57Ted Lewis there

00:27:58and I were running

00:27:59neck and neck for it.

00:28:00I thought I'd get it

00:28:01by a short nose

00:28:02because of my record

00:28:03for case-busting,

00:28:04but Ted Lewis got it.

00:28:06Did you feel any resentment

00:28:07towards him?

00:28:08Towards Ted?

00:28:09No, no, no.

00:28:10Well, you can't, can you?

00:28:11You were disturbed

00:28:11on another account, then?

00:28:13Well, yes.

00:28:13I mean, there was never

00:28:14any official explanation

00:28:15given why I'd been passed over.

00:28:17I did hear, unofficially, though,

00:28:19that it was because

00:28:20I was too much of a loner,

00:28:21not enough of an organisation man.

00:28:24I ain't a very good inspector,

00:28:25but no good for anything else.

00:28:27No good ever.

00:28:28You were told, in effect,

00:28:29that your promotion prospects

00:28:30had come to a halt.

00:28:32Well, not in so many words, but...

00:28:34But the red light was there.

00:28:35Yes.

00:28:36Now, did you confide

00:28:36in this to anybody?

00:28:38Yes, I told my wife,

00:28:39but as it happened,

00:28:40she already knew.

00:28:41No doubt there are advantages

00:28:42and disadvantages

00:28:43to marrying within the force.

00:28:45How did your wife respond

00:28:46to this limitation

00:28:47of your prospects?

00:28:48She was no happier

00:28:49than I was.

00:28:50And two unhappy people

00:28:51hardly make for a happy marriage.

00:28:53I'd now like to go on

00:28:54to another promotion

00:28:56which occurred about

00:28:56the same time.

00:28:58A member of your force

00:29:00who had been

00:29:00a uniformed sergeant

00:29:01at the time

00:29:01when you were already

00:29:02an inspector

00:29:03was promoted

00:29:03and posted to your division

00:29:04as administrative officer.

00:29:06I'm referring, of course,

00:29:07to Inspector Deakin.

00:29:08Did you approve

00:29:09of his promotion?

00:29:10Oh, it's not for me

00:29:11to approve or disapprove, sir.

00:29:13Did it have any effect

00:29:14upon you?

00:29:15Oh, yes.

00:29:16Well, could you explain that?

00:29:18Well, Inspector Deakin's

00:29:21a perfectionist

00:29:22and I'm not.

00:29:23Well, he likes things squared up.

00:29:25I don't.

00:29:26He was always on me back.

00:29:28He was this form

00:29:29he's filling up,

00:29:29that form he's doing

00:29:30in triplicate.

00:29:31I'm afraid I told him

00:29:32what he could do

00:29:33with his papers.

00:29:34There were hard words

00:29:35between you.

00:29:36From time to time, yes.

00:29:37Well, I'd like to refer

00:29:38to one particular occasion,

00:29:39an occasion which later

00:29:40led to his conducting

00:29:41an inquiry into your

00:29:42expense claims

00:29:43the 16th of February.

00:29:45Inspector Deakin has told

00:29:46the court that on that day

00:29:47he had words with you

00:29:48on your own doorstep.

00:29:49Do you recall that occasion?

00:29:51Yes.

00:29:51Tell the court about it,

00:29:52would you?

00:29:53Well, I live in a police house

00:29:54and so does he.

00:29:55They're next door

00:29:56to each other.

00:29:57I keep mine in fair enough trim

00:29:59but it's not good enough

00:30:00for him.

00:30:01Well, I mean,

00:30:02as admin officer

00:30:03he felt it his duty

00:30:04to point out

00:30:05where I was falling down

00:30:06in my requirements.

00:30:08He also felt it his duty

00:30:10to tell me wife

00:30:11where I was falling down

00:30:12in my responsibilities

00:30:13so I told him

00:30:13that if he came round again

00:30:14bothering her

00:30:15I'd thump him.

00:30:15Well, I've had enough

00:30:18trouble keeping things

00:30:19sweet at home

00:30:19without his interference.

00:30:21Nevertheless,

00:30:21he did come round again

00:30:22on the 16th of February.

00:30:24What happened then?

00:30:25Well, I'd just got home

00:30:26and there he was

00:30:27ringing the doorbell

00:30:27so I said to him

00:30:29something like

00:30:29I thought I'd told you

00:30:30not to come round here again

00:30:31and then

00:30:31then me wife opened the door

00:30:34and I made to go inside.

00:30:36Yes?

00:30:38Well, the next thing I knew

00:30:40Inspector Deakin

00:30:40was lying flat on the ground.

00:30:43Mr Clegg,

00:30:43what exactly caused

00:30:45the flattening

00:30:46of Inspector Deakin?

00:30:48No idea, sir.

00:30:50I just brushed past him.

00:30:54Go on!

00:30:55Well, then he

00:30:56fell on the ground, sir.

00:30:59Was he off balance then?

00:31:02No, I don't think so, my lord.

00:31:03Well, it's not usual

00:31:04to fall down

00:31:05when someone brushes past you.

00:31:07No, my lord.

00:31:08You didn't by any chance

00:31:10strike him, did you?

00:31:11Well, I may have

00:31:13waved me arm about a bit, my lord.

00:31:15And he bumped into it.

00:31:17Yes, and not an unfamiliar

00:31:18occurrence from what one

00:31:20hears in the courts

00:31:20these days.

00:31:21Do go on, Mr Fry.

00:31:23Thank you, lord.

00:31:23In any event,

00:31:24whether he fell

00:31:25or whether he was pushed,

00:31:26it was no surprise to you

00:31:27to find that it was he

00:31:28who triggered off

00:31:29the series of events

00:31:30which have led to your appearance

00:31:31here today.

00:31:32My lord, is that not

00:31:32an improper question?

00:31:33Yes, I agree.

00:31:34Mr Fry, I think we can leave

00:31:36the laws of causality

00:31:37to a higher court.

00:31:39As your lordship wishes.

00:31:40If your lordship will let me

00:31:41deal with cause and effect

00:31:42only insofar as it relates

00:31:43to the defendant.

00:31:44That would be perfectly proper.

00:31:46I'm obliged to your lordship.

00:31:47Mr Clegg, you have told us

00:31:49about the stresses

00:31:49that you were under

00:31:50during this period.

00:31:51The savage blow

00:31:52to your promotion prospects.

00:31:53The constant demands

00:31:54of a desk-bound perfectionist.

00:31:56The strain upon your marriage.

00:31:58Is it your contention

00:31:58that because of these strains

00:32:00you were constantly behind

00:32:01in keeping a day-to-day record

00:32:02of your expenses?

00:32:03It is, yes.

00:32:04You can see the possibility

00:32:05that when you later made up

00:32:08these expenses from memory,

00:32:09certain errors may have crept in.

00:32:12Oh, yes, they very likely did, yes, sir.

00:32:14But there is no doubt whatsoever

00:32:15that the totals claimed

00:32:16were the totals you were entitled to.

00:32:18What? No doubt whatsoever, sir.

00:32:20Thank you, Mr Clegg.

00:32:22Mr Clegg, I have no wish

00:32:24to dwell upon the emotional

00:32:25and occupational stresses

00:32:26that weighed upon you.

00:32:28They are, of course, not uncommon.

00:32:30Some of my colleagues

00:32:31have been waiting rather a long time

00:32:33for their elevation

00:32:34and some of them

00:32:35will never achieve it.

00:32:36However, that does not prevent them

00:32:37from carrying out

00:32:38their proper duty in the meantime.

00:32:40Now, your proper duty

00:32:41was the detection of crime.

00:32:42And its prevention, sir.

00:32:43Of course, and it was also your duty,

00:32:45was it not,

00:32:45to keep accurate records

00:32:47of the tasks you were engaged on?

