Transcript of the Directions Hearing of 8 June 2012

           1                                            Friday, 8 June 2012

           2   (10.25 am)

           3   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, Mr Underwood.

           4                   Submissions by MR UNDERWOOD

           5   MR UNDERWOOD:  Good morning, sir.  I appear, as you know,

           6       for the Inquiry.  Mr Thomas, over to your left, appears

           7       this morning for Mrs Alexander.  Mr Beer,

           8       Queens Counsel, for the MPS.  Ms Leek, Queens Counsel,

           9       for E7.

          10   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  The usual suspects.

          11   MR UNDERWOOD:  And an unusual suspect.  Ms Chalkley, very

          12       demurely sitting at the back to your far right, for HMRC

          13       today.

          14           There has been a sort of agenda --

          15   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          16   MR UNDERWOOD:  -- for this management hearing circulated,

          17       which has five items on it.

          18           Can I just deal very briefly with the first three?

          19   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          20   MR UNDERWOOD:  The first of those is delivery of witness

          21       statements and experts' reports.  We are on timetable

          22       for that.  The evidence has been substantially served.

          23       There are a few remarkably reluctant witnesses whom we

          24       are still chasing and tracking.  Their statements will

          25       trickle in, regrettably lately, but otherwise that is




           1       where it ought to be.

           2           So far as issues are concerned, there has been

           3       an extremely helpful round table meeting, at which there

           4       was an extremely constructive discussion about the

           5       issues.  The outcome of that is that I am still going to

           6       leave the issues in quite general terms, so as only to

           7       structure the way in which the evidence is to be led.

           8       I will circulate, in due course, subissues that I have

           9       always said will be likely to emerge, and people will be

          10       getting those over the course of the next week or so for

          11       discussion.

          12           The hearing timetable is the third item on here.

          13       Again, everything is on track for a hearing starting on

          14       3 September, running through to 20 December this year,

          15       inclusive.  Again, that has been circulated.  Again, it

          16       has been subject to extremely constructive discussion,

          17       and adjustments have been made to accommodate various

          18       issues.  So again, all of those matters are on track.

          19       There is nothing else to concern ourselves about for

          20       those.

          21           What there then is remaining is numbers four and

          22       five: Mrs Alexander's renewed application about E

          23       officers listening to evidence before they themselves

          24       give evidence.  And perhaps conjoined with that, the

          25       question of whether there should be a videolink from




           1       here to a police station, so the police officers can

           2       hear and see the evidence as it comes.

           3           Really, it is Mr Thomas' application, renewed

           4       application, and I will leave it to him.

           5   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Just before I turn to that, does

           6       anybody else want to say anything about items 1, 2 or 3?

           7       No.  Very well.

           8           Yes, Mr Thomas?

           9                     Submissions by MR THOMAS

          10   MR THOMAS:  Good morning, sir.

          11   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Good morning.

          12   MR THOMAS:  Sir, as you can see, I trust you received the

          13       further submissions that we prepared.

          14   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I have, and I am grateful for

          15       them.

          16   MR THOMAS:  Sir, those submissions really speak for

          17       themselves.

          18   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          19   MR THOMAS:  I am not going to address you at length and be

          20       repetitious.  I am just going to come to the key points,

          21       if I may.

          22   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.  Just one moment while I just

          23       dig them up, yes.  (Pause)

          24           Yes.

          25   MR THOMAS:  The starting point, sir, is in terms of your




           1       Inquiry, the aims of your Inquiry and what you hope to

           2       achieve at the ultimate conclusion.

           3           We say that ultimately, this Inquiry must be

           4       a search for the truth; and anything that impedes or

           5       inhibits or makes it difficult for you to achieve that

           6       aim is contrary to that general principle, which is why

           7       I make the application for the exclusion of a small

           8       group of witnesses, namely the E officers, hearing each

           9       other's evidence.

          10           Can I make it clear, if it has not been clear, that

          11       I am not asking for there to be any restriction in

          12       relation to Silver or indeed the E officers hearing

          13       Silver's evidence, and I will explain why in a moment.

          14       Nor am I asking for there to be any restriction in

          15       relation to the A officers.

          16           It is a small group of witnesses who deal with

          17       essentially one of the last chapters in the hearing,

          18       which led to the unfortunate death of Azelle Rodney.

          19   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          20   MR THOMAS:  Sir, the reason why I limit it to that group

          21       is: this group is readily identifiable.  These are all

          22       officers who are going to be giving evidence in relation

          23       to who did what, what was said, what movements there

          24       were, why they interpreted the earlier information from

          25       either the A officers or from Silver.  And that is the




           1       reason why I don't make the application that they

           2       shouldn't hear what Silver or the earlier officers say,

           3       because it matters not.  It is not what they heard; it

           4       is how they reacted and implemented that material later

           5       on.  That is the relevant consideration.

           6           The other issues which we have set out at

           7       paragraph 16 on page 5 of the submissions, and you will

           8       see those --

           9   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.  Yes, I have it.

          10   MR THOMAS:  There may have been a misunderstanding in

          11       relation to my application, and I want to clear up any

          12       misunderstanding so our position is clear.

          13           We do not put the application forward on the basis

          14       that the E officers necessarily will be dishonest.  That

          15       does not mean that there is any concession that there

          16       may not be a temptation towards dishonesty.  It simply

          17       means that the application is not founded upon the fact

          18       that these officers are dishonest.  There is

          19       a distinction.

          20           I don't need to make the application; I don't need

          21       to go as far as to say that the reason why I am making

          22       the application is because we believe the officers are

          23       going to be dishonest and therefore likely to trim or

          24       tailor their evidence when they hear each other.  There

          25       may have been a misconception that because our




           1       application is put forward on that basis, there is the

           2       concession that these officers are necessarily going to

           3       be honest.  I don't make that concession at all.

