Case No: T20057472 
T20047275 
T20067051 
T20077124 
T20067187 
T20067304
IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

Date: 31/03/2010

Before:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TREACY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:

	R	Crown	
	- v -		
	Peter Blake	Defendants	
	John Twomey		
	Glenn Cameron		
	Barry Hibberd		

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr S Russell-Flint QC, Ms K Wilkinson for the Crown
Mr G Wilson and Mr S Moses for Blake
Mr J Aspinall QC and Mr Eissa for Twomey
Ms K Brimelow and Mr B Newton for Cameron
Mr S Stein QC and Ms Goodall for Hibberd

Hearing dates: 12th January 2010 – 31st March 2010
Approved Verdicts and
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment

The Honourable Mr Justice Treacy: 

The Indictment
1.	The indictment divides into the “Menzies” counts (Counts 1 to 5) and the “garage” counts (Counts 6 to 18). The Menzies counts relate to an armed robbery which took place on 6th February 2004 when a professionally organised armed robbery took place at warehouse premises at Heathrow Airport. Six robbers armed with firearms entered the premises with the help of Darren Brockwell, an employee of Menzies, who was the “inside man” in the planning of the robbery. Having used force or the threat of force upon employees, the robbers made good their escape with £1.75 million. All four Defendants face charges in relation to the Menzies robbery. I describe the robbery in detail below starting at paragraph 39. Counts 6 to 18 concern Hibberd alone. They arise from the finding on 9th October 2002 of a cache of firearms and ammunition at a lock-up garage in Uxbridge. There is a link to Hibberd by reason of the finding of his DNA on one of the firearms. Fuller details of what was found are set out in the Hibberd section of this judgment starting at paragraph 339. 
2.	Before I could convict on any count, I must be sure, firstly, that the ingredients of that count have been established, and secondly, that the individual Defendant named is guilty of that count. I have in every case considered the counts individually and the position of each Defendant on each count separately. 
3.	Counts 1 and 2 which are laid against Blake, are based on the premise that he was robber four, who pursued David Westwood, (a Menzies employee), and fired a gun at him. Count 1 alleges attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Count 2 alleges possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life contrary to s16 of the Firearms Act 1968. The counts are not alternatives as they represent different aspects of the same matter. Count 3, (robbery), relates to all four Defendants. The allegation of robbery involves an assertion that all four were in the vicinity of the Menzies warehouse on 6th February and were involved in the robbery which took place. Blake, Twomey and Hibberd are alleged to have been inside the premises. In Cameron’s case, he is alleged to have been the driver of the van which brought the armed men to Spout Lane at which point they were able to transfer into Brockwell’s van and be carried into the secure airside part of the premises by him. Count 4, conspiracy to rob, is laid against Twomey and Cameron as an alternative to be considered in the event that I found them not guilty on Count 3. In essence the allegation is that prior to the 6th February, they had planned the Menzies robbery with Brockwell, the employee of Menzies who was the “inside man” in the conspiracy.  Count 5 involves all the firearms taken into the Menzies premises by the robbers. This charge is one of having a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely robbery, contrary to s18(1) of the Firearms Act 1968. It is uncontroversial that all robbers would be liable on joint enterprise principles for all weapons. If Cameron’s role was as a driver, and he was aware that the robbers were armed and assented to this, he too would be liable under joint enterprise principles. 
4.	Turning to the garage counts involving Hibberd alone, counts 6 and 7 are a pair of alternative counts relating to the Beretta pistol upon which Hibberd’s DNA was found. Counts 8 to 18 relate, with some alternative counts, to other firearms and ammunition found in the garage at Uxbridge. There is no DNA evidence relating to Hibberd on these other items; the case against him on these other items is put on the basis of a cache of firearms and ammunition held jointly by him, McGovern, Hearn and Brown. 
Verdicts
5.	I would like to make plain that the reasons given in this section underlying the verdicts delivered are brief reasons. Reference to later sections of this judgment shows more detailed reasoning underlying the conclusions referred to in this part. Those other reasons therefore form part of the reasoning for the verdicts set out in this section of the judgment. 
Blake
6.	Blake is alleged to have been robber number four as shown on the CCTV footage of the robbery. That robber fired live ammunition from a nine millimetre pistol at close range at a Menzies employee, David Westwood, during the course of a chase and struggle which is a feature of the robbery. Blake’s DNA was found on a hat and part of a mask which had been torn off in the course of the struggle. Blake’s defence was one of alibi. He sought to explain the DNA findings by saying that some two or three months prior to the robbery, he had been approached to participate in it by a man called McCormack, (not a Defendant). He said he had tried on two masks and a hat and had then declined to take part in the proposed robbery. 
7.	I am sure that Blake was one of the robbers who entered Menzies on the evening of 6th February 2004, and that he was robber number four who chased David Westwood and fired a gun at him. I find Blake’s alibi to be untrue, and reject his explanations regarding the presence of his DNA. My rejection of his alibi does not of itself mean that Blake is guilty or prove that he was at Menzies. However, the rejection of his alibi and his innocent explanation as to how his DNA got on the items mean that those findings have to be considered in the light of the evidence remaining. In my judgment, Blake’s previous convictions for robbery, seen in the context of his continued involvement in the criminal world after his release from his last sentence for robbery, demonstrate a propensity to be involved in offences of this type. This evidence provides a reason as to why Blake should be willing to participate in a robbery of this sort, and provides some support for the Crown’s case that he was one of the robbers. However, I have been careful not to attach undue weight to this factor. 
8.	I find that Blake’s presence is also supported to a limited extent by a viewing of robber four on the CCTV in the sense that this material, taken together with witness descriptions of robber four, is generally consistent, or at least not inconsistent, with Blake’s participation in the robbery. I also consider that Blake’s conversations with officers Murphy and Halbert on 19th July 2006, together with his conversations with his partner that evening again provide support for his presence as a robber. These factors taken together with the evidence of the finding of his DNA on the mask and the hat make me sure that Blake was involved in the robbery. It is clear from the evidence that at least one of the three shots fired by robber number four was aimed at David Westwood. The shot was fired from close range at a man whom robber four plainly wanted to prevent from escaping and raising the alarm. I have no doubt in the circumstances that Blake intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Westwood and that his actions constitute an attempt. Accordingly, I am sure of Blake’s guilt on Count 1.
9.	Turning to Count 2, there is therefore no doubt that Blake was in possession of a pistol with live ammunition which his actions show he intended to use if necessary to endanger the life of another person. Accordingly, I find Blake guilty on Count 2, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. 
10.	I am sure that the evidence establishes that Blake was robber number four. There is no issue that people were in fact robbed and money stolen. I therefore find Blake guilty of robbery on Count 3. 
11.	Moving to Count 5, having found that Blake was one of the robbers, and being sure that the team of robbers were in possession of a number of firearms for the purpose of committing the robbery, I find Blake guilty of Count 5.
Twomey
12.	The Crown case against Twomey was that he was the planner and organiser of the robbery who had held a series of meetings with Brockwell for that purpose in December 2003, and January and February 2004. The Crown’s case is that, not only did Twomey have that role, he was also one of the robbers who entered the premises on the night of the robbery. They say he is robber number two who was armed, and who can be seen directing operations. They allege that he is captured on CCTV soon after the robbery returning to a hotel, Days Hotel, Ruislip, and carrying bags containing all or part of the proceeds of the robbery to a room with Cameron and Hibberd. Twomey’s case is that he has been set up by the Flying Squad and others. Whilst he did meet with Brockwell on some occasions, they were not as numerous as the Crown suggest, and the topic of discussion was not a robbery at Menzies. What was under discussion was other shady or criminal ventures unassociated with Heathrow Airport. Twomey denied that he was a robber who entered the premises on the night in question, and he put forward an alibi. He disputed that the bags taken to Days Hotel contained the proceeds of the robbery. 
13.	I am sure from the evidence that I have heard that Twomey became involved in a plan to rob Menzies in December 2003 once Darren Brockwell had ceased to plan an offence with G and J. I accept Darren Brockwell’s account as essentially accurate, supported as it is by other evidence. It is clear that Twomey was planning a robbery at Menzies with Brockwell as opposed to discussing some other unrelated criminal activity. I reject Twomey’s account to the contrary and am satisfied that the planning continued up to and including the meeting on 5th February 2004. It is quite clear that a firm agreement had been reached as opposed to some tentative discussion on the topic. I reject Twomey’s allegations that he had been framed by the Flying Squad, Steve Thompson, Darren Brockwell or R. I disbelieve Twomey’s alibi for the evening of 6th February. I am sure that he is robber two depicted on the CCTV from Menzies on that night, appearing to take charge and directing events as would be consistent with his role in the prior planning. Without attempting any identification from the CCTV footage, there is no feature of robber two which appears to be inconsistent with Mr Twomey. I am also sure that he was present because of his detailed role in the planning and his acquired knowledge of the premises, which in my judgment, mean that he would personally be taking part, particularly when taken together with the evidence showing him shortly after the robbery arriving at Days Hotel with Hibberd and Cameron and carrying heavy bags. 
14.	I am sure that the safe and correct inference from what can be seen at Days Hotel in the context of my finding that Twomey’s account of his movements and reason for possession of the holdalls and bags that night is untrue, is that those bags contained some, if not all, of the proceeds of the robbery. Accordingly, I find Twomey guilty of Count 3. 
15.	In those circumstances it is not necessary for me to return a verdict on Count 4, although my findings are such that Twomey would also be guilty of that offence. I therefore discharge myself from returning a verdict on Count 4. 
16.	As to Count 5, since Twomey was part of the team of robbers who were armed with firearms, he was plainly aware of their existence and why they were being carried. Accordingly, I find him guilty on Count 5. 