00:32:48Yes, as far as time allowed, yes.

00:32:50Records that should have included

00:32:51details of any money spent

00:32:52from your own pocket

00:32:53that you later wish to reclaim.

00:32:54Yes, but I've already explained

00:32:55that I didn't always do it

00:32:56at the time, did I, M?

00:32:58I mean, when I did get to make it up,

00:32:59it was always reasonably accurate

00:33:01and certainly no more

00:33:02than I'd actually spent.

00:33:04So you say.

00:33:05Look, I'm not lying.

00:33:07I'm telling the truth.

00:33:08I mean, I did spend that much money,

00:33:10probably a lot more, I think,

00:33:12and certainly on proper police duties.

00:33:14I might even accept that.

00:33:15What?

00:33:16Well, perhaps you did spend

00:33:16that amount of money,

00:33:17but not all on out-of-pocket expenses

00:33:19and not all in an authorised manner.

00:33:22What else am I supposed

00:33:23to have spent it on?

00:33:24What else indeed, Mr Clegg?

00:33:26Well, we heard from Superintendent Walker

00:33:29that you submitted a proposition

00:33:31for paying out a large sum of money

00:33:32to an informant.

00:33:33Now, he refused to authorise that payment.

00:33:35Perhaps you went ahead

00:33:36and made that payment just the same.

00:33:37How could I?

00:33:38Where would I have got the money from?

00:33:39Well, £250 is not such a large sum.

00:33:41You may have had that amount

00:33:41in your bank account,

00:33:42or perhaps you borrowed it.

00:33:43But I didn't.

00:33:44Did you pay such a sum

00:33:45to your mysterious informant?

00:33:47The Lord, my friend,

00:33:47is introducing fresh prosecution evidence.

00:33:49No, Mr Fry.

00:33:50He's merely cross-examining as to motive.

00:33:54Go on, please, Mr Dogan.

00:33:55Thank you, Lord.

00:33:57Now, Mr Clegg,

00:33:57we heard from Superintendent Walker

00:33:59of the run of bank raids

00:34:01that occurred in and around Fulchester.

00:34:03Now, you were very anxious

00:34:04to catch these raiders, were you not?

00:34:06No, more than any other villains.

00:34:08Really?

00:34:09Well, these were dangerous, violent men.

00:34:10They got away with a lot of money.

00:34:11Tracking them down

00:34:12would be a feather in your cap.

00:34:14It might even win you

00:34:14that elusive promotion.

00:34:16Oh, you were very anxious

00:34:17to catch them, were you not?

00:34:18So was every other detective in the force.

00:34:20But you thought you had a lead on them.

00:34:22Well, I had.

00:34:23But Mr Walker did not agree with you.

00:34:24I could have been wrong.

00:34:25And the only way you could prove him wrong

00:34:27was to take a chance on that informant

00:34:29with your own money.

00:34:29Did you take such a chance?

00:34:31No.

00:34:32I ask you again, Mr Clegg,

00:34:33did you pay that informant

00:34:34out of your own money?

00:34:35I did not, no.

00:34:37Did you think that if somehow

00:34:38you obtained the sum of 250 pounds

00:34:41and paid it out to Harry from the smoke

00:34:44and the bank raiders were caught

00:34:45that you could later reclaim that money?

00:34:47No.

00:34:47Whereas, in fact,

00:34:50Harry from the smoke

00:34:50did not furnish the information,

00:34:52you were perhaps 250 pounds

00:34:54the poorer,

00:34:54the bank raiders were never caught

00:34:55and you couldn't even tell anybody

00:34:56without admitting your own folly.

00:34:57There was nothing to tell.

00:34:59There was nothing I needed to tell.

00:35:01Of course not.

00:35:02You could get the money back

00:35:03without telling.

00:35:05By cooking your expense sheets.

00:35:08Falsifying them

00:35:09with intent.

00:35:10Whatever the motive,

00:35:12Mr Clegg,

00:35:13you did obtain that money

00:35:14by a deception that was deliberate.

00:35:18Mr Clegg,

00:35:19is it a fact that at no time

00:35:20in your many years of service

00:35:21have you obtained one penny

00:35:22of public funds

00:35:23that you are not entitled to?

00:35:24Never.

00:35:25Is it a fact that you are

00:35:26more often out of pocket

00:35:27than in pocket?

00:35:29I only wish I'd got all the money

00:35:30in the bank that I've spent on the job.

00:35:40Take the Bible in your right hand

00:35:46and read aloud the words on the card.

00:35:48I swear by a mighty God

00:35:50that the evidence I should give

00:35:51should be the truth,

00:35:52the whole truth,

00:35:53nothing but the truth.

00:35:54You are Elizabeth Clegg.

00:35:56Yes.

00:35:56You are the wife of the defendant

00:35:58William James Clegg.

00:35:59Yes.

00:36:00And you reside at Crossways

00:36:01Manor Park Lane,

00:36:02Fulchester.

00:36:03Yes.

00:36:04That address is not the marital home.

00:36:06No, I'm staying with my parents.

00:36:07And when did you first go

00:36:09to stay with your parents,

00:36:09Mrs. Clegg?

00:36:10Oh, well, it must have been

00:36:12just after the middle of March 20th,

00:36:14wasn't it?

00:36:15Er, 21st.

00:36:16Yeah, that's right.

00:36:17It was the 21st to remember it now.

00:36:19And what was the reason

00:36:19for your leave

00:36:20before going to stay

00:36:21with your parents?

00:36:22We agreed.

00:36:23We both agreed.

00:36:25Well, that...

00:36:26Mrs. Clegg.

00:36:27Yes, sir?

00:36:29Er, um...

00:36:31Yes, my lord.

00:36:32Sorry, my lord.

00:36:33Mrs. Clegg,

00:36:34what we would like you to do

00:36:35is to speak up

00:36:36so that everybody can hear you,

00:36:38particularly the jury.

00:36:39So would you please face them

00:36:41and speak up loudly and clearly

00:36:44so that they can hear at the end.

00:36:46Now, will you do that for us?

00:36:47Er, yes, my lord.

00:36:51Mrs. Clegg, we're only concerned here

00:36:52with your marital situation

00:36:53as it relates to the period

00:36:55between May 1973

00:36:56and March 1974.

00:36:59Does that period have any significance for you?

00:37:01Er, in a way.

00:37:02Well, could you tell the court about it, please?

00:37:04Er, well, um...

00:37:06To start with,

00:37:08er, Bill,

00:37:09well, that's my husband,

00:37:11he had this disappointment

00:37:12over his promotion,

00:37:13not getting it,

00:37:14and, er,

00:37:15well, what made it worse

00:37:16was he heard...

00:37:18We both heard

00:37:19that, er,

00:37:20there wasn't much chance

00:37:21in the future

00:37:21of his getting any.

00:37:22And how did this affect him?

00:37:23Was he moody?

00:37:25Irritable?

00:37:26Oh, no,

00:37:27more puzzled.

00:37:29Er,

00:37:30he kept asking why.

00:37:33I don't see it.

00:37:35I'm as good a jack

00:37:36as any in the force,

00:37:37better than most.

00:37:38Did this affect your relationship?

00:37:40Er,

00:37:41well, no,

00:37:42he could be, um,

00:37:43an inspector on the buses

00:37:45for all I care,

00:37:46but, er,

00:37:47well,

00:37:47it did cause a bit of an upset,

00:37:49and then there was

00:37:50the trouble about the money.

00:37:51The money?

00:37:53Well, yes,

00:37:53he was drawing out

00:37:54lots of money,

00:37:55um, without telling me

00:37:56from my joint bank account.

