John Alexander Symonds
“I'd say: ‘join the KGB and see the world’ - first class. I went to all over the world on these jobs and I had a marvellous time. I stayed in the best hotels, I visited all the best beaches, I've had access to beautiful women, unlimited food, champagne, caviar whatever you like and I had a wonderful time. That was my KGB experience. I don't regret a minute of it ...”
Geoffrey Rivlin QC Closing Speech Part 1
Geoffrey Rivlin QC: Members of the Jury you are all no doubt very relieved indeed that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel in this case. We have now reached the closing stages of this trial, and my concern at this stage is to let you know how it is that the Crown puts its case on these three charges. And I can tell you that I propose to get straight down to business there in a minute or two and to discuss the charges and the background to the charges and to concentrate on the charges. Because when all is said and done that’s what you must do in this case, that is concentrate on the charges and return verdicts in respect of them.
There may be things; there may be many things that I shall not even mention. This is not a competition as to who can think of the most points. It’s an exercise members of the jury designed to enable you to arrive at the truth as to what happened. It’s a very serious exercise. What is the truth in this case?
The defendant himself has said that there’s always two sides to every story, and of course there is. There’s no such thing as a case, however guilty a man may be, where he can’t advance at least some points on his own behalf for a jury’s consideration. There are many points that have been advanced by him in this case, some of them fair points, some even you may think good points. If that is the case the Crown begrudges none of them, but there are many other points that have been advanced, of doubtful relevance and of even more doubtful validity, and the Crown is entitled to begrudge those.
In our submission your function in this case is to decide what the truth of the matter was according to the evidence that you’ve heard. And members of the jury you do that according to the principles of law enunciated by the learned judge and of course bearing in mind that it is for the Prosecution to prove its case against this man.
We say that no case could really be proved more conclusively against a man than this man. But it’s difficult enough to say that members of the jury, one has to demonstrate it. There are three counts in this case; representing three days upon which the defendant is said to have received money: the 28th of October, the 31st of October, the 21st of November. Concentrate on the payments of money that is what this case is all about. Are they proved by the Prosecution? If so, what were those payments of money for?
Of course all of this happened a very long time ago. Of course it makes it more difficult for people to remember what happened. But members of the jury, merely because it happened a long time ago is not a matter that should deflect you from arriving at the truth in this case. What a game it would be, what a cynical game, if people could commit crime, be involved in police corruption, flee the country for so many years, and then come back and say: “well the case is now an old one, you shouldn’t prosecute me, let me off.”
The charges, members of the jury, wouldn’t it help for us to look at the charges in this way. There were three meetings between Perry and the defendant. We know that there were more. There were in fact at least four, but there were three with which we are very closely concerned in this case, those on the days of the charges. How did those meetings arise, and what were those meetings all about? The Prosecution submit to you members of the jury that the answers to those two questions will lead with certainty to the conclusion that those meetings were for corrupt purposes.
Let’s consider the first question, how did those meetings arise? Well, you know what the Crown evidence on that is, Perry and Mr Lloyd and Mr Mounter, that these meetings were by arrangement, and that they were meetings for corrupt purposes. The defendant says no, and when I say the defendant said it, this is what he said to you on Friday of last week and Monday of this week. “No, the meeting on the 28th, the first one, was all a mistake” he said, he thought that he was meeting a chap called Terry, who was an informant, not Perry. And as regards the other two the defendant said: “well I normally had lunch at the Grove” And I quote his words: “surprise, surprise, by complete co-incidence I met Perry”.
Now what do you make of that? Do you believe it? Can you begin to believe it? Because members of the jury if you find that that is untrue there isn’t a very strong foundation, is there, for the defendant’s case that he advances, that he was not accepting corrupt payments?
Let’s consider the first one, 28th, that he was going to meet, or believed that he was going to meet, Terry. You’ve heard the tape for yourselves. Would you have a look please at Exhibit 35b members of the jury? Page one at the bottom of the page. “Hello, its Perry here, remember me do you?” “Who?” “Perry.” Do you believe for a moment that he imagined that he was going to meet Terry? After all members of the jury this was a conversation of some little duration. Do you think that he didn’t know who he was talking to?
