Heavy Duty Trouble (The Brethren Trilogy) (38 page)

Makes sense right?

Yes, I follow.

So all the club gets from any member is their dues, the charge for their colours, any fines they get, just
that
sort of shit.

So
you are telling us that
the only money that the club sees
from its members and their activities
is what you would expect any club to see
, t
he fees and charges
that
members have to pay
to belong
and the income from events
the club
it
self
organize
s and items it sells?

Ye
ah
, that’s right.

And nothing from any member’s business dealings?

No, nothing, why should it? If they’re a guy’s profits then they’re his, not the club’s.

And
in terms of
‘kicking
in
’ as you put it
, or up rather,
to the mother club in the United States, was there an obligation for the club to pass money to the Americans?

Ye
ah
, of course.

What sort of money?

Their share of the dues and stuff.

So you had an arrangement with them?

I suppose y
ou might call it that. We were part of the international network
. W
e had our charter from them. In return for that
we
had to pass back part of what
we
got in from the members
here, it’s just how it works
.

So the only cash going back to the founding club in the USA was a
sort of franchise fee, a royalty if you like
,
for
being able to
operat
e
your local charter using the mother club’s patch. Is that how it worked?

Ye
ah
, that’s just about it.

But
following the split with the mother club in the US,
now you were
an
independent
club
,
no longer part of The Brethren brand and international
organization
and so
you no longer needed to pay it. Is that right?

Right.
We didn’t belong any longer so we didn’t need to pay any more.

So there would be more
of that income
left for you, for the UK club I mean, in the local kitty wouldn’t there? If you don’t have to pass a cut across to the Americans then that would stand to reason wouldn’t it?

Yeah, if you kept the dues the same.

Did you change the dues?

No
. We could have cut them a bit since we now didn’t have to hand some over but in the end
we left them just as they were.

Why was that?

So we could
build up some money in the club.

Why, was the club short of money?

No, not really, but it’s always good to have a bit of a reserve, you know, to meet expenses.

What sort of expenses?

Well things like this for instance, legal fees. You lawyers don’t come cheap do you?

So
does
the club pay for its members
’
legal fees?
Is that one of the benefits of being a member?

No, not always
,
and anyway the c
l
ub wouldn’t have enough dosh to do that for everyone every time they get stuck on
for something
. But we like to do what we can to help, particularly where it’s
obviously
a club related beef.

Do people in the club deal drugs?

You would have to ask each of them, not me.

Wouldn’t you know?

Look, I’m not interested in how anybody makes their nut. That’s their business and so long as it stays their business it’s not club business
or my business
.

But what would be involved in it becoming club business?

If it starts to have an impact on the club then it’s club business. And if it’s club business then it will get dealt with by the club.

But if members were dealing in drugs then that could get expensive for the c
l
ub’s funds?

Well it comes down to the same thing doesn’t it? If you’re going to take the profits on that sort of deal then you need to be able to afford the costs too.

So your policy was what? If you get busted for dealing you are on your own for your legal costs, was that it?

Pretty much.
Listen, it’s a simple rule.
Club funds are there to pay for club business.

Dealing drugs ain’t club business so don’t expect to look for club funds to help bail you out.

Was that something new that you introduced?

Sorta.

What do you mean sort of?

Well it was something that existed in theory, but that nobody enforced.

So how did this go down with those members who were involved with this sort of activity, when you made it known that this was the rule you were enforcing?

It put them on notice
.

On notice?

That they needed to clean up their act. That they wouldn’t be allowed to bring a load of shit down on all the other members of the club for what they were doing.

That they had to shape up or ship out?

Yeah, if you like, because I also introduced another new rule, and gave everyone six months to get themselves clean.

Why was that?

Because I wanted to clean up the club. I wanted to get it back to what it had been, what it was supposed to be.

And what was the new rule?

Nobody makes a profit from their colours.

Nobody makes a profit from their colours?

That’s right.

For the sake of the jury here, can you explain what you mean by that and what the implications of this rule would be for those members involved in drug dealing?