00:37:58It was going to be

00:37:58holiday money.

00:37:59Was there any other matter

00:38:00that affected your husband

00:38:01during the period

00:38:02we're discussing?

00:38:03No, but there was

00:38:04one other person

00:38:04who affected him.

00:38:05Who was that?

00:38:07Oh, well,

00:38:07am I allowed

00:38:09to mention names?

00:38:09If they are relevant.

00:38:11Oh, it's true enough,

00:38:12my lord.

00:38:12Anybody in the division

00:38:14could tell you.

00:38:16Inspector Deacon

00:38:17was making Bill's life

00:38:19a misery,

00:38:19and mine.

00:38:21Inspector Deacon,

00:38:21the officer

00:38:22who is in court today.

00:38:23Yeah, that's him there,

00:38:24in uniform.

00:38:26Now, I want to refer

00:38:26to an event

00:38:27which took place

00:38:27on the 16th of February.

00:38:2916th?

00:38:30That was the day

00:38:30Inspector Deacon

00:38:31came to call on you.

00:38:32In fact, I believe

00:38:32it's the last time

00:38:33he called on you.

00:38:34Ah, yeah, I remember that.

00:38:36Will you tell the court

00:38:36about it, please?

00:38:37Well, there's not much

00:38:38to tell

00:38:39about half past six

00:38:41it was,

00:38:42and I was expecting

00:38:44Bill home,

00:38:45and the doorbell rang,

00:38:46and when I opened it,

00:38:48there was Bill,

00:38:48and there was Inspector Deacon

00:38:50groveling on the doorstep.

00:38:52How do you suppose

00:38:54he came to be

00:38:55in that situation?

00:38:56Oh, I can't really say.

00:38:58Did you suppose

00:38:59that he'd been knocked down?

00:39:01Would he?

00:39:02Certainly wasn't looking

00:39:03for the front doorkeep.

00:39:05Indeed not, Mrs Clegg.

00:39:07Did your husband

00:39:07go out again that night?

00:39:09No.

00:39:09You're certain of that?

00:39:10Yeah.

00:39:10And the next day?

00:39:12He went out as usual

00:39:13in the morning.

00:39:14What time did he return home?

00:39:17Oh, that was the day

00:39:19they were all up

00:39:20in the club.

00:39:22We were everyone

00:39:23buying everyone else drinks.

00:39:25The super,

00:39:26becoming a grandfather

00:39:28was their excuse for it.

00:39:30Not that they needed

00:39:30an excuse,

00:39:31but Bill did it.

00:39:33He didn't see it through.

00:39:33He came home

00:39:34about 8 o'clock.

00:39:35He returned home

00:39:36at 8 o'clock

00:39:36on the 17th of February?

00:39:39Uh, yeah,

00:39:40but only to pick up

00:39:41his washing and shaving things.

00:39:42And then he,

00:39:43he went out again.

00:39:44And I didn't see him

00:39:45until late

00:39:46the following evening.

00:39:47So he was away

00:39:48for 24 hours

00:39:48from the 17th

00:39:49to the 18th of February?

00:39:50Oh, more than 24.

00:39:52Uh, he didn't return

00:39:54until after midnight

00:39:56the next night.

00:39:58And, uh, well, uh...

00:40:01He was in fact

00:40:02away for a period

00:40:03of 24 hours

00:40:04or more

00:40:05from the 17th

00:40:06to the 18th.

00:40:07Yes.

00:40:08Um, well,

00:40:09I wouldn't be sure

00:40:09about the dates,

00:40:10but it was about then.

00:40:12Well, what you're saying,

00:40:13Mrs Clegg,

00:40:13as I understand you,

00:40:14is that there may well

00:40:15be some confusion

00:40:15as to whether

00:40:16it was a 24-hour

00:40:17away period

00:40:18from the 16th

00:40:19to the 17th

00:40:19of February,

00:40:20or a similar

00:40:21away period

00:40:21from the 17th

00:40:22to the 18th.

00:40:23However, there is

00:40:24no doubt in your mind

00:40:24whatsoever

00:40:25that on or about

00:40:26the 17th,

00:40:27your husband did spend

00:40:2824 hours away

00:40:29from home

00:40:30on official duty.

00:40:31I'm sure of that.

00:40:35Mrs Clegg,

00:40:35considering the gravity

00:40:36of the charge,

00:40:37neither you nor your husband

00:40:38seem to have made

00:40:38much of an effort

00:40:39to get your dates straight.

00:40:41However,

00:40:42we'll make one

00:40:43further try.

00:40:45Now, I want to deal

00:40:45with a point that was

00:40:46raised in your evidence.

00:40:47You referred to

00:40:47withdrawals of money

00:40:48by your husband

00:40:49from your joint account

00:40:50without his telling you.

00:40:52Yes.

00:40:54Now, you say this

00:40:55happened on several

00:40:56occasions after May 1973.

00:40:58Can you recall

00:40:59the exact dates?

00:41:01Ooh.

00:41:02Well, the approximate dates.

00:41:04Well, they all

00:41:05happened within

00:41:07a few weeks

00:41:08of each other.

00:41:09I only got to know

00:41:10about it when the

00:41:11statement came in

00:41:11at the end of the month.

00:41:13Ah, which month?

00:41:14February.

00:41:14Oh, it could have

00:41:15been March.

00:41:17Well, it must have

00:41:18been before May

00:41:19because it was,

00:41:21well, it would have

00:41:21been holiday money.

00:41:23Can you recall

00:41:24the total amounts

00:41:25of those withdrawals?

00:41:27Um.

00:41:28Well, how much

00:41:28were you short

00:41:29on your holiday money?

00:41:31Over 200 pounds.

00:41:34Well over.

00:41:35But that didn't

00:41:35all go without

00:41:36my knowledge.

00:41:38Some of it,

00:41:39well, we were

00:41:40a bit hard-pressed

00:41:41at the time.

00:41:42But there were,

00:41:43within one month,

00:41:44several withdrawals

00:41:45of substantial amounts

00:41:46made by your husband

00:41:47without your knowledge.

00:41:48Is that correct?

00:41:49Yes.

00:41:49Ten pounds at a time?

00:41:51Uh, no more than that.

00:41:52Oh, 50 pounds.

00:41:54100?

00:41:56No, the,

00:41:57the most was 70.

00:42:00Well, 70 pounds

00:42:01is a fairly substantial sum.

00:42:02Did your husband

00:42:02say what he needed it for?

00:42:05Um, yeah.

00:42:08He said it was

00:42:09to buy him

00:42:09a spot of promotion.

00:42:10Oh.

00:42:11Oh, that was only

00:42:12one of his jokes.

00:42:13In earnest, then,

00:42:14what did he spend

00:42:15the money on?

00:42:17I don't know.

00:42:19Well, I don't.

00:42:20Oh, what could he

00:42:21have spent it on?

00:42:21Did he spend it on clothing?

00:42:22No.

00:42:23Drink?

00:42:24No.

00:42:24Gambling?

00:42:25No.

00:42:26Other women?

00:42:27No.

00:42:28Well, we seem to have

00:42:28exhausted all the vices.

00:42:30Well, and I can tell you

00:42:31what he, what he didn't,

00:42:32what else he didn't spend it on.

00:42:33He, he, he didn't

00:42:34bung anyone.

00:42:35He didn't buy any favours.

00:42:37He didn't drop it

00:42:37into anybody's pocket,

00:42:39if that's what you're thinking.

00:42:41Whatever it went on,

00:42:42it must have gone on his work.

00:42:44Really?

00:42:45Now, what expenditure,

00:42:46what legitimate expenditure

00:42:47does a detective officer have

00:42:49requiring such large sums?