Cameron
17.	The Crown’s case against Cameron is that he was a willing lieutenant of Twomey’s who attended some of the planning meetings with Brockwell. They allege that on the night of the robbery he took the band of armed robbers in a van to Spout Lane, not far from Heathrow Airport, where they were able to transfer to an airport van driven by Brockwell, who was then able with his security clearance, to take the robbers into the airside part of the premises. Cameron’s case acknowledges that he was present at some meetings involving Twomey and Brockwell, but asserts that he took no part in the planning. He denies that what was being discussed related to a robbery at Menzies. He put forward an alibi that on the night of 6th February he spent the evening drinking with Twomey in the west London area. 
18.	Cameron has portrayed himself as an uninterested driver of Twomey during the meetings with Brockwell. I have already made plain my finding that what was being discussed at those meetings was a firm plan to rob Menzies. I therefore reject Cameron’s case that what was under discussion was other criminal ventures. From the evidence I have seen and heard, I am sure that Cameron was fully aware of what was being discussed and was party to it. He was not merely an observer, but was a participant in the agreement with Brockwell, albeit that Twomey was the leading light. In a case where efforts were made to conceal the meetings from scrutiny, Cameron’s presence at meetings up to and including the final meeting of 5th February, leads to the clear inference that he was a trusted and knowing party to what was being planned. I further conclude that his close involvement with Twomey and knowledge of the detailed plan inevitably meant that he would be a participant in the events of 6th February. I disbelieve his alibi for the evening of 6th February. 
19.	I also disbelieve his explanation in relation to the bags taken into Days Hotel. That leads me to the clear conclusion that his presence with Twomey and the bags in the period very shortly after the robbery, means that he was associated with the proceeds of the robbery, and that he was himself involved in the robbery on the night with Twomey and others. There is in my judgment an element of doubt as to whether he was one of the robbers who entered the premises and robbed the employees, but I am sure that Cameron was involved in the events of that night. Given his experience of driving Twomey around, and the absence of any criminal record involving an offence of violence, I feel that it is safe to conclude that he was allotted and played the role of the driver of the van which took the armed men to meet Brockwell at Spout Lane. I therefore find Cameron guilty of Count 3.
20.	As a constant companion of Twomey throughout the planning and on 6th February, and as someone who must have met the robbers and loaded them into the back of his van, I find that Cameron was aware that firearms were to be carried and used for the purposes of carrying out the robbery. There is no evidence to suggest that he personally, as the driver, would have been armed, but the state of knowledge and adherence to the plan already described mean that Cameron is guilty of Count 5 on joint enterprise principles. 
21.	As to Count 4, my conclusions are the same as in Twomey’s case. Accordingly, I discharge myself from giving a verdict on this Count.
Hibberd
22.	Dealing first with the garage offences, the Crown’s case is that Hibberd was in joint possession on 9th October 2002 with Simon Brown, Anthony Hearn and Gary McGovern of a cache of four firearms and associated ammunition found in a garage in Uxbridge. Hibberd’s DNA was found on a Beretta pistol and a balaclava which were in a rucksack with other items. Hibberd denied any knowledge of the firearms and ammunition found, and denied any connection with the garage. He provided two possible alternative explanations as to how his DNA might have got onto the balaclava, and argued that there was a real possibility that the gun had been contaminated with DNA originating from the balaclava. 
23.	I start with Counts 6 and 7 which represent the Beretta pistol upon which Mr Hibberd’s DNA was found. Count 6 alleges possession of a loaded Beretta with intent to endanger life contrary to s16 of the Firearms Act 1968. Count 7 is an alternative alleging possession of a prohibited firearm contrary to s5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968. Although, as will be seen later, I have rejected Hibberd’s accounts of how his DNA may have got onto the balaclava, I am left with significant concerns about the interpretation to be placed on the DNA findings, and in particular I consider that there is a serious possibility of contamination having occurred, so as to cast doubt upon the proposition that the finding of DNA on the Beretta pistol must mean that Hibberd was in possession of it. I therefore find him not guilty of both Counts 6 and 7.  
24.	I turn next to Counts 10 and 11 representing the Colt pistol found under the carpet on the opposite side of the garage to the rucksack in which other firearms were found. This is another pair of alternative counts. There is no DNA of Hibberd associated with this item. It is separate from the other firearms and related items found in the garage. In my judgment, there is no sufficient evidence to link Hibberd to this item. Accordingly, I find him not guilty of both Counts 10 and 11. 
25.	That leaves for consideration Counts 8 and 9 and Counts 12 to 18 representing firearms and ammunition found in the rucksack in the garage in which the Beretta was found. Counts 8 and 9 and 12 and 13 represent two further pairs of alternative counts relating to firearms found. Counts 14 to 16 allege possession of ammunition without a firearm certificate contrary to s1(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968. Counts 17 and 18 represent alternative counts concerning a sound moderator. Count 17 alleges possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life contrary to s16 of the Firearms Act 1968. Count 18 alleges possession of a prohibited weapon contrary to s5(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968. Again there is no DNA evidence to link Hibberd to those items. The case is put on the basis that the items found in the rucksack must represent some form of joint possession of all items by McGovern, Hearn and Brown. The firearms, ammunition and other items in the rucksack are all portable. They do not necessarily have to have been put in the rucksack on the same occasion. There is no evidence as to who put the rucksack in the garage, and certainly none to connect Hibberd directly with it. There is no evidence directly linking Hibberd to the garage or proving his presence there on any occasion. The sole link between Hibberd and these items, leaving aside the presence of his DNA on a balaclava and the Beretta, is his friendship with McGovern. It is over-simplistic to say that there were four guns, and that if Hibberd’s name is added to that of McGovern, Hearn and Brown, that means there are four men to be linked to those guns. This is because there is evidence of DNA from unknown persons found within the garage on significant items, and evidence of DNA from other identified persons on other items. In my judgment, the evidence is insufficient to enable any safe link between Hibberd and the items mentioned in these remaining counts to be made. The Crown’s assertion of a cache of firearms for general use held jointly be Hibberd and others in my judgment remains just an assertion. Accordingly, the appropriate verdicts on Counts 8 to 18 inclusive are not guilty in each case, and I record such verdicts on each such Count. 
26.	In relation to the Menzies robbery, the Crown allege that Hibberd was one of the armed robbers who carried out the offence on the night of 6th February 2004. The case against him turns on his presence at Days Hotel with Twomey and Cameron on the night of the robbery. Hibberd put forward an alibi for the evening of 6th February, and denied that his visit to Days Hotel in which he assisted Twomey in carrying bags up to a room occupied by Twomey and Cameron was associated with the robbery. 
27.	I reject Hibberd’s account of his whereabouts on the late evening of the 6th February as untrue. His false claim of an evening spent drinking, culminating with being in the company of Twomey and Cameron, also means that his account that the bags taken into Days Hotel contained Twomey and Cameron’s stock-in-trade is false, as are his reasons for having accompanied Twomey to the hotel. I have already found that both Twomey and Cameron were involved in the robbery on 6th February. I find that Twomey, as the chief planner and director of operations on the night, had cash from the robbery in the bags which Hibberd helped to carry into the hotel. Hibberd then remained in the hotel with the two other robbers for a number of hours. I conclude that Twomey and Cameron as persons who had just carried out a major robbery successfully would not be in company with the proceeds of their crime with an innocent person. They would only in the circumstances described be associating with someone who had also participated in the crime with them.
28.	Hibberd’s size, physical fitness and willingness to use his physical attributes against others would have rendered him an ideal recruit for Twomey as a robber. I am driven to the clear conclusion that Hibberd was one of the robbers and so find him guilty on Count 3. The evidence shows that Hibberd was armed. Accordingly, I find him guilty of Count 5. 
Legal Issues
29.	At the close of the evidence and prior to closing submissions made by counsel, I held a session with the parties in which we discussed legal issues which needed to be taken account of in the course of framing a judgment and reaching verdicts. These discussions took place on the afternoon of 15th March 2010, they were recorded in court in the usual way, so that there is a full record of our discussions which can be consulted if necessary, and which, in the interests of brevity I summarise below. Matters such as burden and standard of proof, separate treatment of Defendants and offences, alternative verdicts, joint responsibility, the elements of conspiracy, circumstantial evidence and inferences, experts, and the consequences of rejection of an alibi were all mentioned. The principles to be applied in relation to each of those were not regarded as controversial by any party, and I have applied the approach indicated by JSB guidance appropriately tailored to the facts of the case. 
30.	Since alibis have been a prominent feature of the defences of all Defendants in relation to the Menzies robbery, I wish to make it explicit that I have approached the matter on the basis that the Crown must disprove the Defendant’s alibi, and make me sure of the Defendant’s guilt. The mere fact that an alibi is false does not of itself mean that a Defendant is guilty. Having in each case rejected the Defendants’ alibis for reasons explained later in this judgment, I have both borne in mind the possibility that a false alibi is sometimes put forward to bolster a true defence, and the need to be sure that on the available evidence the Defendant was in fact present and participating in the crime alleged in the way that the Crown say he was.  
31.	It was agreed on all sides that I should regard the evidence of Darren Brockwell and Steven Thompson with caution. It was agreed that Cameron was entitled to the benefit of a good character direction. In Blake’s case it was agreed that his previous convictions for robberies were capable of demonstrating a propensity to commit robbery. In Twomey’s case it was agreed that his criminal activities did not demonstrate a propensity to commit robbery or a propensity for untruthfulness. There was dispute as to the significance of Hibberd’s convictions for violence taken with his admitted continuing violent behaviour. It was agreed that there were no lies which would attract a Lucas direction in the case of any Defendant. However, in reflecting upon submissions made by the Crown in relation to the balaclava upon which Hibberd’s DNA was found, I came to the view that it was necessary for me to approach that matter on a Lucas direction basis. There was a dispute as to whether I could form a view as to identity of any Defendant by looking at the CCTV material. 
