Return to the list of transcripts

Full Hearings

Hearing: 9th June 2008, day 31

Click here to download the LiveNote version
















held at:
The Interpoint Centre
20-24 York Street
Belfast BT15 1AQ

on Monday, 9th June 2008
commencing at 1.00 pm

Day 31









1 Monday, 9th June 2008

2 (1.00 pm)


4 MR PHILLIPS: Before Mr Ware gives his evidence, I should

5 tell you that we have just handed out another of our

6 lists, this time of the witnesses who give evidence in

7 relation to Mr Cumaraswamy's visit with, as usual, the

8 bundle references for their statements and an indication

9 of whether they are to be called to give evidence or

10 not.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

12 MR AIKEN: My Lord, I wonder, before the witness begins his

13 evidence, could I make a couple of points, if I may,

14 very briefly?

15 The first one, my Lord, is in relation to the

16 comments that you raised with the Full Participants

17 shortly before lunch last Friday. On the issue of

18 keeping up with the pace, my Lord, the Crown solicitor

19 and I are doing all right but Mr Beer is struggling

20 a little, my Lord, and it is that that I wish to bring

21 to your attention. He has had another computer problem

22 over the weekend in that his laptop has crashed, so the

23 questions we would have been submitting have not made it

24 as yet. I have not had chance to speak to Mr Phillips

25 to alert him to that, and I'm simply bringing it to the





1 attention of the Panel to indicate, that, once again,

2 I will ask for the counsel to the Inquiry to do the best

3 they can with material coming late that is not

4 deliberately coming late.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Aiken, when we have our first break will

6 be your first opportunity to speak to Mr Phillips about

7 the matters that have, through computer mishandling and

8 not any personal involvement, as I understand it -- it

9 is the fault of the computers, is it, not human error?

10 MR AIKEN: It seems to be again the fault of the computer.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: I see. You can speak to Mr Phillips and make

12 your peace with him at the first break.

13 MR AIKEN: I will endeavour into that.

14 Can I raise one other issue that comes from the

15 comments that you were making about questioning? On

16 behalf of the NIO, my Lord, my instructions have always

17 been to cooperate fully with the procedures that the

18 Inquiry are putting in place and that is when we are

19 trying to do, my Lord. In terms of the process, my

20 Lord, having looked at the Bristol Royal Infirmary model

21 that we seem to be following, the success of that,

22 my Lord, depended on the cooperation of everyone in that

23 process. For our part, my Lord, we certainly are trying

24 to do that. We have looked and we do at the end of each

25 day, review the questions that we submitted to find out





1 how many of them were asked, so we can get an idea of

2 whether they have been acceptable to the Panel or not,

3 and in the main it seems the questions we have submitted

4 have been and we are obviously glad that we are getting

5 round about the right note. But, my Lord, there is an

6 issue that may be assisted by some greater communication

7 between all of us on the subject of relevance.

8 You were very gracious with me the other day when I

9 had a number of questions that I wanted to be asked.

10 Mr Phillips declined to ask them and when I asked for

11 them to be asked, you explained to me why it wasn't

12 necessary for them to be asked. I am grateful for that,

13 but it raised with me the possibility that there may be

14 other issues like those I was asking questions about

15 that, that if information was communicated to us about

16 the Panel's view or the Inquiry counsel's view, then we

17 wouldn't be submitting those questions, because no

18 lawyer likes to submit questions that someone then tells

19 them are either inappropriate or irrelevant.

20 So I wonder if some consideration could be given to

21 some short informal meetings perhaps where we could have

22 some discussion between the counsel so that we would be

23 better guided in leaving issues that the Panel has

24 already decided they have heard enough about or they are

25 not getting into, for reasons that we are not aware of,





1 and we can simply take it on trust that they will be

2 dealt with at a later date when those materials are

3 available.

4 I make those comments in an effort to be helpful.

5 May I make one further point? That is about the

6 protocol for the submission of questions. We have run

7 into a couple of difficulties that have not been

8 deliberate on our part. One of the reasons why the

9 deadline becomes quite difficult to meet -- and I

10 understand how the counsel to the Inquiry is

11 interpreting the 48 hours as 48 working hours, which

12 I assume means two working days -- the witness list

13 becomes available on the Wednesday, which, if one

14 applies the 48 working house, the questions for Monday's

15 witness would then be due on the Thursday morning, the

16 following day. Because of the breadth of the material,

17 depending on the witness that can be quite difficult to

18 meet on our part when we want to do the work properly

19 and explore all the material that is available to see

20 what is relevant to a witness, and I am simply raising

21 again, my Lord, trying to be helpful, if it would be

22 possible -- I appreciate it is difficult to know the

23 timetable of witnesses, but if it were possible, if

24 there are some witnesses that are set in stone

25 date-wise, could we at least have some further warning





1 of those? Then we can work to preparing that material

2 in advance, so that those we cannot know about because

3 they are coming in late in the day, we can get stuck

4 into them the moment we become aware of them. We are

5 not work shy and we are keen to try and comply with

6 procedures, but we have found it a little difficult at

7 times. I am not blaming anyone for that, but it is

8 a question of trying to keep up with the pace of work

9 when there is only a short window between knowing who

10 the witness is and having to have the questions in so

11 the counsel to the Inquiry can incorporate them

12 properly.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Aiken, I hope you found Mr Phillips and

14 the other members of the bar who appear as our counsel

15 team not too intimidating, and fairly friendly when they

16 meet you, and the more informal discussions you can have

17 with them -- obviously the worst time to have informal

18 conversations with them are just about the time they are

19 coming into the Inquiry, that is five or ten minutes

20 before the bell sounds for the start of the day's work.

21 Probably the best time to talk to them is at the end of

22 the day or, if necessary, but not too often, during the

23 lunch break in the middle of the day.

24 MR AIKEN: Yes.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: I have no doubt many of your concerns can be





1 met with, with full cooperation from your side and full

2 cooperation from our side. But the important thing is

3 to have continuous dialogue with counsel for the

4 Inquiry, and I hope in future your computer works rather

5 more efficiently than it apparently has worked in the

6 past.

7 MR AIKEN: It appears to be entirely Mr Beer's fault. He is

8 not here to defend himself. Mine is working fine but --

9 THE CHAIRMAN: It is always easy to blame absent counsel,

10 isn't it?

11 MR AIKEN: Indeed.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Aiken.

13 MR AIKEN: I am obliged, my Lord.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Can Mr Ware be sworn in, please?

15 MR JOHN WARE (sworn)

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Ware.

17 Questions by MR PHILLIPS

18 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Ware, can you give us your full names,

19 please?

20 A. John Lloyd Ware.

21 Q. Do you have a copy of your statement to the Inquiry in

22 front of you?

23 A. I do.

24 Q. Can we have it on the screen, please, at RNI-824-001

25 (displayed). Do we see your signature and the date of





1 24th April last year at RNI-824-015?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You set out your career history, in brief anyway, in

4 paragraph 1 at RNI-824-001 and I think it is right that

5 during your career as a broadcaster you have made

6 a number of television programmes with Northern Ireland.

7 Is that right?

8 A. Yes, that is correct.

9 Q. Of which "Careless Talk", which was aired, I think, on

10 21st June 1999, was just one?

11 A. Yes, that is right.

12 Q. So far as that programme is concerned, the Full

13 Participants have a copy of the programme. But can

14 I ask you in your own words, please, to describe to the

15 Inquiry the themes of that particular programme?

16 A. Well, the murder of Mrs Nelson was obviously a seminal

17 moment in the events of Northern Ireland. There were

18 allegations of collusion. Some of them seemed familiar

19 to me anyway, insofar as there had been allegations that

20 Mrs Nelson had been threatened in various ways and

21 remarks had been made about her and her clients and her

22 motivation, and these, as I say, echoed the sorts of

23 comments that I am personally persuaded were made in the

24 weeks before the murder of Mr Finucane and therefore

25 I thought it was worthy of, you know, putting





1 a programme together to explore that -- to explore

2 whether there was anything in the allegations of

3 collusion.

4 Q. So the subject of the Finucane murder, as I understand

5 it, is something you had worked on before the murder of

6 Rosemary Nelson. Is that right?

7 A. Well, I had looked at the Finucane case prior to

8 Mrs Nelson but I looked at it in greater depth following

9 the programme I made about Mrs Nelson.

10 Q. What did you know about Rosemary Nelson before her

11 murder?

12 A. Very little, actually. I mean, I knew her name. That

13 is all, I think.

14 Q. How did you find out about her after her murder?

15 A. Well, I can't be sure now: reading newspapers, making

16 telephone calls and that sort of thing. It was quite --

17 it was a big issue. I think the Prime Minister had made

18 comments in the Commons, you know, it was quite a big

19 issue at the time.

20 Q. So far as your work on Northern Ireland issues generally

21 is concerned, as I understand it, one of your sources of

22 information was Jane Winter of British Irish Rights

23 Watch. Is that correct?

24 A. In respect of this programme, that is correct, yes.

25 Q. Is it also true more generally in relation to your





1 broadcasts on Northern Ireland?

