Crown Court - Corruption (1974) - video Dailymotion

Jezza

Crown Court: the gripping courtroom drama from the 1970s and 1980s.  John Stainsby and Stanley Reading are jointly charged with corruption. Stainsby, the County Planning Officer, is alleged to have received bribes from Reading to secure his firm's contracts to design the new Council Administration Building. Reginald Marsh (Coronation Street, Terry and June, The Good Life, etc.) and Ralph Michael (Miss Marple, Murder Most Foul) star as the defendants.

Transcript

00:00:00John Stainsby and Stanley Redding are charred jointly with corruption.

00:00:26Stainsby, as County Planning Officer for Moorland County Council, is alleged to have received

00:00:33gifts from Stanley Redding, an architect intended as a bribe to secure Redding's firm

00:00:38the contract to design the new Council Administration Centre.

00:00:56You are Stephen Amaris of 34 Mayflower Road, Fulchester?

00:01:12I am.

00:01:13Yes, and you are present a lecturer in town and country planning at Fulchester University.

00:01:17Environmental Studies, with emphasis on planning methodology and strategic planning.

00:01:22Yes.

00:01:24Prior to that, were you employed by Moorland County Council as an Assistant Planning Officer?

00:01:30Yes.

00:01:31And who is your immediate superior, the County Planning Officer, during your employment?

00:01:35Mr Stainsby.

00:01:36The First Defendant, John Stainsby?

00:01:39Yes.

00:01:40Now, did you work closely with him, almost in the capacity of a personal assistant?

00:01:44Yes.

00:01:44Can you recall the events of the afternoon on Friday, January the 4th of this year?

00:01:50Yes.

00:01:50I attended a meeting called by the Clerk to the Council.

00:01:54I was there with Mr Stainsby and other parties interested in the proposed new Council offices

00:01:58that were in the planning stage.

00:01:59The new Council offices being the Administration Centre for Local Government in Moorland?

00:02:03Yes.

00:02:04And why was this meeting called?

00:02:06Mr Stainsby queried the choice of private architect to design the new Council offices.

00:02:11The County Architect had chosen Flint Makepeace and Mr Stainsby disagreed with him.

00:02:15Yes.

00:02:15And this meeting was called to thrash out the matter?

00:02:17Yes.

00:02:18Yes.

00:02:18Now, who else was present at this meeting?

00:02:21The Clerk, myself, County Treasurer, the Estates Committee representative and the County Architect.

00:02:28Yes.

00:02:28Now, disregarding yourself, of the four members present besides the defendant, was there anybody

00:02:32else who, at the start of the meeting, favoured Mr Stainsby's choice?

00:02:36No.

00:02:37Mr Stainsby advocated that Licence, Mr Redding's firm, should be given the contract.

00:02:42He said that the Council had used Redding's on the swimming baths and on the new Slade Comprehensive

00:02:46School, and there was no reason to doubt their ability to design the new Council offices.

00:02:51And what was the conclusion of this meeting, Mr Amos?

00:02:53To recommend back to the main Policy Committee of the Council that Licence be given the contract.

00:02:59So, Mr Stainsby got his way with the meeting?

00:03:01Yes.

00:03:02Yes.

00:03:03Now, did you occasionally assist Mr Stainsby in a private capacity?

00:03:06Yes.

00:03:07And did you have occasion to visit Mr Stainsby's house in October 1973?

00:03:11Yes.

00:03:12He was taking me to a site conference, and we stopped off at his house.

00:03:16He said he'd just had a carpet delivered, and he wanted to make sure it was all right,

00:03:19as there was no one in the house.

00:03:21And did Mr Stainsby say anything about the carpet, its nature, value?

00:03:25Yes.

00:03:25He said it was Persian and worth a bob or two.

00:03:28Those were the actual words he used.

00:03:30Yes.

00:03:31Now, was there anyone else in the house while you were there?

00:03:34Yes, Mr Redding, the other defendant.

00:03:36And did you know who had sent the carpet to the house?

00:03:39Yes, Mr Redding.

00:03:40How do you know that?

00:03:42Well, Mr Redding asked Mr Stainsby if he liked the carpet.

00:03:45He talked about its origins and where he got it from, and he said,

00:03:49well, he repeated once or twice that he didn't need it.

00:03:52I think Mr Redding said this for my benefit.

00:03:54He seemed embarrassed at me being there.

00:03:56Yes, Mr Amorist, don't tell us your assumptions.

00:03:58Only state what you saw or heard.

00:04:01Is that clear?

00:04:01Yes.

00:04:02All right.

00:04:03Yes, now, do you know whether Mr Redding delivered the carpet personally,

00:04:06or had he arranged for it to be delivered?

00:04:07A van delivered, and I saw it leaving as we got there.

00:04:10Mr Redding came along just to check that it arrived safely.

00:04:13Yes.

00:04:13Now, let's move on to January 1974.

00:04:16Can you remember being with Mr Stainsby in January 1974?

00:04:19Yes, on a number of occasions.

00:04:21But on January the 10th, I was with Mr Stainsby at the Dawson Hotel in London.

00:04:26We were staying there overnight and attending a conference the next day.

00:04:28This was a conference you were attending as representatives of Moreland County Council?

00:04:32Yes.

00:04:33So, many of the expenses incurred in travel and hotel would be paid by the council?

00:04:38Yes, for the two days.

00:04:40Now, did you return on January the 11th as expected?

00:04:44No, we didn't.

00:04:45Mr Redding was at the conference.

00:04:47He offered us a chance to stay on for another couple of days, till the Saturday, and at his own expense.

00:04:55And he'd lay on a theatre show, a meal and so on.

00:04:57And did you accept this invitation?

00:04:59Well, I didn't, but Mr Stainsby did, and I could hardly refuse.

00:05:02I didn't want to upset anybody.

00:05:05Yes, he was your superior officer, and you wanted to fit in with what he wanted.

00:05:09Yes, in a way.

00:05:11I see.

00:05:12Now, will you tell the Caldway we're on the evening of January the 11th?

00:05:16I was with Mr Stainsby and Mr Redding in a flat belonging to a friend of theirs,

00:05:20just round the corner from Barclay Square.

00:05:23It was a social evening.

00:05:24We've been to the theatre.

00:05:24Yes, yes, yes.

00:05:25Now, what happened in this flat?

00:05:30Mr Redding gave me an envelope.

00:05:33Will you tell the Cald the exact circumstances in which this occurred, please, Mr Amos?

00:05:37I was in the kitchen on my own, and Mr Redding came in with this envelope.

00:05:40Would you describe this envelope, please?

00:05:42Brown, quarto size, and bulky.

00:05:47And did Mr Redding say anything to you?

00:05:49Yes.

00:05:49He said, would I give it to Mr Stainsby?

00:05:52But Mr Stainsby was there.

00:05:53Why didn't Mr Redding give it to him personally?

00:05:55No, Mr Stainsby hadn't been feeling well, and he'd gone home back to the hotel without saying goodbye.

00:06:00Mr Redding said he couldn't take the envelope to him himself, as he had a plane to catch us first thing in the morning,

00:06:05and he wanted to get some sleep, and he couldn't post it. It was too late.

00:06:09I see.

00:06:10And what did you do then?

00:06:11I went back to the hotel, and I gave Mr Stainsby the envelope.

00:06:14Which he accepted?

00:06:15Yes.

00:06:16You told him who it was from?

00:06:17Yes.

00:06:18And did he say anything to you?

00:06:20Yes, he said, this will take care of the hotel expenses.

00:06:23This will take care of the hotel expenses, yes.

00:06:26Now, did you find what this envelope contained?

00:06:28Yes, the next morning, Saturday.

00:06:30Mr Stainsby was downstairs, and I went into his bedroom, and I saw the envelope. It was open.

00:06:37The bedroom was open, as well as the envelope?

00:06:40No, the envelope was open. We'd been given a suite with interconnecting doors.

00:06:45I see.

00:06:46Now, what did you do when you saw that the envelope had been opened?

00:06:50I looked inside. There was a thousand pounds.

00:06:54You counted it? What, in five pound notes?

00:06:58Pound notes?

00:06:58There were a hundred ten-pound notes.

00:07:01Why did you do this, Mr Amris? Why did you probe into somebody else's property?

00:07:07Well, I was suspicious. No, more than that, I was convinced that there was bribery going on.

00:07:11There was the new contract for the council offices just being brought out, and, well, I knew Mr Redding's firm would be interested.

00:07:19Did you tell Mr Stainsby that you had seen and counted this money?

00:07:23No.

00:07:25I was working for the council, and Mr Stainsby was my boss.

00:07:28I wanted to leave to work at university, and, of course, I needed a reference.

00:07:31Now, if I'd been wrong, or if it couldn't have been proved...

00:07:35Quite, I understand, Mr Amris.

00:07:36Now, let's move on to May the 27th, 1974.

00:07:40Oh, it's a date which is not in dispute, my lord.

00:07:42Now, were you at Mr Stainsby's house that night?

00:07:45Yes, there was a party.

00:07:47What kind of party?

00:07:48Business friends, mainly.

00:07:49And was Mr Redding present on this occasion?

00:07:52No, he wasn't.

00:07:53Now, this house has a cellar, I believe.

00:07:55Yes, I went down to get some wine. Mr Stainsby asked me to...

00:07:58Yes, could you see down there? Was there a light?

00:08:00Electric light, yes, I could see very well.

00:08:01And what did you see down in the cellar?

00:08:04There was a crate of wine with a note attached.

00:08:06It was the only crate with a note, so I noticed it.

00:08:08It was from the Vintage Society.

00:08:11Yes, the Vintage Society being an organisation, my lord, to which one subscribes in order to get wine at a discount.

00:08:17And also, I believe it can deliver gifts to friends and so on.

00:08:20Yes, this had a Christmas label for 1973, and it was signed Stanley Redding.

00:08:26Signed?

00:08:27Printed.

00:08:28Yes.

00:08:28Now, will you look at this, please? Exhibit 1, my lord.

00:08:30Now, do you recognise that?

00:08:35Yes.

00:08:36This is the same card I saw in the cellar.

00:08:37Yes, indeed.

00:08:38Now, will you read out what it says, please?

00:08:40To John, compliments of the season and good wishes, Stanley Redding.

00:08:44Yes, my lord, there is no dispute as to the value of the wine, which was £25, which, together with the carpet, £869, the two days in the hotel, £40, and the money in the envelope, £1,000, adds up to a total of £1,935.

00:08:59I have it as £1,934.

00:09:04Your arithmetic is almost as good as mine.

00:09:07Hey, Mr Golding.

00:09:09Ah, yes, indeed, my lord, my apologies.

00:09:12£1,934.

00:09:16Mr Amoris, these gifts, you testify, were made between October 1973 and January 12, 1974, a period of three months.

00:09:24And the Moreland County Council advertised their plan for the building of the new council offices during this same period?

00:09:30Yes.

00:09:31January 1, 1974.

00:09:33Yes, but, of course, a number of people, Mr Stainsbury included, would have known of the council's intention months before.

00:09:38Mr Stainsbury, certainly a year before.

00:09:40And Mr Redding?

00:09:41Could have known at the same time.

00:09:41My lord, this is pure speculation as to whether or not Mr Redding knew of the council's intentions.

00:09:46Thank you, Mr Amoris.

00:09:47Mr Amoris, you appreciate that without your evidence, the prosecution would have no case?

00:09:56Well, do you appreciate that?

00:09:59Yes, I suppose so.

00:10:00Yes, well, we've heard you describe yourself as, in some ways, acting as Mr Stainsbury's personal assistant.

00:10:06But don't you think it's unusual, almost curious, that on three separate occasions,

00:10:12first with the carpet, then with the hotel and the envelope, and finally with the wine,

00:10:17you were present, and indeed almost singled out as if by fate, to stumble on the misbehaviour of my client.

00:10:24Do I think it odd? No.

00:10:26Well, let's take the incident of the envelope at the hotel.