32.	Turning to inferences to be drawn pursuant to s34 of The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, in Blake’s case it was agreed that there was the potential for such inferences in relation to his alibi and his explanation for the finding of DNA. In Twomey’s case there was dispute as to whether inferences could be drawn in relation to (a) the subject matter of his conversations with Brockwell, (b) his allegations that he had been fitted up by Brockwell, Thompson and R in addition to the Flying Squad, and (c) his alibi. In Cameron’s case it was agreed that there was potential for an inference in relation to his alibi. There was a dispute as to whether any inference could be drawn concerning the suggestion that Brockwell was proposing a crime involving bullion and premises at Feltham. In Hibberd’s case it was agreed that there was no scope for drawing any s34 inference. It was agreed that it was unnecessary for any possible inference against Blake under s36 to be considered. There was also controversy as to whether I should draw any inference from alleged failures of Defence disclosure revealed by an analysis of their Defence Statements, pursuant to s11(5)(b) of The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. 
33.	It was agreed that the fact of Blake’s having absconded was of no evidential significance. It was agreed that the fact that Defendants had made no comment in interview did not of itself have probative value. There was disagreement as to the effect of the acquittals of Wake and Davies. 
34.	It should be recognised that I am involved in trying events which took place about six years ago in the case of the Menzies counts, and about seven and a half years ago in relation to the Hibberd firearms charges. It is common sense that when witnesses are giving evidence about matters which took place such a long time ago, there may be difficulties in their recollection. The same may apply to Defendants who are not arrested until some time after the events complained of. I have borne in mind the potential difficulties in the way of such witnesses, with particular focus on the Defence alibi witnesses, and have been alive to the possibility of prejudice being caused to the Defence cases thereby. In examining and forming conclusions as to veracity of individual witnesses I have taken this factor into account. Having made those allowances in my evaluation of the evidence, I think it right to state at this stage that I have concluded that in no case was any Defendant disadvantaged in the presentation of his case by the delay which has arisen. That delay, of course, needs to be viewed in the context of the fact that this is the fourth of a series of trials which have taken place in the intervening years involving all of these Defendants at different stages. 
35.	It will be observed that at times in this judgment there are references to individuals identified only by their initials, R, G, J and B. I have adopted this procedure because there are pending criminal proceedings in relation to those individuals and the interests of justice require that they should not be identified at this stage. There are in fact reporting restrictions in relation to those individuals, and divulging their identity is not necessary for the purposes of this judgment. 
36.	The evidence in this case has been wide-ranging and complex. Some of it is circumstantial and in evaluating that I have avoided speculation and have sought to draw only what I consider to be safe and sure conclusions. Given the nature of the case very many issues and sub-issues have arisen. This judgment does not attempt to resolve every issue or disputed factual matter that has arisen. I have done my best to resolve every issue of importance, and I am satisfied that I have dealt with sufficient evidence to enable me to come to a sure conclusion in relation to every charge and every Defendant where I have returned a verdict of guilty. In similar vein the judgment which follows will not recite every word of the evidence given at trial. It seeks to cover the main areas of evidence given and to analyse disputes in relation to them, and then to draw such conclusions as are necessary to come to a decision. 
37.	Mr Aspinall QC on behalf of Twomey submitted to me that, because after the first of the series of trials in this matter the Defendants B and R had been severed so that their cases are still pending, there was potential disadvantage to his client because they could not give explanations for their actions as they could have had they been co-accused in this trial, nor, since their cases are still pending, could they be called as witnesses by Twomey in this trial. I must try this case according to the evidence which has been given in this trial. I cannot speculate as to what B or R might have said had they given evidence before this court. I do not, however, consider that any material disadvantage has been sustained by Twomey. In this case there is very little evidence showing direct contact between Twomey and B, and where there has been, it is Twomey’s case to deny it. In the case of R, there is evidence of police observations and extensive phone materials which are objective facts and which, taken together with Brockwell’s evidence about R, can be set alongside the evidence of Twomey and Cameron, the objective evidence to show that Twomey and R were in frequent contact with one another at times prior to what is said to be the inception of the conspiracy in this case, and the overall requirement on the Prosecution to prove its case. I have borne in mind Mr Aspinall’s injunction that in order to be fair to Twomey I should be slow to draw inferences based on the actions of others not before the court, and have only drawn conclusions where I felt that it was safe to do so. 
38.	I record these matters so that the position on matters normally the subject of legal directions to a jury may be understood. Insofar as there were areas of controversy, my resolution of those matters will be apparent from the terms of this judgment. 
The Robbery
39.	On the evening of 6th February 2004 a professionally planned and professionally executed armed robbery took place at the warehouse premises of Menzies World Cargo. Menzies is a cargo handling company for airlines, based at Heathrow Airport. On that evening an Austrian Airlines flight from Vienna brought in a substantial quantity of bank notes. Some of that cargo was going to be handled by Menzies on behalf of a company called Via Mat and stored in a vault over the weekend. The larger part of the cargo was being handled by Brinks. 
40.	At around 11pm that evening a robber burst into the office of John Walton, who was the shift manager in charge at Menzies on that night. The robber had a gun in his hand. He was masked. Mr Walton was taken downstairs to the import office, where he saw other employees lying on the floor. Shortly afterwards he was taken back upstairs to get keys for the vault, which were provided to the robbers. The robbers were on the premises for 12 or 13 minutes. During that period of time they rounded up employees on the premises and tied their hands with plastic ties. 
41.	It is clear from careful analysis of the CCTV footage that there were six robbers inside the premises. The six have been separately distinguished by reference to items of clothing, or in one case the “rolling gait” of the individual concerned. The CCTV shows that five men were armed with handguns, whereas one had a Hechler and Koch submachine gun. Thus, all six robbers were armed. Plainly all were part of a joint enterprise to possess firearms. 
42.	All robbers wore the same type of flesh-coloured whole-head masks, with a hole for the mouth, and painted eyes, hair and lips. All robbers wore identical yellow high visibility jackets, and headgear on top of the masks. Where voices have been described, with the exception of one witness, they are described as white male with London accents. The appearance of the robbers in general terms is that of males and I am sure that the men concerned were indeed males having viewed the CCTV. No-one gave any evidence which might suggest that any robber was female.  
43.	There were two official sets of keys on the premises that night which were capable of opening the vault containing the bank notes which had arrived from Vienna. One set had been taken from Mr Walton’s office as already mentioned. The second set had been in the possession of a Mr Westwood throughout the evening’s events save for a five minute period which is accounted for. The evidence shows that 71 kilos of bank notes were stolen from the vault at Menzies, representing about £1.75 million in different currencies. Due to a misunderstanding of the flight manifest by the inside man, Mr Brockwell, it had been hoped to obtain something approaching £10 million that night. 
44.	As far as the six different robbers identified from the CCTV are concerned, the Crown has asserted that number two was Mr Twomey, number three – Mr Hibberd, and number four – Mr Blake. Number two is the man described as having a rolling gait. He appears to have played a leading role amongst the robbers, and appears at times to direct and control events. The CCTV shows him making an unsuccessful attempt with a key to open the vault door, and only a little while later, is he successful. Mr Walton’s impression from the robbers was that they could not open the vault until he had provided them with the keys from his office. However, I accept the undisputed evidence of Mr Lewis, a Scenes of Crime Officer, who recovered the Walton keys from the floor of the main warehouse on the morning after the raid, that those keys in fact were only capable of opening one of the two locks on the vault where the money was kept. It is clear that the robbers used their own set of keys provided through their inside man at Menzies, Mr Brockwell, but were keen to give the impression that they needed Walton’s keys in order to deflect attention away from inside assistance and information. 
45.	There was an incident involving David Westwood, one of the Menzies workers, which is particularly significant. At one point a robber, who equates to robber four on the CCTV, was moving a number of employees within the premises at gunpoint. Westwood ran off and escaped into the open. Robber four chased him, caught him, and there was a running scuffle and fight between the two men. Westwood pulled off robber four’s woolly hat and tore part of robber four’s mask away near the forehead or top of the head. The gun was fired three times during the scuffle, during which the back of Mr Westwood’s neck was injured by a blow from the gun. At least one shot was aimed at Mr Westwood. Fortunately Mr Westwood was not seriously injured, although he shed blood as a result of his encounter. When part of the mask was pulled off he saw some light wispy sandy coloured receding hair. 
46.	The six robbers had been brought on site by Darren Brockwell, the inside man. They had been delivered to Spout Lane near the airport by a van. The robbers had transferred from that van into Mr Brockwell’s van and remained concealed inside it whilst he was able to enter the secure area in his van, using his security pass. Once Brockwell had parked the van in a place out of sight of the CCTV cameras, the robbers were able to emerge from it, and to commence the robbery described. The van which had delivered the robbers to Spout Lane did not enter the secure airside part of the premises, but was seen to drive off having followed Brockwell’s van for part of his route to the security gates.
47.	When the robbery was coming to an end, an employee’s gold Ford Focus was taken. It left with a white transit type van, whose driver visiting the premises was effectively hijacked at gunpoint. There may well have been a mix-up over the arrangements to take the robbers away from the premises which led to the high-jacking of one or both of these vehicles. The CCTV footage appears to reveal some confusion amongst the robbers, and robber two, who appeared to be in charge of events, can be seen using his mobile phone during the course of the raid. The two vehicles left the site in convoy, taking with them the robbers and the seven bags containing the money. On 7th February the gold Ford Focus was seen parked in a residential street in New Denham, Uxbridge. On the following evening it was set on fire and burnt out. On 1st March 2004, not far away in Oxford Road, Uxbridge, a security guard found two blue canvas bags abandoned at the rear of a public house. The labels on the bags bore the address of Austrian Airlines. 