           4           The basis upon which the application is put forward

           5       is: sir, you won't know, you won't know if there is

           6       an alteration in the way that the evidence is being put,

           7       because one officer has heard what an earlier officer

           8       has said.  You will not be in a position to know

           9       whether -- and sir, I use the example you give in your

          10       helpful initial preliminary ruling.  You said in that

          11       ruling: it might be because they have heard what

          12       somebody else has said and it has helpfully jogged their

          13       memory.

          14   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          15   MR THOMAS:  Sir, you might be right.  I don't for one moment

          16       say that you are necessarily wrong on that.  But you

          17       won't know, sir, whether or not it is because the

          18       earlier evidence has helpfully jogged the memory or

          19       because an officer has deliberately chosen dishonestly

          20       to change his evidence or -- and this is the key ground

          21       and the basis upon which my application is put -- the

          22       officer has unconsciously tailored or trimmed his

          23       evidence because of what has been said before him.

          24           That is the problem.  Where there has been a change,

          25       it is not possible to cross-examine and bring out the




           1       changes.  You can ask, you can put to a witness, "Well,

           2       you have said that because you have heard it", but that

           3       is not really of assistance to you, as the fact-finder,

           4       to know whether it is because the memory has been

           5       helpfully jogged or whether because unconsciously the

           6       evidence has been changed or trimmed, subconsciously, or

           7       because it has been deliberately done.  You just will

           8       not be in a position to know.  That is the problem; and

           9       that is the basis upon which this application is made.

          10           Because you won't know, how are you going to come to

          11       some very important conclusions at the conclusion of

          12       this Inquiry, in relation to issues about the use of

          13       force, whether certain actions were necessary; if you

          14       have a number of officers who have not heard what their

          15       colleagues have said and give a line that you cannot

          16       look into?

          17           The safest course, therefore, to allow the truth to

          18       prevail is to avoid the risk of contamination.

          19   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          20   MR THOMAS:  And in that regard, I fully accept that there is

          21       maybe some unfairness, but that unfairness has to be

          22       weighed and balanced, has to be weighed and balanced in

          23       the search for the truth.  And that is what

          24       paragraph 12.80 of Jervis envisages, and it has been

          25       quoted in everybody's skeleton submissions to you.




           1   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

           2   MR THOMAS:  And sir, I don't seek to repeat what there is on

           3       paper.

           4   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

           5   MR THOMAS:  You know.  That is the difficulty.  There is

           6       a potential unfairness to individuals who may well be

           7       core participants; I fully accept that.  E7 is a core

           8       participant.  But in your balancing exercise, what

           9       trumps that is the search for the truth.

          10   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, yes.

          11   MR THOMAS:  Can I deal, therefore, sir, with a couple of

          12       things?

          13           Firstly, I handed up to you an example in the

          14       Martin Green inquest, the transcript.

          15   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, you did.

          16   MR THOMAS:  Did you have an opportunity to look through

          17       that?

          18   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, I did.  Yes.

          19   MR THOMAS:  I fully accept that this in no way is binding

          20       upon you, because every transcript of a ruling in this

          21       favour, I know it can be countered with a ruling the

          22       other way; and in fact, I know that Ms Leek has produced

          23       one such ruling this morning.

          24   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, she has.

          25   MR THOMAS:  Both involving cases in which I appeared and




           1       made the very same application.  It just goes to show

           2       that this is an application which is --

           3   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  A recurring problem.

           4   MR THOMAS:  Yes, it is a recurring problem.  It is not

           5       an uncommon application.

           6   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  No.

           7   MR THOMAS:  You will have some courts deciding it in one

           8       way, some courts deciding it in another way.  What these

           9       two transcripts illustrate is that different courts

          10       approach it in different ways, and you must look at the

          11       facts pertinent to this case.

          12   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, I agree.

          13   MR THOMAS:  What I do ask you to look at, though, is the

          14       second to last page of the Green judgment; it is just

          15       the reasoning.

          16   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, I have got it.

          17   MR THOMAS:  What the learned coroner said in that case, this

          18       is at line 18 on page 18:

          19           "It seems to me that it is a proper application to

          20       be made and the manner of its giving.  Given that it is

          21       a group, given particularly the different positions

          22       taken by the Trust [it was a health trust] and some of

          23       its employees, I think the manner of the evidence being

          24       given is the fundamental issue here.  I have to bear in

          25       mind that justice must not only be done, but must be




           1       manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done.  In my

           2       judgment, the unfairness [and it is unfair to exclude

           3       those persons] must be overridden by my duty to assist

           4       in that case [there was a jury] the jury in finding out

           5       the truth of Mr Green's death."

           6           You know, I pray in aid those words, because it is

           7       exactly the same approach that we say, particularly

           8       given the circumstances of this case.

           9           I am not going to deal with all the arguments that

          10       we have already touched upon about: well, the statements

          11       have been given, the officers have given an account and

          12       you know, these are core participants.  All of those

          13       arguments are touched upon in the written submissions.

          14           What I do say is: all of those arguments as to

          15       reasons why you shouldn't accede to this application

          16       have to be balanced with where I started; that is: what

          17       is the fundamental principle that this Inquiry is aimed

          18       at?  And that must be the search for the truth.

          19   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          20   MR THOMAS:  Can I just deal with one final matter?

          21   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Do, yes.  Take your time.

          22   MR THOMAS:  In fact, two short matters, actually.

          23           The first is this.  Mr Beer has helpfully produced

          24       a table today, outlining a number of inquiries where the

          25       witnesses have not been excluded; 12, I believe, on his




           1       table.

           2           I asked Mr Beer the obvious question, which is: out

           3       of the 12 inquiries which you have listed, in how many

           4       of these inquiries was this application made?  The

           5       response was: none.