00:42:51Oh, only one,

00:42:53as far as I know,

00:42:54a pain in their snouts.

00:42:56You mean their informants?

00:42:57Yeah.

00:42:58Yes, but if your husband

00:42:58had made such authorised payments,

00:43:00surely they would not have

00:43:01been made out of his own pocket.

00:43:03Oh, sometimes, yes,

00:43:04instead of going through

00:43:05all the rigmarole

00:43:05and then he'd get it back

00:43:06later through the funds.

00:43:08And were these amounts

00:43:09recovered from the informants fund?

00:43:10Well, they must have been.

00:43:11How else did they get back

00:43:12in your account?

00:43:13The amounts that you supposed

00:43:14had been paid out

00:43:15to an informant

00:43:16were eventually returned

00:43:18to your joint bank account.

00:43:20Well, they didn't all come in

00:43:21at the same time.

00:43:24And then it wasn't,

00:43:26it took a bit of a while,

00:43:28and then it wasn't

00:43:28the exact amounts,

00:43:30not pound for pound.

00:43:32It's nearly all paid back, though.

00:43:35Yes, I see.

00:43:37Now, Mrs Clegg,

00:43:37does the name Harry

00:43:39mean anything to you?

00:43:40Harry who?

00:43:41Harry from the smoke.

00:43:43Oh, we know a couple

00:43:44of Harolds in London.

00:43:47One's an assistant commissioner

00:43:49at Scotland Yard,

00:43:50and the other one's

00:43:51my cousin.

00:43:53Thank you, Mrs Clegg.

00:43:54Oh, my lord.

00:44:00Just one moment, Mr Logan.

00:44:02Mr Fry, do you wish to re-examine?

00:44:04Yes, my lord.

00:44:06Mrs Clegg, who pays

00:44:07your quarterly bills,

00:44:07rates, electricity,

00:44:08that sort of thing?

00:44:09Oh, may I ask, my lord?

00:44:10And when you go out

00:44:11for the evening,

00:44:12dinner, cinema,

00:44:13who pays then?

00:44:14Oh, he does.

00:44:15Does he buy his own clothes?

00:44:17Oh, once bought him

00:44:18a tie, never again.

00:44:20So, the amounts

00:44:21taken from your

00:44:22joint account

00:44:24could well have gone

00:44:25towards any of these expenses.

00:44:27I suppose so.

00:44:27Clearing accumulated

00:44:28household bills,

00:44:30paying off a temporary loan,

00:44:31covering a distant journey,

00:44:32while or any of these

00:44:33heavier-than-usual commitments

00:44:35might have occurred.

00:44:36They might.

00:44:37And the little that was left over

00:44:38could have gone into

00:44:39your husband's wallet

00:44:39to keep that healthy

00:44:40till the next payday.

00:44:41Is that possible, Mrs Clegg?

00:44:43It's possible.

00:44:44I can't really say.

00:44:49He wasn't telling me

00:44:50at the time.

00:44:51Thank you, Mrs Clegg.

00:44:53Very well, you may

00:44:54leave the witness box.

00:44:55Mrs Clegg, if you wish

00:44:56to stay in court,

00:44:57you may do so.

00:44:59That, my lord,

00:44:59concludes the case

00:45:00for the defence.

00:45:01Very well.

00:45:02Mr Logan, if you were

00:45:04to start your speech now,

00:45:05I think we might be

00:45:06finished this afternoon.

00:45:07Yes, my lord,

00:45:08I've just received information

00:45:09which could have

00:45:10an important bearing

00:45:11on the case.

00:45:11It could even warrant

00:45:12an application

00:45:13to call further evidence.

00:45:14What I do need now,

00:45:15my lord,

00:45:16is an adjournment

00:45:17to consider the situation.

00:45:19Yes, well,

00:45:20I'm waiting to hear

00:45:21your reasons

00:45:21for this somewhat

00:45:22astonishing request.

00:45:24Indeed, my lord,

00:45:25this note just handed to me

00:45:26from Superintendent Walker

00:45:27gives the reasons

00:45:28in some detail.

00:45:29It also impresses upon me

00:45:30that it would not be

00:45:31in the public interest

00:45:32to disclose them

00:45:33in open court.

00:45:34Not in the public interest,

00:45:35I see.

00:45:35What about the interest

00:45:36of the court?

00:45:37Well, I am assured

00:45:38that anything stated

00:45:39in closed court today

00:45:40can be repeated freely

00:45:42in public

00:45:43when the court

00:45:43resumes its sitting tomorrow,

00:45:44but not before.

00:45:45My lord,

00:45:46if I might call

00:45:46Superintendent Walker

00:45:47to explain the situation.

00:45:48Mr Fry?

00:45:49May I take it

00:45:50that if I agree

00:45:50to this explanation,

00:45:51it would not imply

00:45:52prior consent

00:45:53to the introduction

00:45:53of new evidence?

00:45:55That would be the case,

00:45:56would it not?

00:45:56It would, my lord.

00:45:57Indeed, I suggest

00:45:58that the matter

00:45:59should be dealt with

00:46:00for the time being

00:46:01in the absence

00:46:01of the jury.

00:46:02Yes, very well.

00:46:05The court will now

00:46:05be cleared of everyone

00:46:06except the officers

00:46:07of the court

00:46:08and the defendant.

00:46:09If the situation

00:46:10does not justify

00:46:11our sitting in camera,

00:46:12I shall, of course,

00:46:14reopen the court.

00:46:15Would the ushers

00:46:16please escort members

00:46:17of the public

00:46:17and the press

00:46:18from the court?

00:46:32Superintendent Walker.

00:46:46My lord.

00:46:47I have not known

00:46:48one small piece of paper

00:46:49create quite such a stir

00:46:51since Mr Chamberlain

00:46:52waved to Loft

00:46:53the one that he brought

00:46:54back from Munich.

00:46:55Would you care to explain?

00:46:57Yes, my lord.

00:46:58It has to do with

00:46:59a telephone call

00:47:00received this afternoon.

00:47:00It wasn't for me.

00:47:03It was for Inspector Clegg.

00:47:05But the caller said

00:47:06I would do,

00:47:06so I took it.

00:47:07Yes.

00:47:08Well, he babbled on

00:47:09for a bit.

00:47:11Then he made

00:47:11an important assertion,

00:47:14the truth of which,

00:47:15or otherwise,

00:47:15will be apparent

00:47:16tomorrow morning.

00:47:17He informed me...

00:47:18One moment.

00:47:19Was there no indication

00:47:20of the identity

00:47:21of the caller?

00:47:22I'm sorry, my lord.

00:47:24He said his name

00:47:25was Harry

00:47:25from the smoke.

00:47:26Hmm.

00:47:30Join us tomorrow

00:47:45in the Crown Court

00:47:48for the final day

00:48:01of the Queen

00:48:01against Clegg.

00:48:03The Love also

00:48:18had a bolla roy

00:48:20with me.

00:48:22The Love and登

00:48:23Detective Inspector William Clegg is no stranger to the courts.

00:48:47He's often appeared in the witness box giving evidence for the prosecution,

00:48:50but today in the Fulchester Crown Court the tables are turned.

00:48:54It is Detective Inspector Clegg himself who is the accused.

00:48:58He stands charged with obtaining money from police funds by deception.

00:49:02The witnesses for the prosecution are Clegg's colleagues,

00:49:05and these officers are well acquainted with the courts and their procedure.

00:49:08In the case of the Queen against Clegg, they are more than usually on their mettle,

00:49:12for Detective Inspector Clegg is no ordinary police officer.

00:49:15He drew £237 expenses on claims which were in error.

00:49:21Were these errors of confusion or deception?

00:49:23Did the money go into his own pocket?