00:10:29Now, Mr Amoris, that whole story is a complete fabrication, and without any substance whatsoever.

00:10:35Is that not so?

00:10:36No.

00:10:37All right, well, where was the envelope when you first saw it?

00:10:40It was lying on the dressing table.

00:10:42I see.

00:10:42Mr Stainsbury, you're saying Mr Stainsbury left an open envelope containing a £1,000 bribe

00:10:49lying on a dressing table in a hotel room.

00:10:51We were packing.

00:10:53Mr Stainsbury was downstairs, and obviously he'd forgotten.

00:10:55I came in through the connecting door.

00:10:57The door to the corridor was locked.

00:10:58Yes, but even so, I'm sure Mr Stainsbury would be well aware that hotel staff had pass keys to his room.

00:11:04And are you saying that Mr Redding handed over a £1,000 bribe to a third party?

00:11:10Yes.

00:11:11Yes.

00:11:11And when you handed over the envelope, Mr Stainsbury said,

00:11:14this will take care of the hotel expenses.

00:11:17That's what he said.

00:11:18Yes, well, if all you're saying is true,

00:11:21Mr Stainsbury seemed to be doing everything he could to provide evidence that he was being bribed.

00:11:26For instance, when you accompanied him to his house about the carpet,

00:11:29you say he said, it's worth a bob or two?

00:11:32That's what he said.

00:11:33Well, the jury may well think it's strange

00:11:35that a man intent on being bribed invites a witness to the scene of the bribery,

00:11:41and especially a witness who was a public employee working for the same employer.

00:11:46Now, when did you first report these incidents to the police?

00:11:50May the 28th, 1974.

00:11:53Did you say that you knew about the carpet and the £1,000 in January, four months before?

00:12:00Well, why on earth didn't you inform the police on January the 11th?

00:12:03When you found the £1,000, if you were convinced, as you put it, that bribery was taking place?

00:12:09I said before, I wanted to leave the council, and I needed a reference.

00:12:14Now, if it had been proved wrong, I wouldn't have stood much chance, would I?

00:12:17Yes, yes. You wanted a reference from Mr. Stainsby.

00:12:20But once having got that reference, you were quite prepared, as they put it, to shop him to the police.

00:12:25Now, what's your opinion of someone who uses a person for their own ends and then callously throws them overboard?

00:12:30Oh, my lord, I guess, yes, yes, yes, yes, Mr. Goldingham.

00:12:33Mr. Lloyd, that question, I think, is improper.

00:12:36You could rephrase it, but it is a matter of comment, is it not?

00:12:39Yes, my lord, I intend to show that this witness's evidence is motivated and coloured by malice towards my client.

00:12:46If we could come to that expeditiously, Mr. Lloyd.

00:12:48Yes, yes, my lord.

00:12:50Now, Mr. Amriss, the day before you wrote your letter to the police informing them of your suspicions was May the 27th, was it not?

00:12:57Yes.

00:12:57Now, was that not the night that you went down into Mr. Stainsby's cellar?

00:13:01Yes.

00:13:02And on May the 28th, the day you wrote to the police was also the day you wrote your resignation to Moreland County Council?

00:13:09Yes.

00:13:09So, had you secured your job with the university, with the aid of Mr. Stainsby's reference, by this time?

00:13:15Yes.

00:13:16I see.

00:13:17Now, Mr. Amriss, was there something that happened the previous evening, May the 27th, after you'd gone down to the cellar to fetch up some wine?

00:13:26Something that motivated your writing to the police?

00:13:30I don't understand.

00:13:31I'm asking you, please, to tell the court what transpired on the evening of May the 27th.

00:13:38An event so traumatic, so humiliating, it drove you to seek revenge on my client.

00:13:46Oh, come on now, Mr. Amriss.

00:13:49For a man with a good memory, you can't have forgotten the incident.

00:13:53Well, let me refresh your memory.

00:13:56Mr. Stainsby asked you to leave his house, did he not?

00:13:59That wasn't like that.

00:14:00I just want an answer, yes or no.

00:14:02Did Mr. Stainsby ask you to leave his house?

00:14:04Yes.

00:14:05Yes.

00:14:06And he asked you to leave his house, did he not?

00:14:08Because you'd behaved in such a manner as to cause embarrassment and annoyance to Mr. Stainsby in front of his guests.

00:14:14It was an accident.

00:14:14Ah, you remembered what happened then.

00:14:17Good.

00:14:18What was it?

00:14:20I accidentally opened a can of beer which burst and sprayed the room.

00:14:23That was all.

00:14:24That was all.

00:14:25Then Mr. Stainsby asked you to leave his house?

00:14:27Yes.

00:14:28Yes.

00:14:28So because of an accident, you were humiliated to the extent of being turned out of the house.

00:14:34You felt angry, no doubt.

00:14:36The evidence I gave was the truth.

00:14:38You sprayed the room with beer, and then in front of all the guests, you were asked to leave like a small boy from a classroom.

00:14:46You must have felt very bitter.

00:14:49No, the bitter went over the carpet.

00:14:52The one Mr. Redding had given him.

00:14:54He said, look what you've done, that's worth 800 quid.

00:14:56I apologise, but he asked me to leave.

00:14:59Yes, maybe I did feel motivated to write the letter.

00:15:03But what I wrote was the truth.

00:15:08Mr. Amoris, you are aware that Mr. Stainsby and Mr. Redding have been friends for many years.

00:15:24I knew that they knew each other.

00:15:26In fact, their wives and their families were friendly with each other.

00:15:30I suppose so.

00:15:30Yes, well, in those circumstances, the gift of a carpet from one family to another is not so strange, is it?

00:15:37Maybe.

00:15:37Well, you were asked by Mr. Stainsby himself to go to the house and lend a hand with the newly arrived carpet.

00:15:43Now, was there anything to suggest that this was anything more than an innocent gift from one family to another?

00:15:49Perhaps that's what they wanted me to think.

00:15:51Yes, but surely, Mr. Amoris, if Mr. Stainsby had been accepting bribes, he could quite easily have kept you, another council official, out of the picture altogether, couldn't he?

00:16:01I doubt it.

00:16:01I would have seen it in the end.

00:16:02Mr. Amoris, you may well have been his personal assistant, but you didn't spend every waking hour counting his carpets, did you?

00:16:10No.

00:16:11No.

00:16:11Now, we have uncorroborated testimony from you that you were in the kitchen of a flat when Mr. Redding gave you an envelope which you allege contained £1,000 in £10 notes.

00:16:22Now, again, I put it to you that that is a complete and utter fabrication.

00:16:26Obviously, there's no corroboration, because Mr. Redding wouldn't want us to be seen, would he?

00:16:31Oh.

00:16:33Oh, really, Mr. Amoris?

00:16:34Well, you were surely not more nor less involved than any of the other guests.

00:16:38Well, are you saying, then, that Mr. Redding thought that you were in Mr. Stainsby's confidence and that you were involved in the bribery?

00:16:45No, of course not.

00:16:46You've just said that Mr. Redding wouldn't want to be seen, handing over the envelope.

00:16:51Well, if that were the case, presumably, you considered yourself involved in the bribery.

00:16:55And if that were so, then, presumably, you would have refused to accept the envelope.

00:16:59I mean, you told us that your suspicions had been aroused.

00:17:02So, surely, you would have refused.

00:17:05I mean, despite your need for a reference from Mr. Stainsby.

00:17:08Because it's a very serious crime, is it not?

00:17:10Bribery.

00:17:11I said my suspicions were aroused when I saw the contents of the envelope the next day.

00:17:15Oh, I see.

00:17:16So, the carpet, four months earlier, had not aroused your suspicions.

00:17:20Mr. Amrys, I put it to you that you knew full well the carpet and the wine were not sufficient in themselves to add up to any form of bribery.

00:17:30So, when you wrote your letter feeling bitter, you concocted this incredible story of Mr. Redding quite casually handing over to you a thousand pounds to give to your superior officer.

00:17:42Now, that is the case, is it not?

00:17:44I thought about the carpet at the time.

00:17:47But when I wrote the letter, I was principally motivated by the envelope.

00:17:50Yes, yes.

00:17:51Motivated by something that had happened a full four months earlier.

00:17:56Now, May the 27th, what time did you arrive home from Mr. Stainsby's house?

00:18:01I don't know, late. Two, three o'clock.

00:18:04Yes, and when did you actually put pen to paper writing this letter to the police?

00:18:08I wrote it after breakfast the next morning.

00:18:10The same morning, you mean?

00:18:11Yes.

00:18:12So, you wrote the letter within hours of being humiliated by Mr. Stainsby, but four months after the events it described.

00:18:23The evidence I gave was the truth.

00:18:25Is that when you wrote the letter?

00:18:26I wrote it then.

00:18:27Yes.

00:18:28Well, why, if you were so convinced that Mr. Stainsby had accepted a thousand pound bribe four months before?

00:18:33I suggest to you, Mr. Amrys, that when you knew you were leaving the council,

00:18:39you went to the party to dig out what you could to incriminate your superior officer.

00:18:44That's a load of rubbish.

00:18:46Then why did you go into the cellar and poke around until you found the wine with Mr. Redding's greetings card attached to it?

00:18:51I didn't. He asked me to go down and get some champagne.

00:18:53I'm putting it to you, Mr. Amrys, that despite your superior officer's friendliness towards you,

00:18:59he'd invited you to his party, he'd asked you to stay on with him in London,

00:19:02and all this, despite his trust and his faith in you, he'd given you a good reference.

00:19:08You were jealous of him.

00:19:10You disliked him.

00:19:11And knowing you were leaving the council and had nothing to fear,

00:19:14you behaved abominably at this party and you were rightly ejected.

00:19:19You then concocted the story of the wine, the carpet and the envelope

00:19:22in order to bring Mr. Stainsby before this court.

00:19:25That is not true.

00:19:26Mr. Lloyd, I think you're tending to make speeches,

00:19:29and this might be better left for your address to the jury.

00:19:31Mr. Amrys, if I understand counsel at all,

00:19:35I think the question should have been, were you jealous of him?

00:19:39Not jealous, no.

00:19:40But he's a very frightening man.

00:19:42If he'd been not guilty, I'd have been frightened to death.

00:19:44Yes, but according to you, you had definite evidence of guilt,

00:19:47the £1,000 four months before.

00:19:49Now, am I right in thinking that you wanted to leave the council,

00:19:55amongst other reasons,

00:19:56that you so disliked your superior officer, Mr. Stainsby,

00:19:59you wanted to get away from him?

00:20:02Yes.

00:20:03And why didn't you tell the police of the £1,000 in January?

00:20:06You might have got rid of him more quickly.

00:20:08Now, do you take the Guardian newspaper on a daily basis, Mr. Amrys?

00:20:14Yes.

00:20:14Yes, here's a copy of the Guardian newspaper for May the 27th, 1974.

00:20:20Exhibit 2, my lord.

00:20:21Here is.

00:20:22I'd like you to look at the headline.

00:20:24Former head of coal board, fine.

00:20:29It's marked in the red ink, my lord.

00:20:31Mr. Amrys, would you look at the third paragraph in the third column relating to this story?

00:20:38It deals with the case of bribery in local government.

00:20:41Would you please read it out?

00:20:45This envelope raised suspicions of further benefits on this and other visits.

00:20:51There was no evidence of what the envelope contained.

00:20:55Now, the date on that newspaper, you agree, is May 27th, 1974?

00:20:59Yes.

00:20:59No doubt you read that article before attending Mr. Stainsby's party on the evening of the same day.

00:21:06I may have done. I don't remember.

00:21:07It's a remarkable coincidence that you write a letter concerning an envelope used in bribery

00:21:13within 24 hours of a newspaper report dealing with the same thing.

00:21:19It's one of a series of coincidences.

00:21:22The three separate occasions on which you allege a bribery took place

00:21:25and at which you were coincidentally present.

00:21:28And now we have this coincidence.

00:21:32Or was it a coincidence?