           6   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Mm-hm.

           7   MR THOMAS:  Well, in Mr Beer's charming way, he said, "That

           8       is because your application is a rubbish application".

           9       But --

          10   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Your point is they didn't have you

          11       in it, making this application.

          12   MR THOMAS:  Precisely.

          13   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I am not laughing.  I see your

          14       point.

          15   MR THOMAS:  The point is a simple one.  If the application

          16       wasn't made, then okay, you had numbers there, but how

          17       helpful are the numbers?

          18   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Exactly.  I have got it, yes.

          19   MR THOMAS:  The very final matter that I wanted to raise was

          20       simply this: there is a concern about the media and the

          21       press, press restrictions.  I accept that you do not

          22       have the power to prevent any officer from reading

          23       things in the press.  I accept that.  I think our

          24       application may have suggested that you did have such

          25       a power.  But the way round that is quite




           1       straightforward and simple.  There will need to be

           2       a short press embargo from the moment the first E

           3       officer steps into the witness box to the moment when

           4       the last E officer gives his evidence.

           5           As I say, we are not asking for there to be any

           6       embargo in relation to Silver's evidence or the Customs

           7       Officers or the A officers.  It is just simply those

           8       officers, their engagement with Mr Rodney at the scene.

           9           Sir, unless I can assist you any further, those are

          10       my submissions.

          11   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  No, that is very helpful,

          12       Mr Thomas.

          13           Mr Underwood, I have your advice.  Is there anything

          14       further you would wish to add to that, in the light of

          15       what Mr Thomas has had to stay?

          16   MR UNDERWOOD:  Having had the opportunity to read

          17       everybody's submissions, can I just attempt to

          18       encapsulate the arguments in this way, and no doubt

          19       other people will sharpen them up.

          20                   Submissions by MR UNDERWOOD

          21   MR UNDERWOOD:  There seem to be three factors in a balance

          22       here.  On one side of the balance there is this one

          23       factor, which is the chance of unconscious adjustment of

          24       evidence, which may not be possible to discern, and if

          25       it eventuates, would be a serious matter.




           1           On the other side is two factors; namely the

           2       certainty that in acceding to the application, you will

           3       inhibit openness.  The timetable sets out a period of

           4       three weeks and one day between the first E officer

           5       giving evidence and the last one concluding his

           6       evidence.  So for that period there would have to be

           7       essentially a news blackout on the evidence of

           8       significant witnesses.

           9   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          10   MR UNDERWOOD:  The other factor to weigh on that side of the

          11       balance is the possibility of unfairness to a witness,

          12       if he does not hear the evidence of other witnesses.

          13           Nobody, I suggest, puts that particularly highly but

          14       it could work this way: that if in some unfair way

          15       I elicited an inaccurate answer from one of the

          16       officers, it is possible that that unfairness would be

          17       put to bed by another E officer coming along and saying,

          18       "No, no, I saw that evidence, I can put you right", and

          19       convincingly set out what the fact is.

          20           So our position is reasonably neutral on this.  It

          21       is a balancing exercise --

          22   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, I agree.

          23   MR UNDERWOOD:   -- deal.  Thank you very much.

          24           I am so sorry.  It is two weeks, I am now being

          25       told, not three weeks and one day.




           1   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I was going to say.  Yes.

           2   MR UNDERWOOD:  Thank you.

           3   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Mr Beer, I have your written

           4       submissions, for which I am grateful.  Do you wish to

           5       add to them?

           6                      Submissions by MR BEER

           7   MR BEER:  Just less than five minutes, if I may.

           8   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, certainly.

           9   MR BEER:  Can I start by stressing that the MPS's position

          10       is not that it has taken instructions from all of its

          11       officers, all of the 13 E officers that it represents,

          12       and that they positively wish to listen to each other's

          13       evidence and pore over a transcript so that they can

          14       sharpen their evidence up.  We deliberately have not

          15       done that.

          16           This is simply a wish on the part of the MPS to have

          17       the facility that if an officer, as a matter of personal

          18       preference, does wish to know what his colleague has

          19       said or I wish to take instructions from him on an issue

          20       that has arisen ex improviso, the facility is there.

          21       Many officers in my experience positively say, "I do not

          22       wish to hear the evidence of my colleague, I wish to

          23       come to the court or the Inquiry clean from that

          24       baggage".

          25   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  As would be the case in a criminal




           1       case.

           2   MR BEER:  Yes.  And that is the thing that they are most

           3       used to; to being kept, as they describe it, as

           4       mushrooms outside court.

           5           I had got seven short points to make.  There is

           6       an eighth which I will take first.

           7           Mr Thomas in the last three sentences of his

           8       submissions, said that he accepts that the Inquiry does

           9       not have jurisdiction to prevent an officer from

          10       reading, watching or listening to a media report of

          11       another officer give evidence, and that he therefore

          12       applies for a reporting restrictions order.

          13           You will have seen immediately, if you turn up

          14       paragraphs 1 and 2 of Mr Thomas' skeleton argument, that

          15       that is the opposite position to that which is adopted

          16       there.

          17   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          18   MR BEER:  Paragraph 1.1 --

          19   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Sorry, just give me a moment.

          20   MR BEER:  Yes.  Mr Thomas' skeleton argument of yesterday.

          21   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.  Yes.

          22   MR BEER:  Paragraph 1.1 did seek an order at (iii), for

          23       an order not permitting officers to read, watch or

          24       listen to media reports of other firearms officers

          25       giving evidence.




           1   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, yes.

           2   MR BEER:  Then at paragraph 2, second sentence:

           3           "Mrs Alexander does not seek an order to prevent the

           4       press reporting the proceedings."

           5           So there has been the volte face in the last three

           6       sentences of Mr Thomas' submissions.

           7           I don't say that just to embarrass him, because he

           8       obviously has very broad shoulders, but simply

           9       this: that is a very significant application to make,

          10       and one in which the legitimate interests of the press

          11       would be engaged.  Because what it amounts to is, in

          12       order to achieve Mr Thomas' aim, the general public is

          13       denied sight of, or access to, reports of the

          14       proceedings until the officers have given their

          15       evidence.  A press reporting restriction of that nature

          16       and that magnitude ought to be notified to the press.

          17   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          18   MR BEER:  Because we would have somebody come along,

          19       a different form of usual suspect, citing Article 10 to

          20       the Inquiry.

          21   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, yes.

          22   MR BEER:  Back to the seven points that I had intended to

          23       make.

          24           Firstly, the approach of other inquiries.

          25           The reason for putting the note before you this




           1       morning, sir, was simply that you might have got the

           2       impression from Mr Thomas' skeleton argument that there

           3       was a practice that had developed in inquests of

           4       excluding witnesses, so acceding to the application that

           5       he makes; and that because there had been a small number

           6       of inquiries, no such practice had yet developed.

           7   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Mm-hm.

           8   MR BEER:  I make the simple point that in no Inquiry -- and

           9       admittedly no application has been made, so one can't

          10       benefit from the learning of any of your predecessors,

          11       but I say it is a powerful indication, the importance

          12       that previous inquiries have attached to the

          13       inquisitorial approach, that no application has even

          14       been made.

          15   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          16   MR BEER:  The second point is the citation in paragraph 38

          17       of Mr Thomas's written argument, the following sentence:

          18           "Those representing Mrs Alexander are aware of

          19       a number of inquests at which witnesses have been

          20       excluded in similar circumstances."

          21           Paragraph 38, second sentence.

          22   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          23   MR BEER:  And then the decision of the Worcester coroner

          24       five years ago is cited; and Mr Thomas has of course

          25       fairly accepted that this is not a binding precedent.




           1   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  No, no.

           2   MR BEER:  But it is, with respect, not even helpful; because

           3       firstly, the suggestion is that a practice has developed

           4       of witnesses having been excluded in similar

           5       circumstances, and then the Worcester case is cited,

           6       which is acknowledged to be different, i.e. not the same

           7       circumstance.

           8           Ms Leek, I think, is helpfully to put before you the

           9       decision of the Hampshire coroner in Nunes and Markland.

          10       Whilst of course she will speak for herself, I don't

          11       imagine that she is putting it before you in a sort of

          12       game of coroner's ruling poker, to say, well, I see your

          13       Worcester coroner decision and I raise you a Hampshire

          14       coroner decision, to say that there is simply

          15       conflicting decisions.  Perhaps it is to ensure that you

          16       were not left with the impression that this was the

          17       usual practice --

          18   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          19   MR BEER:  -- in coroners' courts.

          20           Two other points on the Worcester coroner's

          21       decision.

          22           You may have picked up -- no need to go there now,

          23       but the note is page 2 of the ruling, line 22 -- that

          24       Mr Thomas only cited paragraph 12.80 from Jervis to the

          25       coroner, not the two paragraphs that preceded it, 12.79




           1       or 12.78.  I don't know whether you have our initial

           2       submissions in front of you.

           3   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, I have.

           4   MR BEER:  I wonder whether you could kindly turn them up at

           5       paragraph 19.

           6   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

           7   MR BEER:  These are the full extracts, 12.78, 12.79 and

           8       12.80, from Jervis.

           9           The point I was making was that the Worcester

          10       coroner was only treated to, it seems, the paragraph

          11       starting with "A difficulty can arise", without being

          12       shown the two paragraphs beforehand, which I would

          13       invite you to read.

          14   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Well, yes.

          15   MR BEER:  Which might be considered to be important

          16       paragraphs.

          17           You will see, when you get the chance, when you read

          18       Nunes and Markland, the decision that Ms Leek has handed

          19       in, that the same thing happened; that Mr Thomas cited

          20       paragraph 12.80 without bringing the court's attention

          21       to 12.78 and 12.79.

          22   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          23   MR BEER:  And counsel to the inquest, Ms Hewitt, drew the

          24       court's attention to that.

          25           Can we just turn that up, please, at the Nunes and




           1       Markland decision, page 17?  Do you have page 17?

           2   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, I do.

           3   MR BEER:  Ms Hewitt, counsel for the coroner, says:

           4           "The only thing I jotted down as the application was

           5       made is that as far as Jervis guidance is concerned ...

           6       important to go back to 12.78 and look at that paragraph

           7       [that is 12.78, 12.79 and 12.80] because that is the

           8       starting point.  It does make the point that it is

           9       an exceptional circumstance you are looking at, and one

          10       where there may be a concern about the conflict of

          11       evidence and such like."

          12   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Mr Thomas accepts that that is the

          13       starting point.

          14   MR BEER:  Yes.  It was simply that if any suggestion had

          15       been made that the normal practice, perhaps in the

          16       original application that had been made by

          17       Hickman & Rose, that originated his application, that in

          18       coroners' courts the usual practice was to exclude; and

          19       we see that that found its way into paragraph 9 of

          20       Mr Underwood's advice: the usual practice is to exclude.

          21       We ask you simply to disregard it.

          22   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, okay.

          23   MR BEER:  The third point is this: the citation of the

          24       decision of Mr Justice Underhill in the Saunders case,

          25       and its extrapolation to our circumstances, is, we say




           1       with respect, not helpful.  That is because in Saunders

           2       the court was considering the risk of contamination

           3       before officers made their first accounts.

           4   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Well, it is a very different

           5       situation.

           6   MR BEER:  Exactly.  Here, we not only have first accounts;

           7       we have second, third and in some cases fourth accounts,

           8       in very substantial witness statements created over

           9       a protracted period of time, pursuant to Rule 9 requests

          10       served by the Inquiry.