00:49:25Was it used for unauthorised payment to an informant known only as Harry?

00:49:30At the close of the trial of William James Clegg,

00:49:33a request was made by the prosecution to introduce fresh evidence concerning Harry.

00:49:38Mr. Logan, are you not going to produce your witness?

00:49:44He was ordered to be in attendance here at 10.30, was he not?

00:49:48He may be on his way, my lord. It is only just 10.30,

00:49:50and there was, as your lordship heard yesterday,

00:49:53a vital matter of police investigation which had to be carried out before his attendance here this morning.

00:49:57Yes, well, there's nothing short of quelling a revolution that takes precedence over the courts.

00:50:01I shall take a most serious view, unless...

00:50:04What is it, Mr. Logan?

00:50:05My lord, I understand the witness is now here.

00:50:06Superintendent, are you aware that you have kept the court waiting?

00:50:14Yes, my lord, I realise that, and I do apologise.

00:50:19Heavy traffic, no doubt.

00:50:22Yes, my lord, you could say that.

00:50:24Very well. Remember, you are on oath.

00:50:27Very well, Mr. Logan.

00:50:28My lord.

00:50:29Now, Superintendent, you appeared before his lordship yesterday during an adjournment

00:50:32to consider the admissibility of fresh evidence for the prosecution,

00:50:35and his lordship ruled that it could have a bearing upon a possible motive

00:50:39for the offence of which the defendant stands accused.

00:50:42Would you now tell the jury how that fresh evidence came to your attention?

00:50:46Yes, sir.

00:50:46A telephone call came through to divisional headquarters yesterday afternoon.

00:50:52The caller asked for Mr. Clegg.

00:50:54He was informed that Inspector Clegg was not available.

00:50:58He then said, all right, he would speak to me instead.

00:51:00And did he ask for you by name?

00:51:02No, sir. He asked for the top man.

00:51:05And you agreed to accept the call?

00:51:06Well, yes, sir, because, you see, the call was along the line that only an informant would use,

00:51:12and it had to be taken note of, especially when he said who he was.

00:51:15How did he identify himself?

00:51:17By his first name, Harry, and where he came from, London.

00:51:21And you had previous knowledge of such an informant?

00:51:24Yes, sir.

00:51:25And this was in connection with a series of major bank raids

00:51:28by a team of criminals who have not yet been apprehended?

00:51:31Who had not been apprehended. That's right, sir.

00:51:34So you were therefore intensely interested in any information this caller could give you?

00:51:38Yes, indeed, sir.

00:51:40Now, will you now tell the court what was the gist of his information?

00:51:43Yes, sir.

00:51:44My lord, this conversation was taped and a transcription taken immediately thereafter.

00:51:49If I may refer to it.

00:51:50I see no objection.

00:51:58The caller began by asking, where's Bill Clegg?

00:52:01My reply, he's not about.

00:52:02What? What do you want?

00:52:05He then said, listen.

00:52:07Um, Superintendent DeGrois, Mr. Logan,

00:52:09there are certain statements in this transcript

00:52:11which can require confirmation from the caller himself.

00:52:14Do you intend to produce him?

00:52:16My lord, the prosecution has been unable to locate the caller.

00:52:19I am trying to establish that Harry does exist,

00:52:23and that certain circumstances relating to the call

00:52:26indicate that there have been financial transactions between him and the defendant.

00:52:30Yes, well, parts of this document are plainly inadmissible hearsay,

00:52:33and in putting your questions, you must not refer to them.

00:52:36Indeed, my lord.

00:52:38Now, Superintendent, the caller made certain statements about past circumstances.

00:52:43How did these statements impress you?

00:52:47I was more convinced than ever that he had to be listened to,

00:52:50that any information he could offer,

00:52:52read the bank robbers, would bear looking into.

00:52:54And did he offer such information?

00:52:56Yes.

00:52:57He said that, uh,

00:52:58he said,

00:52:59we would know by tomorrow morning,

00:53:02that's this morning,

00:53:03whether he,

00:53:04Harry, that is,

00:53:05was on the level.

00:53:06Yes, Superintendent,

00:53:07you may refer to the transcript from here on.

00:53:09Yes, my lord.

00:53:12From where he said,

00:53:13we would know by tomorrow morning.

00:53:14Mm-hmm.

00:53:15Thank you, my lord.

00:53:16I then asked him,

00:53:18what's happening tomorrow morning?

00:53:20His reply,

00:53:21there's a caper on,

00:53:23the savings bank at the top end of Market Street,

00:53:259.30 as soon as they open.

00:53:28You'll know the team when you see them.

00:53:30All hard men,

00:53:32sheets as long as my arm.

00:53:34The fixer only got out a few weeks back,

00:53:37and they've been getting together since.

00:53:38Yes, in plain English,

00:53:39Superintendent,

00:53:40he was telling you that there was a raid planned on the Market Street Savings Bank

00:53:44by a team of known criminals at 9.30 this morning.

00:53:48That is correct, sir.

00:53:48Well, it is now, Superintendent, 10.35.

00:53:52Yes, sir.

00:53:52And I should like to make a statement without prejudice to any future action

00:53:56that may come before this court.

00:53:58There was an attempted bank raid this morning at the Pleasant Times stated

00:54:01that these were prevented from carrying out said raid to a successful conclusion.

00:54:07A number of men are now assisting the police with their inquiries.

00:54:10And that, I think, Mr. Logan,

00:54:11is all that had better be said relating to the contents of that telephone call.

00:54:16Yes, my lord.

00:54:17My lord, I would now like to re-examine Superintendent Walker.

00:54:20May I take it that you have no objection, Mr. Fryer?

00:54:22No, my lord.

00:54:23Very well.

00:54:25Now, Superintendent, you're still on oath.

00:54:27The court has already heard that 16 months ago,

00:54:29Inspector Clegg proposed a payment of 250 pounds

00:54:32to a person identified in the same way as this caller.

00:54:35That is correct.

00:54:36And you rejected that proposal?

00:54:38Yes, sir.

00:54:39Now, do informants ever give information free?

00:54:42Yes, sir.

00:54:43But in my experience,

00:54:45no informant would give this sort of information

00:54:48without a substantial something in his pocket.

00:54:51Yes, if Inspector Clegg had made such a substantial payment off his own bat,

00:54:56how would he recover his money?

00:54:58He couldn't, unless he could show some results.

00:55:01And there were no results until today?

00:55:03No, sir.

00:55:03But if the pressures in the meantime were such that he could not afford to wait,

00:55:08was there any other way he could recoup his loss?

00:55:11I don't know how to answer that, sir.

00:55:13Well, was there anyone he could appeal to?

00:55:16Apart from myself, no, sir.

00:55:18Was it possible for him to recover his loss

00:55:20by making an equivalent increase in the amount of his expenses?

00:55:25It would be possible until it was found out.

00:55:29Mr. Prye?

00:55:34Mr. Prye,

00:55:35do you wish for time to consider this new evidence?

00:55:39No, my lord, I've been given my instructions.

00:55:41They are, I may say, concise.

00:55:45Superintendent, you must be feeling very pleased at this moment.

00:55:48Sir?

00:55:49I hope I may refer to your efforts before arriving in court today

00:55:52as highly successful.

00:55:54Yes, sir, you could say that.

00:55:56Yes.

00:55:56And yet the success you claim is due entirely to one man,

00:55:58the defendant, Inspector William Clegg.

00:56:01There were other officers who played their part.

00:56:03Oh, yes, I see that.

00:56:04Mr. Lewis, I see.

00:56:05There's the scars of his efforts.