48.	No individual robber can be identified from the CCTV, nor has any witness attempted to do so. As frequently happens in this sort of situation, witness descriptions are impressionistic and very general. In closing argument the Crown invited me to look at the CCTV material and make comparisons with the Defendants in this case. They did this particularly in relation to Twomey, who of course is also depicted on police surveillance videos on 21st and 30th January 2004. They invited me to compare Twomey with robber two. In relation to robber three, alleged to be Hibberd, my attention was drawn to his footwear compared to that of Mr Hibberd depicted on the Days Hotel CCTV. The Crown had also suggested previously that I could look at robber four and compare him with Blake. Defence counsel objected to this approach, and Mr Stein QC for Hibberd went so far in his closing speech as to make a s78 application on the basis that any similarity between the shoes shown on the CCTV of the robbery and that worn by Mr Hibberd at Days Hotel had not been presented in a proper evidential format. I was referred to various authorities including Attorney General’s Reference No. 2 of 2002 (2002)EWCA Crim 2373. I conclude that there is no basis upon which it would be safe for me to seek to identify or conclude that any of the persons shown in the robbery footage can be recognised as a Defendant simply by looking at that footage and comparing it with other footage of the Defendants or their appearance in court. In my judgment, the quality of the robbery CCTV footage is insufficiently clear for any comparison of that sort to be made and I will not attempt to do so. The most that could be said is that robbers two, three and four are of a general height and size which would not be inconsistent with their being Twomey, Hibberd and Blake respectively, but that is of extremely limited evidential weight. It merely shows that they cannot be excluded as candidates on the basis of a viewing of the CCTV. As to the issue of the footwear worn by Hibberd and robber three, it would be wholly unsafe to make a visual comparison, and conclude that the footwear worn by both men was the same. No evidence of an expert nature, which is often adduced in cases of this sort, has been called before me. The most that could be said about the footwear in each case is that it appears to be approximately the same light colour. Whilst it is the case that Mr Hibberd is depicted wearing light coloured trainers soon after the time of the robbery, I view this evidence as being of marginal value. I therefore do not use the CCTV footage for identification purposes in Hibberd’s case. In Twomey’s case I should make clear that I consider it unsafe to try to equate Mr Smith’s description of robber number two having a “rolling gait” with what can be seen on the footage of 21st and 30th January. 
49.	Most of the monies stolen in the robbery have never been recovered. Some of the foreign currency stolen was sold by unknown individuals to a money changing bureau in London, W11. None of the sterling stolen (£1,050,000.00) was recovered, nor was most of the foreign currency. The CPS advised that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute those connected with the exchange bureau. 
50.	Items resulting from the scuffle between Mr Westwood and robber four were recovered. They included two live nine millimetre rounds, three spent nine millimetre cartridge cases and metal fragments, consistent with coming from at least two nine millimetre bullets. The woolly hat was recovered and examined, as was the latex torn from the face mask. 
51.	Justin Scott, a senior Forensic Scientist suitably qualified to give evidence in relation to DNA matters, gave evidence about the examination of those items. He had been provided with DNA profiles from Mr Blake and from others closely connected with the events at Menzies, including suspects. 
52.	I deal first of all with the piece of latex which was recovered. A total of nine hairs was found, only one of which was suitable for DNA profiling.  That was a light coloured piece of hair described as “white or light yellow” recovered from the inside of the piece of latex. The DNA profile provided a match to Mr Blake, with a match probability of one in one billion. As to the remaining eight hairs, three of those were also described as white or light yellow colour, and five of them were described as brown. None of those had a root suitable for DNA profiling. An area of blood staining on the outer surface of the latex was swabbed. It revealed DNA from more than one person, consisting of a major profile with some additional minor components. The major profile matched that of David Westwood, with a match probability of 1 in a billion. The minor profile did not come from David Westwood. In the absence of any clear indication that there was more than one contributor to the minor profile, Mr Scott assumed that all components of the minor profile came from a single source. He compared his results with Mr Blake’s DNA profile and found a match with Mr Blake’s corresponding components. The minor profile consisted of eight out of a possible twenty two components. There was an estimated match probability of one in ten thousand. 
53.	Next, an area on the inside surface of the latex was examined. This was an area of blood staining. It showed that there was a result from at least two people in similar quantities. All DNA components of David Westwood and Blake were represented, and there were no components which necessarily came from any other person. There was no component which failed to match the components of Westwood and Blake’s profiles. Mr Scott’s opinion was that the result could be a mix of DNA from Westwood and Blake because other results had produced full matches in close proximity to this area. Mr Scott said that he did not calculate a match probability, but felt that it was a fair assumption that this DNA had come from both those men. 
54.	Still dealing with inside surface of the latex; a swab was taken from those areas where there was no visible blood staining. The result showed that there was DNA from more than one person. The major component matched the DNA of Blake, with match probability of 1 in a billion. The minor components were incomplete and so no meaningful evaluation could be made. In no instance in relation to the findings concerning the piece of latex could Mr Scott be specific as to the source of the DNA in terms of whether it was blood, skin cells, saliva, or other material. 
55.	Turning to the black woollen hat. Mr Scott cut a large area from the inside layer which he would have expected to come into contact with the forehead and upper part of the head of a wearer. A full DNA profile was obtained, and matched that of Blake, with a match probability of 1 in a billion. There was no indication of DNA having come from anyone else. In addition, some nine hairs were recovered. They are described in the same way as some of those recovered from the piece of latex, namely “white or light yellow”. However, the roots of those hairs were of poor quality with no visible living material around them, so they were combined for testing to maximise the chance of a result. However, no DNA profile was obtained. 
56.	When Mr Wilson cross-examined Mr Scott, Mr Scott acknowledged that he had provided two reports, the first of which had contained an error relating to the hairs found on the piece of latex. That was a result of a misinterpretation of work done by another person. Mr Scott had subsequently rechecked the work, spotted the error, and corrected it in a further statement, which was then made available to the Defence. The error had been corrected by the time the Defence came to perform their own investigations, and had been corrected over a year prior to Mr Scott first giving evidence against Mr Blake. I do not find that there is any significance in the error referred to. 
57.	Mr Scott confirmed that the only testing he had done in relation to DNA was by using the standard SGM Plus technique. He agreed that there were other available techniques regarding hairs with no roots or poor roots. Those tests are mitochondrial DNA sequencing and LCN profiling. Although the use of these techniques had been raised with him in earlier trials in this matter, he had not subsequently carried out any tests involving these techniques. However, the mitochondrial test is much less discriminating than the SGM Plus test and would produce match probabilities of a low order of magnitude. The LCN test requires a significant amount of material, and the expectation of success would not be high. The absence of root material on the hairs recovered meant that there was no indication of any potential for DNA profiling. Had these tests been carried out, it was possible that they would have shown that someone other than Blake or Westwood was the source of the hairs, thus indicating that at some point in time some third person had worn the mask.
58.	Returning to the piece of latex and the first area examined, there was no indication that any person other than Blake had been the source of the DNA, but there remained a limited possibility that the profile represented different components from different people which happened to match the profile of Mr Blake. 
59.	In relation to the second area examined, there were very weak signals that there was some DNA from a person who was not Mr Blake or Mr Westwood. However, these were extremely weak indications and might well be the result of artefacts created in the process, rather than representing a genuine signal. Mr Scott did not think that the indications were suitable for further evaluation. 
60.	In relation to the third area examined, Mr Scott could not entirely exclude that the material came from a third person in addition to Blake and Westwood. However, he commented that the results were much stronger than those in the first area, and he was much more confident that only two people had contributed. 
61.	In relation to each of these areas on the piece of latex, it was not possible scientifically to say when a person had left their DNA on the object or in what circumstances. Accordingly, the Westwood profile could have been left on a separate occasion from the Blake profile.
62.	Turning to the hat; it was again not possible to say when the DNA had been deposited. Individuals can vary as to the rate at which they shed their DNA, and a person might wear an object and not deposit any DNA. Although, if the item was worn regularly, Mr Scott would expect to find some sign of that. There was however no sign of any DNA from a third party on the hat. He accepted that the presence of Blake’s DNA both on the hat and on the latex did not necessarily mean that he was the wearer of them at the time of the robbery. However, given the wearing of those items by a man preparing to commit a robbery, taken airside in a van with others, rounding up employees, and then being involved in a chase and violent struggle (coupled with the shooting incident) with an employee, he would have expected DNA to be shed by that person in those circumstances.  
Darren Brockwell
63.	Darren Brockwell had worked for Menzies for about eight years at the time of the robbery. He worked as a Supervisor in “the cowshed”. That was where the vehicles for loading and unloading aircrafts were marshalled. He was in a position of some trust and responsibility, and could play a part in deciding what vehicles would be used to load or unload airplanes. Those working in the cowshed potentially had access to information about incoming cargos. 
64.	Firstly there were telexes which came to the cowshed. On 6th February between 19:05 and 19:31 hours a series of telexes came to the cowshed, alerting them to the fact that a cargo of bank notes was coming in on the Austria Airlines flight that evening. Of this cargo, some seven pieces, amounting to 71 kilos in weight, would be handled by Menzies. The Operations Manager, Mr Ladd, agreed that anyone in the cowshed could see the telexes. Mr Brockwell said that another means of seeing if there were valuables on a flight would be to go out to the plane once it had landed and see the manifest. 
65.	Mr Brockwell was arrested on the morning after the robbery and interviewed as a suspect in the days thereafter. He admitted his involvement in the planning of robberies, and indicated he would give evidence against others. His motive was to achieve a reduced sentence. It is clear that he decided to plead guilty when he realised that his initial claim of duress could be shown to be untrue. He realised that the police had strong evidence against him. He took legal advice, and consulted with members of his family, and counsel before indicating that he would plead guilty and give evidence for the Crown. The whole process of formally indicating his decision plainly took a number of weeks, but in reality Brockwell embarked upon it when he made a decision no longer to rely on a claim of duress. He pleaded guilty on 23rd March 2004 to conspiracy with others to rob Menzies. He was then taken to a secure location and debriefed, and subsequently made witness statements. This is the fourth trial in which he has given evidence. He previously gave evidence in 2005, 2007 and 2008. At the end of his evidence in the second trial he was sentenced to six years imprisonment. He was paroled in mid-2007, and his licence has now expired, so that his punishment is complete. He entered a witness protection scheme in 2004, and remains within that scheme today, having a new identity. Of the Defendants on trial now, he says that only Twomey and Cameron have met him and discussed plans to rob Menzies. He has never met Blake or Hibberd.  
