TW@T REPORTER pt 2

Objection and inquiry at the Old Bailey

By Charlie Brooks

DAILY TELEGRAPH online 05/11/2007

 

Kieren Fallon and his fellow defendants in the conspiracy to defraud Betfair customers' case at the Old Bailey are having it easy compared to me. They aren't having a running battle with the staff outside the public gallery of Court 12.
When I arrived last Thursday to witness the part of the trial that I have really been looking forward to – the expert opinions of Australian steward Ray Murrihy – I was told the gallery was full. I didn't believe staff member XX("we don't give names"] was telling me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so I decided to be as stubborn and bloody minded as she was being. She eventually let me in. There were 16 empty seats.
On Friday, during one of the many breaks – and I would like to come back to them later, Your Honour – staff member XX's sidekick beckoned me over to her desk with a bent finger. Staff member XX, in her uniform, looked like she was straight out of Prisoner Cell Block H central casting. "Have you read this?" she demanded in a very aggressive manner. She was referring to my Daily Telegraph column of Oct 22, which she had cut out and painted with a yellow highlighter pen.
"I wrote it, actually," I informed her helpfully. She seemed very agitated about the highlighted paragraph. I quote: "The staircase leading up to the gallery of the
12 courts is shabby and cramped. It's noticeable because inevitably one has to queue on the stairs while the bolshie staff search your bags, empty your pockets and confiscate your chicken sandwich."
Staff member XX then said twice that she "personally objected to my being there". Well, for the record, Your Honour, in a country of free speech and opinion, the staff on the stairs were on much better form last week but if there is to be an Olympic medal for rude, aggressive people who are 'not bovvered', staff member XX should be team captain. Apparently, the manager the of the Central Criminal Court, who alleges that he knows me, wants a word with me, too.
Some people might interpret their conduct as intimidating, Your Honour.
Anyway, in spite of all that going on, the case proceeded. The judge seems to have gotten over the rugby but a couple of the jurors look as if they have put on some weight. Which is not surprising because I suspect they are eating one hell of a lot of biscuits, given the number of breaks they have.
I missed the bit I was really looking forward to. Mr Kelsey Fry QC, on behalf of Mr Fallon, cross-examining the Aussie. If you ever happen to go out on a bender and arrive home blind drunk with lipstick on your collar and the telephone number of a lap-dancing girl in your pocket, you should know one thing –and you will have to trust me on this. The one person you don't want to see sitting at the bottom of your wife's bed in his wig is Mr Kelsey Fry.
So you will understand why I wanted to see him discussing with Mr Murrihy why the Australian steward was in a better position than English stewards to opine on whether a jockey's riding in certain races was appropriate or not. Only the jury will know their conclusions of this exchange. Until the trial has finished, everyone else must keep their opinions to themselves.
What can be reported is that Murrihy advised the police that sectional times would have been very useful to judge whether jockey Darren Williams had gone too fast in one race, and yet that information was not accessed. Murrihy, we were told by the defence, was also not up to speed on the sort of matters that one would expect a local expert, such as the "extremely distinguished" Mr Rolf Johnson, to be. Matters such as track bias and horses' racing patterns. Luckily, someone explained what a racing pattern is in court. I hadn't got a bloody clue what they were on about. I think it will be some time before I appear as an expert witness.
By Thursday afternoon, it seemed to be pretty clear in the court that what Murrihy really wanted to do was go home and watch the Melbourne Cup. That could have meant an extended session to finish his evidence, but one of the jurors didn't fancy working late so they all packed up at 4.30pm and went home. I wonder if Mr Murrihy enjoyed his stay in London?