00:56:07Nevertheless, had it not been for the defendant,

00:56:09for his foresight in sniffing out a hunch over a year ago,

00:56:12for his persistence in playing that hunch

00:56:14when you refused to allow him to do so,

00:56:16for his tenacity in remaining silent

00:56:17when one word would have eased his situation here,

00:56:20had it not been for all that, Superintendent,

00:56:22you would not now be congratulating yourself

00:56:24on having brought a gang of dangerous criminals to justice.

00:56:27Is that not the case?

00:56:29Yes, sir, that is the case.

00:56:31Yes.

00:56:32Now, you say that, in your opinion,

00:56:34substantial sums had been paid in advance

00:56:37to Mr. Clegg's informant.

00:56:39How substantial?

00:56:41I'm not able to say, sir.

00:56:43Well, the sum of £250 has been mentioned?

00:56:46Could it have been less than that?

00:56:47£100, £50, even £10?

00:56:50No informant's going to grass on a heavy mob for £10.

00:56:52It wouldn't be worth risking his neck.

00:56:56Superintendent,

00:56:57were you at any time aware

00:56:59that the defendant had paid this informant

00:57:02out of his own pocket?

00:57:03He never told me.

00:57:05Well, what would you have done if you had known?

00:57:08Nothing.

00:57:09If it was his own money,

00:57:11he could chuck it down the drain.

00:57:12You wouldn't have done anything

00:57:13to help him make good the loss?

00:57:14I mean, Superintendent,

00:57:15by lending him the money,

00:57:16or even by offering to share the burden of the loss.

00:57:18He is, after all, your daughter's husband.

00:57:21Any time he wanted money from me personally,

00:57:23he could have had it.

00:57:24I see.

00:57:25He's too proud to take your money.

00:57:28Would he take your advice?

00:57:30Superintendent,

00:57:31have you at any time

00:57:31discussed ways and means

00:57:33of recovering such a loss?

00:57:35No, sir.

00:57:35Did you never?

00:57:36What?

00:57:39What happened?

00:57:41Oh.

00:57:43Mr. Fry,

00:57:44are you finished?

00:57:46I beg your Lordship's pardon.

00:57:47I have no further questions

00:57:49for this witness.

00:57:50Mr. Logan.

00:57:51No further re-examination, my Lord.

00:57:53Very well, you may step down, Superintendent.

00:57:55Thank you, my Lord.

00:57:57My Lord, the defendant should now be recalled.

00:57:59Yes, Mr. Fry,

00:57:59and I think it would be proper

00:58:01for the prosecution

00:58:02to put the questions

00:58:03fast on points arising

00:58:05from the fresh evidence.

00:58:08The defence may then have the final word.

00:58:10Yes, my Lord.

00:58:12Turn to the witness box, please, Mr. Craig.

00:58:17You are still on oath, of course.

00:58:26Yes, my Lord.

00:58:27Now, Mr. Clegg,

00:58:28you heard of the telephone call

00:58:29received yesterday

00:58:30from an informant identified as Harry.

00:58:32Yeah.

00:58:33And the court previously heard

00:58:34of your dealings

00:58:35with a person similarly named.

00:58:36Would they be one and the same person?

00:58:38Well, it'd have to be, wouldn't they?

00:58:40It has to be one and the same man.

00:58:41Why is that?

00:58:43Oh, put 10p into a chocolate machine

00:58:46and what comes out

00:58:46is a 10p bar of chocolate.

00:58:49As I understand your analogy, then,

00:58:50you put 10p

00:58:52in a slot machine called Harry

00:58:53and what came out yesterday

00:58:55was the information you'd paid for,

00:58:57which led in turn

00:58:58to a successful arrest.

00:58:59It's a good 10 pennies worth.

00:59:01I'd say so.

00:59:02If it was 10 pennies,

00:59:04was that all you gave to Harry?

00:59:07In a manner of speaking.

00:59:08I suggest you gave him considerably more.

00:59:09Not considerably more.

00:59:10You asked for 250 pounds.

00:59:12Yeah, but I had it refused.

00:59:13Did you consider

00:59:13that Superintendent Walker

00:59:14was wrong in rejecting your proposition?

00:59:16I never said so.

00:59:17But he was wrong, was he not?

00:59:19Not by his light.

00:59:20But in the light of what has happened

00:59:21between yesterday and this morning,

00:59:22he was wrong, was he not?

00:59:23The facts speak for themselves.

00:59:25The facts indeed speak for themselves.

00:59:27The superintendent was wrong.

00:59:29Dead wrong.

00:59:30And why on earth

00:59:31should you have thrown away

00:59:32this opportunity

00:59:32of proving yourself,

00:59:34of winning back

00:59:34your lost promotion prospects,

00:59:36of dispelling the cloud

00:59:37cast upon your

00:59:38domestic affairs,

00:59:40of gaining a rank

00:59:42that would have compelled

00:59:43Inspector Deakin

00:59:44kindly to click his heels

00:59:45when he wished to speak to you?

00:59:47Now, why should you

00:59:47throw away the chance

00:59:49of bringing off

00:59:50the major coup

00:59:51that would have achieved

00:59:51all this

00:59:52just because

00:59:53of the hindrance

00:59:54of someone

00:59:55who was dead wrong?

00:59:57I don't know.

00:59:58Why should I?

00:59:59Because of the rules,

01:00:01Mr. Clegg.

01:00:02The proper procedure

01:00:03is that you do not

01:00:04pay out large sums

01:00:05of money to informants

01:00:07without the authorisation

01:00:08of your senior officer.

01:00:10But you prefer to ignore

01:00:11proper procedure,

01:00:12don't you?

01:00:13No, I bend the rules

01:00:15sometimes, yes.

01:00:16Bend them or break them?

01:00:19Oh, that's too fine

01:00:21a distinction for me.

01:00:23Well, I'll endeavour

01:00:23to explain it to you.

01:00:25I suggest, Mr. Clegg,

01:00:26that you were bending the rules

01:00:27in paying your informant

01:00:29without authorisation.

01:00:31You were breaking the rules

01:00:32in endeavouring

01:00:33to get your money back

01:00:34by a deliberate deception.

01:00:36Now, does that make

01:00:37the distinction clear to you?

01:00:39Or is it your contention

01:00:40that it's only criminals

01:00:41who break the rules?

01:00:43Police officers

01:00:44merely bend them.

01:00:48As I have only one more point

01:00:49to put to you, Mr. Clegg,

01:00:50in the light of yesterday's

01:00:51telephone call from Harry

01:00:52and this morning's

01:00:53successful police operations

01:00:54consequent on that call,

01:00:56will you now be putting in

01:00:57a claim for the money

01:00:58due to your informant?

01:00:59No, I won't.

01:01:00Why not, Mr. Clegg?

01:01:01Would it be that the

01:01:02necessary transfers of money

01:01:04from you to the informant

01:01:06and from police funds

01:01:06to you have already

01:01:07taken place?

01:01:09There's no further questions,

01:01:11my lord.

01:01:12Mr. Clegg, there is, I believe,

01:01:13a basis of mutual confidence

01:01:15in all dealings

01:01:16with informants.

01:01:17You treat them square,

01:01:18they do the same by you.

01:01:19Is that correct?

01:01:20With some informants, yes.

01:01:22In order to gain

01:01:22their confidence,

01:01:23you must ensure

01:01:24that they have complete

01:01:25trust in your good faith.

01:01:27Yes.

01:01:28Well, I intend to respect

01:01:29the nature of that trust

01:01:30and refrain from pressing

01:01:31you on any further details

01:01:32than we have already heard.

01:01:33That, I believe,

01:01:34is what you would wish.

01:01:35Yes, it is.

01:01:36There is also, I believe,

01:01:37a measure of trust

01:01:38between you and your colleagues.

01:01:40Well, there has to be,

01:01:41isn't there?