And then would you please go on members of the jury and look beyond that in the same meeting, bottom of page two: “We’re going to meet late”. “Yes”, says Symonds, “that’s alright, about ten o’clockish?” “Alright, yeah”. So that they are going to meet at about ten o’clock at the Rose; but we know that they didn’t meet at ten o’clock. We know that they met at five-thirty - why? - because Perry had telephoned to bring the meeting forward. So that it wasn’t just one chat that the defendant had had with Perry, it was two. And do you still believe after two telephone conversations, the second one to bring the meeting forward, that he still didn’t know who he was going to meet that evening?
Well members of the jury, what happened at the meeting on the 28th, that afternoon? What did happen? We know that Mr Perry got into the defendant’s motor car. Never suggested that the defendant, to Perry, that the defendant thought he was meeting the wrong person. “And what are you doing here; I’m supposed to be meeting a man called Terry? I can’t speak to you; I’m waiting to speak to somebody called Terry”. This all came up for the very first time. I think it was last Friday.
And members of the jury you’ve only got to look at the transcript of what we have on tape 2 to appreciate that the two men were on terms of some intimacy in relation to that which they were talking about. Sergeant Symonds: “sort of seeing the customers and that’s why you get the money. See you on a nice little fraud. It doesn’t matter how hard you work or how much you go out thieving, and how many people you fucking turn over, you still won’t get as much in ten”. Is this the man who has arranged to meet a man called Terry, and who is surprised to find that one of the Likely Lads had come into his motor car, as it were, almost by mistake?
What about the three meetings as a whole: the 28th and the 31st and the 21st? Mr Perry and Mr Lloyd and Mr Mounter told you that these meetings were by appointment, in the sense that they knew when the meetings were going to take place. They had all the equipment set up, Perry was wired, they organised the money, took the numbers of the money, gave Perry the money back, the photographers were there, Hawkey was there, Miss Millard was there, Barry Owen was there on the first occasion. Was all this, did all this happen by magic on the off-chance that Sergeant Symonds might be taking his lunch at the Grove public house that day? Or isn’t it clearly the case members of the jury that these meetings were arranged with Mr Perry has told you they were.
Why would the defendant have you think otherwise? Why does he want you to think that they may have been, they may have met, not may but that they did meet by co-incidence. Well members of the jury the answer may be this you may think that if these were pre-arranged meetings there’s got to be some reason for them, there’s got to be some good reason at that with this man, who was then on bail, and who was suspected of being one of the Likely Lads. If they had met purely by chance there’s rather less explaining to do, is there not?
And so that brings us to the next question, which is perhaps the vital question in the case. What were these meetings for, what were they all about? It was put to Mr Perry, members of the jury that the meetings may have been that the defendant wished to use Perry as an informant - that is one possibility. The only other possibility in this case is that the meetings were for corruption. And you may think there can be no doubt about it members of the jury, either the defendant met Perry because he wished to use him as an informant, or corruption was in the air.
Now, let’s consider which of those two it really was, but before that members of the jury may I just point to that which was said by the defendant in his statement from the dock on Friday and Monday. Because it was suggested to Perry, you understand, that Perry was to be used as an informant. Let us consider what the defendant had to say about this. Do you know what he had to say about it members of the jury? Nothing.
There are four vital days in this case: the 24th September, the 28th October, the 31st October and the 21st November. There are four vital days in this case, and we have all spent weeks in this case, considering what happened on those four vital days. As to the 24th September, that’s the time that Perry and the defendant met at Camberwell police station in the cells. What did the defendant say about that in his statement from the dock? Nothing.
As to the 28th October, this is what he said to you in his statement from the dock: “all I remember of that conversation is that Perry was talking to me in a friendly fashion about nothing in particular.”