00:21:34A bit naive of me, don't you think, to use something in a newspaper the very next day?

00:21:38You admit you were being naive?

00:21:39No, of course not. It would have been stupid.

00:21:42What do they say, Mr. Amrys?

00:21:43Once is happenstance, twice it's coincidence, the third time it's enemy action.

00:21:48There are no further questions, Ma'am.

00:21:51I have no questions, Ma'am.

00:21:52Mr. Amrys, now, you acted as a personal assistant to Mr. Stainsby.

00:21:59Yes.

00:22:00And as a personal assistant, I imagine Mr. Stainsby would not regard you as a security risk

00:22:05for any of his personal arrangements.

00:22:07I shouldn't have thought so.

00:22:08No, of course not.

00:22:09Now, we've heard that Mr. Stainsby asked you to leave his house.

00:22:13But apart from that one incident, was there any other reason why you should have wanted

00:22:18to do him harm?

00:22:20Not at all.

00:22:22He treated you well, did he?

00:22:23Yes.

00:22:24And the reason you did not inform the police earlier of your suspicions was because of

00:22:28this hazard to yourself, should the charges prove unfounded.

00:22:31That is correct.

00:22:32Yes.

00:22:33Does your lordship have any questions?

00:22:34No.

00:22:35Thank you, Mr. Amrys.

00:22:37That concludes the case for the prosecution, my lord.

00:22:39Yes.

00:22:43You are John Edward Stainsby of 18 Lavington Avenue, Fulchester.

00:22:49Yes.

00:22:50And until recently, the county planning officer for Moreland County Council.

00:22:54Yes.

00:22:54What was your salary, Mr. Stainsby?

00:22:56I received £10,000 a year.

00:22:58Yes.

00:22:58Adequate for the provision, not only of the necessities of life, but also many of life's

00:23:03luxuries, would you say?

00:23:04Yes.

00:23:05Now, did you ever feel the need for more money than you actually received during your

00:23:09employ with Moreland County Council?

00:23:10No.

00:23:11Now, we've heard that allegedly gifts were made to you from Stanley Redding, the co-defendant

00:23:17in this case.

00:23:18Gifts, firstly, of a carpet.

00:23:21Do you deny that?

00:23:22No.

00:23:23Then at Christmas, 1973, a gift of wine to the value of £25.

00:23:28Do you deny that?

00:23:29No.

00:23:29And it is alleged that on January the 11th, 1974, you received an envelope containing

00:23:35£1,000 in £10 notes from the accused, Stanley Redding.

00:23:40Do you deny that?

00:23:41Yes.

00:23:41The wine was a perfectly ordinary Christmas gift.

00:23:47If I'd bothered to keep labels, I could have shown that Stanley Redding had made me gifts

00:23:52of wine similar to that over previous occasions of the past years.

00:23:56The carpet, he didn't want, he was moving house, he wouldn't fit anywhere.

00:24:00It was a good carpet, so rather than cut it up, he chose to give it to me.

00:24:04There never was any envelope.

00:24:07The £1,000 is a downright damnable lie.

00:24:10Tomorrow, our cameras return to the Crown Court for the continuation of the case of the Queen

00:24:38against Stainsby and Redding.

00:24:51John Edward Stainsby, former County Planning Officer for Moreland County Council,

00:24:56is charged with accepting bribes from Stanley Redding, an architect in the firm of License.

00:25:01The bribes, it is alleged, were designed to secure License the design contract for the

00:25:06proposed new council offices.

00:25:09The prosecution have produced evidence that gifts of wine, a carpet, hotel expenses, and

00:25:14£1,000 were made by Redding to Stainsby.

00:25:17The defence have maintained that the key prosecution witness is lying in order to seek revenge on

00:25:22Stainsby, his former superior in council employment.

00:25:25It is suggested that Stainsby had humiliated the witness at a party at Stainsby's house.

00:25:30Mr Justice Michener has intervened.

00:25:33You admit receiving these gifts, the carpet and the wine, and yet you plead not guilty.

00:25:41Will you please help the court and tell us why?

00:25:43Because together, my lord, they wouldn't bribe me to give a trampolife of bread.

00:25:48The carpet I didn't need.

00:25:51We have fully fitted carpet throughout the house.

00:25:54The only reason I accepted it was because my nephew was getting married.

00:25:57I thought he might like it.

00:25:59As to the wine, well, I like to think of myself as something of a connoisseur.

00:26:04I have a cellar stocked full of very expensive wines, and the gift from the Vintage Society

00:26:08was of pretty inferior quality.

00:26:10Well, Mr Lloyd, at the risk of putting myself forward as an expert witness, I have to confess

00:26:15that I am a member of the Vintage Society.

00:26:18Though wines are never inferior.

00:26:20Well, I suggest you try mine, my lord.

00:26:22What was the name of the shipper?

00:26:23Oh, I've no idea.

00:26:24Well, then perhaps you're not a connoisseur.

00:26:25Yes, Mr Lloyd?

00:26:27Yes, sir.

00:26:28Thank you, my lord.

00:26:29Mr Stainsbury, if someone gave you £1,000, what would your reaction be?

00:26:36Well, in the first place, I didn't.

00:26:38But if they had done, I wouldn't have left it on a dressing table for everybody to see.

00:26:42And in the second place, if somebody was going to bribe me with money,

00:26:46they would hardly have given it to my support in it.

00:26:48Yes.

00:26:49Now, we've heard how the design contract was offered by the council to licence the architects.

00:26:54Now, before your meeting, called by the county clerk,

00:26:56were you aware that the county architect favoured Flint Makepeace,

00:27:01another firm of architects, for this contract?

00:27:03Yes.

00:27:04And did you attend that meeting with the express purpose of persuading those present

00:27:08to accept licence instead of Flint Makepeace?

00:27:11And if so, why?

00:27:13Do you want a professional or a simple answer?

00:27:16What were your reasons for favouring another firm?

00:27:20Licence had already designed the new bus and the new Slade Comprehensive School,

00:27:25both buildings excellent in design and function,

00:27:28because I thought that they were the best firm for the job.

00:27:31They have functional brilliancy coupled with artistic flair,

00:27:36because they are adaptable, easy to work with and locally based.

00:27:41A simple and professional answer.

00:27:43But if they were so good, why did your fellow council officers prefer another firm?

00:27:48They didn't, my lord.

00:27:49Oh?

00:27:49It was only the county architect who favoured Flint Makepeace.

00:27:54The rest of the meeting were quite neutral.

00:27:56I did not have to sell myself at that meeting.

00:28:00Of course, we all show bias when we're considering contracts.

00:28:04We have to come to a decision.

00:28:06We all have our personal preferences,

00:28:08and we all of us stand in danger of being accused of corruption

00:28:12if we accept a double whisky from the recipient of the contract.

00:28:17Yes.

00:28:18Yes, thank you, my lord.

00:28:19Now, when Licence designed the swimming baths and the Comprehensive School,

00:28:23were you involved in choosing them?

00:28:24Yes.

00:28:25And was there any difference of opinion

00:28:27as to which firm of architects should be chosen on those occasions?

00:28:30No, no.

00:28:31The meeting was quite unanimous in choosing Licence.

00:28:33Yes, and do you know why the county architect on this occasion favoured Flint Makepeace?

00:28:38No.

00:28:39But with respect, I would like to point out

00:28:42that the county architect had more reason

00:28:44and certainly more opportunity to accept bribes than I did.

00:28:47Oh, my lord.

00:28:47Yes, of course, no-one is suggesting

00:28:49that the county architect was involved in anything improper,

00:28:52but we do take your point, Mr Sainsby.

00:28:55Now, it does seem to me, and correct me if I'm wrong,

00:28:57that it was the norm to accept Licence

00:28:59and that bribery was hardly necessary

00:29:02to maintain their relationship with the council.

00:29:04That is quite correct, yes.

00:29:05Yes.

00:29:06Now, on January the 10th, Lars,

00:29:08did Mr Redding ask you to stay two days longer

00:29:11than was necessary in London?

00:29:13Yes.

00:29:13Yes, you were there on council business, were you not?

00:29:15Yes.

00:29:15Now, you accepted that invitation at Mr Redding's expense.

00:29:19Yes.

00:29:20Now, why was that?

00:29:21Because I'd forgotten my chequebook.

00:29:23I refused it first because of that,

00:29:25but, well, it was a very small amount.

00:29:28And I've entertained Stanley Redding and his wife at my house

00:29:31for a week or longer on a number of occasions over the past years.

00:29:34I've spent a good deal more on him

00:29:35than he'd spent on me in two days in a hotel in London.

00:29:37Yes, we'll come to your relationship with Mr Redding in just a moment.

00:29:40Now, am I correct in saying

00:29:41that the gift of the unwanted carpet and the crate of wine

00:29:44were made before the council publicly advertised

00:29:47their intention to build a new council building?

00:29:50Yes.

00:29:50Yes, even before you knew the county architect

00:29:54was going to favour Flint make-piece architects

00:29:56rather than choose, well, what should have been on their past record,

00:29:59the automatic choice of licence, the architects.

00:30:01Yes.

00:30:02Yes.

00:30:03Now, when were you first informed by the county architect

00:30:06of his preference for the contract?

00:30:09New Year's Eve, 1973, December 31st.

00:30:11Yes, and you'd received the carpet two months earlier.

00:30:14Yes.

00:30:14And the wine?

00:30:15A few days before Christmas.

00:30:17So, as far as you were concerned,

00:30:19licence were everyone's favourites for this contract

00:30:22during the period in which you received the gifts,

00:30:24even if you'd had no say in the matter at all?

00:30:26Yes.

00:30:27Yes.

00:30:27And the alleged gift of £1,000

00:30:29after you knew of the county architect's choice

00:30:32is a lie?

00:30:33Yes.

00:30:33Oh, dear.

00:30:34Are you beginning to leave the witness, Mr Lloyd?

00:30:36My Lord.

00:30:38Now, let us examine your relationship with Mr Amorous.

00:30:41We've heard our Mr Amorous,

00:30:43at a party given by you on May the 27th last,

00:30:46was asked to leave your house,

00:30:47and then afterwards he wrote a letter to the police

00:30:49making allegations against you.

00:30:51Now, would you describe the events

00:30:53leading to Mr Amorous's ejection from your house?

00:30:56Yes.

00:30:56He was behaving like a hooligan.

00:30:57Who was behaving like a hooligan?

00:30:59Amorous.

00:31:00Laughing and shouting and shaking this beer cane up and down,

00:31:03so when he tore off the foil strip,

00:31:05the foam sprayed everywhere.

00:31:06Yes, I see.

00:31:07How did you react to that?

00:31:08Well, I was furious.

00:31:09It ruined the wallpaper,

00:31:11went all over the carpet,

00:31:11all over the furniture,

00:31:12went over some of the guests.

00:31:13I told him to get out.

00:31:14And then?

00:31:16Well, he started to go,

00:31:17and we got to the door,

00:31:18and I told him,

00:31:19I said, if you, next time you come to a party,

00:31:21I said, if you want to learn how to hold your liquor

00:31:23and not drink as much.

00:31:25Well, he was shaking,

00:31:26and he said to me,

00:31:28I'll get you for this.

00:31:30Oh, my lord, this is not put to Mr Amorous.

00:31:32No, not in those terms.

00:31:33Well, I suppose we can have him back later,

00:31:36but only if absolutely necessary.

00:31:37Yes.

00:31:38Is that all that he said?

00:31:40Yes.

00:31:41Now, how long have you known Mr Redding?

00:31:44Well, about 30 years

00:31:47we were at university together

00:31:49studying architecture.

00:31:50Yes.

00:31:50And did you maintain contact

00:31:51with each other over this long period?

00:31:53Yes.

00:31:54And how would you describe

00:31:55your relationship with Mr Redding?

00:31:57Oh, what a friendship.

00:31:59Yes.

00:31:59And in the course of this friendship,

00:32:01did you exchange gifts?

00:32:03Yes.