66.	As to his background, he is twice divorced and says that at the time of this offence, his marriage was in difficulty and he was living with his mother. He had begun using cocaine in 2002 and described it as more or less taking over his life until about November 2003 when his parents found out about his drug abuse, and he stopped using cocaine. Accordingly, he claims he was clear of cocaine during January and February 2004 when he was undoubtedly meeting Twomey and Cameron. He agreed he had introduced J to his cocaine dealer. In 1984 he was convicted of a relatively minor theft from his employer. He was then aged 17. He denies involvement in other crime, and particularly in any other thefts from Heathrow. There is no evidence to show that he was involved. 
67.	His initial idea for a theft or robbery came when he learnt that mail sacks stored at Menzies contained money. He discussed the matter with B, who indicated that he knew some people interested in stealing money. B was someone known to him through his work at Heathrow. B set up a meeting with J (who also worked at the airport), and G. Brockwell did not know G, but knew J slightly. Initially meetings were arranged via B, but eventually he obtained J and G’s phone numbers and they arranged one meeting at the end of a previous one. 
68.	Police observations show that on five occasions in 2003 (16th July, 28th July, 16th September, 17th October and 11th November) police observed meetings between Darren Brockwell and J. G was present on all occasions except 17th October. In addition, Roy Davies, who worked at Menzies, was present on 11th November. Brockwell says there probably was another meeting prior to the 16th July. He believed that after the 16th July there had been other meetings which the police had not observed. As to these meetings, I note that on the 15th July, J and another man were seen in J’s Mercedes driving around in the vicinity of Menzies’ premises. The following day is the first recorded police meeting between Brockwell, J and G. Brockwell can be seen sketching something on paper. He says the discussion was about robbing Menzies, and that he would have been drawing diagrams of the warehouse. As the meetings went on, he gave them further information about the situation at Menzies. At the end of the second observed meeting, 28th July, G took away paper which Brockwell says had drawings of Menzies warehouse. Quite often he had pre-prepared plans in advance of a meeting. Although there was nothing written on the plans to indicate that they related to Menzies warehouse, they did in fact relate to those premises.  
69.	At this stage the plan had been to steal the money when the vault, in which the money had been stored for the weekend after a Friday night delivery, was temporarily open. However, at some point this plan appeared to be too difficult to implement, and a second plan was discussed, which would involve getting hold of a duplicate set of keys to the vault from a man called Roy Davies who worked at Menzies, who was known to Brockwell, and who had access to the vault keys at times when his supervisor was off. According to Brockwell he took a chance in making an approach to Davies, who indicated that he was interested in earning money. This account is supported by the fact that the surveillance video for the 16th September shows Brockwell on his mobile phone during the meeting, whilst in company with J and G. The phone records show that at that time Brockwell’s phone called Davies, and that about half an hour after the meeting Brockwell called Davies again and then immediately called J. This is to my mind a telling sequence in support of what Brockwell said was happening.
70.	Brockwell’s account as to obtaining keys is further supported by the telephone evidence. He says that keys were obtained over one lunchtime at a place called Cobblers in Langley, near the airport, on 17th October. It was important to get the keys cut quickly so as to get them back to Menzies’ premises without delay. He says this was the second attempt at organising the cutting of spare keys. The phone records show that on the 10th October there is a sequence of calls from Brockwell to J, then Brockwell to Davies, then Brockwell to J again. On the 16th October there is a call from Brockwell to Davies, immediately followed by one from Brockwell to J. Then on the morning of 17th October there are calls made by Brockwell to J and at 13:03 hours Brockwell is filmed leaving Menzies premises. He says that by then he had obtained keys from Davies, and that what he did was to meet J near the Poyle Lorry Park, and drove him to the Cobblers shop at Langley, where he says J got the spare set cut. This is supported by the fact that at 13:05 hours on 17th October, the phone records show that Brockwell first phoned Davies and then J immediately afterwards. Moreover at about 13:34 hours both Brockwell and J are filmed at Cobblers. Cobblers is the sort of premises which cuts keys. J is seen going into the shop and coming out after a few minutes. Brockwell is waiting outside for him in his black Vectra. Within minutes Brockwell phones G, and following that Davies phones Brockwell. According to Brockwell he dropped J back to his car and returned to work. He gave the original set of keys back to Davies, together with the duplicate set for Davies to test. There is evidence from Menzies employees which is consistent with the keys having been entrusted to Davies on the lunch time of the 17th October. 
71.	There is therefore evidence independent of Brockwell from police observations including video, and from the phone records, which supports the evidence he has given on this topic. The timing of the phone calls, the involvement in them of Davies who worked at Menzies, and the visit to Cobblers provide telling and coherent detail consistent with the account given. 
72.	Once Davies had tested the duplicate keys, Brockwell passed them on to G or J. By this stage the plan was to steal monies delivered on a Friday night because they would remain in the vault until Monday morning. G, J and others would be brought in from outside in a van and would use the keys to get into the vault and steal the money. Brockwell had approached a co-worker, Brian Wake, to drive the thieves on site in the back of a Menzies van. Wake was interested to start with, and remained so until the 6th February 2004, when he backed out. According to Brockwell he had not “actually asked Wake to do the job” and Wake was not keen to do it, but Brockwell also said that Wake had agreed to participate. His evidence was ambivalent as to whether or not Wake had finally agreed. In the first of this series of trials the jury acquitted Wake of conspiracies to rob and to steal, perhaps because of this ambivalence. Wake did not know the identity of the people Brockwell was dealing with.
73.	As to Davies, who was also acquitted of the conspiracies to rob and to steal in the first trial, Brockwell said that once he had assisted with the keys and given some information about where CCTV tapes were kept at Menzies, he did not want anything more to do with the matter. According to Brockwell a meeting was fixed up at the Green Man Public House, Hatton. Initially he met Davies there, and Davies confirmed that he wanted nothing further to do with the scheme. Brockwell had arranged for G and J to come to the pub so that they could see Davies, but not meet him. This would enable them to know who to go after if Davies disclosed the plan to anyone else. Brockwell’s account is supported by a video recording of the 11th November 2003. This shows that Brockwell and Davies were together at the pub on that day, and that G and J arrived a little afterwards. The phone schedule shows that G and Brockwell were then in phone contact. There is photographic evidence of G and J then entering the pub, and of Davies and Brockwell leaving shortly afterwards. Within minutes there is further phone contact between G and Brockwell. The video, the photographs, the observation schedule and the phone traffic support the account given by Brockwell.
74.	According to Brockwell, from this point on matters went downhill between himself and G and J. He did not want to be part of the actual robbery, and they were keen to get on with the plan. Brockwell says a meeting took place between the three of them. They met at the Poyle Lorry Park one afternoon. J was angry. He threw the keys at Brockwell and told him he would have to get the money. G then said he had two weeks to get the money to cover their costs or else he would be shot. Brockwell was concerned about continued pressure of this sort from G and made contact with B. According to Brockwell, B sorted the matter out. B told him there were others interested in stealing money from Menzies. There would be no need for Brockwell to be actively involved in the actual robbery, and G and J would be “looked after” from the proceeds of an offence carried out by the new team. According to Brockwell the G/J scheme did not involve armed robbery. It involved theft by getting into the premises, using the keys and carrying out the raid by surprise, without involving Menzies employees. When cross-examined, Brockwell’s attention was drawn to the phone contacts during January 2004 between R and B, and R and G. Brockwell denied any knowledge of these. As far as he was concerned, G and J had dropped out of the picture by this stage. He was not in contact with them about a robbery. By now B had introduced him to Twomey, and it was with Twomey and Cameron that plans were being laid in January. The phone records show that Brockwell’s last phone contact with G or J was on the 8th December 2003. In my judgment, whatever the reasons for phone contact between R, B and G in January 2004, the absence of any contact between Brockwell, G and J after 8th December 2003 supports his account that his planning of an offence at Menzies with them had come to an end in the latter part of 2003, and thus sets the background for his claim that he then entered a new phase which involved planning with some of the Defendants in this trial. 
75.	At different stages Brockwell was somewhat hazy as to when his final meeting with G and J took place, that is the meeting at which he had been threatened with being shot. However, it seems to me clear that the accurate chronology involves the meeting at the Green Man with Davies on the 11th November, followed by the break between the parties at the Poyle Lorry Park towards the end of November, and final contact by phone around the 8th December, with B’s involvement in calming down G and J taking place soon afterwards. This was followed by the introduction of Twomey shortly before or after Christmas. Again Brockwell could not be precise as to the exact timing of his first meeting with Twomey. But I am sure firstly that Twomey was introduced through B, and secondly, that there was at least one meeting between Brockwell and Twomey prior to the first one observed by the police on the 30th December 2003. Twomey himself does not admit that that meeting of the 30th December was a meeting involving himself and Brockwell, but I am satisfied that Twomey was indeed present for reasons I will come to. 