Now I’m going to come to the 31st and the 21st, the dates that are the subject of counts two and three. What did he say about those? Nothing. This is what he said, and these were the vital days in this case about which no doubt if he was going to say anything from the dock we would have been anxiously listening. This is all he said: “I met him many more times than has come out in the evidence”. And that’s all that you heard about the 31st October and the 21st of October. And may I respectfully remind you members of the jury that you decide this case according to the evidence that you’ve heard. And the defendant in his statement from the dock chose to say nothing about those days.
So members of the jury what is the position, what are you left with? Well, I’ll tell you what you are left with if I may. You are left with the evidence on the one side and on the other side you are left with a suggestion that was made to Perry that they were met for the purposes of the defendant getting information from him, and so I’m going to investigate that possibility with you now.
There are three points that I wish to make about the suggestion to Perry, that Perry was being used as an informant. And incidentally members of the jury, against that you will remember this, that Perry said in his evidence when this was put to him: “No, they were meetings between a criminal and a corrupt police officer”, the criminal involved himself.
The three points that I wish to make are as follows. First. In all of the transcripts that are before you, there isn’t one single word that could possibly lead one to believe that the defendant was trying to get information out of Perry. Not one single question did the defendant ask of Perry which could have helped him in any way to obtain information.
The second point that I make is this, and I would ask you to look please at page 24 of Exhibit No. 35b. Top of the page. Mr Symonds: “you see the thing is, what, you know, I don’t mind helping out, but er if there’s a fucking grass amongst them, you see I’m putting my ... see what I’ve said that McDonald, you know, trying to get at McDonald grassed them because, em, if he’s standing up collected up then he’s grassed them right. I start steaming in and fucking doing things ...” “Yeah that’s right, yeah.” “… to get them all out then he’s just as likely to fucking grass me isn’t he?” “Yeah but I can’t see him doing that.” “So if I’m going to help out it’s got to be that McDonald. McDonald’s, anyway, knowing fuck all about it.” “I got you yeah.” “He doesn’t even want to fucking know he’s had any help. Well I’ll find out who, if, who is the grass, and if he is the grass then he can be seen to afterwards, can’t he?” “Yeah, yeah.” “By, by the fellers.”
And so members of the jury, the only reference to grassing, informing, in any of these transcripts goes directly the other way, the defendant is making it crystal clear to Perry that he is not going to be involved with having anything to do with people who are grasses because they can’t be trusted. And isn’t that interesting members of the jury against the background that the defendant says that there was, what, criminal fantasy land. “He can be seen to afterwards can’t he?” “Yeah yeah.” “By, by the fellers.” Criminal fantasy indeed.
And the third point members of the jury, that I make about informants is this. Would you please pick up Exhibit No. 31, which is the diary? And there’s no need for us to go through all of this, I assure you. Can we start in October, because that’s where all of this begins. Would you go to the 2nd October please, 9.30 p.m., do you have the 2nd October, 9.30 p.m., entered Walmer Castle public house, purchased refreshments for informant. Next day members of the jury, 3rd October, 9.30 p.m. to Rose public house, purchased refreshments for informant, left public house. Next day, the 4th October, 9.20 p.m., the Walmer Castle public house, purchased refreshments for informant. Next day, the 5th October, 9.00 p.m., to Tiger public house, purchased refreshments for informant, left public house. Next day, the 6th October, 9.40 p.m., Hermits Cave, purchased refreshments for informant.
Nothing in the next page, or the next, or I think the next, 10th October, 9.00 p.m., to Walmer Castle, purchased refreshments for informant, then there’s a week with leave members of the jury. Then he comes back on the 15th October.
18th October if you please, 8.15 p.m., purchased refreshments for informer while seeking information about local crime. 25th October members of the jury. We’re getting close to the day. 9.45 p.m., entered Walmer Castle, met informant for whom purchased refreshments. Next day 26th October, 9.00 p.m., entered Walmer Castle, met informant. Could we have this switched off please?