00:32:04Birthdays and Christmas and so on, yes.

00:32:07Yes, I see.

00:32:08And have you made any expensive gifts

00:32:09to Mr Redding?

00:32:10Yes, I bought him a camera once

00:32:14and I've entertained him and his wife.

00:32:16I bought his daughter a bicycle,

00:32:19a fountain pen,

00:32:20and, well, gifts at birthdays

00:32:24for each member of the family.

00:32:25Yes, I see.

00:32:26So were you surprised

00:32:27at the Christmas gift

00:32:28of the wine from Mr Redding?

00:32:29Mr Lloyd, it may be for the jury

00:32:31to decide whether or not

00:32:32it was a Christmas gift.

00:32:34Were you surprised at the gift

00:32:36at Christmas of the wine

00:32:38from Mr Redding?

00:32:39No, as I say,

00:32:41I had already received

00:32:43similar gifts

00:32:44on two previous occasions

00:32:45and I wasn't surprised.

00:32:46Yes, and I believe

00:32:46your wife and Mrs Redding

00:32:47accompanied each other

00:32:48recently on a short

00:32:49package tour to Moscow.

00:32:51That is true, yes.

00:32:51Yes, now, in the midst

00:32:52of all this family friendship,

00:32:54did you ever discuss

00:32:55business matters?

00:32:57No.

00:32:58No, it was our policy not to.

00:32:59Policy?

00:33:00Yes, well, people are fools

00:33:02who mix business with pleasure.

00:33:04And we were well aware

00:33:05that having done business together

00:33:06on the bus

00:33:07and on the comprehensive school

00:33:08that it would be very easy

00:33:10for people to point the finger.

00:33:12Accusing you?

00:33:13Yes.

00:33:14That's why we're all here now,

00:33:16isn't it?

00:33:16Yes, now, between October

00:33:18and December the 31st, 1973,

00:33:20that's the period

00:33:21in which you received

00:33:22the carpet and the wine.

00:33:23Did Mr Redding know

00:33:24of this proposed

00:33:25new council building?

00:33:27Oh, my Lord,

00:33:27I thought it was already established

00:33:28that the only person

00:33:29capable of answering this

00:33:30is Mr Redding himself.

00:33:31Yes.

00:33:32Yes, did you tell

00:33:33Mr Redding

00:33:34of this proposed

00:33:35new council building?

00:33:36No, I said nothing about it.

00:33:37Yes, and of course,

00:33:38the council didn't publicly

00:33:39advertise their intention

00:33:40to go ahead

00:33:41until January the 1st, 1974.

00:33:43That is correct, yes.

00:33:44Now, in what circumstances

00:33:45did you hear

00:33:46that the county architect

00:33:47intended to use

00:33:48another firm for the contract

00:33:49other than licence?

00:33:51Well, it was New Year's Day.

00:33:55I was in conversation

00:33:57with the county architect

00:33:58and he informed me

00:34:01that he intended

00:34:02to use Flint Makepeace.

00:34:03I pointed out to him

00:34:04that licence had already

00:34:07proved themselves

00:34:08with the council

00:34:09on two sizable projects

00:34:11in the past,

00:34:12so why now opt for a firm

00:34:14who had only worked

00:34:15for the council once before

00:34:16in designing a council house,

00:34:20a private dwelling?

00:34:22Yes.

00:34:22Now, between January the 1st,

00:34:25when the council publicly

00:34:27announced their intention

00:34:28to go ahead with a new building,

00:34:29and January the 4th,

00:34:32the date of your meeting

00:34:33with the clerk to the council,

00:34:35had you made any contact

00:34:37whatsoever with Mr. Redding

00:34:39on the subject

00:34:40of this new contract?

00:34:42No.

00:34:43It would have been

00:34:43quite difficult anyway

00:34:44because he was away

00:34:45in Austria and Germany

00:34:46at the time touring.

00:34:48Yes.

00:34:49Thank you very much indeed,

00:34:50Mr. Stainsby.

00:34:50Would you wait there, please?

00:34:51Yes.

00:34:51Mr. Stainsby,

00:34:54to what extent, if any,

00:34:55did your friendship

00:34:56with Mr. Redding

00:34:57lead you to favour his firm

00:34:59for the council contract?

00:35:01I don't quite understand

00:35:03what you mean by that.

00:35:04Well, there's nothing illegal

00:35:05in favouring one's friends

00:35:06in work.

00:35:07The illegality lies

00:35:08if those favours

00:35:08are gained by bribery.

00:35:10Well, no bias was shown

00:35:12towards licence

00:35:13other than knowing

00:35:14that they would make

00:35:15a good job

00:35:16of the design contract.

00:35:17Now, from what you say,

00:35:18Mr. Stainsby,

00:35:19it would seem

00:35:20that my client's gift

00:35:21to you of the carpet

00:35:22and the wine

00:35:23were rather beneath

00:35:24your contempt.

00:35:26No, I didn't say that.

00:35:28You are a connoisseur

00:35:29of wine.

00:35:30You didn't need

00:35:30the carpet.

00:35:32Were you doing

00:35:32my client a favour

00:35:33by accepting them?

00:35:37I suppose you could

00:35:39put it that way, yes.

00:35:44This unwanted carpet

00:35:47has already been valued

00:35:48at over £800.

00:35:50Now, is something worth

00:35:51over £800

00:35:51beneath your contempt?

00:35:53I didn't want

00:35:54the carpet

00:35:55and as it was a gift,

00:35:58I could hardly sell it,

00:35:59could I?

00:36:00Well, the wine

00:36:01was valued at £25.

00:36:03One would hardly

00:36:03say valueless.

00:36:05The two days

00:36:06in the hotel

00:36:06cost £40

00:36:07and together

00:36:08with £1,000

00:36:08totalling £1,934.

00:36:11Now, is that

00:36:11beneath your contempt,

00:36:12Mr. Stainsby?

00:36:13This amount

00:36:16was given to you

00:36:16over a period

00:36:17of three months

00:36:18immediately preceding

00:36:19negotiations

00:36:20for a design contract.

00:36:22Now, do you

00:36:23seriously expect

00:36:23this court to believe

00:36:24that Stanley Redding

00:36:25and his firm

00:36:26licence knew

00:36:26nothing of

00:36:27this imminent contract

00:36:28during those

00:36:29three months

00:36:29that you not

00:36:30told Mr. Redding

00:36:31about it?

00:36:31I had said

00:36:34nothing about it

00:36:34at all.

00:36:37When you heard

00:36:38that the county architect

00:36:38favoured another firm,

00:36:40you told Stanley Redding

00:36:41and he agreed

00:36:41to pay you £1,000

00:36:43if you could

00:36:43persuade that meeting

00:36:44on January 4th

00:36:45to back your man.

00:36:47That is not true.

00:36:48And on his return

00:36:49from his continental holiday,

00:36:50he saw you in London

00:36:51seven days later

00:36:52on January 11th

00:36:53and through an intermediary

00:36:54gave you £1,000

00:36:56in £10 notes.

00:36:57Now, is that correct?

00:36:58No.

00:36:59Have you been successful

00:37:00in persuading the meeting

00:37:01to back licence?

00:37:02This payment

00:37:02on January 11th

00:37:04was the final payoff

00:37:05in a three-month period

00:37:06of bribery.

00:37:08That's absolutely rubbish.

00:37:11When were the proposed

00:37:13new council officers

00:37:14first suggested?

00:37:15When did you first

00:37:15come to hear about it?

00:37:17Oh, I can't remember.

00:37:19Well, I'm sure

00:37:19that something

00:37:20on such a large scale

00:37:21would not be contemplated

00:37:22overnight.

00:37:23Months,

00:37:23perhaps years of thought

00:37:24will have gone into it

00:37:25before the council

00:37:26publicly announced

00:37:27their intention.

00:37:28Were they not?

00:37:28Yes.

00:37:29Yes.

00:37:29So, despite your

00:37:31agreement with Mr. Redding,

00:37:33I've no doubt

00:37:33that you've discussed

00:37:34this project with him

00:37:35well before the first

00:37:36gift was made.

00:37:37I've already said

00:37:38we made it a policy

00:37:39not to discuss

00:37:41business matters.

00:37:42Yes, of course.

00:37:44But we have only

00:37:45your word for that,

00:37:46haven't we?

00:37:46Should a county

00:37:58planning officer

00:37:58be a careful

00:37:59or a careless man,

00:38:00Mr. Stainsbury?

00:38:01Do you mean

00:38:02am I a careful

00:38:03or a careless man?

00:38:04Yes.

00:38:06I don't understand

00:38:07what you mean by that.

00:38:08Well, you say

00:38:09that you're not

00:38:09the kind of man

00:38:10to leave money

00:38:10lying around

00:38:11a hotel bedroom.

00:38:12No.

00:38:12Who is?

00:38:14But you say

00:38:14you forgot your checkbook

00:38:15when you went to London

00:38:16for the conference.

00:38:17Yes.

00:38:18You gave the reason

00:38:19for accepting

00:38:19Mr. Redding's invitation

00:38:20to stay at this hotel

00:38:21in London

00:38:22as forgetting

00:38:23your checkbook,

00:38:23did you not?

00:38:24Yes.

00:38:25Strange how careless

00:38:26you can be one minute

00:38:27and how careful

00:38:28the next.

00:38:29Well, we're all human,

00:38:30aren't we?

00:38:31We're all capable

00:38:32of making errors.

00:38:33Oh, yes.

00:38:34Some more than others.

00:38:37Of course,

00:38:37we're having to accept

00:38:38your word all the time

00:38:39for all these areas

00:38:40of doubt,

00:38:41you realise.

00:38:41For example,

00:38:42will you be calling

00:38:43a witness who overheard

00:38:44Mr. Amorist say

00:38:45I'll get you for this

00:38:46when you ejected him

00:38:47from your house?

00:38:48He was outside the house.

00:38:50The guests were

00:38:51inside the house.

00:38:53So we haven't a witness?

00:38:54No.

00:38:55And in fact,

00:38:56once again,

00:38:57we have only your word

00:38:57for the fact that

00:38:58Mr. Amorist

00:38:59did not pass on

00:39:00this thousand pounds

00:39:01from Mr. Redding.

00:39:03A thousand pounds

00:39:04wouldn't bribe anything

00:39:05from me.

00:39:06I've got a private

00:39:07art collection

00:39:07that's worth

00:39:08over fifty thousand pounds.

00:39:09It would take

00:39:10a lot more

00:39:10than a thousand pounds

00:39:11to move me.

00:39:12Oh, so you are capable

00:39:13of being moved

00:39:14by money then,

00:39:14Mr. Stainsbury?

00:39:15Oh, well,

00:39:16you would say that,

00:39:17wouldn't you?

00:39:17No, you said it.

00:39:20What I mean is this.

00:39:23If a perfect stranger

00:39:24came along

00:39:25and saw the way I live,

00:39:26he wouldn't offer me

00:39:27a thousand pounds

00:39:28and a second-hand carpet

00:39:29and a crate of cheap wine

00:39:31because he'd know

00:39:32he'd be insulting me.

00:39:33But a friend,

00:39:34like Stanley Redding,

00:39:35perhaps he,

00:39:36because he was a friend,

00:39:37would be allowed

00:39:38to do what in others

00:39:39would be insulting,

00:39:40hand you one thousand pounds.

00:39:44Oh, well.

00:39:46Now,

00:39:47you had this agreement,

00:39:49you say,

00:39:49with Stanley Redding

00:39:49that you would not

00:39:50discuss business matters

00:39:51in private

00:39:52as to do so

00:39:53would or might lead

00:39:54someone to

00:39:54point the finger.

00:39:57Well, why then,

00:39:57if you were both

00:39:58so concerned about

00:39:58public awareness

00:39:59of your relationship,

00:40:00did you exchange gifts

00:40:01during a period

00:40:02when you knew

00:40:02the council would be

00:40:03likely to give

00:40:04license the contract?