2 A. Yes. I mean, she is but one source, that is true, or

3 one person with whom I have had a number of

4 conversations because of our mutual interest in these

5 matters, but she is only one source, yes.

6 Q. What were the other sources in relation to this

7 particular programme?

8 A. Well, some of them would have been in the security

9 services and I don't mean "the Security Service" by the

10 way. Others would have been solicitors. You know, I

11 can't really recall at this distance. Certainly some

12 related to the UN, as I recall. I mean, there were

13 probably quite a number of others but I can't honestly

14 remember.

15 Q. In paragraph 8 at RNI-824-003 (displayed), you talk

16 about Mrs Nelson's case in particular.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You make this remark in the third sentence:

19 "I do not recall anyone providing a smoking gun."

20 Do you mean by that a piece of evidence which

21 plainly pointed to collusion?

22 A. Yes, I do mean that. There wasn't, as far as I recall,

23 any clinching, compelling evidence that there had been

24 a, you know, collusive arrangement between the murderers

25 of Mrs Nelson and the security forces. I wasn't aware





1 of -- I mean, there was a lot of talk but I wasn't aware

2 of anything that would amount to clear evidence, and I

3 am still not, in fact, for what little that is worth.

4 Q. Reading this part of your statement, am I right in

5 thinking that you had come across, in your view, such

6 evidence in other cases?

7 A. Well, as I say, this seemed to me to echo the pattern

8 that had proceeded the murder of Mr Finucane. Both of

9 these lawyers had an similar client base, like many

10 other lawyers, it is true, but both lawyers had clearly,

11 to my mind anyway, attracted the hostility of some

12 police officers, and in respect of Mr Finucane that

13 hostility was expressed to some members of the IRA who

14 were in custody in Castlereagh, from memory in December

15 or thereabouts of 1988, a matter of six/seven weeks

16 before he was killed. And the reason that I believe

17 that the killers of Mr Finucane were put up to it, to an

18 extent encouraged -- the extent I can't quantify, but

19 there is little doubt in my mind that in Castlereagh

20 in November or December of 1988 remarks were made to

21 members of the Loyalist paramilitary organisation, the

22 UFF, to the effect that it would be a good thing for

23 Mr Finucane to be killed. The reason I believed that is

24 because of some comments that were made to me by

25 Mr Tucker Lyttle, the late Tucker Lyttle, which I can go





1 into if you wish.

2 Q. My concern is rather more with the case of

3 Rosemary Nelson.

4 A. Quite so. I am just saying that -- the short point is

5 that Nelson echoed many features of Finucane.

6 Q. As I understand it, that is one of the points that

7 stimulated your interest, is -- tell me if this is

8 right -- you perceived similarities between your

9 understanding of the background of the Finucane case and

10 what you had learnt about this latest case.

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Is that a fair way of putting it?

13 A. That is absolutely right.

14 Q. Can I ask you this: in relation to the information you

15 had -- and again, you set this out in paragraph 8 of

16 your statement, the paragraph that is on the screen --

17 you describe the process of asking yourself the

18 question: is it likely that a solicitor was making this

19 up? In other words, the allegations, as I understand

20 it, about messages coming back via the clients.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Can I ask you: how else did you go about establishing

23 the validity of what you were learning and what you had

24 been told about this particular case?

25 A. Well, were these complaints made by -- were these





1 complaints made to Mrs Nelson's clients, you know,

2 before her death? It was pretty clear that they had

3 been, because I think -- I am sure I was shown a number

4 of statements from her clients which had been dated

5 prior -- obviously prior to her death. I can't --

6 I mean, some of the names may be familiar if you remind

7 me of them but ... also, this was something that

8 Mrs Nelson, to the best of my recollection -- this was

9 a complaint Mrs Nelson had made in a number of public

10 ways. I know that people who had spoken to her -- I

11 didn't know Mrs Nelson but they certainly thought that

12 this was genuine and, yes, I think that is a fair

13 comment: is it likely a solicitor was making this up?

14 I thought the answer to that was no.

15 Q. It looks also as though one of the factors that

16 influenced you in your decision to take an interest and

17 then make a programme about it was Jane Winter's

18 interest in the matter herself. Is that right?

19 A. Well, it wasn't Jane Winter who motivated me to do this.

20 I am sure that I went to Jane Winter rather than her

21 coming to me. I don't think I knew Jane Winter -- yes,

22 I did know Jane Winter before this. I can't remember.

23 I get confused with dates. But certainly I went to

24 Jane Winter. I don't think she rang me up and said: I

25 think you ought to be doing a programme about





1 Rosemary Nelson. I doubt that very much.

2 Q. Do you see in paragraph 11 at RNI-824-004 (displayed)

3 you talk about her interest in the case and you describe

4 it as another reason for making the programme. Is that

5 a fair comment?

6 A. Yes, but not in the sense that she was driving it, if

7 that is the question.

8 Q. But it was a reason for making the programme. Is that

9 right, her interest?

10 A. Her interest -- her belief that the allegations which

11 Mrs Nelson had made before her death were true, to that

12 extent, yes.

13 Q. So you were influenced by her view of the allegations?

14 A. I took her view of the matter seriously, yes. I mean,

15 she is someone whose view I would generally respect.

16 I wouldn't always agree with it, but I am perfectly

17 certain that I would have had a number of conversations

18 with her asking her about the credibility of these

19 statements, their dates, the conversations she had with

20 Rosemary Nelson and so on, and satisfied myself that

21 this wasn't a figment of Jane's imagination, so to

22 speak.

23 Q. Can I ask you, before asking you any more detailed

24 questions, about this question of documents and

25 disclosure to the Inquiry? You set out the position in





1 paragraph 12 and indeed in later paragraphs of your

2 statement, particularly 19, at RNI-824-006. As I

3 understand it, the position is this: the Inquiry has

4 obtained some of your materials, some notes, for

5 example, which we will look at in a minute, but not from

6 you in fact but from another source?

7 A. They certainly haven't been obtained from me, that is

8 correct.

9 Q. You make that explicit in paragraph 19, as I say, at

10 RNI-824-006 at the top of the page.

11 You have, as I understand it, a concern about your

12 sources and in relation to confidentiality, which is

13 obviously a familiar concern, but in relation to the

14 material which you refer to in your statement and which

15 we will look at, my understanding is that your view is

16 that the Inquiry has now, from whatever source, been

17 provided with the relevant information that you hold.

18 Is that right?

19 A. Yes. I mean, there may be other bits and pieces locked

20 away in a -- you know, in a storage place, but the guts

21 of it, I think you have got, yes.

22 Q. Perhaps we can see how we go, but if the need arose,

23 would you be willing to go back to your store, wherever

24 it is, and review that material to see whether there was

25 any other information or material of relevance?





1 A. Yes, of course.

2 Q. Thank you. So far as the sources are concerned, I asked

3 you a question about it. Do you see at paragraph 14 at

4 RNI-824-005 (displayed) you there describe your three

5 sources as:

6 "The RUC itself, the clients ..."

7 If I can put it that way:

8 "... and Jane Winter."

9 Having now seen it in writing, is that right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Were there other sources?

12 A. There may well have been. There almost certainly were

13 but I can't remember honestly, genuinely at this stage.

14 They would have been the principal sources, I have no

15 doubt about that.

16 Q. Can I ask you next about the statements that you have

17 just mentioned in your evidence and which you refer to

18 in paragraph 17, and you say there:

19 "I was provided with a summary of events."

20 Do you mean statements in that context?

21 A. Yes, I mean, my recollection is that the statements

22 actually that -- I can't remember how many there were

23 now but I think four or five, something of that sort,

24 and they were pretty short statements, as I recall. I

25 mean on the screen in front of me, Brian Loughran,





1 Shane McCrory, that rings a bell. They were short

2 statements. I was actually struck by the shortness of

3 the statements. They didn't seem to me to have been

4 taken in any great depth actually.

5 Q. Can we just have a look at one or two to see whether

6 they were the sort of things you believe you were

7 provided with. Can we look at Mr McCrory's statement at

8 RNI-216-004 (displayed)?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Is that the sort of thing we are talking about?

11 A. That is the sort of thing we are talking about.

12 Q. Short statements?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Then if we look at Mr Loughran at RNI-215-047

15 (displayed).

16 A. I stress "the sort of thing". If you want me to be

17 specific I will have to tax my memory.

18 Q. That is the wrong reference. We will come back to that

19 but can we look at C138's statement, which is

20 RNI-114-111 (displayed). Again, is that the sort of

21 thing, if you can't give us a specific yes or no to the

22 actual statement?

23 A. Yes, I do remember -- the phrase "Is that an [effing]

24 birthmark?" rings a bell. That sort of language. Very

25 much so, yes. "Money grabbing [whatsit]", yes.





1 Q. We try again on Mr Loughran's statement, RNI-215-147

2 (displayed). There another short one dated

3 6th November 1997.

4 A. Yes, "Halloween" rings a bell. The name "Loughran"

5 rings a bell. "Broomstick" definitely rings a bell.

6 Q. A number of these clients were interviewed by you, as I

7 understand it, and interviews formed part of the

8 programme.

9 A. Some of them did. I am not sure we included all of them

10 in the programme. I think we may have interviewed more

11 of them than appeared in the programme.