We leave out the 27th October members of the jury. 28th October, would you look at 5.15 p.m. please, that’s the time 5.30 that he met Perry. Not a word there, is there, about Perry being an informant? But just look at 8.30 that day, same day took up the pays they’re owed re Jackson and Reed and while seeking information entered Plough public house and met informant for whom purchased refreshments. Next reference that he’s meeting an informant on that day at 8.30 - no reference at all to the facts that he is meeting an informant at 5.30.
Then we go on members of the jury. 3rd of November 9.00 p.m. Of course you’ll appreciate, I’ll say go on, but we’ve gone past the 31st October, which is the second vital day in this case. If you look at 2.45 p.m. on that day, 2.00 p.m. - 2.45 p.m., no reference to the fact that he’s meeting an informant. He doesn’t have to give the informant’s name, just to say that it’s an informant, that wasn’t how he saw Perry at all, was it?
3rd of November, Artichoke public house, refreshments for informant. Then he takes some leave members of the jury, and then if we can go on please to the 11th of November, 7.00 p.m., and that informant for whom purchased refreshments. 13th of November, 9 p.m. met informant. 15th, 9.15, met informant. 16th, 9.00 p.m., met informant. 17th, 6.15, met informant. 19th, 9.30, met informant. 20th, the day before count three, 10.00 p.m., met informant. 21st of November, count three, 12.30 was the time of the meeting members of the jury, not a word about meeting an informant. And finally, and now I tell you on the last two pages, 24th of November and the 25th at 8.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m., met informant.
This man regularly made entries in his diaries every time he met an informant, as you can see members of the jury, and lo and behold in so far as his meetings with Perry are concerned, not a mention of the fact that he was considered to be an informant. Why not, if he was a genuine police informant, who was there to give him, the defendant, information? We say to you members of the jury that you really need to have no doubt about this, but that there is very strong evidence indeed that Perry was not being treated as an informant by the defendant, and if he wasn’t, then what on earth were those meetings all about. There’s no excuse for them, there’s no explanation for them. Well the crown say that we’ve now got to turn to the second alternative, that is corruption.
The evidence members of the jury, the direct evidence of Perry and Lloyd and Mounter, and Miss Millard; the evidence is all one way here. The tapes are obviously important evidence if you accept them, and it’s not for me to say whether you should accept them. I shall advance arguments in due course, arguments on which the prosecution base the view that you should, but in the end it’s for you to decide whether to accept those tapes or not. But if you do accept those tapes members of the jury, why then there’s no question whatsoever in our submission that this was corruption.
Let’s, shall we, examine what the name of this game really was. And let’s forget for a moment about counts numbers one, two and three. Would you pick up those tapes, those transcripts again members of the jury please? Page six, which is tape number two. This is Robson, the Robson matter and the gelignite. Look at the top of page six, and this is the …
Judge Stroyan: 35d to …?
Rivlin: I’m sorry
Judge Stroyan: 35d?
Rivlin: 35d, page six. This is Robson, the Robson gelignite matter, and this is the second, this is the very first meeting that was recorded, the date of count number one, the top of the page: “I’ll see you about the other thing later on”. Perry said that that was money; what else could it have been, but let’s go on. “If you get anything like, any problems, let me know Steve, because I …” “It was only that yard, and the jelly like, it’s what I’m worried about”. “Yeah”. “It carries a bit of bird don’t it? If I can scrape up a few quid. If it comes to a few quid, I mean, I can scrape it up”. “Yeah” “I can borrow it, like. I mean I can always borrow it. If it’s right important, I mean, like”. That’s money members of the jury, money that’s to be paid to a police officer for corrupt purposes. Can we please go on.