00:40:06The wine was a

00:40:07perfectly ordinary

00:40:08Christmas gift.

00:40:09The carpet,

00:40:10I didn't want,

00:40:11and there was...

00:40:11But the public

00:40:11didn't know this.

00:40:12You didn't go around

00:40:13telling the public

00:40:14that these were

00:40:14usual or unwanted gifts,

00:40:16did you?

00:40:16No.

00:40:17Mr Golding,

00:40:17I do think the witness

00:40:18should be allowed

00:40:19to answer your question,

00:40:20don't you?

00:40:22My lord,

00:40:22well,

00:40:24did you...

00:40:25No.

00:40:26No.

00:40:28And on January

00:40:28the 11th last,

00:40:30seven days after

00:40:31successfully persuading

00:40:32the county council

00:40:32to ask license

00:40:34to design this

00:40:35new council building,

00:40:36you met Mr Redding

00:40:37in London.

00:40:38Now, is that correct?

00:40:39Yes.

00:40:40In a flat-off

00:40:41Barclays Square,

00:40:42you and Mr Emerus,

00:40:43your assistant,

00:40:43you attended a party

00:40:45with Mr Redding.

00:40:46Yes, I was ill

00:40:47at that party.

00:40:48I had to leave earlier.

00:40:49Oh, yes,

00:40:49so we've heard.

00:40:50You were taken ill

00:40:51and you left the party

00:40:52without Mr Redding's

00:40:54knowledge,

00:40:54did you not?

00:40:55So Emerus says,

00:40:56whether Redding

00:40:57saw me go,

00:40:57not at all.

00:40:58Yes, you left,

00:40:58no doubt,

00:40:58because you were now

00:40:59fully aware

00:41:00that the finger

00:41:00might be pointed.

00:41:02Having done your job

00:41:03in persuading the council

00:41:04to be seen in public

00:41:05with Mr Redding

00:41:06would indeed be dangerous.

00:41:07I was ill.

00:41:09I had a stomach upset.

00:41:11Was there someone else

00:41:12at this party,

00:41:13a councillor perhaps,

00:41:14who also knew Mr Redding?

00:41:15Was that why

00:41:16you left for the hotel?

00:41:17I left the party

00:41:18because I was ill.

00:41:20I suggest the reason

00:41:20you left the party,

00:41:21Mr Stainsbury,

00:41:22was the presence

00:41:22of this councillor.

00:41:24And that was also

00:41:24the reason why

00:41:25Mr Redding was careful

00:41:26to seek out Mr Amaris

00:41:27alone in the kitchen

00:41:28to give him this envelope

00:41:29containing this £1,000.

00:41:31Well, that is conjecture,

00:41:32isn't it?

00:41:33But is it not also

00:41:34the truth?

00:41:36All right,

00:41:36then you tell me,

00:41:37who is this councillor

00:41:39I'm supposed to have seen?

00:41:42You are here

00:41:43to answer my questions,

00:41:44Mr Stainsbury.

00:41:45Now, in all your testimony,

00:41:46you have not one shred

00:41:48of evidence

00:41:48that will corroborate

00:41:49your version of events,

00:41:50have you?

00:41:51If you are referring

00:41:52to the party...

00:41:53Yes?

00:41:53No, I haven't.

00:41:54No.

00:41:55The policy adopted

00:41:57by you and Redding

00:41:58of not appearing

00:41:58business-orientated

00:41:59in public

00:42:00was in fact adopted

00:42:01to conceal

00:42:01illicit dealings

00:42:02between you,

00:42:02was it not?

00:42:03Well, I don't see

00:42:04how you can draw

00:42:04an implication of that kind

00:42:05in any way whatsoever.

00:42:06I have got a cousin

00:42:07who is the captain

00:42:09of a nuclear submarine.

00:42:10I do not discuss that

00:42:12with him either privately

00:42:13or in public,

00:42:14but it doesn't mean

00:42:14I'm a security risk.

00:42:15But your cousin

00:42:16is not permitted

00:42:16on pain of punishment

00:42:17to discuss such matters

00:42:18with you, is he?

00:42:19Stanley Redding and yourself

00:42:20were placed under

00:42:20no such strictures.

00:42:22Wouldn't it have been

00:42:22wiser, simpler,

00:42:25to have accepted

00:42:25no gifts from Stanley Redding

00:42:26if you were so concerned

00:42:27about your public image?

00:42:30What, with somebody

00:42:31I've known

00:42:32for over 30 years?

00:42:36Will you look at this, please?

00:42:37Exhibit 3, my lord.

00:42:38Yes.

00:42:41Now, do you recognise that?

00:42:43It's in your handwriting.

00:42:45Yes.

00:42:46Yes.

00:42:46It was a memorandum

00:42:47written by you

00:42:47in July 1973,

00:42:49and it clearly indicates

00:42:50that you knew

00:42:51of the proposed council building

00:42:53long before any gifts

00:42:54were made to you.

00:42:55Now, will you read it aloud, please?

00:42:58I believe that

00:42:59with adequate funds

00:43:01borrowed either privately

00:43:02or from the Treasury,

00:43:04we shall build

00:43:04the finest local

00:43:06administration centre

00:43:07in the country.

00:43:07The finest local

00:43:09administration centre

00:43:10in the country.

00:43:12Yes.

00:43:13A more ambitious project

00:43:14than the swimming baths

00:43:16or the comprehensive school

00:43:17designed by licence so far.

00:43:19Now, a project

00:43:20was to be undertaken

00:43:21so prestigious

00:43:22that to be left out of that

00:43:23would amount to disaster.

00:43:25And Stanley Redding

00:43:25could not be sure

00:43:26that your friendship alone

00:43:28would win his firm

00:43:29the contract.

00:43:30And so he resorted

00:43:31to bribery.

00:43:32Personal bribery

00:43:33of his friend,

00:43:34the county planning officer.

00:43:35Licence were quite competent

00:43:38to win that contract

00:43:40on their merit.

00:43:42They weren't short of work.

00:43:44It was neither necessary

00:43:45or desperate

00:43:46for them to win that contract.

00:43:48Perhaps not in the commercial sense,

00:43:49but perhaps necessary

00:43:50from the point of view

00:43:51of prestige.

00:43:53Well, you'll have to ask

00:43:54Stanley Redding that,

00:43:55won't you?

00:43:56Oh, yes, I intend to,

00:43:57Mr Stainsbury.

00:43:59Now,

00:44:01there was a break

00:44:02in your mutual friendship

00:44:03on September the 28th, 1973,

00:44:06was there not?

00:44:07I can't remember.

00:44:09Oh, was there,

00:44:09or was there not

00:44:10a break in your friendship

00:44:11at the end of September 1973?

00:44:13An altercation, a rift.

00:44:14I can't remember.

00:44:16Well, may I refresh your memory?

00:44:19You were on board a yacht

00:44:21moored at Sorkum in Devon.

00:44:23Your two families were present,

00:44:24yours and Stanley Redding's,

00:44:26and Stanley Redding struck you.

00:44:28Yes, well,

00:44:29we'd had too much to drink,

00:44:30we were just fooling about.

00:44:31Did he strike you?

00:44:32Yes.

00:44:32Yes, and one week later,

00:44:34Stanley Redding

00:44:35made you a present

00:44:36of a Persian carpet

00:44:37worth exactly 869 pounds.

00:44:40Oh, that had got

00:44:41nothing to do with it.

00:44:42But these are the facts,

00:44:43are they not?

00:44:45And the contract

00:44:46for the new council building

00:44:47was so desperately sought

00:44:48by Stanley Redding

00:44:49to such an extent

00:44:50that he had to make apologies

00:44:51for his behavior

00:44:51on that yacht

00:44:52by making gifts to you.

00:44:54We were just fooling about.

00:44:56Mr Stainsbury,

00:44:58on Monday morning,

00:45:00January the 14th,

00:45:00not 48 hours after your return

00:45:02from your visit to London

00:45:03and the receipt of an envelope

00:45:05from Stanley Redding,

00:45:06you deposited the sum

00:45:08of 1,000 pounds

00:45:09in your private account

00:45:10at your bank in Fulchester.

00:45:12Now, is that correct?

00:45:15Yes, I'd sold one of my paintings

00:45:18for 1,000 pounds.

00:45:20Really?

00:45:22Do you have some supporting evidence

00:45:24of this transaction, of course?

00:45:25No, I sold it

00:45:27to a Brazilian friend of mine

00:45:29who left from Heathrow

00:45:31two days later.

00:45:32A Brazilian?

00:45:33A friend from Brazil

00:45:34where the nuts come from?

00:45:35From Brasilia!

00:45:37An architect!

00:45:40Paulo Alberto.

00:45:43We agreed the deal in London

00:45:44on Saturday, lunchtime.

00:45:47Yes, we have only your word

00:45:49that you sold him this painting

00:45:50for 1,000 pounds, I suppose?

00:45:52Yes.

00:45:52Yes, no receipt,

00:45:53no invoice, no cheque.

00:45:54No.

00:45:55No.

00:45:55He paid in cash.

00:45:58He wanted to avoid

00:45:59exchange restrictions.

00:46:00He would have been

00:46:01in trouble else.

00:46:02I suggest to you,

00:46:03Mr. Sainsbury,

00:46:04that you've dreamed up

00:46:04this story in anticipation

00:46:05of the police searching

00:46:07your bank account.

00:46:08It's the truth.

00:46:10A witness has testified

00:46:11that the envelope

00:46:12which he handed you

00:46:13from Stanley Redding

00:46:14contained 1,000 pounds

00:46:16and two days later

00:46:17you deposited 1,000 pounds

00:46:19in your bank account.

00:46:20That 1,000 pounds

00:46:23was paid to me

00:46:25by the Brazilian

00:46:26for the oil painting.

00:46:29I put it in the envelope

00:46:30myself.

00:46:33Sir,

00:46:34you've been lying,

00:46:35Mr. Sainsbury.

00:46:36First you denied

00:46:37that there was

00:46:37any envelope whatsoever

00:46:38and now you say

00:46:39that there was

00:46:391,000 pounds put in it.

00:46:41You admit that you lied?

00:46:42Yes.

00:46:42But this is the truth.

00:46:45Emerus is only concerned

00:46:46with getting me

00:46:47into trouble.

00:46:47I didn't say anything

00:46:48about that envelope

00:46:49containing hotel expenses

00:46:50or anything like that.

00:46:52All that envelope

00:46:53originally contained

00:46:55was a necklace,

00:46:58a present

00:46:58from Stanley Redding

00:47:00to my daughter

00:47:01on her birthday.

00:47:03Now,

00:47:04the Brazilian

00:47:05paid me

00:47:06the 1,000 pounds

00:47:07in London

00:47:08on the Saturday night.

00:47:09That's the night

00:47:10I was taken ill.

00:47:12I put the 1,000 pounds

00:47:14into the envelope

00:47:14which had originally

00:47:15contained the necklace.

00:47:18Alberto

00:47:18flew back to Brazil

00:47:20from Heathrow

00:47:21on the Monday morning

00:47:23and at the same time

00:47:24I deposited

00:47:26the 1,000 pounds

00:47:27in my bank account

00:47:28in Fulchester.

00:47:31Mr. Sainsbury,

00:47:32the truth is

00:47:33there never was

00:47:34any necklace

00:47:34that Stanley Redding,

00:47:36anxious to secure

00:47:37your friendship

00:47:37and to make up

00:47:38for the altercation

00:47:38on board the yacht,

00:47:39made you gifts

00:47:40totalling 1,934 pounds

00:47:43and that these gifts

00:47:44have...

00:47:44Yes, it isn't true.

00:47:45I'm sorry, my lord,

00:47:46but he's lying.

00:47:48He won't tell the truth.

00:47:49He'd rather go to prison,

00:47:49but I won't.

00:47:50Sit down.

00:47:51My lord.

00:47:52Mr. Redding,

00:47:53your opportunity

00:47:54to speak

00:47:54will come later.