76.	As a result of B’s efforts, Brockwell said he met others interested in taking money from Menzies. He said there were two, possibly three meetings, at the Crooked Billet Public House prior to the first one observed by the police on the 30th December. These meetings were daytime meetings, whereas that on 30th December was an evening meeting. The first meeting was brief. It was organised by B. Brockwell said he met Twomey and Cameron. They had been driven to the scene by R in a white transit van. Only Twomey, Cameron and Brockwell were actually involved in discussions. Brockwell made clear that until his arrest he did not know the names of R, Twomey or Cameron, nor did he know where they lived, nor did he have their phone numbers. Twomey was dressed the same on every occasion, wearing a woolly hat, a big coat and tracksuit bottoms. The topic of discussion on the first meeting was Menzies. There was a second daytime meeting within a few days involving the same personnel, with R delivering Twomey and Cameron to the pub car park. Most of the conversation was between Brockwell and Twomey, but Cameron was present, listening, and occasionally joining in. At some stage Twomey was given the duplicate keys to the vault. Brockwell’s belief was that it was prior to using the Langley Country Park as a meeting place. Brockwell initially said he thought there was a meeting prior to 30th December at which the five men had gone to look for another location at which to meet away from CCTV, and found the nearby Langley Country Park. However, a little later in his evidence, he identified a meeting recorded by the police on the 10th January as the occasion when the country park had been found. 
77.	Turning to 30th December; this was a further meeting, but in the evening at the Crooked Billet Public House. Brockwell and B were present. Twomey and Cameron had been delivered in R’s transit. Brockwell said that he and Twomey then went in B’s car to have a look at Menzies’ premises. Cameron was not taken, and the last Brockwell saw of him that night was as they left the public house in B’s car. The trio went in B’s Freelander and looked at the Menzies building, and also Gate 10, which would be the proposed entry point to the site. After visiting Menzies with Twomey, Brockwell says that Twomey was dropped off at a hotel in the Bath Road area on the north side of Heathrow where B’s wife had apparently worked at some time. The route from Menzies involved taking the South Perimeter Road, then cutting across the airport near Hatton, and reaching Bath Road by that means. Then B took Brockwell back in his car to the Crooked Billet. There is support for this account in the phone records, which shows phone contacts involving B and Brockwell, B and R, and R and Twomey in quick succession on 28th and 30th December. There is also support for Brockwell’s account in that, whereas police observers initially saw Brockwell, B and a third man matching Twomey’s description at the Crooked Billet, when B’s Freelander returned about an hour later, only Brockwell and B were observed.  
78.	The police observations log describes a man talking to B and Brockwell on the public house car park; the description is consistent with Twomey’s build and his dress on other occasions. The observations show that at 18:50 B and Brockwell were on the car park of the Crooked Billet talking to a white male of heavy build wearing a black woollen hat, and a black top with a grey hood. By 19:05 all three have left the car park. At 19:07 Brockwell’s car is observed parked on the car park, whilst B’s Freelander is observed to have left. At 19:37 a call to Twomey’s phone is recorded in a way consistent with the phone being turned off, which appears to be a feature of calls made to Twomey’s phone during meetings. At 20:00 hours the Freelander is seen returning to the Crooked Billet. Brockwell gets out the front passenger seat and returns to his vehicle and both vehicles then leave the public house. There is no sign of the third man at this stage. Additionally, the evidence of Mr Barrington-Smith, a phone analyst, showed that some important confirmatory evidence was found on an interrogation of the calendar function of one of R’s mobile phones seized on 7th February 2004. That was an entry relating to 30th December 2003 in these terms. “Meet JT 700 – 30/12/03 18:30. Alarm 18:30”. This recovered entry is admissible real evidence from which I draw the inference that R, prior to the evening of 30th December, was putting into his phone a reminder to himself that he was to meet Twomey on that evening at or about 7 o’clock and setting an alarm for 18:30 hours so as to provide an audible reminder. This entry is consistent with Twomey’s practice of being taken to meeting places by R. Such an entry can only be made for a future event. It cannot record a past event unless the whole timing of the calendar is reset in such a way as to enable what is in reality a past event to become a future event. I can safely reject this possibility; firstly, because R had no reason to falsify this entry in his personal phone which would be seen only by him; secondly, because the use of the alarm function provides convincing evidence that this was a future appointment which was being noted. Twomey disputes that he was present on 30th December, but the evidence leads me to conclude to the contrary because of my later findings about the reliability of Brockwell’s account, my rejection of Twomey’s case in relation to that evening, and the existence of a considerable body of evidence supportive of that given by Brockwell. In so concluding I have taken account of the fact that admissions made by the Crown show that such intelligence as was available to the police did not indicate Twomey’s name as a person expected to be present on 30th December. The police expected Brockwell and B to meet “someone important”, but they did not know who. It seems to me that this absence of intelligence does not demonstrate that Brockwell’s account is untrue and that Twomey was not involved on that day, it merely shows that the police intelligence was incomplete. 
79.	There was an apparent discrepancy between what Brockwell told the police in his initial interviews under caution, which was that Twomey had been dropped back at the Crooked Billet pub on this occasion, compared with what he said in his debriefing interviews, when he said, as he said in his evidence, that Twomey had been dropped off at a hotel to the north of Heathrow. Brockwell said he had been confused initially and that he was sure that the drop-off at the hotel was correct because it occurred on the occasion of the only evening meeting with Twomey. I accept this as a genuine error, and discuss it further in the context of allegations about police malpractice. After 30th December Brockwell said that there were meetings involving himself, Twomey and Cameron. They took place at the country park until a meeting on 30th January involving himself and Twomey alone at the country park.
80.	At the end of this series of meetings Brockwell said that he was in a white car with Cameron and Twomey, and Twomey was listening to a radio scanner. I heard evidence from officers who searched vehicles or homes connected with B and R. They said that each had been found in possession of working radio scanning equipment. In the case of each man frequencies had been deliberately and illegally programmed so as to receive police broadcasts, including those of special squads such as the Flying Squad or firearms officers. The coverage of the frequencies ranged over the whole of the Greater London area. It was therefore clear that both those men, who were in different ways involved in facilitating meetings between Brockwell and Twomey and Cameron, possessed equipment which would enable them to see if police were within range of any of their activities. This equipment was easily portable and R’s transit van in which he took Twomey and Cameron to meetings was fitted with some of it. 
81.	At the same meeting Brockwell said he was given a mobile phone with one number on it and £1.00 of credit. That was to enable him to contact the robbers and say whether a robbery should take place on a particular night. The phone was given to him by Twomey. It was a Nokia pay-as-you-go phone. It was only used on the night of the robbery. If there was insufficient money on a flight, he was to phone and say “no”. When cross-examined he was asked what would happen if there were several negative nights and his £1.00 credit ran out. Brockwell’s response was that the situation had not in fact arisen. Brockwell said on several occasions during his evidence that he thought that this meeting took place between the 30th January and the 5th February. He had met Cameron and Twomey at the country park, and had got into a white car with them. In cross-examination he agreed that at one point in interview he had said that he had received the phone at the Harvester meeting on the 5th February. He said that this was not correct; on the occasion concerned both Twomey and Cameron had been present, but it had been on an occasion when they had met at the country park prior to the 5th February. His explanation for the discrepancy was that he had become confused about the various meetings when being questioned in interview. On the occasion concerned, both Twomey and Cameron had been present. There is some support for Brockwell’s account that he had a meeting with Twomey and Cameron between 30th January and 5th February. The cell site evidence puts Twomey’s phone on the Alderbourne Farm site during both the morning and afternoon of 3rd February. There are also a number of contacts between Twomey and R on that day. Brockwell was not to know that this evidence would confirm a visit by Twomey to the London area, (and indeed the Langley Country Park area), in the relevant period. It therefore provides some support for his evidence. 
82.	Continuing with the series of meetings, the next one after 30th December is 10th January. Brockwell was seen on the Crooked Billet car park, together with his car. At 12:37 hours he then met men from a white Ford transit. He said he got into the transit, and with Twomey, Cameron, B and R drove off and found the country park. Photographs of Twomey taken on this occasion showed him dressed as he had been on every occasion he met Brockwell. The Crooked Billet was under police observation, and according to DC Styles, he saw Mr R’s white transit enter the car park, and do a brief circuit before it left. The Crown case is that Brockwell got into the white van containing Cameron and Twomey and went in it to the Langley Country Park. The purpose of the trip in the van was to find a place which would not be surveyed by CCTV cameras, all parties being conscious of the need to avoid attention. At 12:45 Styles observed that Brockwell’s Vectra was empty on the Crooked Billet car park. At 13:44 the white van returned to the car park, according to Styles, and then left in convoy with the Vectra. According to police observations between about 12:30 and 13:50 hours Brockwell himself was not seen to enter the Crooked Billet Public House, so the inference is that he must have been somewhere else during this period. Styles was cross-examined as to the accuracy of his observation. Despite his vision being partly blocked by other vehicles, and agreeing that his memory for detail was now hazy, he maintained that he had seen the van on the car park after its return at 13:44. He was taking photographs and there is no photograph of the van on the car park, although there are some of the vehicle on the roundabout by the pub shortly after it either passed the pub (Twomey’s case) or left the car park (Crown’s case). 
83.	Styles’ account was that he had not been able to get a photograph until after the white van had left the car park. His evidence, if correct, supports Brockwell’s case which was that he had gone in the white van from the Crooked Billet car park in order to scout out a safe place for meetings with Twomey and Cameron, before returning to the Crooked Billet and getting into his own car. Having seen Mr Styles, I was satisfied that his evidence was correct, and that the white van did enter the car park at 13:44. That can only have been for the purpose of dropping Brockwell off as he claimed, after a visit to Langley Country Park. There was a further challenge to the accuracy of the Crown’s evidence. The trip away from the pub took about an hour, whereas Langley Country Park is only a few minutes drive away, and Brockwell had said that the visit to the country park itself only lasted a few minutes. When pressed upon the point, Brockwell said that if the observation showed a trip lasting about an hour, that was how long it took. He had a recollection that they had looked at other places before finding the country park. This seems to me to be a satisfactory response to the challenge, and the point taken about time does not undermine my view about the essential accuracy of DC Styles’ observation. On the totality of the evidence, I conclude that 10th January was the occasion when the country park was found as a meeting place free from CCTV.