12 Q. You say in relation to the client Colin Duffy, that you

13 interviewed him, and again he certainly appears on the

14 programme, but you don't have any notes in relation to

15 that interview. Is that right?

16 A. I do not have any notes. I mean, I suppose the full

17 transcript of the interview will be somewhere in the

18 vaults at the BBC but I wouldn't count on it. No doubt

19 I would have a note of the interview -- no doubt --

20 I mean, I do remember, you know, visiting his house and

21 talking to him before we did the filmed interview and

22 I assume I would have a note of that, which I imagine

23 now you will wish to have, but --

24 Q. It may be one of the things in your store.

25 A. It may be.





1 Q. Yes.

2 A. Well, hold on, no, it won't be, actually.

3 Q. Right.

4 A. But now you press me, I think I know where it would be.

5 It will probably be in my notebook from the period,

6 which could be retrieved.

7 Q. That would be very helpful, thank you.

8 A. Yes. But can I just request one caveat? I mean, I

9 can't remember what other stories it will have dealt

10 with at that period, but presumably you would only want

11 the pages that are relevant obviously to this?

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. Hm-mm.

14 Q. So far as these interviews and this research,

15 preparation for the programme is concerned, can we try

16 and put a date on that? When did you begin to go out

17 and interview people? Would it have been in

18 about April 1999?

19 A. Something that of sort.

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. March rings a bell.

22 Q. We know the murder took place on 15th March.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. The earliest note we will come to in a minute, I think,

25 is the early part of April, in other words, the next





1 month.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Does that sound about right?

4 A. Yes, it does, yes.

5 Q. Can I ask you next about the setting up of the interview

6 with the Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan. You deal

7 with this in paragraph 15, RNI-824-005 (displayed).

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. You make the point that he was pretty open to the press

10 and very accessible. As I understand it, following your

11 written request, which we will just have a quick look at

12 in a minute, the interview was set up.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And we see obviously I suspect a passage from it in the

15 course of the broadcast.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Just looking at that letter, please, first of all,

18 RNI-830-197, please (displayed).

19 A. Hm-mm, yes.

20 Q. Here you set out the basis, the themes of the programme,

21 the point about the apparent similarities in the second

22 paragraph. Then, can we just turn over the page? You

23 list some questions in 1 to 6 there. (RNI-830-198

24 displayed).

25 A. Well, question areas. We don't list questions, we list





1 question areas.

2 Q. In fact we know, don't we, in the course of the

3 interview, you ranged a little further than that, didn't

4 you, and in particular you asked him questions about the

5 meeting with Mr Cumaraswamy in October 1997?

6 A. Yes. Yes, that is true, yes.

7 Q. So far as the clients are concerned, if I can just go

8 back to them, who was it who identified these clients to

9 you?

10 A. I mean, it would have been -- I am going to use -- I am

11 going to say it would have been, because I can't be

12 certain, but it almost certainly would have been

13 a combination of Jane Winter and representatives of the

14 CAJ in Belfast at the time.

15 Q. They would have provided the names but also, presumably,

16 the statements that you received. Is that right?

17 A. Well, they certainly provided the statements, no doubt

18 with the permission of the individuals, but -- and then

19 it was left to us to make approaches to these

20 individuals. I think that is probably the way it

21 worked.

22 Q. As I understand it, in relation to what became the vexed

23 question of this meeting in October and the subsequent

24 controversy concerning the draft report, you went to the

25 UN in Geneva and spoke to Mr Cumaraswamy's assistant in,





1 I think, April of 1999?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. If we could just look, please, at the first of your

4 notes at RNI-110-238 (displayed), you see it is dated

5 11th April.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. We are going to look at a number of these notes

8 together, but can you just confirm, as it were, for the

9 record, that this is a note made by you?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So JW is you in this case?

12 A. Hm-mm.

13 Q. As I understand it, you were working with a producer

14 whose name, or initials, rather, I think, has probably,

15 been blacked out --

16 A. That is right, [name deleted].

17 Q. -- in accordance with the Inquiry's procedure. How

18 would you have compiled the notes? Would you have made

19 handwritten notes and typed them up? How did it work?

20 A. Yes, 99 per cent -- on almost all occasions I would make

21 a contemporaneous note and then type it up, yes.

22 Q. So my understanding is that you made contact with the

23 relevant office at the UN, Mr Cumaraswamy's office?

24 A. Hm-mm.

25 Q. And his assistant, Mr Parra, who has already given





1 evidence to the Inquiry, agreed to see you and to talk

2 about this particular matter. Is that right?

3 A. Yes, that is right.

4 Q. And --

5 A. He has given evidence, has he?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. So I am to that extent released.

8 Q. Perhaps I can put your mind at rest in relation to the

9 rest of your statement where you carefully refer to

10 "sources" only: Mr Parra, the Rapporteur himself, and

11 Mr Wells have all given evidence to us.

12 A. Okay, fine, thank you.

13 Q. I don't propose to ask you questions about what appears

14 perfectly obviously from the notes themselves. Can

15 I ask you about the circumstances in which you made the

16 notes? Presumably you visited Mr Parra in his office?

17 A. Yes, funnily enough, I do have quite a clear memory of

18 this. My best recollection is that it was a Sunday

19 evening we arrived in Geneva. I think it was a Sunday.

20 I certainly do remember, shortly after our arrival,

21 meeting Mr Parra at his office and he then, you know,

22 showed us the relevant material. I just wanted to

23 double-check something. I wanted to check that he

24 actually -- I wanted to check, I think, his original

25 notes of what the draft report -- what the report was





1 based on. I just wanted to be sure that he had taken

2 a proper note and, you know -- and that there was

3 a basis for this. I am sure there was, obviously, but

4 I just wanted to be sure there was. I recall that he

5 got out his notes and I think I, you know, read them

6 into a tape recorder.

7 Q. But the way this note is set out with the various

8 headings --

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. -- do we see here then extracts from your handwritten

11 notes of a conversation with Mr Parra? Is that the way

12 it works? Under various subject headings.

13 A. Well, hang on, this says "Additional note", doesn't it?

14 This must relate to -- I just have a recollection of

15 asking him -- I mean, there must be another note.

16 Q. There is. Can I show it to you?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. It is the next page, RNI-110-239 (displayed).

19 A. There you go.

20 Q. This is the main note, is it?

21 A. Yes, that is the main note, yes.

22 Q. Thank you. The significance for us in the Inquiry of

23 this note, so you are aware before I ask you questions

24 about it, is the section of your notes here which begins

25 in the inverted commas and continues down the page.





1 A. Hm-mm.

2 Q. Can I ask you first: can you remember what form

3 Mr Parra's own notes took?

4 A. I can't actually, no. To be honest with you, I can't.

5 Q. Can you remember whether they were typed or handwritten?

6 A. I can't recollect clearly. You know, my preference is

7 handwritten. Something -- I mean, I don't remember, you

8 know, a formal typed note being produced but I can't be

9 any clearer than that.

10 Q. Does the third paragraph and the comment "The notes were

11 neat and legible" give you any help?

12 A. It probably does. Yes.

13 Q. Presumably not a reference to typed notes, then.

14 A. Presumably not.

15 Q. No. Can we now put up on the screen on the right-hand

16 side -- if we keep this on the left -- Mr Parra's notes

17 at RNI-110-033 (displayed).

18 A. Right. Yes.

19 Q. Can you remember how many pages of notes of the meeting

20 Mr Parra had when you saw them in April 1999?

21 A. I can't, but I imagine, you know, whatever was there I

22 would have recorded. I would have certainly wished to

23 record everything that was there. The more the better

24 is generally the rule.

25 Q. So when it says, in your third paragraph on the





1 left-hand side, "Having read them, I then read them

2 verbatim into a tape recorder", we can take it, can we,

3 that that means you read all of the notes that you saw

4 of this meeting?

5 A. I think so. I think so; unless there was a particular

6 paragraph that he asked that I shouldn't read, and I

7 don't recall that he did make such a request, but he may

8 have done.

9 Q. So far as the comparison is concerned, do you see the

10 penultimate paragraph on the left begins with the words

11 "Sir Louis"?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. If you turn over to the other side and look about eight

14 lines up from the bottom, you see the same name,

15 "Sir Louis".

16 A. What am I looking at now?

17 Q. On the right-hand side. Can we enlarge the right-hand

18 side, the passage "Sir Louis"?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Do you see that?

21 A. I do.

22 Q. They appear, don't they, to be the same point; in other

23 words, it appears this is your transcription of those

24 handwritten notes? Do you see that?

25 A. I do, yes.





1 Q. If we work upwards, we will see that the next sentence

2 above, beginning with the words "Must show", again is

3 something you have recorded in your typed notes?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. The same for the next paragraph above:

6 "Legislation is under review ..."

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And the next one:

9 "Any use of legislation ..."

10 Yes?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Although you appeared to have --

13 A. Lost "emergency".

14 Q. No, you appear to have inserted there for what appears

15 on the handwritten notes to be "broader"?

16 A. Oh, dear, that is a mistake, yes.

17 Q. It certainly means they are not on the face of it

18 verbatim, doesn't it?

