Find Them Dead

93 Friday 24 May

Meg was not sure — about anything. After a totally sleepless night, she was struggling to think clearly — on the very day she needed, more than ever before in her life, to have complete clarity.

‘All rise.’

When the judge and everyone in the court was seated, Jupp leaned forward and addressed the jury in a serious tone, but as if they were all his friends. ‘You are about to hear the closing speeches from first the prosecution counsel and then the defence. It is for you the jury alone to assess the reliability and importance of the evidence; to decide what conclusions should be drawn from the evidence that you accept, but to avoid speculation, and thus to decide what are the true facts of the case. You must do this assessing the evidence of all witnesses, for the prosecution and the defence, with the same impartial standards. All witnesses start equal. How they end up is a matter for you when you have assessed all the evidence. You do not have to decide every point that has been raised; only such matters as will enable you to say whether a charge against a defendant has been proved.’

He paused, before continuing. ‘You must decide this case only on the evidence that has been placed before you. You are entitled to draw inferences, that is to say, to come to logical conclusions based on the evidence which you accept, but what you must not do is speculate about what evidence there might have been, speculate about why any witness has not given evidence, or allow yourselves to be drawn into speculation in any way. Speculation is just another word for guesswork.’

He smiled. ‘Do not be influenced by any emotion, sympathy or prejudice. What is needed is a calm appraisal of the evidence. You are entitled, however, to use your collective common sense and knowledge of the world and the people in it. You do not leave that outside the door of the jury room and decide this case on some sanitized approach to the evidence, you take it into the jury room with you and use it in assessing the evidence. Most importantly, do not be daunted by your task. Juries up and down the country every working day of the week are trying serious cases with complex issues.’ He took a sip of water.

‘The law is for me, ladies and gentlemen, and I am now going to give you directions as to the law that applies in this case. You must accept these directions and follow them. In this first part of my summing-up, I will explain to you what the prosecution has to prove before you can convict. I will give the second part of my summing-up after you have heard both speeches from counsel, when I will give you an overview of the prosecution and defence cases and I will remind you of the prominent features of the evidence. It is important for you to understand that the speeches you will hear are not evidence — they are simply the arguments each advocate puts forward as to how you should view the evidence. As the facts are a matter entirely for you, you do not have to accept any of the arguments you hear in the speeches. I hope this is clear?’

Meg, unsure whether the jurors were expected to respond, gave a slight nod of her head.

Jupp continued. ‘When you weigh up the evidence, you will need to form a view about the witnesses you have heard from as to who you believe and who you disbelieve. It will be for you to decide what you accept and what you reject. I have heard it said, by many past witnesses in other cases, that to stand in the witness box is to be standing in the loneliest and most daunting place on earth. You will no doubt want to take into account the nervousness of witnesses when assessing their evidence.’ He paused and, once more, Meg nodded.

‘If you conclude a witness is being truthful on the issues you have to decide, you also have to ask yourselves whether the witness is reliable. A witness may be telling the truth as they genuinely recollect it, but that recollection might not be accurate. People’s perception and recollection of events may genuinely differ. Therefore, when you assess each witness, you will wish to form a view as to their reliability. You might wish to consider whether the witness was balanced and fair? Did the witness make concessions or accept the limitations of their evidence, or accept they may have made a mistake about a particular point? You might consider this reflects an attempt to convey a fair account of what occurred.’

He took another sip of water before going on. ‘When considering the evidence of Mr Starr, you should bear in mind that he has already pleaded guilty to the offences with which Mr Gready is charged, and given evidence which implicated Mr Gready after formally agreeing to help the prosecution by doing so. Mr Starr did this hoping to get a lesser sentence as a result. Because this is the situation, you should approach Mr Starr’s evidence with caution, knowing that Mr Starr has an obvious incentive to give evidence which implicates Mr Gready. You should ask yourselves whether Mr Starr has, or may have, tailored his evidence to implicate Mr Gready falsely or whether you can be sure, despite the potential benefit to Mr Starr of giving evidence against Mr Gready, that what Mr Starr has told you is the truth.’