Would you go on please to pages 26 and 27. This is the third meeting. The third meeting, bottom of page 26, and we’re talking members of the jury about Robson, and you will remember all that business about don’t go and meet him at the police station and we’ll get, take, he’ll be taken into a deal. That’s not criminal fantasy land, that was good solid advice that he was being given, bottom of page 26. Perry: “yeah, he’s alright that way but then he might.” “Is he”? “Yeah, I’ve given him money before. But he might this time, he might want a body or something, you know what I mean? But I don’t particularly trust him like.” This is the defendant talking about another police officer, members of the jury. “That’s another thing they do to you, d’you see? Once they get in with you they, they try, start using you as a grass. But once, you see, like for instance, supposing I was talking to you now, you know, sort of did a bit of business. Alright, I might reckon you now, but as soon as you started fucking, I might say to you if I was a keen bloke I might say ‘here who did so and so and so’, and if you tell me, I wouldn’t think fuck all of you after that.”
That goes straight to the heart of the question as to whether the defendant ever even considered using Perry as an informant. He’s telling him I wouldn’t think tuppence of you if you gave me information. “No they’ve tried that already on him.” “Because if you’re a grass you’re a fucking grass and if you’re a grass that means you’re likely, just as likely to fucking grass me as any cunt, see what I mean.” Perry: “Yeah like, the minute he, the first time they put the jelly on me you see, and he was trying to get the names off me that way, you see. I wouldn’t give him no names, so we done it money-wise, right.” “Yeah.” “And if he wants”, and then just look at this members of the jury, “well, what could he want you for, if you’ve done your business, there’s nothing owing is there?” “No his had his poor wretch.” “He’s got nothing on you. I wouldn’t fucking see the cunt quite honestly. Like it, say if you owed him money, see, and he said oh well he’s got to meet you, then of course you’ll go, got to go and that’s it.” “Yeah, yeah.” “Because otherwise he’ll think you’re fucking him up about the money, and he’ll fit you up. But you’ve done the business and you just want to drop the man out of it, because what he’s doing, he might try to bleed you. He might think, oh this, you know, I’m on to a good one here, and, because we’ve got more villains in our game than you’ve got in yours.”
And then members of the jury, the very next paragraph of the defendant’s talk there’s reference again to him bleeding him dry, and all the time they’re talking about Perry paying money to Robson, and I know that I’ve emphasised the word money, but you understand this is my chance to draw to your attention just what the name of the of the game really was between these two men. All the time the defendant and Perry here are talking about money, money going to police for corrupt purposes.
And members of the jury just go over the page please to the bottom of page 39, 29 sorry: “But then again, that’s alright, but then again he might also have half heard something about you and sort of try and bring it round and say we know all about this, that and the other, conning you, you know. Then sort of con dough out of, you know. But he doesn’t really know fuck all at all really, he’s only half heard you’d done something.” “Yeah.” “You’ve got to watch all this because otherwise you’ll be fucking, you’ll be fucking skint all your life, you know. Send a mate up to see Robson, and if says, and if he says to the mate, em, you know, the other thing is don’t let the mate show out to Robson that he knows you’ve paid him dough, or anything you see, because then Robson will think, well if he’s fucking told this bloke, he’s told every cunt, you know, and he won’t deal with you any more.” “No, no, he don’t know, none of the others know.” “But, but as I say if you, if you paid all your dough, all it can be is a tip off. It’s either a tip-off about something else, or he’s going to try and blag you for some money because Christmas is coming.”
And then over the page members of the jury, third line down: “but he’s not on your back, is he?” “No, not really.” “You’ve finished the business”. Now members of the jury, this was the situation here you know, that there was a great deal of chat about Robson and the money that Perry was having to pay to Robson, Robson being a police officer, the money being paid for corrupt purposes. What did the defendant do about it: he advised Perry on his own behalf? He didn’t, did he members of jury, act the hero, if I can use the defendant’s own expression, and say to Perry: “my goodness me, what on earth’s going on here. You tell me about it, I’ll investigate it.”
Do you remember how the defendant criticised the Nuneaton officers because they hadn’t immediately cautioned Perry when he offered them a bribe and said I’ll give you some money to get out of here? Why didn’t he the caution them? A criminal offence was being committed. This was the defendant’s chance members of the jury, to show his true mettle, when he was told over and over and over again that a fellow police officer was receiving corrupt payments. Not a word about this. It was all to this end wasn’t it: “well I hope you do your business and finish your business with him as soon as possible, and then we can get down to our business in earnest.”