00:47:56But he must tell the truth.

00:47:57It's very important.

00:47:59It is for the jury

00:48:00to decide about the truth

00:48:01and if you cannot

00:48:02remain silent,

00:48:03I shall have you removed.

00:48:04I'm sorry,

00:48:04but he's lying.

00:48:06Take the prisoner down.

00:48:07I'm sorry.

00:48:09Sorry.

00:48:11My lord,

00:48:11I must apologise

00:48:12for the behaviour

00:48:12of my client.

00:48:13He's under great stress.

00:48:15Well, perhaps

00:48:15we're all under great stress.

00:48:17This might be a good moment

00:48:18to adjourn

00:48:18for 45 minutes.

00:48:20That will give

00:48:20Mrs. Dixon

00:48:21the opportunity

00:48:21to advise her client

00:48:23that his best interests

00:48:24will be served

00:48:25by behaving properly.

00:48:26All stand.

00:48:27Tomorrow,

00:48:50our cameras return

00:48:51to the Crown Court

00:48:52for the final day

00:48:53of the case

00:48:53of the Queen

00:48:54against Stainsbury

00:48:55and Reading.

00:49:06Did Stanley Reading

00:49:08bribe John Stainsbury

00:49:09in order to secure

00:49:10a design contract

00:49:11from Moreland County Council?

00:49:13Is Stainsbury lying?

00:49:15He admitted receiving

00:49:15an envelope from Reading

00:49:16but denies the prosecution

00:49:18claim that it contained

00:49:19£1,000.

00:49:21It contained,

00:49:22he said,

00:49:22a necklace

00:49:23for his daughter's birthday.

00:49:25Following an outburst

00:49:26by Reading

00:49:26during Stainsbury's

00:49:28cross-examination,

00:49:29the court was adjourned.

00:49:30Reading has just gone

00:49:31into the witness box

00:49:32to be examined

00:49:33by his own counsel.

00:49:34You are Stanley Reading

00:49:52of 16 Wicker Avenue,

00:49:54Moorfield?

00:49:55Yes.

00:49:56You are a partner

00:49:57in the firm of Lysons,

00:49:58a firm of architects?

00:49:59Yes.

00:50:00Your firm has considerable standing

00:50:02in your profession,

00:50:03particularly in the north of England.

00:50:04Am I right?

00:50:05Yes.

00:50:06In January 1974,

00:50:09were you in any way

00:50:10desperate to secure work

00:50:11for your firm?

00:50:12Not at all.

00:50:13We were doing very well.

00:50:14We had several contracts

00:50:15on hand or pending

00:50:16or in process of completion.

00:50:18Between October 1973

00:50:20and January 1st 1974,

00:50:22were you aware

00:50:23that Moreland County Council

00:50:24were about to announce

00:50:25the proposed building

00:50:26of new council offices?

00:50:28I had no such knowledge

00:50:29of any such project.

00:50:30Not even from John Stainsby,

00:50:32the county planning officer

00:50:34for Moreland County Council?

00:50:35We never discussed business.

00:50:37You were not even aware

00:50:38that Flint Makepeace,

00:50:39another firm of architects,

00:50:40might be given the contract

00:50:41to design the new offices?

00:50:42I knew nothing of it.

00:50:44In October 1973,

00:50:47you made a gift of a carpet

00:50:48to John Stainsby

00:50:49at Christmas,

00:50:50a crate of wine.

00:50:51Is that correct?

00:50:52It is.

00:50:53Were either of these gifts

00:50:54connected in any way

00:50:56with the proposed

00:50:56new council offices?

00:50:57I've told you

00:50:58I knew nothing of them.

00:51:01Now, we've heard

00:51:02of a bond of friendship

00:51:03that existed between yourself

00:51:04and John Stainsby.

00:51:06Yes.

00:51:07It was a very close friendship,

00:51:08was it not?

00:51:09Yes.

00:51:10You knew him from your days

00:51:11at university together

00:51:12when you were both

00:51:12studying architecture.

00:51:15From an outburst

00:51:17to a whisper,

00:51:18Mrs. Dixon,

00:51:18the witness must speak up.

00:51:21Yes.

00:51:22Would you say

00:51:23that John Stainsby

00:51:24is a dominating personality?

00:51:27Yes.

00:51:28He was an amateur boxer,

00:51:29I believe.

00:51:30At university.

00:51:32Now, Mr. Redding,

00:51:33during the course

00:51:33of your relationship

00:51:34with John Stainsby,

00:51:36some 30 years,

00:51:37I gather,

00:51:38would it be true

00:51:39to say that you liked him?

00:51:41No.

00:51:42I disliked him.

00:51:44Now, I don't wish

00:51:45to make this painful to you,

00:51:47but some members of the jury

00:51:48may find this

00:51:48a little puzzling.

00:51:50I'm sure most of us

00:51:51are well aware

00:51:51that there are

00:51:52certain relationships

00:51:53where an emotionally

00:51:55and physically weaker man

00:51:56enjoys the dominance

00:51:57of a stronger person

00:51:59without there being

00:52:00any sexual attachment.

00:52:01Mrs. Dixon,

00:52:02I do think your client

00:52:03should be allowed

00:52:04to define his relationship

00:52:05with his co-defendant,

00:52:06don't you?

00:52:07My lord,

00:52:08I was about to ask him

00:52:09to do so.

00:52:10Oh, then we shall see

00:52:11if it's relevant, eh?

00:52:13My lord,

00:52:13in due course,

00:52:14it will become obvious

00:52:15that this relationship

00:52:16between the two defendants

00:52:17will provide a complete rebuttal

00:52:18for the prosecution's case.

00:52:20Oh, do let's get on.

00:52:21My lord.

00:52:22Mr. Redding,

00:52:25why did you make these gifts

00:52:27of the carpet and the wine?

00:52:29I wanted to bribe him.

00:52:32Stay away from my wife.

00:52:35You mean that John Stainsby

00:52:36was having an affair

00:52:37with your wife?

00:52:38Yes.

00:52:39When did you first

00:52:40become aware of this?

00:52:41Oh, for two or three years.

00:52:43I knew in 1971.

00:52:45And when did you first

00:52:46confront John Stainsby

00:52:47with your knowledge?

00:52:48Oh, September the 28th, 1973.

00:52:50You were on board

00:52:52a yacht moored

00:52:53in Sulcombe Harbour

00:52:54on that date?

00:52:55Yes.

00:52:56What was John Stainsby's

00:52:57reaction to your statement?

00:52:59He laughed at me.

00:53:01And what did you do?

00:53:03I hit him.

00:53:04Did you hurt him?

00:53:05No.

00:53:07He seemed amused.

00:53:08He laughed again.

00:53:09Did he say anything?

00:53:11He said,

00:53:13my wife's not objecting

00:53:14and he suggested

00:53:15that I should reciprocate

00:53:17with his wife.

00:53:19Had you, in fact,

00:53:19agreed to your wife's

00:53:20relationship with

00:53:21John Stainsby

00:53:22up to this point?

00:53:23Yes.

00:53:24Had it not bothered you?

00:53:25Not until she wanted

00:53:27to leave me

00:53:28and go and live with them.

00:53:30With John Stainsby's family?

00:53:31Yes.

00:53:32Yes.

00:53:33So when you made

00:53:33these gifts of the carpet

00:53:35and the wine,

00:53:36what were your feelings?

00:53:38I felt desperate.

00:53:40Did you believe

00:53:40that you could buy off

00:53:41John Stainsby's relationship

00:53:43with your wife?

00:53:44Well, I'd promised him

00:53:45£5,000.

00:53:46I gave him

00:53:47the first £1,000

00:53:48on January the 11th

00:53:50and I was going to give him

00:53:51the next £2,000

00:53:53if the affair was abandoned

00:53:54at the end of six months

00:53:55and the last £2,000

00:53:57if they saw nothing

00:53:58of one another

00:53:59at the end of a year.

00:54:00Did he accept

00:54:01the first £1,000?

00:54:02No.

00:54:03Paid it back

00:54:04a month later.

00:54:08My wife's still seeing him.

00:54:09In a way, I suppose

00:54:10he's less unscrupulous

00:54:11than I thought.

00:54:13Thank you, Mr. Aidan.

00:54:16Are you making up

00:54:17this account

00:54:18of my client's relationship

00:54:19with your wife?

00:54:21Totally false account

00:54:22because you're frightened

00:54:24that the truth,

00:54:25the £1,000

00:54:26derived from the sale

00:54:27of a painting

00:54:28will not be believed

00:54:29in the court?

00:54:30No.

00:54:32Is it not true

00:54:33that you actively

00:54:34encourage your wife

00:54:35to associate

00:54:36with Mr. Stainsby

00:54:37because you yourself

00:54:38had lost

00:54:39all marital inclinations?

00:54:40No, it is not true

00:54:42at all.

00:54:44No more questions,

00:54:45my lord.

00:54:47Mr. Redding,

00:54:48Mr. Stainsby

00:54:49now maintains

00:54:50that you had placed

00:54:51a necklace

00:54:51inside this envelope

00:54:52for his daughter's birthday.

00:54:55Now, you know

00:54:55that's not true,

00:54:56don't you?

00:54:56There was £1,000

00:54:56in £10 notes

00:54:58inside that envelope,

00:54:58was there not?

00:54:59Yes.

00:55:00Paid discreetly

00:55:01via Mr. Stainsby's assistant

00:55:03to Stainsby himself

00:55:04on January the 11th,

00:55:06seven days after a meeting

00:55:07in which Stainsby

00:55:08has admitted

00:55:09that he persuaded

00:55:09the members

00:55:10to back your firm

00:55:11for the design contract

00:55:13relating to these

00:55:14new council offices.

00:55:15Now, this was the payoff,

00:55:16was it not,

00:55:17Mr. Redding?

00:55:17The final payment

00:55:18in a chain of bribes

00:55:20that went back

00:55:21to the previous October

00:55:22when you first heard

00:55:23of the proposed project

00:55:25from John Stainsby himself.

00:55:27I knew nothing

00:55:28of any such project

00:55:29until January the 1st

00:55:30when the council

00:55:31announced it publicly.

00:55:32You expect this court

00:55:33to believe

00:55:33that you paid

00:55:34John Stainsby

00:55:34£1,000

00:55:35to buy him off

00:55:36from your wife?

00:55:38I know it sounds irrational,

00:55:39but I was beside myself.

00:55:41Well, I'm glad you realise

00:55:41it sounds irrational,

00:55:43Mr. Redding.

00:55:43I've no doubt

00:55:44that the members

00:55:44of the jury

00:55:44will agree with you.

00:55:45Well, people do

00:55:46stupid things under stress.

00:55:48Oh, yes, I'm sure they do.

00:55:50Like paying money

00:55:50in order to secure

00:55:51not only a lucrative contract,

00:55:53but also one

00:55:53which would enhance

00:55:54your firm's reputation.

00:55:56Can you come to the point,

00:55:57Mr. Building?

00:55:58My lord.

00:56:01I suggest to you,

00:56:02Mr. Redding,

00:56:02that the desperation

00:56:03which motivated

00:56:04payment of goods

00:56:05and money

00:56:05to John Stainsby

00:56:07was prompted

00:56:07not by marital discord

00:56:09or whatever,

00:56:09but by the need

00:56:09to secure a contract

00:56:10to design

00:56:11what has been described

00:56:12as the finest

00:56:13local administration centre

00:56:15in the country?

00:56:16It wasn't desperate at all.

00:56:18It obviously

00:56:18wouldn't be built anyway,

00:56:20at least not

00:56:20for a good many years.

00:56:22Oh, why was that?

00:56:22Well, obviously not.

00:56:23The ideas were thought of

00:56:24before the fuel crises

00:56:26and the subsequent

00:56:27financial squeeze.

00:56:28But you were not

00:56:29to know that

00:56:29when you paid gifts

00:56:30of goods

00:56:30between October

00:56:31and December 1973.

00:56:33We'd exchange gifts always.