01:01:41Yes.

01:01:42In order to do your job,

01:01:43you occasionally

01:01:44have to bend the rules.

01:01:46In bending the rules,

01:01:47you must occasionally

01:01:48have their tacit consent.

01:01:50Well, uh,

01:01:51well, they sometimes

01:01:52might know of it, yes.

01:01:54Consent which,

01:01:54if spoken openly

01:01:55by a senior officer,

01:01:56would amount

01:01:56to official approval.

01:01:57Look, I'm not sure

01:02:00I actually...

01:02:00But which inconfidence

01:02:02can be covered

01:02:02by the proviso

01:02:03you do it your own way, lad,

01:02:04but on your own head,

01:02:05be it, if you get found out,

01:02:06don't come hollering to me.

01:02:08Is that, in general,

01:02:09the kind of confidence

01:02:10which passes

01:02:10between detective officers?

01:02:14Or is it your wish

01:02:15that I should refrain

01:02:16from pressing you

01:02:17on that subject, too?

01:02:18It is, yes.

01:02:19Is it in any event

01:02:20your contention

01:02:21that these confidences

01:02:22have no bearing

01:02:23on the issues before us?

01:02:25None whatsoever, no.

01:02:26So the only reason

01:02:28for your expense claims

01:02:30being in error

01:02:31is your admitted failure

01:02:32to keep immediate

01:02:33and detailed records?

01:02:35Yes.

01:02:36Do you still claim

01:02:37that even allowing

01:02:38for individual errors,

01:02:41the sum totals

01:02:42that you recovered

01:02:43was no more

01:02:44than the sum

01:02:44of the amounts

01:02:45you had spent?

01:02:46No more at all, no.

01:02:47And do you still claim

01:02:48that you have never

01:02:49intentionally recovered

01:02:50from public funds

01:02:51one penny more

01:02:52than you knew

01:02:52you were entitled

01:02:53to receive?

01:02:54Not even a hate pay, no.

01:03:15Members of the jury,

01:03:16the task before you

01:03:17should not be difficult.

01:03:19Much of the prosecution

01:03:20evidence goes unchallenged.

01:03:22All that is challenged

01:03:24is the matter of intent.

01:03:26The defendant says,

01:03:27in effect,

01:03:28I did not mean to do it.

01:03:31Let us consider

01:03:32I did not mean to do it

01:03:33as implying

01:03:34that the defendant

01:03:34was under such stresses

01:03:35that he was not wholly

01:03:36responsible for his actions.

01:03:38What were those stresses?

01:03:40Promotion deferred?

01:03:42Pressures of routine work?

01:03:44Some domestic argy-barging?

01:03:46Ladies and gentlemen

01:03:47of the jury,

01:03:47which of you

01:03:48has not been subjected

01:03:49to similar stresses

01:03:50and I am sure

01:03:51refrain from using them

01:03:53as excuses

01:03:53to commit crimes?

01:03:56Now, what possibilities

01:03:56does this leave?

01:03:57The defendant admits

01:03:58his accounting errors.

01:04:00Can it be that

01:04:01in his confusion

01:04:02he did not mean

01:04:02to make so many

01:04:03or allow the sum

01:04:05of those errors

01:04:06to amount to as much

01:04:07as 237 pounds?

01:04:09Or can it be

01:04:10that he did not mean

01:04:11to make his falsification

01:04:12so clumsily

01:04:13as to be found out?

01:04:17Let's look at the evidence.

01:04:19A number of errors

01:04:20were found

01:04:20in the defendant's expense sheets

01:04:21and when challenged

01:04:22the defendant admitted

01:04:23that he had failed

01:04:24to keep accurate records

01:04:25of his actual expenditures

01:04:27and you may well conclude

01:04:28that he in fact

01:04:29invented imaginary ones instead.

01:04:32We need surely go no further

01:04:33to establish the offense

01:04:34of obtaining money

01:04:35by deception.

01:04:37Which brings me

01:04:38to my main point.

01:04:40Is the defendant

01:04:41speaking the truth

01:04:42or is he lying?

01:04:44Now members of the jury

01:04:45I ask you to draw

01:04:46your own conclusion

01:04:47from the additional evidence

01:04:48presented today.

01:04:50The defendant

01:04:51consistently denies

01:04:52that he ever made

01:04:53unauthorized payments

01:04:54to his informant Harry

01:04:56yet that informant

01:04:58yesterday

01:04:58gave information

01:05:00of inestimable value

01:05:01to the police.

01:05:01Now why would he do that

01:05:02unless he'd been paid?

01:05:05You may well conclude

01:05:06that that is one lie

01:05:08told by the defendant

01:05:09and it may lead you

01:05:10to consider very carefully

01:05:11another statement

01:05:12in which he has persisted.

01:05:14That he had not obtained

01:05:15from police funds

01:05:16one halfpenny more

01:05:18than his full entitlement.

01:05:20Yet Superintendent Walker

01:05:21testified that the

01:05:22237 pounds

01:05:24was in excess

01:05:26of what the defendant

01:05:26could reasonably

01:05:27be expected to claim

01:05:28over the period

01:05:29in question.

01:05:31In 10 months

01:05:32237 pounds.

01:05:35That's 23 pounds 70

01:05:36per month.

01:05:37More than 5 pounds

01:05:38per week.

01:05:40Now you may consider

01:05:40that a regular supplement

01:05:42to one's normal income

01:05:43and expense allowance

01:05:44of 5 pounds per week

01:05:46could only be obtained

01:05:47by a systematic

01:05:48and deliberate attempt

01:05:49to obtain money

01:05:50by fraudulent means.

01:05:52Members of the jury

01:05:53I submit to you

01:05:54that on the evidence

01:05:54there is only one verdict

01:05:55you can bring in

01:05:56and that is guilty.

01:05:58May it please you Lordship.

01:06:00Members of the jury.

01:06:00The crown of our legal system

01:06:03is that an accused man

01:06:04is not tried

01:06:05by a panel of experts

01:06:06whose understanding

01:06:08is limited by their

01:06:08strict interpretation

01:06:09of the law.

01:06:11He's tried by a jury

01:06:12of ordinary men and women

01:06:13who bring their varied

01:06:14experience to bear

01:06:15upon an assessment

01:06:16of the evidence.

01:06:17Now I suggest

01:06:18that you do this

01:06:19first of all

01:06:19by considering that part

01:06:20of the evidence

01:06:21which is agreed

01:06:21by both prosecution

01:06:22and defence.

01:06:24The defendant does not

01:06:25deny that in making up

01:06:26his expense claims

01:06:27from memory

01:06:27certain errors

01:06:28of amounts

01:06:29of dates

01:06:30and even of details

01:06:31may have crept in.

01:06:32You've heard his explanation

01:06:33of the stresses

01:06:34he was under at the time.

01:06:36You've heard

01:06:36in Superintendent Walker's

01:06:37explanation

01:06:38that even at the best

01:06:39of times

01:06:40no detective officer

01:06:41is ever expected

01:06:42to keep the same

01:06:42meticulous records

01:06:43of petty cash expenditure

01:06:45as would be kept

01:06:46by a uniformed clerk

01:06:47in the comfort

01:06:48and tranquility

01:06:49of his office.

01:06:51Now you will bring

01:06:51your common experience

01:06:52to bear upon

01:06:53your understanding of this

01:06:54and if you find

01:06:54that a sufficient explanation

01:06:56you need go no further

01:06:57to find the defendant

01:06:58not guilty

01:06:59of the offences

01:07:00as charged.