Sure.
They’d be out.

In the somewhat melodramatic phrase used by the
Prosecution
on Friday, they would be ‘c
ast out
’
of the club
?

Yeah,
they’d be out. I
n bad standing.

Hearing adjourned for lunch.

IN THE CROWN COURT AT NEWCASTLE

Case number 36542 of 201
1

REGINA

–v–

CHARLIE GRAHAM, ANTHONY JOHN GRAHAM,

NIGEL PARVIS,
S
TEPHEN TERRANCE ROBINSON,

PETER MARTIN SHERBOURNE

Court Transcript
–
Extract

13
th
June 2011

Mr
A Whiteley
QC,
Counsel for the Defence

Cross-exam
ination of Mr Charlie Graham
(
cont
)

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
In helping you to decide this case,
while Charlie here is still on the stand to question about the events that took place,
I would like
, if I may,
to
work through the
Prosecution
evidence presented to you
by the
Crown
about the events of th
e
evening in question
.

Y
ou
ha
ve
heard
the recording
presented to you
of
a
phone call
which the Crown claim was made at the time of the murders, and seen a transcript of it.

While the quality of the reco
r
ding leaves something to be desired
,
and the voices on the tape played to you were heavily disguised, distorted even, nevertheless, the
Defence
has no reason to dispute or contest the wording of the transcript. We accept that the transcript
you have been shown
is a fair representation of the words in that reco
r
ding.

Now it is the
P
rosecution’s case that the caller is one of the killers, the man who administered the final shots from the pistol, reporting the results in to Charlie.

But,
can
you tell that
the recipient of that call
is C
harlie, Mr Graham
?
Does it sound like his voice?
You have heard
Mr Graham
speak over the course of the trial. Can you say without a reasonable doubt that
what you heard in that recording
was
Mr Graham’
s
voice?

The call was
made from one pay as you go mobile phone number to another.

To date, the
police have never
managed to
trace
either of
the phone
s involved,
so other than the allegation that this was my client’s voice there is not a shred of evidence to say that it was him.

So as he is here now in front of you, let us ask him the question.

Charlie, you have heard the recording I am speaking about a
nd seen the transcript here in C
ourt haven’t you
?

Yeah
.

Do you disagree with th
e transcription offered to the C
ourt by the police? The voices seem to be disguised to a degree
,
but do you think they have made any mistakes in putting down what is said?

No, I don’t think so, it looks OK to me.

What do you think, in your opinion, the call is about?

I agree with what the
Prosecution
said, it sounds to me as though it’s people talking about a shooting.

I see. So can I then ask you Charlie, are you either of the voices on the phone?

No, no I’m not.

You are not on that tape?

No, I’m not. I mean, I’ve been talking here all morning, you’ve all heard me. Neither of those voices sound anything like me, do they?

Well, no Charlie, I have to say they don’t sound like you to me, but that’s something the jury are going to have to decide for themselves. But there are other people with you in the dock, I think we will need to call each of them in due course so the jury can hear their voices as well
,
but while you are here Charlie, can you tell me, are either of the voices those of any of the men in the dock?

No, not as far as I can tell.

So, to summarise then, you don’t dispute the words on the recording
, and of course you have no way of knowing whether the recording is genuine or not, but what you
do dispute is that it is a
recording
of you or any of the men in the dock?

Yes I do.

So, if it’s not your, or your co-defendants’ voices, then that l
eaves us asking who
s
e
voice
s they are.

Members of the jury, the fact is that the
P
rosecution
’
s whole case
is
based on
two pieces of evidence, neither of which can be relied upon.

These are
firstly
,
this
telephone recording
,
where the
voice
is unrecognizable
and there is no evidence linking my clients to either telephone involved
.

The
second
piece of so-called evidence is
a
notebook,
which was very
conveniently
posted to the police,
and
interpretation of which is clouded by
a
book
previously
written
by
Mr
Parke
concerning the club
,
who is not here to be questioned about
either of
them
.