19 A. Yes, it does. Well, that is a slip, yes.

20 Q. Then the next one up:

21 "There is a political agenda" and "police are

22 thought to be one part of the divide". Again, that is

23 a reproduction of what we see in the handwritten, isn't

24 it?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. The question that then arises is what about the next

2 sentence above it on your side of the screen:

3 "Lawyers want have access because they are working

4 for paramilitaries."

5 That doesn't appear in the handwritten notes, does

6 it?

7 A. No.

8 Q. And if the notes that you made were verbatim, it

9 presumably would have done immediately above the

10 sentence:

11 "There is a political agenda."

12 A. I agree.

13 Q. Whereas instead it looks as though the comment is

14 something like:

15 "Absolute baseless. There are incommunicado

16 detentions."

17 A. Yes, I agree.

18 Q. If this note on the right-hand side therefore was the

19 handwritten note you saw --

20 A. If it was.

21 Q. If it was -- then it looks as though you were doing some

22 editing?

23 A. Well, I would think it highly unlikely that I would have

24 edited. I would not have -- I mean, I simply would not

25 have dreamt -- we are talking now, aren't we, about the





1 paragraph:

2 "Lawyers want to have access because they are

3 working ..."

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. I cannot imagine that I would have -- I certainly

6 wouldn't have invented that, I can tell you that now,

7 and I cannot imagine other than that I would have read

8 that from whatever was in front of me. I mean, you

9 know, it is unthinkable really, actually.

10 Q. Is it possible that it came from another page of the

11 handwritten notes?

12 A. I suppose it is possible. But -- it is possible, yes,

13 I mean, it is possible.

14 Q. So your note would therefore be a verbatim note of what

15 you saw to be the relevant parts of the handwritten

16 notes.

17 A. I think my note would have been verbatim of whatever was

18 put in front of me. I wouldn't have -- it would serve

19 no purpose for me to do any kind of on the spot editing,

20 you know, if that is what you are pursuing, which is

21 a perfectly proper thing to pursue but I am just saying

22 I cannot imagine that I would have done that. I can

23 only imagine that I would have read what was put before

24 me.

25 Q. Well, can you look just a little bit further up in your





1 typed version, in the second paragraph under the date

2 11th April 1999?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. You say:

5 "Parra says his notes record what the

6 Chief Constable said. In the top left-hand margin of

7 the notes are the letters 'cc'."

8 Then he says that:

9 "The Assistant Chief Constable may have interjected

10 one or two sentences. Otherwise Flanagan spoke

11 exclusively."

12 We don't see, do we, certainly on this page, any

13 letters "cc"?

14 A. No, we don't, not as far as I can see.

15 Q. Nor indeed any other initials, perhaps indicating that

16 somebody else may have spoken.

17 A. No.

18 Q. So what I am, I think, concerned to find out now you

19 have had a chance to look at these handwritten notes is

20 whether, on reflection, you think there may have been

21 relevant material, relevant so far as you are concerned,

22 at an earlier stage of the handwritten note, which you

23 recorded in the way that we see on the left-hand side of

24 the screen?

25 A. Hm-mm.





1 Q. And added to the bit beginning:

2 "There is a political agenda ..."

3 A. I think that is highly, highly unlikely. I am a pretty

4 careful note-taker, actually. I like to think I am

5 anyway. I am not -- it would serve no purpose for me to

6 be editing this kind of material on the spot and I tell

7 you why: if for no other reason there is always a risk

8 in these sorts of programmes of, you know, litigation,

9 especially libel. I need to be sure -- and I am someone

10 who does worry about these things quite a bit -- I need

11 to be sure that, you know, we have got a decent, solid

12 foundation for fair comment or whatever it may be. I do

13 remember there were some libel concerns about this

14 programme.

15 That is simply by way of saying I don't know where

16 this came from. I see it is not on that note there but

17 I -- I mean, I even put in here, don't I, "Words in

18 brackets are mine for sense".

19 Do you see what I mean? The answer is I don't know

20 where it came from, but it would have been there in

21 front of me on a document, is all I can say really.

22 Q. Can I ask you this: is there anything about the document

23 on the right-hand side which is familiar, which you

24 think you have seen before?

25 A. No. I just -- you know, there is nothing that is saying





1 in my memory that is not what I saw, whatever it was. I

2 can't help you either way on that, I think.

3 Q. Okay. Can we look at the bottom of the left-hand page?

4 Do you see the last paragraph begins with:

5 "Paramilitaries want to learn."

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. The penultimate paragraph on the right-hand side appears

8 on the face of it to be exactly the same.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Indeed, it ends with:

11 "Provision of info."

12 Rather than "information", and therefore

13 specifically we can see that the bit in square brackets

14 on the left is an interjection or an interpolation of

15 your own.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. In accordance with the system that you have pointed out,

18 where words in brackets are yours for sense.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Can I ask you, please, to read the bottom line of the

21 handwritten note:

22 "More than a suspicion on role of lawyers. Have

23 ..."

24 Then the word is "terms" as written."

25 Can we flick both documents on to the next page,





1 RNI-110-240 and RNI-110-024 (displayed)?

2 A. "More than a suspicion on role of lawyers. Have

3 reams ..."

4 Sorry, "More than a suspicion ..."

5 Q. So it looks again, subject to the correction of the word

6 "terms" for "reams" which you have put in --

7 A. Sorry, where have I put "reams" in?

8 Q. We will go back then to RNI-110-033 on the right-hand

9 side, please. Do you see the last word in the

10 handwritten is "terms"?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Which in fact looks like an error. But if we go back to

13 RNI-110-034(displayed), please, subject to that and

14 subject to a small change in the last word, where you

15 have written "about" --

16 A. "Terms of documented evidence". I don't think that

17 makes sense.

18 Q. No, quite.

19 A. Quite. I can only say that I would have read whatever

20 was there in front of me. I genuinely believe that to

21 be the case.

22 Q. Can I just ask you to keep reading:

23 "Detainees ..."

24 Your typed version says:

25 "Where that has come about ..."





1 The handwriting appears to be:

2 "Where that has come out ..."

3 Obviously a minor change. This appears, subject to

4 those little points, to be the same?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. But the next part isn't, is it? Because yours has

7 a heading "Patrick Finucane Murder" whereas the other,

8 without a heading, proceeds to say:

9 "Might just be that there is a political divide ..."

10 et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Again, if you were writing a verbatim note of these

13 handwritten notes, presumably you wouldn't have

14 continued in the way that you do on the left-hand?

15 A. If that was the document that was -- that I was, you

16 know, recording, then plainly I would not, but I return

17 to the point I made earlier: I don't know what this

18 document is, but whatever it was, I was reading from it.

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. But if you were reading from it and on the right-hand

22 side --

23 A. I wouldn't have written what I have written.

24 Q. Indeed.

25 A. Indeed.





1 Q. Can I ask you this question? At the time you saw

2 Mr Parra, do you remember him explaining that there had

3 actually been two meetings with the Chief Constable

4 during the Rapporteur's mission to Northern Ireland?

5 A. I do vaguely recall that, hm-mm.

6 Q. Do you recall anything else by way of account from him

7 about the subject matter of the second meeting?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Is it possible --

10 A. Was it a clarification of some sort? I can't remember.

11 I just have a dim recollection of there having been two

12 meetings.

13 Q. Is it possible, for example --

14 A. It is very dim, I am sorry.

15 Q. Is it possible that under, for example, the section

16 "Pat Finucane Murder" was a note, again later in his

17 notebook, of what had been said at the second meeting?

18 A. Yes, it is possible, it is possible. It is entirely

19 possible that he may have, you know, so to speak, done

20 the editing for me. It is possible that he may have

21 said:

22 "You can have this bit ..."

23 Or he would have blanked off the bits that he didn't

24 wish me to record. I don't have a recollection of that

25 but it is entirely possible.





1 Q. Again, that would be a case where your notes might be

2 verbatim but they would be a verbatim record of that

3 limited part that you were being shown. Is that what

4 you are saying?

5 A. Yes, but I think I would have made a reference to that,

6 if that had been the case. As I say, I don't want to

7 oversell my virtue as a note-taker but I am quite

8 careful about these things, you know, and alive to the

9 possibility of a selective story being given, you know.

10 That is -- we are paid to do that and I am certainly

11 alive to those possibilities.

12 Q. Presumably, if somebody confronts you or presents you

13 with a situation where there are obviously other notes

14 but they are only prepared to show you part of them, the

15 first thing you want to do as a journalist is to find

16 out what is underneath the covered up parts?

17 A. Of course, always.

18 Q. So presumably you wouldn't simply have accepted that

19 sort of editing from Mr Parra in your meeting?

20 A. I like to think I wouldn't have done.

21 Q. Yes. Can I just ask you this, again on the recollection

22 at the front. You will see that underneath a little

23 line about eight lines down is a date, 16/03. Then it

24 says:

25 "Flight of Earls."





1 Does that perhaps rather surprising entry ring any

2 bells with you? Is that something that you remember

3 seeing all of a sudden in the notes?

4 A. It doesn't ring any bells. "1922 border drawn." It

5 looks as if someone is getting a quick crash course in

6 history.

7 Q. It does. You do not remember reading the crash course?

8 A. I don't, no.

9 Q. Can I ask you next about other notes you made on the

10 same day? They are at RNI-110-241 (displayed). If we

11 take the other document on the right-hand side of the

12 screen (displayed). Thank you. As I say, it is one of

13 your notes.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You will see the heading "Verbatim".

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Does that mean that this, as far as you are concerned,

18 is a complete record of the notes of that meeting, which

19 you saw?

20 A. Yes. I think absolutely, yes.

21 Q. So that he would have --

22 A. I hope so.

23 Q. That suggests the notes were in rather bullet point

24 format, doesn't it?

25 A. It would suggest that, yes.





1 Q. Again, doing what you can in terms of recollection, is

2 that the way that these notes appeared; in other words,

3 that Mr Parra's notes appeared with these short, sharp,

4 bullet point --

5 A. I assume so but, you know, again I can't exclude -- I

6 can't exclude the possibility of my attention being

7 drawn to just that section of the notes. I can't

8 exclude that because I do not have any clear

9 recollection of the event --

10 Q. Certainly Mr Parra's evidence --

11 A. -- in that sense.

12 Q. Sorry?

13 A. I am saying I do not have any clear recollection of that

14 sort of detail.

15 Q. Certainly Mr Parra's evidence was that there were other

16 entries in the notes, indicating that other topics had

17 been discussed in this meeting with Rosemary Nelson. Do

18 you think that it is possible that those were just the

19 parts of his notes to which your attention was

20 particularly drawn?

21 A. Can I just see what -- let me just think about this, if

22 I may. (Pause).

23 Do you know, I just can't help you on this because I

24 don't know --

25 Q. No.





1 A. -- is the answer, really.

2 Q. Do you remember him showing you notes of any other

3 meetings?

4 A. I don't.

5 Q. No. Can I ask you, please, to look at RNI-109-336

6 (displayed)?

7 A. Hm-mm.

8 Q. We have moved into June.

9 A. Hm-mm.

10 Q. Can I assume that the research, the investigation for

11 the programme was continuing during this period; in

12 other words, between mid-April, where we have just been

13 looking at your dates --

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. -- and this time in June?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Again, there are various notes in June. I just want to

18 ask you the same question and only do it once: can you

19 assume that you would have made handwritten notes of

20 your telephone conversations and then subsequently typed

21 them up?

22 A. I hope so.

23 Q. Are you in any doubt about that?

24 A. I am not perfect.

25 Q. Was that your practice?





1 A. It has been my practice for some time and I am pretty

2 sure it was my practice then. In fact, it was my

3 practice then. I mean, I can't exclude the possibility

4 of, you know, sitting at someone else's desk, maybe he

5 returned my call and I didn't have my notebook there and

6 I didn't want to say: can I ring you back? You know, it

7 is possible, and I would have done it from memory. But

8 I suspect -- I mean, this is quite detailed, isn't it?

9 I suspect there is a note.

10 Q. The next note is at RNI-110-254 (displayed). It is the

11 next day, 9th June, and I want to show it to you simply

12 because of the last paragraph. You made a reference

13 earlier to --

14 A. Libel.

15 Q. -- being careful about the things you broadcast.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Does this suggest that you had been alerted by this

18 stage to the possibility of libel proceedings?

19 A. No, not at all. I mean, I don't know whether I had

20 interviewed Sir Ronnie by then, had I? I can't recall.

21 In a sense the programme had become as much a sort of

22 examination of Sir Ronnie's, you know, relationship to

23 the truth -- and I don't mean that it was a tenuous one

24 by the way. What I am saying is that it was -- it had

25 moved on, because of some of the answers he had given





1 me, as it was about anything else. Therefore, you know,

2 you didn't have to be a genius to just think of the

3 possibility of libel proceedings. So that would have

4 been -- we would have put that in our minds, no one else

5 would have done.

6 Q. You deal with this in paragraph 31 of your statement,

7 RNI-824-008 (displayed), the bottom of the page. Could

8 we just look at that quickly?

9 A. Sorry, which --

10 Q. Bottom of the page. It is paragraph 31. Do you see?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. This is a reference to this paragraph.

13 A. Yes, absolutely.

14 Q. So that that was just a precautionary question.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Is that right?

17 A. Absolutely, because before any sort of programme where

18 there is any risk of litigation at all, you know, you

19 have a session with the BBC in-house lawyers and, you

20 know, quite clearly they want to know the basis on which

21 things are asserted and who, in the event of

22 proceedings, however remote, might come and help us.

23 Q. It suggests, though, doesn't it, that these

24 conversations that you record in June may well have

25 taken place after your interview with the





1 Chief Constable?

2 A. It is possible. I don't know -- when was my interview

3 with Sir Ronnie? I don't know.

4 Q. I am afraid I don't know. I was rather hoping you might

5 be able to tell us.

6 A. I think it almost certainly would have been towards the

7 end of the project. What is the date of the call to

8 Mr -- I just don't know, I am sorry.

9 Q. No.

10 A. Anyway ...

11 Q. I think we might be able to help you in a limited way on

12 dates. If you look at RNI-104-194 (displayed).

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. On the face of it, the date on this document is

15 2nd June. We know in fact that the broadcast was not

16 until the 21st, and I was going to ask about this

17 anyway, but perhaps I can do it now. If the date is

18 right, and we know the broadcast wasn't until the 21st,

19 it suggests, doesn't it, that that was, as it were, a

20 script rather than a transcript?

21 A. I don't know where this document has come from. Where

22 has it come from? Is this the script appended to my

23 statement?

24 Q. Yes, it is the one you referred to in your statement.

25 A. I see. I was going to mention this, because there are





1 one or two minor, at least I haven't seen the BBC

2 version of the script but I have noticed the odd word

3 missing from this and the odd sort of slightly jumbled

4 sentence, and I can provide you with a BBC authenticated

5 script if that's helpful.

6 Q. That would be very helpful, thank you.

7 A. If that helps you. I assume this is a transcription

8 error. I assume somebody in the Inquiry has done this

9 from ...

10 Q. What I wanted to ask you is about the date of 2nd June

11 because if that date is right, presumably everything

12 that is thereafter set out, which includes the interview

13 with Sir Ronnie Flanagan, had already taken place. Do

14 you think that is possible?

15 A. Sorry, is the 2nd June suggesting -- this is the date

16 that this document suggests the programme was

17 transmitted?

18 Q. No. The programme we know was transmitted, I think, on

19 21st June. This appears to be the date of the document.

20 The question is --

21 A. But the document is the front page, is it not -- or is

22 it -- of the transcript that is appended to my

23 statement?

24 Q. Yes, it is exactly that.

25 A. Then that is a mistake.





1 Q. So it doesn't help you at all with when the interview

2 may have taken place?

3 A. No, I don't think it does.

4 MR PHILLIPS: Thank you.

5 Sir, would that be a convenient moment?

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. We will have a ten-minute break.

7 (2.06 pm)

8 (Short break)

9 (2.20 pm)

10 MR PHILLIPS: Mr Ware, we were looking at the transcript or

11 script of the programme. In answer to a point you

12 posed, I can tell you that, as far as I can see, this

13 script came to us in fact I think from PSNI. It

14 certainly wasn't something run up by the Inquiry.

15 A. I see.

16 Q. If we look at RNI-104-194 again, (displayed), we may be

17 able to clear up another point. Do you see the date

18 there was something I was getting you to look at and you

19 were puzzled by it?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. If you turn on to the next page, which is RNI-104-195,

22 (displayed), we will see the actual date of the

23 programme. So it may well be, as you suggested, that

24 that date of 2nd June was simply a typo.

25 A. Yes. But I can provide you, as I say, if you want one,





1 with a BBC authenticated script. There is just the odd

2 sort of slightly garbled line, not that I expect it will

3 make much difference.

4 Q. Can I ask you to look at another of your notes at this

5 point, which is at RNI-110-254.500 (displayed), and here

6 it looks as though one of the people you were speaking

7 to was Sir Louis Blom-Cooper.

8 A. Hm-mm.

9 Q. Can you remember what prompted you to telephone him?

10 A. Yes, I think I can. I mean, there was a reference,

11 wasn't there, in -- wasn't there a reference in the note

12 that was taken that -- I think there was a reference to

13 this in the note that was taken by Mr -- by Alan Parra.

14 Q. Yes, there was.

15 A. So the question is why would I have call Sir Louis?

16 Yes, I wanted to check whether he had said that and

17 whether he did think there was a problem about lawyers

18 in Northern Ireland going beyond their sort of

19 professional duties and --

20 Q. What does the note tell us about his answers to those

21 two points?

22 A. He doesn't buy into that view, it seems. Funnily

23 enough, I do recall actually -- I have a picture of the

24 telephone call because I assumed, you know, that he was

25 being reported correctly, and by that I don't mean that





1 the note had been taken correctly, that someone had said

2 that of him in the meeting, and so I thought it would be

3 quite useful to -- if I recall, he had a -- he had

4 a particular role at the time. I think he was in charge

5 of prisons or something, I can't remember. Anyway -- so

6 he was obviously meeting a lot of lawyers but it seems

7 that he didn't share that view.

8 Q. The next document I want you to look at, please, is

9 dated 14th June. That is RNI-110-254.501 (displayed).

10 It looks as though this is a telephone call to

11 Mr Cumaraswamy in Kuala Lumpur, again made by you, by

12 the look of it.

13 A. Hm-mm.

14 Q. If you see in the second paragraph, it looks as though

15 you were concerned to establish which of the individuals

16 in the meeting had made the controversial comment.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. By this time, therefore, the 14th June, was that a

19 question where there was any doubt amongst your sources,

20 can you remember?

21 A. I have a vague recollection of it not being absolutely

22 clear, you know, that -- my recollection is that the

23 note wasn't -- well, the note that I had taken -- what I

24 had assumed to be the note, in other words the one that

25 I had recorded, and I think the one that had been





1 published, that it wasn't absolutely clear who was

2 speaking, whether it was Sir Ronnie or the senior

3 officer with him, who I think was Raymond White. My

4 recollection is that both Parra Cumaraswamy and --

5 Param Cumaraswamy and Alan Parra said the discussion was

6 dominated by Sir Ronnie, but that didn't exclude the

7 possibility of the remark having been made by Mr White.

8 I am not saying it was made by Mr White at all, I am

9 just saying it didn't exclude that possibility, and

10 since Sir Ronnie was denying that any such remark had

11 been made, I wanted to try and resolve that.

12 Q. Can I next ask you to look, please, at the last two

13 paragraphs of this note?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Because they refer, don't they, to the second meeting

16 involving Sir Ronnie Flanagan?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you see in particular you record Mr Cumaraswamy

19 saying he didn't recall a discussion about Pat Finucane

20 on 24th October, which we know is the first meeting?

21 A. Hm-mm.

22 Q. Or that the particular allegation, which is one of the

23 allegations you have just mentioned to us in your

24 evidence, was discussed.

25 A. Hm-mm.





1 Q. I don't know if we can do this technically but if we

2 could keep that document on the left-hand side and put

3 up on the right-hand side the second page of your notes

4 at RNI-110-240 (displayed).

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. This was the passage I asked you to look at earlier

7 under the heading "Pat Finucane Murder". Do you

8 remember I suggested to you that there may be

9 a connection between this topic and that section of your

10 typed notes?

11 A. Hm-mm.

12 Q. It certainly suggests, doesn't it, if those

13 recollections of the Rapporteur are correct, as recorded

14 in the third and fourth paragraphs, that your section

15 under "Pat Finucane Murder" may well be a verbatim --

16 a transcript of notes concerning the second meeting but

17 not the first meeting?

18 A. Do you mean from "Pat Finucane Murder" down --

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. -- or the whole note?

21 Q. No, from "Pat Finucane Murder".

22 A. It is possible, but I think I would have mentioned -- it

23 is possible.

24 Q. Do you see there is a reference to another meeting on

25 27th October --





1 A. Yes.

2 Q. -- below that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do you see?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Then you have another citation or quotation below that.

7 A. "Based upon notes of ..."

8 Yes. So what you are suggesting is that my note may

9 have been a note of both meetings, but I am not making

10 it clear until the bottom of the page that the section

11 starting "Pat Finucane Murder" referred to the second

12 meeting?

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. That is possible. I would have thought I would have

15 made it a bit clearer had that been the case but

16 I suppose -- maybe I just did it at the bottom of the

17 page, rather than the top, if you follow me.

18 Q. Yes. Can I ask you to look at another of your notes?

19 This is at RNI-110-256 (displayed).

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. This is two days later and it looks as though you are

22 ringing Mr Parra at his office in Geneva.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. This is the first reference in the notes to this fax of

25 27th February.





1 A. Yes.

2 Q. We will look at that in more detail in a minute but can

3 I ask you: as I understand it, this is a fax which you

4 never saw; is that right?

5 A. I think that must be right because I think I would have

6 referred to it in my note of 11th April, or whenever it

7 was that I went to Geneva. Did it not say the 11th on

8 the previous documents?

9 Q. I think it may have been the -- you mean the notes

10 in April? Yes, 11th April.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. No, I don't think there is any reference to it there.

13 A. The answer is I don't know, but it sounds to me as if --

14 well, he says:

15 "Alan Parra has found a fax ..."

16 Q. You then record, do you, what he told you was set out in

17 the fax?

18 A. Do I? Where? Sorry, where do I record that?

19 Q. If you see in the third line, it says:

20 "Parra tells ..."

21 A. Oh, yes.

22 Q. Is that an account in your notes of --

23 A. "Parra tells ..."

24 This would, I suppose, be a paraphrase of the

25 actual fax. That is what it sounds like to me. I am





1 sure -- well, it sounds very much to me as if this is

2 the first time I have heard of such a fax.

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Moving on in the chronology, this, as I said, is

6 16th June. The programme is broadcast on the 21st. In

7 your statement, I think, you refer to a press conference

8 held by Sir Ronnie Flanagan. This is paragraph 37 at

9 RNI-824-010 (displayed). Do you see?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. It is the penultimate and final sentence of that

12 paragraph. Can I take it that the press conference was

13 held after the broadcast?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. He made various comments, did he, about what had been

16 said in the programme?

17 A. Apparently so. I wasn't present but that is what was

18 reported back to me, yes.

19 Q. But that seems to have led to a new round of telephone

20 calls, of checking on your part. Did it?

21 A. Absolutely, yes.

22 Q. Why was that?

23 A. Because he was absolutely -- because I think in the

24 programme I had said -- as I say, you know, it became

25 bogged down on whether he had or hadn't made a call. He





1 was -- he denied -- from memory, in the interview he

2 said -- he said he didn't recall making a call, and

3 Alan Parra had been making the point that he had been

4 trying to get this struck out and all the rest of it,

5 and Ronnie was -- Sir Ronnie was saying he hadn't made

6 the call, he didn't recall it, and I think he said --

7 then at the press conference I was told, because I was

8 in London then, I wasn't at the press conference, but I

9 was told that he said that he had checked his records

10 and no such call -- and he had not made the call. I

11 think a position, on the rare occasions that we meet, he

12 still holds to the present day. So, obviously, I wanted

13 to double-check that.

14 Q. We can see the --

15 A. Because he is very categoric, that is right:

16 "There were concern Sir Ronnie's denials were

17 categoric."

18 He had gone back to the phone records.

19 Q. Can we look at the note you made after the programme?

20 This begins at RNI-110-258 (displayed). Looking at the

21 first date, am I right in understanding that this was

22 a note which you made on 25th June and it records

23 events --

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. -- that took place in the previous year?





1 A. Yes, it is sort of my post mortem because of Ronnie's

2 categoric denials and Parra's insistence that those

3 denials were not in fact true. You know, I thought I

4 had better keep a clear record of who was saying what

5 about it.

6 Q. And it records, doesn't it, in what perhaps at the time

7 was rather nerve-racking detail, in the penultimate

8 paragraph, one of your sources, Mr Parra, budging to the

9 total extent of 1 per cent in his certainty about who

10 made the call.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Do you see that?

13 A. I do see that, and not only do I see it, I remember

14 thinking, why are you even budging, when I had badgered

15 you to death beforehand.

16 Q. And up to this point can I assume he was 100 per cent in

17 his certainty --

18 A. That was certainly --

19 Q. -- as you understood it?

20 A. Without any question, yes. Had there been any sort of

21 doubt, I would have angsted about that.

22 Q. So you, perhaps understandably, say that you rather wish

23 he had told you that before, in the last paragraph of

24 this page.

25 A. Yes, right.





1 Q. You then return to this question of the fax. Do you

2 see, the same fax we looked at a little earlier,

3 27th February?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And over the page at 259 there is a passage in italics

6 and a quotation. Please confirm if this is correct:

7 this was your note of what Mr Parra told you was in the

8 fax?

9 A. I think it must be. Let me just, if I may -- just look

10 at the paragraph that precedes that. Can I?

11 Q. Yes, sorry. It is at the bottom of 258. Perhaps we can

12 get that on the screen at the same time as 259?

13 A. What do I say? Yes, that is clearly what was read to

14 me.

15 Q. So again you would have been noting this down,

16 presumably, on the other end of the telephone, and you

17 have reproduced it in your note in italics and quotation

18 marks. Is that right?

19 A. Yes, it sounds to me as if I didn't want any ifs or buts

20 here; I wanted the actual verbatim, yes.

21 Q. Then later you return to the anxious question, don't

22 you, four paragraphs down, and it looks as though this

23 is a quotation, this time from Mr Parra on the phone.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Beginning:





1 "Like I say ..."

2 A. Hm-mm. As I say, this is turning into -- I think I said

3 before the break, this was turning into an examination

4 of Sir Ronnie's -- of the -- you know, of how accurate

5 he had been. Yes. Like I say, I have no doubt that,

6 when Ronnie states so categorically he didn't call and

7 you keep asking me, you know, you begin to wonder if

8 maybe you are right. So I guess I couldn't swear it on

9 oath but certainly my recollection is that he did call,

10 although it is not explicit in the fax.

11 Q. At the end of all of this in the telephone conversation,

12 how clearly, do you think, Mr Parra recalled whether or

13 not it was indeed Sir Ronnie Flanagan who had telephoned

14 him?

15 A. Well, you know, my recollection is that at the end of

16 all this, this post mortem phase, so to speak, he --

17 there was just a smidgen of doubt. I wouldn't put it

18 any more than that but he wasn't being, you know, as

19 categoric as he had been before transmission.

20 But, having said that, he didn't really row back

21 very much. But I, you know, was troubled that he was

22 rowing back at all, I suppose. "Rowing back" is perhaps

23 putting it too strongly but, if I may say so -- and I

24 think I mentioned this to you -- yes, you can see,

25 "There can be no doubt," so quite clearly someone had





1 telephoned Mr Parra that day, on the assumption that

2 that fax is accurate, and therefore the question arises

3 as to whether it was Sir Ronnie or someone acting on

4 Sir Ronnie's behalf, it seems to me -- or it seemed to

5 me at the time, and seems to me today.

6 Q. Can I then ask you to look at paragraph 39 of your

7 statement, RNI-824-011 (displayed)?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Now, you deal with this note we have just been looking

10 at in this part of your statement, and then in the last

11 two sentences of the paragraph you have some further

12 evidence to give on this point which is obviously

13 material.

14 A. Sorry, which paragraph?

15 Q. 39, at the top of page RNI-824-011.

16 A. Oh, yes.

17 Q. Now, the penultimate sentence is obviously the key one.

18 A. Yes, I see, yes.

19 Q. But, as I understand it, you wish to protect the source

20 of that information.

21 A. I do. But it wasn't hearsay, it was said to me

22 directly.

23 Q. And it was credible information as far as you were

24 concerned, was it?

25 A. It was certainly from someone in a position to know.





1 Q. Can I ask you finally in relation to your concerns about

2 legal action, did that ever materialise in this case?

3 A. No.

4 Q. No. Now, in your statement you then deal with an

5 exchange between you and an official in the Foreign and

6 Commonwealth Office. This is in paragraphs 40 and

7 following.

8 A. Yes, that is Mr Wells, is it?

9 Q. In fact it isn't Mr Wells, it is about Mr Wells.

10 A. Oh.

11 Q. But perhaps we can look at the document because it is

12 difficult to work it out from the statement. It is at

13 RNI-833-118 (displayed).

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. In fact it is a message from you to this official, whose

16 name has been blanked out, I am afraid.

17 A. Right.

18 Q. Could we enlarge it, please? Thank you.

19 You say you can't remember the name of the

20 official --

21 A. No.

22 Q. -- referred to in the conversation.

23 What I would like to do is to keep this document on

24 the left-hand side of the screen, please, and put up for

25 you on the right-hand side RNI-109-337, which is, I





1 think, the note you were discussing. (Displayed)

2 A. Hm-mm.

3 Q. Now, if you just look at that document, which is

4 a Foreign Office document, it is dated before the

5 programme, 16th June. We know it is from Mr Wells.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And it explains to, I suspect, his superiors, his

8 involvement in the making of the programme. Do you see,

9 in 2 he says:

10 "I should report a recent series of telephone

11 conversations I have had here on the issue in case it

12 should be relevant."

13 Then he says he met you in April and that you spoke

14 to him two or three weeks ago, and we have seen one of

15 the notes of that conversation. I think it was in fact

16 on 8th June. Can we turn over the page, please,

17 RNI-109-338 (displayed)?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. We see his note continues and it is obviously his side

20 of these conversations.

21 Now, do you see just before paragraph 3, about

22 five lines up there is a sentence saying:

23 "Before signing off ..."

24 We can enlarge that for you. Do you see that?

25 A. My bit says:





1 "I could not comment ..."

2 Hang on.

3 Q. Do you see the next sentence:

4 "Before signing off ..."?

5 A. Oh, yes.

6 Q. It is put in yellow.

7 A. Yes. That he had interviewed Flanagan and didn't

8 believe a word he had said. Yes, right.

9 Q. Now, this is the part of the note that you take up in

10 your statement, and indeed you took up in your email to

11 the Foreign Office, we can see on the left-hand side of

12 the screen.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, as I understand it, this is something you do

15 dispute. Is that right?

16 A. Can you be precise about what it is you think

17 I disputed.

18 Q. Well, that you told the Foreign Office official,

19 Mr Wells, that you didn't believe a word

20 Sir Ronnie Flanagan had said.

21 A. I think that is unlikely, you know. That is a -- first

22 of all it is not true -- I mean, that is quite a -- I

23 don't know -- I mean, if that is what he reported me as

24 saying ... I don't know what to say about that. "I

25 didn't believe a word Sir Ronnie had said" -- I might





1 have said that, you know, I might have said that,

2 meaning -- but not -- that would not apply to everything

3 that Sir Ronnie had told me, I am sure it would have

4 related to a particular point, and I imagine the point

5 it related to was this question of a -- whether or not

6 he had made the call. So to that extent I was sceptical

7 certainly.

8 Q. You see --

9 A. But that is different from saying I didn't believe

10 a word Sir Ronnie had said about everything else. Is

11 this note precise about what it is I did or didn't

12 believe Sir Ronnie had said?

13 Q. No.

14 A. No.

15 Q. But the part of it you seem to take exception to in your

16 email and indeed in your witness statement is the next

17 sentence:

18 "The implication was that he ..."

19 That is you:

20 "... believed Flanagan cared little for --

21 A. That I certainly do take grave exception to because --

22 first of all I am grateful to Mr Wells for at least

23 acknowledging that it is an implication because it is

24 certainly not something I would have said, for the very

25 good reason that I don't believe it.





1 Whether Sir Ronnie Flanagan did or didn't make his

2 remarks as reported to Mr Cumaraswamy, I would utterly

3 refute any suggestion of Sir Ronnie being indifferent to

4 what might happen to any individual physically,

5 actually. I just -- he is not that sort of person and I

6 cannot believe that I even alluded to that in -- that

7 may well be this particular official's sour view of

8 members of the media but it certainly isn't my view, I

9 can tell you that.

10 Q. That, as I understand it, is what you are making clear

11 in your email on the left-hand side --

12 A. It most certainly is.

13 Q. -- in the third and fourth paragraph.

14 A. I took very grave exception to that, and I want to make

15 that absolutely clear.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 Can I just ask you just a few questions about the

18 transcript, if that is what it is, that we looked at

19 a little earlier? It starts at RNI-104-194 (displayed).

20 The first thing I wanted to ask you about -- and these

21 are, I think, all matters you have dealt with in your

22 statement. Just to check a few points with you.

23 At the bottom of the page -- when you are speaking,

24 at the bottom, John Ware, it says:

25 "Mrs Nelson said around 20 death threats from police





1 officers had been made in the last years of her life."

2 Can you assist us now? What was the basis of that

3 particular number?

4 A. That, I am sure, would have been relayed to me by

5 a combination of, you know, Jane Winter and CAJ. It

6 might have been to that extent -- although she may have

7 been reported as having said that directly, so I can't

8 say at this distance whether that was something directly

9 attributable to her, and I suspect it was. I think, if

10 I was relying solely on the tally, so to speak, from CAJ

11 and Mrs -- and Jane Winter, I would like to think

12 I would have said, "Mrs Nelson has told others that --

13 you know, she had received 20 death threats, and

14 I suspect, going through it with the lawyer, we would

15 have picked that sort of thing up as well, but I can't

16 say.

17 Q. In your statement at 47 -- this is at RNI-824-012 -- you

18 say:

19 "It is probably based on a chronology produced by

20 Jane Winter. It could also be based on our own tally

21 taken from statements or records of remarks that

22 Mrs Nelson gave to Jane Winter or to the CAJ."

23 A. Yes. What paragraph is that, sorry?

24 Q. Sorry, 47 on page RNI-824-012.

25 A. Well, okay. I just don't know at this distance. But,





1 you know, it may very well have been because of

2 something Mrs Nelson had clearly said herself. I just

3 can't recall at this distance.

4 Q. No.

5 A. But, you know, there would have been a basis for it.

6 I wouldn't just have thought, was it 20, 12, 50. There

7 would have been somewhere a basis for it.

8 Q. Now, on page 5 of the transcript -- and that is

9 RNI-104-198 (displayed) -- can we have that on the

10 left-hand side of the screen, please, and then on the

11 right-hand side, RNI-824-013 (displayed), which is where

12 paragraph 49 of your statement is to be found? You were

13 obviously asked in interview whether the same issues you

14 raised with Mrs Finucane -- in other words, issues

15 concerning connection between Mr Finucane and Republican

16 organisations -- was something you raised in this case,

17 and you say that you are sure that it is something you

18 would have discussed.

19 Can I ask you: was that something you discussed with

20 clients of hers or with whom?

21 A. No. Well, what do you mean, as to whether she did or

22 didn't have any links beyond her professional duties?

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. I would have discussed that with sources in the Security

25 Services.





1 Q. And that leads you, does it, to the specific reference

2 you make later in the paragraph?