01:07:02However

01:07:02let us suppose

01:07:03that you do go further

01:07:04to consider that part

01:07:05of the evidence

01:07:05which is in dispute

01:07:06the defendant's

01:07:08insistence

01:07:08that whether he made up

01:07:09his expense claims

01:07:10in the cold

01:07:12or in the warm

01:07:12whilst pursuing

01:07:13a dangerous criminal

01:07:14or safely back

01:07:15at headquarters

01:07:16whether the details

01:07:17included one return

01:07:18ticket to Manchester

01:07:19or two singles

01:07:20to Salford

01:07:20the total amount

01:07:22claimed was no more

01:07:23than the total amount

01:07:23spent.

01:07:24That is what he says.

01:07:26Now

01:07:26you will bear in mind

01:07:28that you are bound

01:07:29to accept his word

01:07:31for that

01:07:31unless the prosecution

01:07:32can prove otherwise.

01:07:34The burden of proof

01:07:35is on the prosecution.

01:07:37And what evidence

01:07:39have they offered

01:07:39to the contrary?

01:07:41Simply that the defendant's

01:07:42expense claims

01:07:43were higher than those

01:07:44of an average detective officer

01:07:46engaged in similar duties.

01:07:47But ladies and gentlemen

01:07:48Inspector Clegg

01:07:50is not by anyone's account

01:07:51an average

01:07:51run-of-the-mill officer.

01:07:53Witness his foresight

01:07:54in pursuing a line

01:07:56of inquiry

01:07:56without the support

01:07:57of his senior officer

01:07:57despite the burden

01:07:58placed upon him

01:07:59by that lack of support

01:08:00despite the need

01:08:01to keep that burden

01:08:02to himself

01:08:02until his persistence

01:08:04resulted in the

01:08:04successful police operation

01:08:06of which you have

01:08:06had intimation

01:08:07in this court today.

01:08:10Ladies and gentlemen

01:08:10if the defendant's

01:08:11expense claims

01:08:12were marginally higher

01:08:14than those of his colleagues

01:08:14I suggest it is because

01:08:16he was giving a better value

01:08:17than his colleagues

01:08:18for every penny

01:08:19of that extra amount

01:08:20was spent in the vigorous

01:08:21pursuit of his proper duties.

01:08:22Ladies and gentlemen

01:08:24I shall not try

01:08:24your patience any further

01:08:25suffice it to say

01:08:26that all the evidence

01:08:27points unwaveringly

01:08:28to a verdict

01:08:29of not guilty.

01:08:32Members of the jury

01:08:32I told you

01:08:33during the hearing

01:08:34that I would direct you

01:08:35on the law

01:08:36and would pay

01:08:37particular regard

01:08:38to the question

01:08:38of intent.

01:08:40Now

01:08:40you have heard

01:08:42the defendant say

01:08:42that he did

01:08:43commit certain errors

01:08:45on his expense sheet.

01:08:47You have heard

01:08:48and you have

01:08:48documentary evidence

01:08:49of the extent

01:08:50of those errors.

01:08:51Now

01:08:52that is not

01:08:53disputed.

01:08:54What is disputed

01:08:55is whether the defendant

01:08:56deliberately made

01:08:58those errors

01:08:59in order to obtain

01:09:00sums of money

01:09:01which he had

01:09:02no right

01:09:03to receive.

01:09:05Now

01:09:05Detective Superintendent

01:09:06Walker

01:09:07testified that

01:09:09the total amounts

01:09:09claimed were

01:09:10considerably more

01:09:11than could be

01:09:12accounted for

01:09:12by the defendant's

01:09:13legitimate pursuit

01:09:14of his duties.

01:09:16That is a matter

01:09:17of experienced

01:09:19assessment

01:09:19and you will

01:09:20consider it

01:09:21as such.

01:09:22You will also

01:09:23consider

01:09:23Superintendent Walker's

01:09:25further testimony.

01:09:27He said that he

01:09:28did not authorize

01:09:29payments to an

01:09:30informant

01:09:31identified as

01:09:32Harry.

01:09:33Now did

01:09:34the defendant

01:09:34make payments

01:09:36to that informant

01:09:37from his private

01:09:38resources

01:09:38without authority?

01:09:40Did he then

01:09:41try to recover

01:09:42his private losses

01:09:43through public funds?

01:09:45Pluried

01:09:47defence counsel

01:09:48implied that

01:09:49provided the

01:09:50money obtained

01:09:51was spent on

01:09:53police duties

01:09:53of any kind

01:09:54then your verdict

01:09:56should be one

01:09:56of not guilty.

01:09:58That is only so

01:09:59if the expenditure

01:10:00was properly

01:10:02authorised.

01:10:04You may well

01:10:05want to ask

01:10:05yourself these

01:10:06questions.

01:10:06One

01:10:07was the total

01:10:08amount claimed

01:10:09by the defendant

01:10:10in excess of

01:10:11what he had

01:10:12properly spent?

01:10:13to was that

01:10:15excess obtained

01:10:16by deliberate

01:10:18deceit?

01:10:19Now if you

01:10:20think beyond

01:10:21reasonable doubt

01:10:22that the answer

01:10:23to those two

01:10:23questions is yes

01:10:24then your verdict

01:10:26must be one

01:10:26of guilty.

01:10:27If you should

01:10:28have any

01:10:29reasonable doubt

01:10:30then your

01:10:32verdict would

01:10:33be not guilty.

01:10:34Members of the

01:10:35jury will you

01:10:36kindly retire now

01:10:37to consider

01:10:38your verdict.

01:10:40All stand.

01:10:43Members of the

01:10:49jury will your

01:10:50foreman please

01:10:50stand.

01:10:51Just answer this

01:10:52question yes or

01:10:53no.

01:10:53Have you reached a

01:10:54verdict on which

01:10:55you are all agreed?

01:10:56Yes.

01:10:56On the charge of

01:10:57obtaining money by

01:10:58deception do you

01:10:59find the defendant

01:11:00guilty or not

01:11:01guilty?

01:11:02Guilty.

01:11:03Is that the

01:11:03verdict of you

01:11:04all?

01:11:04Yes.

01:11:07William James

01:11:07Clegg your

01:11:08counsel has put

01:11:09forward the

01:11:09mitigating plea

01:11:10that you bent

01:11:11the law for

01:11:12what you perceive

01:11:12to be the

01:11:13justifiable purpose

01:11:14of enforcing

01:11:15the law.

01:11:16I cannot

01:11:17entertain that

01:11:17paradox.

01:11:19That is the

01:11:19first step upon

01:11:20a slippery slope

01:11:21that leads down

01:11:23to the excesses

01:11:23of the police

01:11:24state.

01:11:25You held a

01:11:27position of

01:11:27particular trust

01:11:28that must not

01:11:29be abused.

01:11:31The offences you

01:11:31committed were

01:11:32deliberate and

01:11:32prolonged.

01:11:33So were the

01:11:34lies with which

01:11:35you attempted to

01:11:35disguise those

01:11:36offences.

01:11:37There was no

01:11:38excuse for them.

01:11:39There was no

01:11:40need for them.

01:11:40other than

01:11:41your own

01:11:41self-will.

01:11:43You will go to

01:11:44prison for two

01:11:45years.

01:11:45You can join us

01:12:10again next week

01:12:11when our cameras

01:12:11return to watch

01:12:12another leading

01:12:13case in the

01:12:14Crown Court.

01:12:15office.

01:12:16You can join us

01:12:16again next week

01:12:17to watch

01:12:17another leading

01:12:18case in the

01:12:19case in the

01:12:20case in the

01:12:21case in the

01:12:21case.

01:12:21You can join us

01:12:22again next week

01:12:23and we'll see

01:12:23next week.

01:12:23We'll see you next week

01:12:24next week.

Crown Court - No Stranger in Court (1974)

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended