The Great Train Robbery (31 page)
Read The Great Train Robbery Online
Authors: Andrew Cook
Finally, solicitor Ellis Lincoln asked that the prisoners be sent to await trial at Brixton Prison, claiming that it would be more suitable for the prisoners and more convenient for the counsel. This application was also refused, probably on security grounds, the authorities preferring a location well away from London.
Following on the arrests of John Daly on 3 December and Roy James on 10 December 1963, both appeared before the magistrates at Linslade Magistrates’ Court. They were then remanded in custody until 27 December, when they were further remanded until 31 December 1963. It was on New Year’s Eve that the committal proceedings were held at a special sitting of the Linslade Magistrates at Leighton Buzzard. Part of the prosecution evidence was given and both prisoners were then remanded in custody for trial before the Buckinghamshire Assize Court.
10
By the time of the 1964 Assize case, nine of the sixteen men believed to have taken part in the mail train robbery were in custody awaiting trial. A further three had already been publicly identified by the police and were on the run: Buster Edwards, Bruce Reynolds and Jimmy White. Four more remained publicly unidentified and still at large.
Looking back from today’s perspective in terms of court procedure and the rules of evidence, the case presented by the Crown was an exceptionally thin and circumstantial one. Their argument was essentially that if it could be proven that an individual had been at Leatherslade Farm then they were, by implication, at Sears Crossing and Bridego Bridge too and hence guilty of conspiracy and robbery. Even on this flimsy hypothesis, the Crown was on thin ice, as the fingerprints of Ronald Biggs, John Daly, Jimmy Hussey, Roy James and Bob Welch were all on movable objects that could plausibly have been made before they were taken to the farm. Other evidence presented by the prosecution was even more dubious. While the judge raised the eyebrows of many trial observers by ruling as admissible a number of clear breaches of Judges’ Rules of evidence, other breaches were so blatant that he had no option but to overrule them.
When the case opened on the cloudy, rainswept morning of 20 January 1964, all the prisoners appeared in the specially constructed spike-topped wooden dock at the Buckingham Winter Assizes, which was held in the Rural District Council Chambers, Aylesbury. The usual court building was far too small for such a major case, so it was decided to convert the Council Chamber instead. Each prisoner in turn was asked to enter a plea to the court in the respect to each charge against him. The following charges were laid against the following individuals:
1 For that they:
Roger John Cordrey
William Gerald Boal
Charles Frederick Wilson
Ronald Arthur Biggs
Roy John James
John Thomas Daly
Thomas William Wisbey
James Hussey
Leonard Dennis Field
Brian Arthur Field
Douglas Gordon Goody
John Denby Wheater
Robert Alfred Welch
On divers day unknown between the first day of May 1963 and the ninth day of August 1963 in the County of Buckinghamshire conspired together and with other persons unknown to stop a mail with intent to rob the said mail.
Against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, Her Crown and Dignity
2 For that they:
Roger John Cordrey
William Gerald Boal
Ronald Arthur Biggs
Roy John James
John Thomas Daly
Charles Frederick Wilson
Thomas William Wisbey
James Hussey
Leonard Dennis Field
Brian Arthur Field
Douglas Gordon Goody
Robert Alfred Welch
On the eighth day of August 1963, in the County of Buckinghamshire, being armed with offensive weapons or being together with other persons robbed Frank Dewhurst of 120 mailbags.
Contrary to Section 23(I) (
a
) of the Larceny Act 1916
3 For that he: William Gerald Boal
On a day unknown between the seventh and fifteenth days of August 1963 received
£5
6,037 in money the property of the Postmaster-General knowing the same to have been stolen from and out of a mailbag and to have been sent by post.
Contrary to Section 54 of the Post Office Act 1953
4 And or that he:
On a day unknown between the seventh and fifteenth days of August,1963, received
£7
9,120 in money the property of the Postmaster-General knowing the same to be stolen from and out of a mailbag and to have been sent by post.
5 And for that he:
On a day unknown between the seventh and fifteenth days of August 1963 received
£
5,060 in money the property of the Postmaster-General knowing the same to be stolen from and out of a mailbag and to have been sent by post.
Contrary to Section 54 of the Post Office Act 1953
6 For that he: Roger John Cordrey
On a day unknown between the seventh and fifteenth days of August 1963 received
£5
6,037 in money the property of the Postmaster-General knowing the same to have been stolen from and out of a mailbag and to have been sent by post.
Contrary to Section 54 of the Post Office Act 1953
7 And for that he:
On a day unknown between the seventh and fifteenth days of August, 1963, received
£
79,120 in money the property of the Postmaster-General knowing the same to be stolen from and out of a mailbag and to have been sent by post.
Contrary to Section 54 of the Post Office Act 1953
8 And for that he:
On a day unknown between the seventh and fifteenth days of August 1963 received
£
5,060 in money the property of the Postmaster-General knowing the same to be stolen from and out of a mailbag and to have been sent by post.
Contrary to Section 54 of the Post Office Act 1953
9 For that he: Brian Arthur Field
On a day unknown between the seventh and seventeenth days of August, 1963, received
£
100,900 in money the property of the Postmaster-General knowing the same to have been stolen from and out of a mailbag and to have been sent by post.
Contrary to Section 54 of the Post Office Act 1953
10 For that he: John Denby Wheater
Between the seventh day of August 1963 and the tenth day of September 1963 in the County of London well knowing that one Leonard Dennis Field had robbed Frank Dewhurst of 120 mailbags did comfort, harbour, assist and maintain the said Leonard Dennis Field.
Against the Peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, Her Crown and Dignity
11
The public gallery (with seats for sixty people) was full, with disappointed queues filing down the street outside the council building. The press benches were equally full to capacity with correspondents from all over the world sitting alongside some of Fleet Street’s most prominent reporters. An equally prestigious army of nearly forty counsel, including twelve QCs, and their juniors were positioned in the centre of the improvised court room. A full list of counsel can be found in Appendix 3.
At 10.27 a.m. on the dot, the accused rose to answer the charges made against them. With the exception of Roger Cordrey all pleaded not guilty. Cordrey pleaded guilty to count one, in which he was charged with conspiracy to stop the mail, and counts three, four and five in which he was charged with receiving various large sums of money. He pleaded not guilty to count two in which he was charged with robbery with aggravation. The pleas by Cordrey were accepted by the prosecution and he was put back in custody to await sentence.
12
Arthur James QC, leading the prosecution team, opened the case for the Crown, which took just over ten hours, beginning with a description of the hold-up and proceeding to the alleged role of each of the accused in the plot.
On day three James produced the first of the prosecution’s parade of 206 witnesses who would appear over the next thirteen days. Jack Mills, the engine driver, looking tired and strained, was allowed to give his evidence from a chair. Unable to identify any of the robbers from among the men sitting in the dock, his evidence was perfunctory and at times almost inaudible.
One of the most contentious parts of the prosecution case was that against Gordon Goody:
On 28 January 1964 Detective Chief Inspector Peter Vibart was giving evidence regarding the questioning of Gordon Goody at Leicester when his Counsel, Mr Sebag Shaw QC told the Judge he had a submission to make which should be made in the absence of the jury. Justice Edmund Davies agreed and the jury retired. The submission was that at the time Detective Chief Inspector Vibart saw Goody at Leicester he was in custody and should have been cautioned under Rule 3 of Judges’ Rules before being questioned and that any statements attributed to him after that time were contrary to the rules and inadmissible in evidence. After arguments Justice Edmund Davies decided not to admit the evidence. This meant that the whole of the statements attributed to Goody from the time he was first seen by Detective Chief Inspector Vibart at Leicester on 23 August 1963 until he was allowed to leave Aylesbury Police Station on 25 August 1963 were ruled inadmissible.
13
The judge was also forced to issue a stiff reprimand to another police officer giving evidence against Goody. DSgt John Swain of the Flying Squad had related an account of a search he made at the home of Goody’s mother when she was the only person in. Mr Sebag Shaw vigorously pressed Swain on what he suspected was a clear abuse of the law of search: ‘You were told to search the house without a warrant?’ Swain replied evasively and without conviction that, ‘If Mrs Goody had said, “you can’t come in” we would have got a search warrant.’