00:56:38Well, as you had lost

00:56:39all marital inclinations,

00:56:41as my learned friend

00:56:42so delicately put it,

00:56:43the question arises,

00:56:44why did you bother

00:56:45to pay to get

00:56:46your wife back?

00:56:47Because she is my wife.

00:56:50Mr. Lloyd

00:56:51has already suggested

00:56:52that you have

00:56:52concocted this story

00:56:53about your wife's

00:56:54relationship with

00:56:55John Stainsby

00:56:55and I further suggest

00:56:56that this was

00:56:57to obscure the very

00:56:58evident truth

00:56:59of this matter

00:56:59that you were in fact

00:57:00bribing John Stainsby

00:57:02for this council contract.

00:57:03It's not true.

00:57:05Look, you gave

00:57:05John Stainsby

00:57:06a carpet worth

00:57:07over 800 pounds.

00:57:08You paid for

00:57:09his hotel expenses

00:57:10and you also gave

00:57:11him a crate of wine

00:57:12during a period

00:57:13when you could

00:57:13very easily

00:57:14have known

00:57:14about this

00:57:15impending contract.

00:57:15Now, is that not correct?

00:57:17A second-hand carpet,

00:57:18inferior wine,

00:57:19unwelcome gifts.

00:57:21We've only

00:57:21the word of your

00:57:22co-defender

00:57:23that they were unwelcome.

00:57:24Well, you've heard

00:57:25that my firm,

00:57:25Licence,

00:57:26was likely to get

00:57:26the contracts anyway

00:57:27on the strength

00:57:28of past work

00:57:28they'd done for the council.

00:57:29But the thousand pounds

00:57:30was given

00:57:31by you

00:57:32to John Stainsby

00:57:33only a few days

00:57:34after he had

00:57:34swung a meeting

00:57:35from favouring

00:57:36Flint Makepeace

00:57:37to the advantage

00:57:37of your own firm,

00:57:38Licence.

00:57:39Now, is that not the case?

00:57:40I either have to

00:57:41accept my word or not.

00:57:43But clearly, Mr. Reddy,

00:57:44you do not accept

00:57:44John Stainsby's word.

00:57:46His version

00:57:46as to what lay behind

00:57:47the payment of a thousand pounds

00:57:48after he had first

00:57:49lied to this court.

00:57:50No, I don't.

00:57:51No.

00:57:52And I suggest to you

00:57:52that previous to this trial

00:57:53you decided to plead

00:57:55not guilty

00:57:55and deny the charges

00:57:57putting down the gift

00:57:57of these carpets,

00:57:58this carpet and this wine

00:58:00to pure friendship.

00:58:02But with regard

00:58:02to the thousand pounds

00:58:04John Stainsby

00:58:05comes up with a story

00:58:06about a Brazilian

00:58:07buying a painting from him.

00:58:09And as you see

00:58:09his defence crumbling

00:58:10you come along

00:58:11with yet another version

00:58:12of events

00:58:12even more extraordinary

00:58:13and with your

00:58:14histrionic outburst

00:58:16and behaviour

00:58:16attempt to mislead

00:58:17the jury.

00:58:18No.

00:58:20Well, what I would like

00:58:21to know is

00:58:22why you paid

00:58:22John Amos

00:58:24the envelope

00:58:25to give to

00:58:25John Stainsby.

00:58:27I'm sorry,

00:58:27Mr. Amos.

00:58:29Now, was it because

00:58:29you wished

00:58:30to implicate him

00:58:31in the conspiracy

00:58:32in case he was ever

00:58:32called upon

00:58:33to give evidence

00:58:33against you?

00:58:34Complete nonsense.

00:58:35You will agree,

00:58:36though, will you not

00:58:37that you did try

00:58:38to bribe

00:58:39John Stainsby.

00:58:40I mean, you said

00:58:40that that was your intention.

00:58:41I wanted to bribe him

00:58:43to keep my

00:58:44away from my wife

00:58:45to leave her alone.

00:58:47We'd been on holiday

00:58:47abroad and when we came back

00:58:48my wife got a telephone

00:58:49call from Stainsby

00:58:50asking a scene

00:58:51in his hotel.

00:58:52I was very upset.

00:58:53I wanted to get in touch

00:58:54with Stainsby

00:58:55and ask him to stay

00:58:56longer in London

00:58:57so that I could talk to him

00:58:58and try to persuade him

00:58:59but, well,

00:59:00it didn't work.

00:59:03You say John Stainsby

00:59:05paid you back

00:59:06the thousand pounds?

00:59:07Yes.

00:59:07By check or by cash?

00:59:08No, I don't remember.

00:59:10It was the same amount

00:59:11of cash returned.

00:59:12Well, I've no doubt

00:59:13you have evidence

00:59:13of that, of course,

00:59:14in your bank statement.

00:59:15I mean, no doubt

00:59:15you paid the money

00:59:16back into your bank.

00:59:18No, I didn't.

00:59:19I used it to buy a car.

00:59:25Yes, I've no further

00:59:26questions, my lord.

00:59:27You are Dr. David Crombie

00:59:41of Hillgate

00:59:42Sandy Lane

00:59:43Fulchester.

00:59:43I am.

00:59:44You are a medical

00:59:45practitioner in private

00:59:46practice.

00:59:46Yes.

00:59:47And a senior consultant

00:59:48physician at the

00:59:49Fulchester General

00:59:50Hospital.

00:59:50Yes.

00:59:51Now, am I correct

00:59:52in thinking that

00:59:53Stanley Redding,

00:59:54whom you see in the

00:59:54court,

00:59:54has been a private

00:59:56patient of yours

00:59:57for 12 years?

00:59:58That is correct.

00:59:59Would you please

01:00:00tell this court

01:00:00what has been the

01:00:01most common complaint

01:00:02that Stanley Redding

01:00:02has suffered from

01:00:03over the period

01:00:04in which he's been

01:00:04in your care?

01:00:05Yes, he's neurotic,

01:00:06very nervous,

01:00:07slightly paranoid,

01:00:09and as a result

01:00:10has become exhausted

01:00:11and needed complete

01:00:12rest on a number

01:00:13of occasions.

01:00:13When was the last

01:00:14time he consulted you?

01:00:15About a month ago.

01:00:16He was severely depressed.

01:00:18And before that?

01:00:19In October 1973,

01:00:21he complained that

01:00:22his wife was having

01:00:23an affair

01:00:23and he was distraught.

01:00:25Not really concentrating

01:00:26on his work, then?

01:00:27It was affecting his work.

01:00:28I prescribed sedatives.

01:00:30In this state,

01:00:31would you say

01:00:31that he'd be likely

01:00:32to act irrationally?

01:00:33Oh, yes, indeed.

01:00:34A neurotic can be

01:00:35pushed to commit violence.

01:00:37So, really,

01:00:37anything out of the

01:00:38ordinary in his behaviour

01:00:39would not surprise you?

01:00:41No, I suggested

01:00:42that he see a psychiatrist,

01:00:43but he refused.

01:00:44I think his vanity

01:00:45wouldn't let him.

01:00:46Thank you, Doctor.

01:00:48No questions, my lord.

01:00:49Dr. Crombie,

01:00:52now, you say

01:00:53Stanley Redding

01:00:53is a vain man.

01:00:54Yes.

01:00:55Childish, perhaps?

01:00:56I don't know

01:00:57what you mean.

01:00:58With possessions.

01:00:59Would he be proud

01:00:59of his material possessions?

01:01:01Yes.

01:01:01Conscious of his

01:01:02social status?

01:01:03Yes.

01:01:04To the extent

01:01:04of seeking more

01:01:05and more kudos

01:01:07from his position at work?

01:01:08Oh, my lord,

01:01:08this is a pure conjecture

01:01:09and hardly a matter

01:01:10for medical opinion.

01:01:11I see no harm in it.

01:01:13There you go, my lord.

01:01:15And now, you said,

01:01:16Dr. Crombie,

01:01:16that Stanley Redding

01:01:16would be capable

01:01:17of behaving irrationally

01:01:18in the matter

01:01:19of his marital relationships.

01:01:21Yes.

01:01:21Would you say

01:01:22that he'd be capable

01:01:23of behaving irrationally

01:01:24in the pursuit

01:01:24of his prestige at work?

01:01:26Yes.

01:01:27Yes.

01:01:28Yes.

01:01:28I have no further questions,

01:01:29my lord.

01:01:29Do you wish to re-examine,

01:01:31Mrs. Dixon?

01:01:31No, my lord.

01:01:32Oh, no.

01:01:32You may leave

01:01:33the witness box,

01:01:34Dr. Crombie.

01:01:36Is that your case,

01:01:37Mrs. Dixon?

01:01:37It is, my lord.

01:01:41Members of the jury,

01:01:43you have heard

01:01:44conflicting evidence

01:01:44from both defendants,

01:01:46each of whom asked you

01:01:47to believe

01:01:48their differing stories.

01:01:50Now, I ask you merely

01:01:51to look at the evidence,

01:01:52dispassionately and clinically.

01:01:55Now, the most damaging fact,

01:01:56of course,

01:01:57to emerge during

01:01:58the course of this trial

01:01:59is that John Stainsby

01:02:00has lied to this court.

01:02:02He denied receiving

01:02:04an envelope from Stanley Redding.

01:02:06And in the course

01:02:07of the testimony,

01:02:08he attempted to denigrate

01:02:09the character of Stephen Amaris,

01:02:11the prosecution witness.

01:02:13Now, of course,

01:02:14we now know

01:02:14that Stephen Amaris

01:02:15was telling the truth

01:02:16and that John Stainsby

01:02:18lied to protect himself

01:02:19from justice.

01:02:21And if John Stainsby

01:02:22is a liar,

01:02:23what of the other defendant,

01:02:24Stanley Redding?

01:02:26Well, you've heard him

01:02:26described as a neurotic,

01:02:28vain man,

01:02:29conscious of his status

01:02:30at work and in society.

01:02:32Of course,

01:02:32he would know

01:02:33of this impending contract

01:02:35for the design

01:02:35of these new council offices.

01:02:37Can you really believe

01:02:37that these two men,

01:02:39close associates,

01:02:39for 30 years

01:02:40since their youth

01:02:41would not pass on information

01:02:43which would be of use

01:02:44one to the other?

01:02:46Now, both defendants

01:02:48have admitted

01:02:48that there was a rift

01:02:49in their friendship

01:02:49in late September 1973.

01:02:53Stanley Redding knew

01:02:54of the impending contract

01:02:55and to set about

01:02:56repairing the damage

01:02:57to his friendship

01:02:58with John Stainsby,

01:03:00he began to make gifts

01:03:01which by January 11, 1974,

01:03:04seven days after Stainsby

01:03:06had swung a council meeting

01:03:08in Redding's favour,

01:03:10totaled £1,934.

01:03:14And the dates of these gifts.

01:03:15Now, there is a remarkable coincidence

01:03:17with the negotiations

01:03:18concerning the council building contract.

01:03:21Nearly £2,000

01:03:22was paid in goods and money

01:03:24by one defendant

01:03:25to the other.

01:03:27Now, Redding is not a millionaire.

01:03:29Would he really make

01:03:30gratuitous payments

01:03:31on this scale

01:03:32out of pure friendship?

01:03:34Both men, of course,

01:03:35have offered explanations

01:03:36for this large payment

01:03:38of £1,000

01:03:39but neither explanation

01:03:40is credible

01:03:41nor can they be substantiated

01:03:43by any material evidence.

01:03:46Stanley Redding

01:03:47tried to buy off Stainsby

01:03:48with £1,000

01:03:49from continuing an affair

01:03:51with his wife.

01:03:53John Stainsby

01:03:54sold a painting

01:03:55to a Brazilian

01:03:56for £1,000.

01:03:57Well, we know that

01:03:58to be a lie

01:03:58since Stanley Redding

01:03:59has testified

01:04:00that he did pay

01:04:01John Stainsby

01:04:02£1,000

01:04:03on January 11, 1974.