3 A. Hm-mm.

4 Q. And you say there was one source -- and again I assume

5 the same rules on confidentiality apply -- who gave you

6 an answer: absolutely no trace of a terrorist link as

7 far as he was concerned?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And, as I understand it, that was the information you

10 had on this point? There was no other information?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. No.

13 A. Well, you say there was no other information: not that

14 I recall. I mean, I think Sir Ronnie -- I am pretty

15 sure Sir Ronnie made a public -- made public statements

16 about both Mr Finucane and Mrs Nelson and said he had no

17 knowledge of any links but I am -- I do now vaguely

18 recollect this conversation I had with this individual

19 in fact, yes.

20 Q. Can I ask you this please: so far as page 13 is

21 concerned -- and again can we have that on the screen

22 please -- it is RNI-104-206 (displayed) -- and on the

23 left-hand side your paragraph 52 at RNI-824-014

24 (displayed)? Here you deal with the question of the

25 string of clients. Again, are you able to give us any





1 further information on the clients other than that which

2 you have set out in your statement, namely that it is

3 based on your interviews with the clients and material

4 received from Jane Winter and the CAJ?

5 A. No, I can't add to that, I am afraid.

6 Q. Well, before I trudge through the other points you deal

7 with in relation to the transcript, is it fair, by way

8 of summary, to say that beyond what you have told us in

9 your witness statement, you do not actually have any

10 further recollection?

11 A. I genuinely do not, no, I am afraid.

12 Q. Those are the only questions I wanted to ask you,

13 Mr Ware. I ask all witnesses, however, at the end of

14 evidence, whether there is anything they wish to add,

15 something that we haven't perhaps covered in the course

16 of the questions this afternoon. Is there anything you

17 would like to say to the Tribunal?

18 A. No, I don't think so, except again to reinforce -- to

19 remove any suggestion whatever that I would have

20 thought, as Mr Wells appears to think I thought, that

21 Sir Ronnie, as I say, would be -- whatever he may or may

22 not have thought about Mrs Nelson's links to Republican

23 organisations -- that the idea that he would in some way

24 be indifferent to her being caused harm or injury is

25 ludicrous --





1 Q. Thank you.

2 A. -- in my view.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Ware, thank you for coming here to give

4 evidence before us. We would be very grateful if you

5 would make a search for your original notes. As

6 I understood it from your evidence, you do know where

7 your notebook for, I think, 11th April would be and if

8 you could send us a photostat copy of the relevant pages

9 of that notebook and any other notes or records you may

10 have, we would be very grateful.

11 A. Sure. Let me just add one caveat, if I may.


13 A. I know where my notebooks are stored and I trust it will

14 include the notebook covering, you know, this period,

15 and assuming that to be the case, then certainly. But

16 I just -- you know, I haven't -- you know, I haven't

17 looked at these notebooks for a long time.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, obviously, as soon as possible. It

19 would be a great assistance to us if you could get them

20 to us within the next few weeks.

21 A. Okay, fine. Weeks is a short span in this inquiry

22 business, so that will be all right.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will adjourn now until -- yes,

24 Mr Donaldson, you are obviously keen not to adjourn.

25 MR DONALDSON: Not just for a moment, sir.





1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Ware, I am sure you would like to leave,

2 wouldn't you?

3 A. Yes.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

5 Yes, Mr Donaldson?

6 MR DONALDSON: When the business commenced this afternoon,

7 we received a letter, which I have just been trying to

8 read and consider the implications of it. That is in

9 relation to an application we have made to question

10 two witnesses. That is C215 and Brian Loughran, who we

11 understand are listed to be heard on Wednesday, although

12 again, since starting this afternoon, we have heard that

13 some other witnesses may have been put into the list for

14 this week. Can you confirm that to me, sir?

15 THE CHAIRMAN: I can confirm to you that, as I understand

16 it, C215 is giving evidence on Wednesday morning, and

17 I have his name. There is no reason why I shouldn't

18 give his name, is there?

19 MR PHILLIPS: No, I don't think so.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Toman. I think it is Barry Anthony Toman

21 and in the afternoon Mr McCrory, Shane McCrory, will be

22 giving evidence and, as I assume, your clients have had

23 their statements for many weeks, if not months.

24 MR DONALDSON: Indeed, yes, we have, and we have written

25 letters many weeks ago too, sir, about these witnesses,





1 but we were advised, though, it was Brian Loughran. I

2 am not making any particular complaint about that

3 because that is what the list initially stated, that

4 Mr Toman and Mr Loughran were scheduled to give evidence

5 on Wednesday. Now we understand that there is a further

6 witness but he would fall into the same category in our

7 view.

8 In fact, sir, we did write about this quite

9 a considerable time ago and we indicated that we would,

10 for detailed reasons given, wish to question those

11 witnesses ourselves because their evidence goes to the

12 heart of very important matters.

13 Now, in the letter we you were kind enough to send

14 us you have indicated that you would like to receive

15 a skeleton argument.


17 MR DONALDSON: We are quite happy to do that, sir, in the

18 time available but I am afraid it puts us under a good

19 deal of pressure because these matters are very

20 important to us and we consider that they go to the

21 heart of the whole issue of fairness.

22 Now, the reason I am mentioning it now is this,

23 that, firstly, we will have to prepare this skeleton

24 argument for the Tribunal, and I think you require it to

25 be in tomorrow by 1 o'clock. Now, that puts us under





1 a good deal of pressure in order to do that because --

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you particularly interested in the

3 evidence of Mr Lynch?

4 MR DONALDSON: We are not making an issue about Mr Lynch at

5 the moment. He is giving evidence tomorrow?


7 MR DONALDSON: We had asked, I think, in previous

8 correspondence to be allowed to question him. We have

9 passed on that, I think, for the moment and --

10 THE CHAIRMAN: What I had in mind is that there is plenty of

11 time between now and 1 o'clock for the submission of

12 your written skeleton, is there not?

13 MR DONALDSON: We are going to try and do that, sir, but we

14 may have to take some further instructions. But the

15 real point, I think, is this, that --

16 THE CHAIRMAN: It is very important that, of course, any

17 skeleton argument and any submissions are based on clear

18 instructions.

19 MR DONALDSON: Oh, yes.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: You will want time to take those

21 instructions, but even so I would have thought you could

22 have taken those instructions and prepared the skeleton

23 by 1 o'clock tomorrow.

24 MR DONALDSON: I am afraid life is just not as simple as

25 that, sir. We have taken such instructions as we can in





1 relation to two witnesses, but the main issue I am

2 coming to is this, that in the event that the Panel

3 should refuse to give us leave to question these

4 witnesses, we would have to, I think, review our

5 position very carefully and I think we might need to

6 resort perhaps to another forum for a decision.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: I can tell you this, Mr Donaldson, that these

8 witnesses shall be giving evidence on Wednesday and will

9 be questioned closely and, I have every anticipation,

10 fairly, to the interests of all Full Participants by

11 counsel to the Inquiry on Wednesday. If, at the end of

12 the Wednesday, you are in some way convinced that that

13 questioning has not been sufficiently close and

14 sufficiently fair, no doubt you can take what steps you

15 advise should be taken.

16 MR DONALDSON: Sir, I think that if you would allow me to

17 respond to that, we would consider that unsatisfactory

18 because first of all we would -- what you, sir, are

19 saying is that it seems you are minded not to grant us

20 leave to question those witnesses directly. In the

21 event that --

22 THE CHAIRMAN: You have read, certainly, my mind correctly

23 and probably the minds of my two colleagues.

24 MR DONALDSON: I think I have. I don't know about the minds

25 of your colleagues, sir, but certainly from what you





1 have said, I have certainly concluded that you have

2 reached a conclusion already.

3 So then, it would seem to be rather a waste of time,

4 if I may say so, for us to make any further submissions.

5 Am I not correct?

6 THE CHAIRMAN: I am always open to persuasion. If your

7 skeleton argument raises points that justify further

8 oral submissions, we shall certainly hear them tomorrow

9 afternoon.

10 MR DONALDSON: In fact we have already, in correspondence,

11 drawn attention to many reasons why we should be

12 permitted to question these witnesses. The skeleton

13 argument which we will submit, if it is not a complete

14 waste of time, will really repeat much of what we have

15 said before but we will put it more in order.

16 The point I am making is this, that it would seem to

17 be extremely unfair and unreasonable if you insist that

18 the witnesses will give evidence without the matter

19 being ruled upon perhaps by another court. And we do

20 state this now explicitly, that in fact if it is your

21 intention, as it appears to be, to refuse our

22 application, then we will certainly make an application

23 for a judicial review forthwith and we would formally

24 ask you, sir, not to call these witnesses until that has

25 been dealt with. That is our application.





1 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr Donaldson, our final decision will

2 be made tomorrow afternoon, after receipt of your

3 written skeleton and any oral submissions that we asked

4 you to make.

5 MR DONALDSON: Very well, sir.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Donaldson.

7 (3.05 pm)

8 (The Inquiry adjourned until 10.15 am the following day)





















1 I N D E X

MR JOHN WARE (sworn) ............................. 6
Questions by MR PHILLIPS ..................... 6