          11   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Well, I don't think it is going to

          12       weigh with me.  Yes?

          13   MR BEER:  The fourth point is this.  You will have seen that

          14       as a foundational principle in Jervis, really some

          15       conflict of evidence must have been identified on

          16       important factual issues.

          17           Here that has not even been done.  What has been

          18       said is that we will ask questions that might reveal

          19       evidence that is not in an existing witness statement.

          20       No factual conflicts that presently exist have been

          21       drawn to your attention, so it is not a case where

          22       people have already committed themselves to paper,

          23       a factual dispute exists and there is a real risk that

          24       witnesses will seek to round off the edges of that

          25       factual dispute.




           1   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes?

           2   MR BEER:  The penultimate submission is that there is,

           3       despite what Mr Thomas said this morning,

           4       an inconsistency in approach, because the same or

           5       similar points arise in relation to other equally

           6       important witnesses.

           7   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

           8   MR BEER:  There is no good reason to distinguish this group

           9       of officers, other than to mark them out, as you have

          10       said, for particularly suspicious treatment, which may

          11       serve to denigrate them in the public eye and

          12       effectively signals that this Inquiry is treading

          13       dangerously close to turning into a trial.

          14   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          15   MR BEER:  Rather than properly following a genuinely

          16       inquisitorial approach.

          17   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, I have that point.

          18   MR BEER:  Sir, the last point is this.

          19           Of course the worry that Mr Thomas identified, of

          20       unconscious trimming or tailoring, occurs; but it occurs

          21       in all cases.

          22   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          23   MR BEER:  And there is nothing that marks out this case as

          24       being especially deserving of any different treatment.

          25   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.




           1   MR BEER:  Unless I can assist you further, those are my

           2       submissions.

           3   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  No, thank you very much.

           4           Yes, Ms Leek?

           5                      Submissions by MS LEEK

           6   MS LEEK:  Sir, our submissions are before the court in

           7       writing and I don't propose to rehearse them at any

           8       length.

           9   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  No, I have read them and I am

          10       grateful for them.

          11   MS LEEK:  Sir, there are just a number of brief points that

          12       I would like to deal with by way of reply to Mr Thomas;

          13       and I adopt and endorse the submissions made by my

          14       learned friend Mr Beer.

          15           The first of my points is that the position of E7 is

          16       quite clearly different from that of other firearms

          17       officer witnesses.  His position, as being the

          18       individual who directly caused the death of Mr Rodney,

          19       is akin to a defendant in criminal or civil proceedings

          20       or to an interested person in an inquest whose conduct

          21       is being criticised and whose conduct caused the death.

          22           Sir, may I just take you to page 11 of Mr Thomas's

          23       submissions, his second set of submissions at

          24       paragraph 31?

          25   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.




           1   MS LEEK:  Where he says:

           2           "E7 submits that it would be absurd to suggest that

           3       a defendant in criminal proceedings should be excluded

           4       from court whilst any evidence is being given."

           5           He then goes on to say:

           6           "To the contrary, as Mr Underwood QC notes, in

           7       criminal cases and in inquests, there is a general

           8       practice of excluding witnesses from the proceedings

           9       until they give their evidence."

          10           Excluding witnesses.

          11           Mr Underwood there does not suggest that the

          12       defendant, the persons whose conduct is being directly

          13       criticised, is routinely excluded.  I am sure that is

          14       a point --

          15   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  You are pushing at an open door

          16       here.  I mean, I have seen criminal cases for a very

          17       long time and usually he is in the dock.

          18   MS LEEK:  Quite, sir.

          19   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Leave aside this current problem

          20       of secret trials, he is always there.

          21   MS LEEK:  Absolutely, sir.  Well, it may well be that you

          22       don't need to hear anything further from me.

          23   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Not on that issue.

          24   MS LEEK:  Thank you, sir.

          25           Sir, the second point was to deal with the




           1       transcript supplied by Mr Thomas, and Mr Beer has dealt

           2       with that.  But I simply wanted to say that you were

           3       being asked to consider the way in which the Worcester

           4       coroner dealt with a similar application.

           5   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

           6   MS LEEK:  Mr Beer rightly pointed out that it was not

           7       a similar application; and further, the approach and the

           8       reasoning in that case are, in our submission, of very

           9       little assistance, since again the coroner was given

          10       an incomplete reference to what was said to be the

          11       relevant passages in Jervis.

          12           Sir, you can also see from the extract in the Nunes

          13       and Markland case that I have handed up that again,

          14       an incomplete picture of what was set out in Jervis was

          15       made to the coroner's court.

          16           Sir, as Mr Beer pointed out, I didn't provide this

          17       extract simply to show, as he pointed out graphically,

          18       "I see your extract and I raise you the Hampshire

          19       coroner".  It was to correct what may have been

          20       a slightly inaccurate picture that a current practice

          21       has evolved in coroners' proceedings of excluding

          22       witnesses in similar proceedings.  Whereas in Worcester

          23       the proceedings were very far from similar; in fact in

          24       the Markland and Nunes inquest, this was also a shooting

          25       by the police which resulted in two, in fact,




           1       fatalities.

           2   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

           3   MS LEEK:  Sir, again you are invited to accept that those

           4       representing Mrs Alexander are aware of a number of

           5       inquests at which witnesses have been excluded in, and

           6       I quote, "similar circumstances"; yet no cases of even

           7       vaguely similar circumstances have been put before you

           8       to show that.

           9           Sir, might I just point out that in the 12 previous

          10       inquests into police shootings in which I have been

          11       involved, not once have the police officer firearms

          12       witnesses been excluded by order of the court during the

          13       evidence of the others.  They may on occasion, as

          14       Mr Beer has pointed out, have chosen not to be present

          15       for obvious reasons; but they have never been ordered to

          16       be excluded.