84.	Although Brockwell did not go into detail, all parties agree that on 16th January there was a meeting at the country park involving Brockwell, Twomey and Cameron. This is not disputed by the Defence, although it was Twomey’s case that this represented the occasion of the first visit to the country park. I have already found to the contrary. There is police observation evidence supported by photographs showing R collecting Twomey and Cameron at about 12:15 hours from the Stag and Hounds Public House. There is evidence on the telephone logs showing R using his mobile phone at the Stag and Hounds. The timing of the last call is shown as being at 12:17 and 59 seconds. At 12:26 and 36 seconds a call is logged on Twomey’s phone. The cell site is Terminal 2 North. The Crown case is that R took Twomey and Cameron to the Heathrow area before meeting Brockwell in the country park on this day. The Defence dispute this, and raise the possibility that Terminal 2 can be logged onto from the country park itself. There is evidence from the police that a run from the Stag and Hounds to the Bath Road area of Heathrow, keeping to speed limits, took ten minutes. However, this run was not videoed or timed precisely. A second exercise took place in March 2007. I viewed the video made of that journey, which took ten minutes and sixteen seconds. The unmarked police car drove briskly but normally in traffic. It did not keep strictly to speed limits, but appeared to me to drive in a way and at a pace consistent with normal road usage. Having regard to the timings involved and Mr Sexton’s (the cell site expert) evidence, I conclude that it would not be safe to draw the conclusion that the trio necessarily went to the Heathrow area on this day, as is contended for by the Crown. There is a degree of imprecision as to which call viewed on the video appears on the telephone matrix. This fact, taken together with a brief window of time before Mr Twomey’s phone is logged on the Terminal 2 North cell site at 12:26, leaves me in a degree of doubt about the matter. In any event, whatever the position is, the Terminal 2 North site would not cover Menzies’ premises. I therefore do not draw any conclusion adverse to Twomey and Cameron based on the assertion made by the Crown. 
85.	Next was a meeting on the 21st January. By this stage, according to Brockwell,  the plan was for the thieves or robbers to enter the airport via Gate 10, with Brian Wake to drive them in. He would pick them up from Spout Lane nearby. The van would take the conspirators to where some lorries were parked inside the premises. Wake could slip away and the robbery could take place. Brockwell said his role would be over because he had given the keys to Twomey. In order that the matter should not look like an inside job, he was asked to find out who held keys to the vault. This would be the Duty Manager. This would enable a covering demand to be made of that person for keys on the night, even though the robbers already had their own set. The plan envisaged Menzies workers being rounded up, collected into one place and kept there. Their wrists would be tied with cable ties. Brockwell denied knowing about weapons. 
86.	There is video evidence and observation material supporting a meeting on the 21st January between Brockwell, Cameron and Twomey. A surveillance police officer filmed and watched the three talking around a table at the country park. The video appears to show that both Cameron and Twomey were fully involved. Brockwell appears to make a sketch or sketches, and that piece of paper is subsequently taken away by Twomey. Cameron appears to be attending to the discussion and showing interest in it, contrary to the suggestion that he was not interested, and not a participant. Discussion was overheard consistent with discussing physical details of the warehouse, and at one point Brockwell is seen placing his wrists together and heard by DC Svensson, (who was concealed nearby), to say “bind them like this”. There is no sign of any disagreement between the three participants as Cameron was later to suggest.
87.	There was a further meeting at the country park observed by the police on the 30th January. It involved Brockwell and Twomey alone. Again it was videoed by police, but there is also some audio of the discussions taking place. According to Brockwell the discussion is about Menzies warehouse and the robbery to be committed there. He says no other crimes or premises were discussed. The audio transcript is in my view consistent with his account. It appears to be consistent with the plan to use Wake as a driver to get the gang in, and the discussion of methods of action which would avert suspicion falling upon Wake. There are references to swiping in and out consistent with the security system at Menzies, to the cowshed consistent with the area where Brockwell worked within Menzies, and there are discussions about a number of physical features of the building which appear to correspond to physical features of Menzies premises. There is nothing in the overall discussion which is in any way inconsistent with the physical layout of Menzies or the nature of the plan which Brockwell says was afoot at this time. This material appears to provide strong supporting evidence for the proposition that what was being discussed at this meeting was a robbery at Menzies. The suggestion by Twomey that Brockwell had slipped into the conversation of 30th January a reference to “the cowshed” which could be picked up if the conversation in the country park was being overheard, is to my mind in the realms of fantasy. 
88.	There is also reference in the audio track to drawings. According to Brockwell, Twomey started to make a sketch but it was very poor and so Brockwell took some paper and made his own drawing. Twomey can be seen taking away a paper or papers at the end of the meeting. Brockwell identified sketches at page 76 of the main photo album and they correspond with what was said to have been recovered later by the police from Twomey’s home (item CMB11/Ex23). In cross-examination Mr Aspinall explored the topic of drawings. Two drawings were recovered from Twomey’s home. That depicted on the right hand side of page 76 of the photograph album is one which Brockwell identifies as having been drawn by him. That on the left hand side, he says, was not drawn by him. Page 7 of my graphics bundle showed how the Brockwell sketch, (part of exhibit 23), overlaid a plan of Menzies premises with good agreement, and as already stated the transcript showed consistency with features of the layout of the premises. Having viewed the video of the earlier meeting of the 21st January, Brockwell said that a drawing which he did on that occasion and which Twomey put in his pocket at the end of the meeting is not the one which is shown at photograph 76. That appears from the CCTV to be correct. The size of the document shown in the video of the 21st January rules it out. Secondly, Brockwell said that on the occasion that Twomey had produced a poor sketch leading Brockwell to make his own, was an occasion when he was meeting Twomey on his own. Therefore this could not be 21st January. The video for 30th January shows Twomey meeting alone with Brockwell. It shows Twomey producing paper from his pocket, which is then discussed. A little later there is conversation about “the office” and Brockwell can be heard saying “let me draw it for you again”. Therefore, Brockwell identified the 30th January as the occasion when he made a sketch for Twomey of the Menzies premises, after Twomey himself had made a poor sketch. However, he said that now his recollection in relation to the exhibits before the court (CMB11/Ex23) was that he couldn’t say if he had drawn that particular item on the 30th January or had it in his car. His recollection was that the piece of paper he drew on was the same piece of paper that Twomey had drawn on. If this last observation is correct, it seems less likely that the item was CMB11/Ex23. Since Brockwell acknowledged that he had made a number of sketches of the premises in the course of planning an offence against Menzies from July 2003 onwards, it is understandable that there is a degree of imprecision in Brockwell’s evidence as to whether exhibit 23 was created on 30th January or on some other date. Undoubtedly the two pieces of paper constituting Exhibit 23 have been in Brockwell’s possession. The right hand one is his sketch. The left hand one, I accept, is not, but it bears his fingerprint. Given the strong correlation between the Brockwell sketch and features of the premises which I find to be Menzies depicted on that sketch and referred to in the audio track of 30th January, I feel it safe to conclude that there is a very strong likelihood that, notwithstanding Brockwell’s comment, Exhibit 23 came into being on 30th January. The important issue in this case, however, is not so much the precise date when Exhibit 23 was created, but whether it came into Twomey’s possession from Brockwell so as to have been found at the search of his premises on 7th February as opposed to being “planted” there by police or otherwise misattributed to Twomey. I will deal with this issue in more detail a little later. 
89.	On the audio track there is also reference to “tools”, which on one view might refer to weapons. Brockwell however denied any knowledge that weapons were to be taken into the premises or used by the team of robbers. He said he did not know what was meant by “tools” on the transcript. The violence he had contemplated was the rounding up of Menzies workers, collecting them in one place and binding their wrists. 
90.	It was suggested by the Defence that the meeting of the 30th ended with an argument between Mr Twomey and Mr Brockwell, causing a break between them. The video which I saw did not bear that out. Brockwell’s evidence was that there had been no argument or dispute between himself and Mr Twomey. The video supports his version. He maintained that at this meeting, as at all other meetings, the only criminal activity being discussed involved Menzies. 
91.	Turning to the 5th February; there was a meeting in the evening at a Harvester Public House, known as The Otter, at Ottershaw, some distance from Heathrow, but near Brockwell’s mother’s home. Brockwell said that the purpose of the meeting was so that he could show Cameron and Twomey the pick-up point near the airport at Spout Lane. That was where the van to bring the robbers airside would meet them immediately before the robbery. Brockwell said he had suggested the Harvester. He said he was probably aware that CCTV was there, but that was not why he had arranged the meeting there. The police did not observe this meeting, but it was captured on CCTV, which the police recovered subsequently. Steven Hartley, who was the manager of the public house at the time, handed over the original unedited tape for 5th February to the police. The relevant coverage shows Brockwell arriving at the premises at 19:46 hours and leaving at 20:30 hours, Twomey and Cameron arriving at 20:14 hours, and leaving at 20:31 hours. There was evidence from timed journeys that the trip from the Harvester to Spout Lane took about twelve minutes, and that a journey from the Harvester to Days Inn, Ruislip took about twenty six minutes. 
92.	Brockwell had been arrested on the morning of 7th February 2004, and whilst travelling in the police car away from his mother’s, had pointed out the Harvester and had mentioned the meeting there on the 5th February in connection with the story which he initially gave to the police of having been involved in the robbery, but subject to duress. He claimed that those responsible for duress had met him in the Harvester. The Defence case is that, whilst admittedly, Twomey and Cameron had been to the Harvester, and are seen on the CCTV, their meeting there with Brockwell was in effect a set-up by him to implicate them. Part of the Defence case was that on this evening Twomey had been drinking heavily and was affected by drink. Brockwell’s account was that Twomey was drinking a soft drink at the Harvester Public House. He did not appear drunk to Brockwell, and appeared to understand their conversation. 