Jupp paused again, to allow his words to sink in, then turned to Stephen Cork. ‘You may proceed.’

Cork stood and addressed the jury with the consummate charm of a favourite uncle, neither speaking down or up to them. Instead, his voice was gently conversational, as if he was just chatting to a few mates in his local pub.

He began by talking about the discovery of the drugs in the Ferrari in the trailer at Newhaven Port, Michael Starr’s subsequent arrest, escape and rearrest. The raid on Terence Gready’s home and the items found there. He recapped on the evidence from Haydn Kelly regarding the CCTV footage showing Starr entering the offices of TG Law, then the evidence from DS Alexander on the items concealed in the bedpost and on the safety deposit box key found hidden in a canister in Gready’s garden shed. He followed that with a detailed summary of the key points of Emily Denyer’s evidence.

He concluded by saying, ‘You have heard the most damning evidence of all from Mr Michael Starr. This is a man who, despite the defendant’s quite ludicrous assertions that they have never met, is clearly both the defendant’s colleague, lieutenant and co-conspirator. Over many years Mr Starr has played an instrumental role in helping the defendant develop a vast and highly lucrative drugs empire. I would remind you that Mr Starr has already confessed to his crimes by pleading guilty to all counts on which he is charged. The defendant’s assertion that Mr Starr has in some highly elaborate way framed him as a scapegoat is, I put to you, like a drowning man grasping at driftwood.’

Cork continued, ‘It is always the case when producing evidence relating to shell companies, nominee directors and offshore bank accounts that much of the evidence is going to be circumstantial. But when you add all of that to the rest of the totally damning evidence against Mr Gready, which we have heard during the course of this trial, can you the jury really come to any conclusion other than that the defendant is guilty on all the counts he faces?’

He felt a sudden, overwhelming wave of revulsion against the defendant. In his mind, Gready was a despicable man, a traitor to his profession.

‘Drugs, as you will know from your own life experience, are a scourge of our society. They destroy people, even kill people, yes, but have other destructive impacts. Some estimates suggest they cause the vast majority of thefts, robberies and burglaries in our towns and cities. The addicts turn to these crimes to fund their habits. It is easy to judge those people, but without the addiction that has them in its grip, they would not act in that way. No one sober would choose such a life, had they options. None of this is in issue, nor that, without the suppliers, there is no trade.

‘What is in issue is whether the defendant is what he claims to be, a simple solicitor, or whether he is what the bank statements, the drives concealed in bedposts, the safety deposit key hidden in a shed, and the compelling evidence of Mr Starr say he is. A man who is at the top of the drugs supply chain, insulated by people like Mr Starr, who himself had few options for making a living and providing for his brother. This is not to excuse Mr Starr’s actions. But the prosecution say that, without Mr Gready, there would be no Mr Starr.

‘What they share, the prosecution say, is a complete and utter disregard for the misery this trade causes. The trade relies on those who import these drugs in bulk. Why do they do it? The answer is easy to understand. The rewards are astronomical, as you have heard.

‘Most cases that come to court involve dealers far below the level of Mr Gready. Take one street dealer out of action and another will pop up within hours. There may seem to be nothing anyone can do, that we are powerless. But a street dealer does not have the guile or resources of those higher up the food chain, does he?

‘This case has not been straightforward, and I thank you for your attention throughout. The prosecution, as the learned judge will direct you, has to make you sure of the defendant’s guilt.

‘Conspiracy theories are often raised as an alternative explanation, but here you do not have to rely on a theory. Here you have cold facts of what was found in his house, the assets recovered, the financial links to the shell companies and, most damning of all, the voluntary evidence of his former associate, who had the courage to stand before you and tell the truth, even if doing so painted him in a terrible light.

‘If you find the defendant guilty, it will be as the prosecution has set out, as a kingpin in the supply of class-A drugs in this country. You, and you alone, have an extraordinary power in your hands. It is your decision and I urge you to use it wisely, and convict.’

After he had finally sat down, some two hours later, Jupp adjourned the court for lunch.