          17   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          18   MS LEEK:  And sir, in six of those, there have been live

          19       videolinks to adjoining rooms or separate premises,

          20       where they have been entitled to watch the proceedings

          21       as they have been unfolding.

          22   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          23   MS LEEK:  Sir, may I also just take you briefly to the

          24       statutory requirement, that restrictions are only to be

          25       imposed if you consider them to be conducive to the




           1       Inquiry fulfilling its terms of reference or to be

           2       necessary in the public interest.

           3           Sir, in our submission, Mr Thomas has not succeeded

           4       in establishing that either of those criteria have been

           5       made out on the facts of this case.

           6   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, yes.

           7   MS LEEK:  Sir, unless I can assist you further.

           8   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  No, thank you very much.

           9           Anything more you want to say, Mr Thomas?

          10                  Reply submissions by MR THOMAS

          11   MR THOMAS:  Yes, sir, if I can just very briefly respond.

          12           Firstly, sir, in relation to the suggestion that

          13       there was an incomplete picture given before the

          14       Worcester coroner.  The Worcester coroner had Jervis in

          15       front of him.  The reason why paragraph 12.80 is

          16       referred to in his judgment is because that is where the

          17       power of exclusion arises; so it is as simple as that.

          18   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Well, if it is of any comfort,

          19       Mr Thomas, I am not going to go into what was put or not

          20       put in front of the Worcester coroner.  I mean, I am

          21       sure you did your job.

          22   MR THOMAS:  Finally, sir, if I can just touch upon the

          23       evidence that Ms Leek has just provided to this court in

          24       relation to her previous 12 police cases.

          25           Sir, it is all well and good to say that, "Well,




           1       I have been involved in this case, I have been involved

           2       in that case".  The point is: you have to look at the

           3       facts of this case.

           4   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I couldn't agree more.

           5   MR THOMAS:  And make the decision on this case.  And as

           6       I made clear in my submissions, the Worcester coroner's

           7       decision was not being put forward to you that it was

           8       any precedent, but it was the thinking, it was the

           9       reasoning behind why the coroner in that case decided

          10       that the witnesses should be excluded.

          11   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, yes, I follow.

          12   MR THOMAS:  So I just want to make that clear.

          13   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, absolutely.

          14   MR THOMAS:  Can I just deal with one other matter, which is

          15       a matter that touches upon this application, but also

          16       the very last issue on the agenda?

          17   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Well, this is a point, yes, yes.

          18       This video streaming.

          19   MR THOMAS:  Yes.  I carefully read Mr Beer's note on the

          20       issues which he provided yesterday, where there appears

          21       to be the suggestion that we, representing the family of

          22       Azelle Rodney, have somehow conceded --

          23   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Raised no objection.

          24   MR THOMAS:  -- that there was no objection.  Nothing could

          25       be further from the truth.  In fact, what our position




           1       is: we remain silent on the issue, because we had to

           2       remain silent on the issue, because it obviously touches

           3       upon the application presently before you.

           4   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I agree, yes.

           5   MR THOMAS:  Because otherwise it would be inconsistent.  How

           6       on earth could we agree to officers or have no objection

           7       to officers having video screening, when we have this

           8       application extant?

           9   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          10   MR THOMAS:  So I wouldn't want you to be left with the

          11       impression that it is something that our silence should

          12       be read into as us conceding it.  Nothing is further

          13       from the truth.

          14           If I could just deal with that.  I appreciate that

          15       it is a matter that you are going to have to consider.

          16       But our position is on that issue is this: the Inquiry

          17       team, your Inquiry team, floated the idea of having

          18       audio link to some of the police officers.  Obviously

          19       again, that audio link would very much depend on your

          20       decision in relation to my extant application.

          21           Our position would be: we see no additional benefit

          22       in police officers having a videolink, as opposed to

          23       an audio link.  If the mischief in relation to this

          24       application is to allow the officers to participate in

          25       the Inquiry because participating in the Inquiry from




           1       Leman Street is easier for the officers, why do they

           2       need a videolink?  What is --

           3   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Well, Mr Thomas, I agree.  I do

           4       agree with you that there is some connection between the

           5       item 4 and item 3, or 5 and 4, whatever it is, on this.

           6       But if you just give me a moment, let me just see how

           7       best to deal with this.

           8           How best am I going to deal with this, Mr Underwood?

           9       Can I put down a marker?  I was proposing to rise for

          10       about half an hour and put my thoughts in order and give

          11       an oral ruling on the first issue.

          12   MR UNDERWOOD:  Yes.

          13   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  But if it will help, I will hear

          14       about the last at the same time.

          15   MR UNDERWOOD:  I would invite you to do that.

          16           Mr Beer, of course, hasn't made his case on that

          17       yet; and let me be candid about this: as far as the

          18       Inquiry team is concerned, we see an advantage for the

          19       officers not to have to attend here, if they have some

          20       sort of anonymity already, but are able, under your

          21       orders, to know what the evidence being given actually

          22       is, for there to be a videolink to a police station.

          23           Against that, that would be discriminating against

          24       Mrs Alexander, because she would not have the same

          25       facility to be at home and see a video.




           1   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Well, just help me. I am still

           2       trying to get to grips with this.

           3           Let's take it in stages.  There is a witness list,

           4       and it is a daily witness list, and eventually for --

           5       and I pluck it out of the air -- E11 will find he is on

           6       a witness list.

           7   MR UNDERWOOD:  Yes.

           8   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  The facilities have been made in

           9       this building to allow E11 -- who I am plucking out of

          10       the air -- to get into this building into what is

          11       presumably a waiting room, a witness waiting room, in

          12       which he will sit until he is called.  What is the --

          13   MR UNDERWOOD:  Yes.

          14   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  And he waits there,

          15       "mushroom-like" as Mr Beer says, and then comes and

          16       gives his evidence.