Sebag Shaw now had Swain on the ropes, as he knew full well that Swain had told Mrs Goody that he had in fact got a warrant on him. Forced to admit that he had said this, Swain attempted to mitigate himself by responding that, ‘It was a mistake not a lie. I had other warrants to search other houses on me and I was told to go to Mrs Goody’s home.’
Judge Edmund Davies immediately rebuked Swain – ‘See that it never happens again.’
While this was a very small victory for Goody, both he and his counsel knew that the biggest challenge to the evidence against him was yet to come in relation to the claim by the prosecution that shoes belonging to him had paint on them that matched paint found at Leatherslade Farm. The Crown was additionally claiming that a little knob, found in a jacket belonging to Bill Boal, contained in the grooves traces of yellow paint, which according to Scotland Yard’s Dr Ian Holden was more than likely the same paint as that on Goody’s shoes.
However, before this could be contested, there were other submissions to be made concerning other alleged breaches of Judges’ Rules of evidence:
On the 31 January 1964, Detective Inspector Harry Tappin was giving evidence when Michael Argyle QC, Counsel for Leonard Field, asked to make a submission in the absence of the jury. Justice Edmund Davies agreed and the jury retired. The objection raised, was that evidence which was about to be given by Tappin of the questioning of Leonard Field by Detective Chief Superintendent Butler, was not in conformity with Judges’ Rules because his client had been in custody and had not been cautioned. Justice Edmund Davies ruled that the oral evidence, up to the time Field was put into the detention room at Cannon Row Police Station, would be admitted in evidence. Justice Edmund Davies also ruled that the written statement taken from Field after he had been in the detention room should not at this stage be admitted.
14
While this was the second submission that the judge agreed to, he was to inexplicably change course following the third submission:
Lewis Hawser QC, Counsel for Brian Field then raised an objection to evidence which Detective Inspector Tappin would later be giving against Field. Hawser’s objection was that an oral statement made by Field just before he was charged in which he denied the identity of Leonard Field as the potential buyer of Leatherslade Farm was inadmissible in evidence. After certain arguments had been made, Justice Edmund Davies decided to exercise his discretion and admit the evidence. The jury then returned and the trial continued.
15
Perhaps the biggest error in terms of police evidence was to come on 6 February when DI Basil Morris, of the Surrey Constabulary, gave evidence regarding an interview he had with Ronald Biggs, when he asked whether or not Biggs knew any of the train robbery suspects. He gave Biggs’s reply to one question as being:
‘I knew Reynolds some years ago. I met him when we did time together.’ At the conclusion of Morris’s evidence he was cross examined by Wilfred Fordham who afterwards, in the absence of the jury, made an application to Justice Edmund Davies to discharge Biggs without a verdict from the jury. Justice Edmund Davies granted the application and on the return of the jury he told them that they would be relieved from considering the case of Biggs. Biggs then left the dock and the trial against the other accused continued.
16
This was clearly an improper and prejudicial statement by Morris before the jury: that Biggs had served a prison sentence in the past. Judge Edmund Davies immediately realised that this would mean a re-trial for Biggs, which would, from his point of view, waste a large sum of public money.
Whether it was chagrin at Morris’s error or the resultant burden upon the public purse that prompted Judge Edmund Davies to publicly castigate Morris can only be speculated on. However, he certainly did not mince his words:
That the inspector, who, of necessity, must be a man of great experience in his duties, should have so far forgotten his duties as to bring in a phrase of that kind gratuitously is grossly improper and cannot be too strongly condemned.
17
A further controversy occurred on 10 February 1964 when Lewis Hawser QC submitted to the judge that the questioning of Brian Field at New Scotland Yard about the case, and the hotel bill found following his arrest at his home in Oxfordshire, was plainly a breach of Judges’ Rules. Justice Edmund Davies then ruled that although he agreed that Judges’ Rules No 3 had been broken, he was, nevertheless, going to exercise his discretion and allow the evidence to be heard by the jury.