Why didn’t the defendant do something about this situation? If it was left to the Times reporters to do something about the situation, why didn’t the defendant, a serving police officer, do something about the situation? Well, the answer to that, members of the jury, unhappily, again is to be found in the words of Mr Symonds himself: “I’m in a little firm within a firm you know.” And, I’ve just pointed out to you the passages where Perry is telling the defendant about the gelignite, and Robson and the money.
Can I remind you members of the jury of what the defendant told the police when he was interviewed? This is what he was asked, and it’s the bottom of page 337: “Did Perry tell you he was asked that Inspector Robson had planted jelly, meaning gelignite on him”? “No”. “Did Perry tell you that he was prepared to pay money to Inspector Robson to avoid prosecution for possessing gelignite?” Defendant’s answer: “No.” Well he did, it’s all there. Why was he telling those untruths in evidence to the witness?
And so members of the jury, you can look outside the immediate facts of this case to see what the name of the game was. It’s all there, in all of those references to gelignite, and Robson, and Perry paying Robson money. In relation members of the jury to the instant case, however, as you know, there are a number of passages upon which the prosecution rely. In cross-examination this is what Perry said to the defendant, and this was with reference to tape number one, members of the jury, and you will remember that, do you not, it’s on page number two. “I’d like to see you about, well you know”. “Yeah, where are you now”?
The defendant put it to Perry that they could have been talking about information. He didn’t then put it to him that he believed that it was somebody else called Terry, but he put it to him that they could have been talking about information. What was Perry’s answer, do you remember? “We both knew what we were talking about.” “Could this sentence have applied to information,” asked the defendant? “Not coming from me, it couldn’t”, said Perry. “We both knew what we were talking about.” And when you listen to the tape do you not hear with your own ears a sound of recognition in the defendant when Perry says “I’d like to see you about, er, you know.”
Tape 5 members of the jury, page 7, top of the page: “How you doing Mickey.” “You know a bit more dough.” “I see.”
Page 15, about a third of the way down: “I still ain’t got it all yet. I got another 50, alright?” “Yeah, fine, yeah.”
Page 19, and this is the money between Perry and the defendant, bottom of the page: “Do alright then Mick, get anything you, er, you know keep in touch.” “I’ll get it, and I’m going to definitely get it next week, but I couldn’t get my hands on it.” “Yes that’s alright. As I say, don’t do anything silly, just sort of, you know.”
Tape 14, page 22, top of the page: “How you doing Mickey”. “Alright there, I ain’t got, er, actually I’ve only got 50, alright.” “Pardon?” “I’ve only got 50 again, alright?” “Yeah. Some of your mates are in trouble, aren’t they?”
Had you noticed, or have you noticed members of the jury that every time the subject of money does crop up between them, the way that the voice drops and the way that the conversation hurries on, to something else just as you’d expect it to be, if you, a corrupt police officer was sitting in the car, and taking fivers or tenners from some lend to you crook.
Page 24, bottom of the page. If you’ve written something in members of the jury, so be it, but you’ll remember the evidence about that from both Perry, and from Mr Penna and Mr Eley. Reference to money. I’m sorry to say that I may have to return to these particular references in due course.
Page 30, bottom of the page: “I only got the Section ones coming up that’s all, but I can’t, I don’t know when I’ll get the money. It could be this week like, but no it’s a bit late this week now, not this week now. But that other cunt on me back from the yard, he’s a … I can’t do fuck all.” “No, what Robson?” And then they go onto the business of Robson and Harris.
Page 36, bottom of the page, something for which no explanation has ever been advanced in this case: “Anyway Mick, thanks very much for that”. You know what, and so it goes on.