          17           Well now, let's take it in stages.  Is there any

          18       intention, as far as you are aware, to put any audio

          19       link or videolink into the witness room in this

          20       building?

          21   MR UNDERWOOD:  Yes, there is.

          22   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  What sort of link?

          23   MR UNDERWOOD:  It would be video.

          24   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Into this building?

          25   MR UNDERWOOD:  Yes.




           1   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  So that in any event, while he is

           2       waiting to give evidence, he will be able to see and

           3       hear what is going on in this room?

           4   MR UNDERWOOD:  Subject to the ruling you are due to make in

           5       half an hour's time, yes.

           6   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Well, subject to that.  But at the

           7       moment, the practical arrangements -- all I am after is

           8       trying to understand the practical arrangements.  The

           9       practical arrangements are --

          10   MR UNDERWOOD:  As I understand it, the family and the police

          11       officers will have separate rooms in which to be behind

          12       the scenes here, with an audio stream to -- a video

          13       stream, sorry.

          14   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  So all we are concerned with, at

          15       the moment, is whether in preparation for coming to this

          16       building, it has the same facilities in Leman Street?

          17   MR UNDERWOOD:  Yes.

          18   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I'd better hear Mr Beer.

          19                      Submissions by MR BEER

          20   MR BEER:  Sir, the duty under section 18.1 of the 2005 Act

          21       is to take such steps as you consider reasonable to

          22       secure that members of the public, including reporters,

          23       are able to attend the Inquiry or to see and hear

          24       a simultaneous transmission of proceedings at the

          25       Inquiry.




           1   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

           2   MR BEER:  The class of witnesses I am speaking about at the

           3       moment, some of them enjoy the benefit of protective

           4       measures rulings that you have made, which makes it

           5       impossible for them to sit in the room and attend the

           6       Inquiry.

           7   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Well, they do so at risk, yes.

           8   MR BEER:  Well --

           9   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          10   MR BEER:  The whole factual and legal basis, the rationale

          11       for the rulings, would be undermined if they did.

          12   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          13   MR BEER:  And so what we say is that the solution to that is

          14       to enable them to take such steps as you consider

          15       reasonable to see and hear a simultaneous transmission

          16       of the proceedings.

          17   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          18   MR BEER:  It is as simple as that.

          19   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  What are they doing in

          20       Leman Street when this is going on?  I mean, I am trying

          21       to work out what is happening.

          22   MR BEER:  They are seeing and hearing a simultaneous

          23       transmission of --

          24   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Who is "they"?

          25   MR BEER:  -- the proceedings.




           1   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  "They", by definition, are not

           2       those who are going to give evidence that day, because

           3       they are here.

           4   MR BEER:  So it is not in relation to those that are giving

           5       evidence on that day.

           6   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

           7   MR BEER:  It is such witnesses as wish, and would ordinarily

           8       be entitled to be in this room, to hear the evidence of

           9       other witnesses.

          10   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          11   MR BEER:  Whether they be police officers, which is subject

          12       to the ruling that you are about to make, or members of

          13       the public or expert witnesses commenting on their

          14       conduct, or counsel opening the Inquiry, criticising

          15       their conduct, or counsel for the MPS or E7 making

          16       submissions on their conduct.

          17           So it is participation in the whole of the Inquiry,

          18       listening to the whole range of submissions, lay

          19       evidence and expert evidence as they wish.  So it is not

          20       just about the day on which they give evidence.

          21           It should not be thought that the MPS are going to

          22       permit a whole group of police officers to sit in a room

          23       for four months and listen to evidence; because that

          24       would be rather inconsistent with their primary duty;

          25       namely to be out on the streets of London, protecting




           1       the public.

           2           But you will have experience, sir, when it is judged

           3       necessary for a witness to be able to hear what is being

           4       said about him or her.

           5   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

           6   MR BEER:  And to see what is being said about him or her.

           7           The Inquiry legal team have accepted that that is

           8       a perfectly permissible approach, and hence there is

           9       going to be a time-delayed audio stream to Leman Street

          10       Police Station.  So that facility is going to be there.

          11           The only issue we are debating at the moment is

          12       whether there should be pictures as well as sound.  That

          13       is the only issue that we are debating.

          14           The point that Mr Underwood has made, and which

          15       Ms Kemish has made previously, is that there would be

          16       a difference in treatment between the police officers on

          17       the one hand, who will get pictures and sound, and

          18       Mrs Alexander on the other, who would only get sound.

          19       She can't get the pictures because of the rulings that

          20       you have made about protecting the identities of the

          21       officers --

          22   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, I appreciate that.

          23   MR BEER:  -- being guaranteed effectively by the physical

          24       layout of this building.

          25   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.




           1   MR BEER:  But sir, it is not treating like with like, to say

           2       that there is going to be discrimination between those

           3       two groups of people.  There are very good reasons to

           4       adopt a different approach.

           5           One set of people benefit from protective measures

           6       rulings, the others don't.  One set of people, namely

           7       the police officers, have many things to do, many

           8       operational requirements that they must attend to.

           9       Mrs Alexander, as we understand it, can choose whether

          10       she wishes to attend here or listen in at home.

          11   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I have to raise this because it is

          12       a concern.  What about the cost of this?

          13   MR BEER:  Well, as I understand it -- just allow me to take

          14       instructions.  (Pause)

          15   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  You know, public funds are

          16       a matter of some concern.

          17   MR BEER:  Yes.  The MPS is paying for the facility.

          18   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          19   MR BEER:  So it does not engage your section 17 duty of

          20       unnecessary cost.