01:04:05And here we have

01:04:06material evidence.

01:04:07Not 48 hours later,

01:04:10Stainsby deposited

01:04:11£1,000

01:04:12in his private bank account.

01:04:15And this was

01:04:15just nine days

01:04:17after Stainsby

01:04:18had swung a meeting

01:04:19to favour

01:04:20Stanley Redding's firm

01:04:21for the contract.

01:04:23Now, members of the jury,

01:04:24I submit that these facts

01:04:25leave you with no alternative

01:04:27but to find

01:04:28both defendants

01:04:28guilty as charged.

01:04:32So, members of the jury,

01:04:34let us go back

01:04:35to square one

01:04:36and ask

01:04:37why on earth

01:04:38bribery

01:04:39should have been

01:04:39necessary anyway.

01:04:41Licence, after all,

01:04:42had an excellent record

01:04:44with Moreland County Council.

01:04:45They were clear favourites

01:04:47to get the contract anyway.

01:04:48Mr Stainsby

01:04:49and Mr Redding

01:04:50have been concerned

01:04:51with previous council contracts

01:04:53with a swimming bath

01:04:54and a comprehensive school

01:04:56with absolutely no evidence

01:04:58of corruption

01:04:59between them then.

01:05:00So, why now?

01:05:02Like my learned friend's

01:05:03mathematics,

01:05:04it doesn't add up very well.

01:05:05But let us for a moment

01:05:07examine the possibility

01:05:09that bribery was taking place

01:05:11and ask,

01:05:12why then

01:05:13did my client

01:05:14ask Stephen Amorist

01:05:15to accompany him

01:05:16to meet Stanley Redding

01:05:17on receipt of the carpet

01:05:19and then tell him

01:05:20how much it was worth?

01:05:21And ask,

01:05:22why then

01:05:22did my client

01:05:24leave Mr Redding's

01:05:25greetings card

01:05:26on that crate of wine

01:05:27for all to see

01:05:28for a full five months

01:05:30from Christmas to May?

01:05:31Mr Stainsby's no fool.

01:05:34He's very successful,

01:05:36very ambitious,

01:05:38forward-thinking man.

01:05:40It was he who wanted

01:05:41the best administration centre

01:05:43in the country

01:05:43for Moreland.

01:05:44He's very well paid.

01:05:46He's got a yacht,

01:05:48a private art collection

01:05:49alone worth £50,000.

01:05:51Why would he risk

01:05:53all that

01:05:53for a squalid bribe

01:05:55totalling under £2,000

01:05:57that wasn't necessary anyway?

01:06:00And if he did risk

01:06:01his whole career

01:06:02and his reputation

01:06:03for that amount,

01:06:05would he not have been

01:06:06a little more discreet?

01:06:10Finally, members of the jury,

01:06:11I suggest that

01:06:12discounting bribery,

01:06:14no one can still be sure

01:06:15of the precise motivation

01:06:17for those gifts.

01:06:18And if you're in any doubt

01:06:19as to which defendant

01:06:21to believe,

01:06:21I mean, ask yourself,

01:06:22why, if they're guilty,

01:06:24have they not concocted

01:06:24an agreed story between them?

01:06:26And you weigh that doubt

01:06:28as part and parcel

01:06:29of the greater doubt

01:06:30attached to this case,

01:06:31not the least doubt

01:06:33being Mr Amorish's

01:06:34extremely questionable motives

01:06:36for contacting the police

01:06:38just hours after being thrown

01:06:40out of Mr Stainsbury's house,

01:06:41but four months

01:06:43after the events

01:06:44he alleges happened.

01:06:46And I must ask you

01:06:47to acquit

01:06:48both the defendants.

01:06:51You saw how my client behaved.

01:06:55A sensitive man.

01:06:57A man whose doctor

01:06:58has testified

01:06:58is capable of acting

01:07:00irrationally.

01:07:01His wife was having

01:07:02an affair

01:07:02and he was distraught,

01:07:04is what Dr Crombie said.

01:07:06A prosecution

01:07:06has pointed out

01:07:07that Mr Redding

01:07:08struck Mr Stainsbury

01:07:10before the firm

01:07:12of licence

01:07:12secured the council contract.

01:07:14Would this really

01:07:15be the action

01:07:15of a man

01:07:16trying to gain

01:07:17a business deal

01:07:18through bribery?

01:07:20And would this really

01:07:21be the action

01:07:21of a mild

01:07:22and sensitive man

01:07:23unless he was

01:07:25under considerable

01:07:25pressure for some reason?

01:07:28Well, the reason

01:07:28for that blow

01:07:29could hardly have been

01:07:30in order to secure

01:07:30the contract.

01:07:32No, members of the jury,

01:07:34it is obvious

01:07:34that my client

01:07:35is telling the truth

01:07:36when he says

01:07:37that John Stainsbury

01:07:38was having an affair

01:07:39with his wife

01:07:40and that both

01:07:41the blow

01:07:41which he inflicted

01:07:42upon Stainsbury

01:07:43and the thousand pounds

01:07:45which he paid him

01:07:46were because of his despair

01:07:48about this relationship.

01:07:52Prosecution has also

01:07:53suggested that

01:07:53my client

01:07:54is putting on an act

01:07:55with the intention

01:07:57of moving you

01:07:57to a sentimental

01:07:58misjudgment.

01:08:00Well, I suggest rather

01:08:01that he is a sincere

01:08:03and distressed man

01:08:05and that this is

01:08:06the explanation

01:08:07for his behaviour.

01:08:10Members of the jury,

01:08:11you've heard the evidence

01:08:12in this case.

01:08:13Much of it may have

01:08:13confused you

01:08:14but you will have

01:08:16had the opportunity

01:08:16to form your opinion

01:08:18of the characters

01:08:19of the two defendants

01:08:20when they gave their evidence

01:08:22in the witness box.

01:08:23Now, Stainsbury,

01:08:23the first defendant,

01:08:24he gave his evidence

01:08:25firmly and clearly

01:08:27but under cross-examination

01:08:29by learned counsel

01:08:30he admitted

01:08:31that his original denial

01:08:32of the existence

01:08:33of the one thousand pounds

01:08:34in an envelope

01:08:35was false.

01:08:37The second defendant,

01:08:39reading,

01:08:39described by his physician

01:08:40as a vain neurotic man

01:08:41given to emotion

01:08:42made an outburst

01:08:43in the dock.

01:08:44You mustn't be misled

01:08:45by such an exhibition.

01:08:47It is of no concern

01:08:48to you

01:08:49whether or not

01:08:49Stanley Redding's wife

01:08:51was having an affair

01:08:52with John Stainsbury

01:08:53but if you think

01:08:54that was the case

01:08:55then you must ask yourselves

01:08:58is it credible

01:08:59that Redding

01:09:00should make a payment

01:09:02in an attempt

01:09:03to keep his wife?

01:09:04Now as to the facts

01:09:06on January the 1st

01:09:08the council made public

01:09:09their statement

01:09:09about the building

01:09:10of the new council offices

01:09:11and on January the 4th

01:09:13Stainsbury persuaded

01:09:14a meeting of council offices

01:09:15to abandon

01:09:16the county architect's

01:09:18original selection

01:09:19of Flint makepiece

01:09:20to design the new building

01:09:22in favour

01:09:23of Redding's firm

01:09:25license.

01:09:27These facts are not in dispute

01:09:29neither in dispute

01:09:30are the gifts

01:09:32of a carpet

01:09:33wine

01:09:35hotel expenses

01:09:36given by

01:09:38Redding to Stainsbury.

01:09:39Both defendants say

01:09:40there was no significance

01:09:42in these gifts

01:09:43but you

01:09:45here

01:09:45must consider

01:09:47very carefully

01:09:47the important evidence

01:09:49of the £1,000

01:09:50in an envelope.

01:09:53Now did Stainsbury

01:09:54receive

01:09:54on January the 11th

01:09:56this £1,000

01:09:56as payment

01:09:58for an oil painting

01:09:59or did he receive it

01:10:01from Redding

01:10:02via Mr. Amris?

01:10:06Was this

01:10:07£1,000

01:10:08together

01:10:09with the earlier

01:10:10gifts

01:10:11made

01:10:13by Redding

01:10:14and received

01:10:15by Stainsbury

01:10:17with the intention

01:10:19of inducing

01:10:21Stainsbury

01:10:21to act favourably

01:10:23in Redding's interest?

01:10:25If so

01:10:26that was corruption.

01:10:28in this trial

01:10:31either both men

01:10:32are innocent

01:10:32or both men

01:10:33are guilty

01:10:33you cannot

01:10:35convict one

01:10:36and acquit the other

01:10:37because no offence

01:10:38was committed

01:10:39unless

01:10:39joint purpose

01:10:41existed.

01:10:42Now

01:10:42I refer to

01:10:43joint purpose

01:10:44because what you

01:10:44have to consider

01:10:45is the purpose

01:10:46of those gifts.

01:10:49Now

01:10:49normally

01:10:50the prosecution

01:10:52have to

01:10:52prove guilt

01:10:53beyond

01:10:55all reasonable

01:10:55doubt

01:10:56but on this

01:10:57issue

01:10:57the defendants

01:10:59have to

01:11:00satisfy you

01:11:01on the balance

01:11:02of probabilities

01:11:03that is to say

01:11:04if you think

01:11:07it more likely

01:11:07than not

01:11:08that the gifts

01:11:09or monies

01:11:10were not made

01:11:11with that intention

01:11:13then you

01:11:15should acquit.

01:11:18Will you now

01:11:19please retire

01:11:20and consider

01:11:20your verdicts?

01:11:21All stand.

01:11:26Members of the jury

01:11:27will your foreman

01:11:28please stand.

01:11:30Just answer this

01:11:31question

01:11:31yes or no

01:11:32have you reached

01:11:33a verdict

01:11:33upon which

01:11:33you are all

01:11:34agreed?

01:11:35Yes.

01:11:36Do you find

01:11:36the defendant

01:11:37John Stainsbury

01:11:38guilty

01:11:38or not guilty

01:11:39on the charge

01:11:40of corruptly

01:11:40receiving gifts?

01:11:41Guilty.

01:11:42Is that the

01:11:43verdict of you

01:11:43all?

01:11:44Yes.

01:11:45Do you find

01:11:46the defendant

01:11:46Stanley Redding

01:11:47guilty or not

01:11:48guilty on the

01:11:48charge of

01:11:49corruptly making

01:11:50gifts?

01:11:51Guilty.

01:11:51Is that the

01:11:52verdict of you

01:11:52all?

01:11:53Yes.

01:11:54John Stainsbury

01:11:55you have been

01:11:56found guilty

01:11:56of a very

01:11:57serious charge.

01:11:58You abused

01:11:59a public position

01:12:00for the sake

01:12:00of financial gain.

01:12:02I have no

01:12:02alternative but

01:12:03to sentence you

01:12:04to two years

01:12:04imprisonment.

01:12:06Stanley Redding

01:12:07you have also

01:12:08been found guilty

01:12:08of corruption.

01:12:10Your counsel

01:12:10has pleaded

01:12:11on your behalf

01:12:11that you were

01:12:12the weaker

01:12:13character of the

01:12:14two.

01:12:15But you bear

01:12:15the greater

01:12:16responsibility

01:12:17in that you

01:12:18are guilty

01:12:18of the more

01:12:19serious charge

01:12:20that of corruptly

01:12:22making the

01:12:23gifts for gain.

01:12:25Therefore I

01:12:25sentence you

01:12:26to two and a

01:12:26half years

01:12:27imprisonment.

01:12:28Take them down.

01:12:28next week

01:12:42a chance for you

01:12:43to join another

01:12:44jury in assessing

01:12:45the facts

01:12:45when our cameras

01:12:46return to watch

01:12:47a leading case

01:12:48in the Crown Court.

01:12:49of the

Crown Court - Corruption (1974)

Category

Transcript

Comments

Recommended