Ref: A00-300995 Case No. 871626 Macpherson II
Volume V, Pages 1-6, Thursday 15th June, 1989
(In the absence of the jury)
MR. HAMBLIN: May it please your Lordship, I understand
Mr. Beckman is in the building and is currently changing. He
should not be more than a few minutes.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Do you have an application to make?
MR. HAMBLIN: It would be my application - I hope it would be
considered - would your Lordship be minded to grant five
minutes?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I do not see why. It is 10.33; I sit at
10.30.
MR. HAMBLIN: I know Mr. Beckman is aware of that. There have
been difficulties with regard to certain aspects of the case
which I understand those instructing me have been taking
instructions on.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Tell me about them, I will see if I can
help.
MR. HAMBLIN: I do not think your Lordship would be in a position
to help; they concern the defendant's medical evidence. It
is a fundamental aspect of the defence case. Would the
Court be minded to ---
(Mr. Beckman came into court)
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Is there a problem, Mr. Beckman?
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, I am sorry, everything went wrong. I
thought I had time. I left my papers here and went up to
robe. I thought I had five minutes. It seems that with one
problem and another I got it wrong.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I mean is there some problem about
starting now?
MR. BECKMAN: No.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, may I take the opportunity to let your
Lordship know of yet further problems which have arisen
during the last day. Dr. Herridge is ill. The Crown for
their part would be prepared to go ahead without his evidence
in the circumstance of the case. Rather more importantly,
Dr. Pearson, who your Lordship will appreciate is the
government chemist who assessed the viabilitiy [sic] of the demand
document, is still on tour of various parts of Sweden in
accordance with his duties with the Ministry of Defence and
he will not be available to give his evidence until Tuesday
afternoon. There is no-one in court more than I who
appreciates the significance of what I have said to your
Lordship. Again the Crown would be quite prepared to have
his evidence read, but there again I understand my friend's
position, that he may well want, certainly if not
Dr. Pearson, a chemist to be cross-examined on various
aspects of the scientific analysis of the document.
Regretfully it comes to this: that we are looking at
perhaps Friday and Monday as it were out of court, possibly
Tuesday morning also.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I have been very patient but I am
aghast. I think we will simply have to go on. If the case
collapses, it collapses.
MR. TEMPLE: From the prosecution point of view I am not
concerned; I take the view the Crown have already proved the
case in any event.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Yes, that may be so. This man can be
called by the defence if he is so valuable to them.
MR. TEMPLE: We would certainly make him available.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: If he is not available the case may have
to be closed and if they wish to call him they can call him.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, I would be put at an enormous disadvantage
if a witness I wished to cross-examine I had to take in
chief.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: We might have to insert him or something
of that kind. If the information was available to the
defence he would be able to give assistance to the Court
whoever called him or whenever he was called.
MR. BECKMAN: With respect, my Lord, no. It is essential I be
able to cross-examine him and the result of the cross-
examination will have a large effect on the legal submissions
I wish to make. Also, my Lord, if I may say so, so far as
Mr. Herridge is concerned, I have prepared the whole approach
to the case and a large amount of very carefully prepared
cross-examination in the anticipation of Mr. Herridge.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: If he is ill nothing can be done.
MR. BECKMAN: I appreciate that, but may I say ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I am not going to put the case off until
Mr. Herridge is well.
MR. BECKMAN: No, my Lord, but I would have thought the
prosecution - we have managed to obtain psychiatric
assistance within a very short period of time of an expert,
another - namely not seeing the man, going through the
document and expressing a view about hypomania, and I would
have thought that is a task easily done by the prosecution
so someone can be cross-examined. The whole case has been
run, as far as the defence is concerned, on the way it has
been run by the Crown.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I am not sure if most of the evidence
from Dr. Herridge is admissible in any event. He has not
seen the defendant. No doctor can give an opinion out of the
air so to speak.
MR. BECKMAN: I respectfully agree.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I am not sure the evidence is admissible
and in the end if what he says is right, it is not
(inaudible). That is for the jury.
MR. BECKMAN: Two aspects of that ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I am not being antagonistic to you, I
want to find out what we can do about the Crown's case.
MR. BECKMAN: I am aware of that; I have explained the problems.
The prosecution are very keen to establish in the event of a
question - of two questions: one, was this a drug related
condition or was it created or was it indogenous [sic], in the
sense it is hypomania? In the event the question arises
whether his state of mind was such that at the material time
he had the necessary ability to have the necessary intent,
whether it is hypomania. It is fundamental to the case.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: It is fundamental to the defence case.
MR. BECKMAN: No, it is fundamental to the prosecution case as
well in the way the matter has been put.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I am surprised at that. It strikes me
that the right way to deal with this, although the condition
has been given to you (inaudible) you call medical evidence
if you have it and provide medical evidence in rebuttal.
That would be the ordinary way.
MR. BECKMAN: No, my Lord. It is for the prosecution ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: You say "No" to me somewhat emphatically
about that but I think you are wrong about that.
MR. BECKMAN: Forgive me, my Lord, I did not say "emphatically"
at the beginning of the sentence.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I do not want to argue any more,
Mr. Beckman, not because it may not assist, but I am deciding
what to do about the Crown's case. Are you saying your
client wishes this matter to go over to Tuesday so that this
man can be called? He is happy with that?
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, I would strongly advise him so and he has
been sensible ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I would have thought he would be better
to have the Crown's case closed, but I will rise and you
can see him because I am not going to adjourn the case.
(The trial was adjourned for a short time)
(The jury was brought into court)
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, I am very sorry
that you have been kept waiting. You can probably detect
from my tone of voice that I have more irritating news.
The delay has been because we have been discussing the
availability of witnesses. We have evidence which will be
heard today; some witnesses from Cyprus and some medical
evidence. After that we will have to adjourn until two
o'clock on Tuesday. I do not think you would expect me to go
into the whys and wherefores of it, but the fact is the case
has gone so fast with the assistance of everybody, including
the accused man and his advisers, that time has overtaken us
and there is an important witness who is on holiday and who
apparently cannot be substituted. I had very much hoped his
evidence could be given by another scientist - he is a
scientist from Porton Down - but that I am told is impossible
and therefore we have to adjourn until Tuesday.
I simply ask you to contain your patience which must be
getting a bit thin, as mine is, and after we have finished
today, come back on Tuesday when the evidence for the Crown
will end. Wednesday is next week's strike day and so what I
am going to do is not sit on Wednesday from the point of view
of your services, which I hope will be an indication to you.
I will try and help you as far as that is concerned because
your journey might be difficult. We will probably be
concerned with some legal argument which very often takes
place when the Crown case is finished and before the defence
puts its case, so that is the programme. I can only
apologise to you and ask you to bear in mind the problems of
others and the difficulties that do occur and have occurred
in this case because of the speed with which the case has
progressed. We will now go on with the evidence.
Index | Previous | Next