          21           I should say that as Ms Leek has averted to already,

          22       and this is not simply trading experiences, because of

          23       the real and genuine need for officers and other

          24       witnesses to be able to listen into and see proceedings,

          25       to do that which they are otherwise entitled to do,




           1       namely to attend, this has been a solution that has been

           2       adopted consistently in the past --

           3   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I see.

           4   MR BEER:  -- in relation to police officers.

           5           So Sir Michael Wright did so in the de Menezes

           6       inquest, I think to Leman Street Police Station.  So it

           7       is a tried and tested formula or approach which allows

           8       officers to do that which they would otherwise be

           9       entitled to do; namely fill these seats at the back.

          10   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes, yes.

          11   MR BEER:  I should stress, and I say it again, the Met is

          12       not going to let this group of officers sit in a room

          13       drinking tea, you know, with popcorn, watching

          14       proceedings.  It is facilitative to permit a targeted

          15       approach when it is judged necessary.

          16   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          17   MR BEER:  Sir, I have made written submissions in

          18       paragraphs --

          19   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  You have.

          20   MR BEER:   -- 13 and following, which I adopt.

          21   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          22   MS LEEK:  No, sir.  Nothing to add.

          23   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Mr Thomas, anything more you want

          24       to say on this?

          25   MR THOMAS:  No, sir.  I don't think there is anything else




           1       I need to add on this issue.

           2           Sir, you have given an indication that you are going

           3       to raise for about half an hour --

           4   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I have.

           5   MR THOMAS:  Well, the alternative would be for you to give

           6       a written judgment.  I don't know if --

           7   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Well, I appreciate that.

           8       Whichever you people want.  It is as broad as it is

           9       long, as far as I am concerned.

          10   MR THOMAS:  Sir, I would prefer a written decision on this

          11       issue.  I don't wish to inconvenience you --

          12   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  No, no, Mr Thomas.  You are

          13       perfectly entitled to ask.

          14           Mr Underwood, it looks like writing.

          15   MR UNDERWOOD:  In which case, we will no doubt type it up.

          16   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Well, that is kind.

          17           To be serious for a moment, Mr Underwood, I am

          18       reserving this, but I shall be at this for the rest of

          19       the day and hopefully it will be out and circulated next

          20       week, it being Friday; it cannot be over the weekend.

          21           Is there anything further that --

          22   MR UNDERWOOD:  Nothing further that I am aware of, sir, no.

          23   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          24           I was hoping for an occasion when everybody is here

          25       to sort out one or two administrative points, with




           1       a view to assisting counsel.  Is that best done

           2       informally or ...

           3           I don't particularly want to do it in open hearing

           4       anyway, so I am content to leave it to you, if

           5       necessary.

           6   MR UNDERWOOD:  Yes.  I think you are adverting to

           7       arrangements for lawyers coming in and out and use of

           8       laptops, telephones, et cetera.  I would be perfectly

           9       content for that to be dealt with behind the scenes; it

          10       is obviously a matter for you.

          11   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Well, look, in the first instance,

          12       I will leave it to you.  If you find they are being

          13       difficult, you can come to me.

          14   MR UNDERWOOD:  Thank you very much.

          15                     Submissions by MR THOMAS

          16   MR THOMAS:  Can I just raise, just in terms of the

          17       finalities, because we are moving ever closer to the

          18       beginning of September and the start of this.

          19   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Yes.

          20   MR BEER:  It might be advisable to have just one more case

          21       management hearing diarised.  If we don't use it, then

          22       we don't use it, but it might be advisable just to have

          23       one more, just to --

          24   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I am inclined to agree with you,

          25       Mr Thomas, on that.




           1   MR THOMAS:  I say that for a number of reasons.  We have

           2       just been served with a large amount of information, and

           3       I know from reading Mr Beer's submissions he had not had

           4       an opportunity to consider all the expert reports,

           5       and -- I see Ms Leek nodding -- neither have we.

           6           Those reports might raise issues which we would not

           7       want to deal with on the first morning of the Inquiry.

           8       So can I suggest that at the end of today, counsel put

           9       their heads together to see if we can agree a date

          10       with --

          11   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I am with you.  If you have a word

          12       with Ms Kemish and Mr Underwood and try to find dates,

          13       I will see if I am available.  In the high likelihood

          14       that there is -- and I agree with Mr Thomas: I think

          15       that there is a potential for outstanding problems and

          16       I would like to resolve them before 3 September, so that

          17       we can really get moving on that day.  Okay?

          18   MR BEER:  Sir, just one last thing from me, which is to say

          19       cheerio.  It won't be me on the next occasion.  This may

          20       have filtered through or not.  It will be Ms Studd

          21       instead.

          22   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I am sorry to lose you, Mr Beer.

          23   MR THOMAS:  Another suspect.

          24   MR BEER:  Yes, another suspect.

          25   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I am sorry to lose you, Mr Beer.




           1       Thank you for telling me and thank you for the help you

           2       have given thus far.

           3   MR BEER:  I am grateful.

           4   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  Everybody here, it is important

           5       that we get the administrative side sorted out, and I am

           6       quite content, if you have a discussion about dates, to

           7       pencil one in my diary.

           8   MR UNDERWOOD:  That is helpful.

           9   SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND:  I will be in my room until that is

          10       done.  Okay?

          11   (11.25 am)

          12                     (The hearing adjourned)


















           2                            I N D E X



























           1                              INDEX

           2                                                       PAGE

           3   Submissions by MR UNDERWOOD ..........................1

           4   Submissions by MR THOMAS .............................3

           5   Submissions by MR UNDERWOOD .........................12

           6   Submissions by MR BEER ..............................14

           7   Submissions by MS LEEK ..............................23

           8   Reply submissions by MR THOMAS ......................27

           9   Submissions by MR BEER ..............................32

          10   Submissions by MR THOMAS ............................39