And look members of the jury, if you like, at page 13. This is the last reference that I’m going to give you on the transcripts just for the time being. Rather interesting and ironical little bit of conversation that comes in the middle of the page, on page 13. “The thing to do, you see, is if you, you know like once you’ve sort of got yourself all square and that, fucking work in with us you know”. “Yeah” “But I know like, you know, I can’t give you no - you haven’t got this thing bugged or something have you, so I talk in a false voice, you know? Talk with a Scotch accent”, and you’ll probably remember that little bit of laughter for a long time. He wouldn’t be saying that would he members of the jury if they were talking about information that Perry was giving him: “You haven’t got this thing bugged have you?” Just an interesting little vignette, this is corruption. And that was what was in the defendant’s mind. And there are so many references to money, in these tapes members of the jury, that it could only conceivably have been corruption that those two men were on about.
Well, the defendant seeks does he not, and did so, and you’ll probably remember it, in his cross-examination of the witnesses. Shrug it all off, and to pour scorn on these tapes and to brush them aside, the whole lot aside with that expression: ‘it’s all criminal fantasy land’. That’s what he says, but you know members of the jury it’s interesting to consider whether it really was all criminal fantasy land. Some of it may have been very silly talk, some of it may have been insincere on the defendant’s part. Maybe that he had no intentions whatsoever of going out with Perry and committing crime, but you just think about it. Do you remember Mr Harley giving evidence yesterday, that one of the things that they were concerned about was that these Likely Lads were changing addresses and they couldn’t keep track on them. Do you remember that message?
Well, let’s consider shall will what the position was there. If you look please at page 31 of the transcript and page 32, bottom of page 31: “Yeah I got nicked the last time I moved.” “As soon as everyone knows where you live you might just as well fucking pack it all in. There you know, because the, and the other thing like, when you went to Nunhead Lane, I tell you now you know, you sort of showed out straight away that you’d arrived.” And what a business it was, wasn’t it members of the jury that police officers were desperately, it would seem, trying to keep track on the Likely Lads, to find out where they were living and where they were stashing their gear, if I can be permitted to use that expression. And the defendant’s giving Perry the advice that he’s all too conspicuous, that it’s no good when the police know where he’s living, and that the best thing to do is to stash away the stolen gear in some lock-up garage or another.
You may think members of the jury that the one bit of advice that an honest police officer might have been inclined to give is: “stay where you are, don’t worry stay where you are”. Tricking Perry into believing that he’s all right where he is, but knowing in his own mind that at least the police can keep track of him where he is.
And all that business about committing offences out of town - did that sound to you like criminal fantasy land? There may be one or two little bits in this lot, that were in fact and in truth criminal fantasy land, but the vast majority of it members of the jury made good sound practical common sense. This is what Mr Perry said in evidence, when he was asked about this, and whether all this was criminal fantasy land: “We just started having dealings with each other. You were just telling me what sort of things we could do, hoping to get further money out of me later on.” And Perry you may think hit the nail on the head when he said that, did he not members of the jury.
Please comment: If you have any comment to make about the above page, or want to ask John Symonds a question, then please go to our Contact Us page
|Home||About Me||About Me 2||About Me 3||About Me 4||1981 Trial||Trial Records|
|Angus Stroyan||Geoffrey Rivlin QC||Christopher Andrew||Comments||Related Links||Contact Us||Stroyan Speech 1|
|Stroyan Speech 2||Stroyan Speech 3||Stroyan Speech 4||Stroyan Speech 5||Stroyan Speech 6||Rivlin Speech 1||Rivlin Speech 2|
|Sunny Jim||Scotland Yard Intro||Scotland Yard 1||Scotland Yard 2||Scotland Yard 3||Scotland Yard 4||Romeo Spy 1|
|Romeo Spy 2||Romeo Spy 3||Romeo Spy 4||Romeo Spy 5||Romeo Spy 6||Romeo Spy 7||Romeo Spy 8|
|Romeo Spy 9|
|Raleigh Spy Conference||Jon Ronson Spying|
© 2011 John Alexander Symonds