93.	According to Brockwell, having met at the pub, Cameron drove Brockwell and Twomey to Spout Lane, where the pick-up point was pointed out. The plan was that if there was sufficient money on an airplane, Brockwell would use the mobile phone he had been given to say that the robbery was on. He expected the robbers to be at that point within 20 minutes of the phone call. Even at this late stage of events Brockwell maintained that he had no personal details about Twomey and Cameron. He had no phone details, no names, and he did not know where they were staying. In cross examination Brockwell denied the case put on behalf of Twomey which was that although Twomey and Cameron had met Brockwell at the Harvester pub on 5th February, they had not accompanied him to Spout Lane. He maintained that they had. 
94.	Friday 6th February is the day of the robbery. No date had been decided at the meeting on the 5th, but this was the first possible date. It all depended on whether a large delivery of valuables was made by Austrian Airlines. Brockwell said he would have to wait until the flight landed at about 9:30, and then see if there was money on the flight. He would go out to the aircraft, see if Brinks were there, a clear sign of a valuable cargo, and also see from the flight manifest what was on the flight. Although telexes have been referred to, Brockwell said that he did not see them on the day in question. He had found out what the cargo was by going out to the flight. He was able to see the manifest, and he had, mistakenly as it turned out, thought that over thirty bags of money were going to Menzies. He was wrong about this. There were of course only seven to go there, but it led him to make the call to the robbers on the mobile phone he had been given. He in fact made two calls. He said how many bags were involved, and what their weight was, thus conveying significant value. He believed he also told the person on the other end of the phone how many staff were in the warehouse that night, so that the robbers knew how many people to round up. An agreed chronology for the evening of the 6th shows the following: at 21:28 Brockwell phoned Wake; at 21:36 the flight touched down; at 21:43 the airplane was on stand; at 21:49 Brockwell phoned Wake. He said the two calls to Wake were to find out where the van for transporting the robbers was, and to see where Wake was. 
95.	He subsequently met Wake, and Wake told him he did not want to be involved driving the robbers in. By this time Brockwell had already called to the robbers to say that the robbery was on, so he, Brockwell, had to pick up a van and go to the pick-up point in Spout Lane. He met another white Sprinter van and five or six men, all dressed the same, wearing high visibility jackets and hats, got into his van from it. He did not see any firearms. He handed over the single call mobile to one of those robbers, (a tall man, not Twomey), and took them into the premises via Gate 10. The Sprinter van followed him for a while from Spout Lane, but did not enter the airport premises with him. The security records show that he swiped himself in at 23:02 hours. He parked the van with the robbers inside not far from the cowshed. As he was there with the van, Kevin Kay, a Manager, asked him to collect a stray bin from a Sri Lanka flight, and so he went off to do that. The security records show that at 23:17 hours Mr Brockwell swiped himself through the system, so as to go over to Terminal 4 and do that job. This meant that by the time he returned, the robbers had emerged from the van and had carried out their robbery. 
96.	Kevin Kay confirmed the request to Mr Brockwell, and the security records show a swipe of Mr Brockwell’s security card consistent with making this trip. On Brockwell’s return to the cowshed he learnt of the robbery and the fact of firearms and violence. He also learnt that only seven bags had been taken then. He went home. Since he had not been present at the time of the robbery the police did not want to speak to him that night. At about 10:15am the next morning the police came to Brockwell’s mother’s house. They arrested him for conspiracy to rob. He said he started to make up “rubbish” about having been forced to do the robbery. Police searched his car and found drawings, exhibits 20 and 21. He said he had prepared those in the course of discussions, he believed, with Twomey and Cameron, rather than G and J. They appear respectively to show the upstairs part of the warehouse and the vault area. The latter document is a drawing which can be found on the rear of a Quantas document dated 3rd January 2004. This supports Brockwell’s account that he had created this whilst involved with Twomey and Cameron, as opposed to G and J. Certainly these drawings and also the drawings forming exhibit 23, which are alleged to have been recovered from Twomey’s home, appear to be drawings of buildings rather than DVDs, mobile phones, computer chips or some of the other items which the Defence were suggesting were under discussion at these meetings rather than any firm plan to commit a robbery. 
97.	As already mentioned, on the journey after Brockwell’s arrest the police passed the Harvester Public House, and he mentioned to the police that he’d been forced to participate in the robbery. After that he was taken to the police station. He had a solicitor available. After initially claiming duress, he was shown clips of meetings, both with G and J and Twomey and Cameron. After consulting a solicitor he admitted his involvement in interview and eventually pleaded guilty. Having pleaded guilty, he was further debriefed and interviewed. He maintained that throughout his discussions with Twomey and Cameron, the only crime discussed related to Menzies. He said that he had expected the robbery to net millions of pounds, and he had expected to receive £1/2 million for his role. This had been discussed with G and J, and represented a figure on a haul of £4 million. He had not had a discussion about amount with Twomey and Cameron. He had simply assumed that his share would be the same. Twomey and Cameron had said that his share would be dropped off with B.  
98.	Mr Brockwell was cross-examined in detail and at considerable length by Mr Aspinall on behalf of Twomey. Brockwell maintained the same calm demeanour throughout his evidence, but I remind myself that this is the fourth trial in which he has given evidence. He answered all questions and made substantial concessions, where appropriate, to Mr Aspinall. He said that he had had sufficient contact with Twomey to recognise his stature, build and voice, but that nothing he had seen or heard as the robbers transferred to his van in Spout Lane suggested that Twomey was present. This seemed to me to be an important factor in considering whether or not Brockwell was falsely implicating Twomey. It points away from a false account, as he would surely have claimed to recognise Twomey had he been determined to implicate him at all costs as the Defence suggest. He agreed that his primary motivation from July onwards in plotting to steal from his employers was greed. When the plan began he was spending about half of his disposable income on cocaine use. He had kept his drug use and his criminal plans from his family and friends. He agreed that Davies, whom he had approached, was a decent family man. In a sense he had corrupted him by the approach, but he said that Davies was a grown man who could say “yes” or “no” to the proposal. He agreed that a purpose of meeting Davies on the 11th November was for G and J to see him, so that they could “lean on” Davies if Davies started to “spill the beans”. He agreed that that might mean violence, but said he hadn’t really thought about it at the time. 
99.	He agreed that his approach to Wake, who was a decent man, could be described as corruption, but said that Wake was free to say “no”. He agreed he had involved Wake with a view to Wake driving the robbers into the airport so as to minimise risk to himself. He agreed that he had been very selfish in this respect, and that he had been prepared to lie to avoid conviction. He knew that if convicted he would face a very long sentence, and he agreed that he was desperate to reduce his sentence once it was clear that he could not avoid conviction. He had been advised that after a trial he would face a sentence of between 18 to 22 years, and that on a guilty plea without giving evidence for the Crown he could expect about 15 years. His actual sentence of 6 years was what he had set out to achieve. He realised that if he lied in these proceedings, he faced the risk of a prosecution for perjury. He agreed that he could not contemplate going back to prison. 
100.	He said that whilst the plan with G and J did not involve violence, that with Twomey had involved violence, in the sense that workers would have their wrists bound and would be put in the vault. He said he had expressed anxiety that they should not suffocate in there and received assurances, but he recognised that violence to this extent would be used, and was prepared for it to take place. He maintained that he did not know that the robbers were armed, and repeated that he had not seen any sign of firearms when he had collected the robbers at Spout Lane. He anticipated some degree of threat, but no more than that. Returning to the G and J phase of planning, it was pointed out to him that in a post-plea interview on 24th March 2004 he had acknowledged that the G and J plan would involve tying up employees. Therefore, it was put to him his claim in evidence that the G/J plan was non-violent was untrue. Brockwell said that that element of the planning had slipped his mind. He had thought that the G/J plan merely involved surprise, rather than violence, and he had forgotten that detail until reminded of it. He had not lied in his evidence.  
101.	He was questioned about the reference to “tools”. He maintained that he did not think that what was meant was guns, although he had thought that the staff might be restrained with the tools. In the planning stages he had been asked by Twomey whether the van to take the robbers in was big enough for six men and tools. He had been surprised by that question because he knew that the van was big enough, as he put it, for twenty people. Later Ms Brimelow questioned him about an answer which he gave in interview in these terms, “they mentioned tools and I just turned round and said I’m sorry I didn’t want anyone to…”. Ms Brimelow’s suggestion was that if he had completed that sentence, it would have concluded with the words “get hurt”. I listened to the tape of this part of the interview. It seemed to me that the transcript was in error, and should read “I just tried to say I’m sorry…”. Having considered the passage I think there is an ambiguity in it, and that Brockwell was conflating what the robbers said about “tools” with his apology to the police to the effect that he had not wanted anyone to get hurt. It does not appear to me to be an acknowledgement that he knew that guns were going to be used.  He said he had not known that guns were going to be used prior to the robbery, but went on to say that maybe he had chosen not to want to know that “tools” meant guns. He had been prepared for his friends and acquaintances at work to be tied up and imprisoned, but he had not wanted anyone to come to harm, and what had in fact happened had not occurred to him in advance. He claimed to be shocked when he knew that a firearm had been discharged. When questioned by Ms Brimelow he agreed that at one point he had said to G and J that he would not be involved if violence or guns or weapons were to be used. He said he had mentioned this at a point when the plan was developing and it was being suggested that he should be involved driving a forklift truck. That was why he had mentioned the matter, but in fact their plan was to involve surprise rather than violence. It is for me to decide what his state of mind was as to the use of violence in any robbery at Menzies. Given the attack on Brockwell as to the extent of his knowledge as to the use of violence in the robbery, I have carefully considered all the evidence elicited. I do not consider that Mr Brockwell would personally have been involved in violence at any stage. I am sure that his first awareness of firearms came after the robbery had been completed on the 6th February. In the G/J phase, I find that the most contemplated by way of force was the tying of wrists of employees. As to the Cameron/Twomey phase, I do not believe that he wanted any violence directed at his work mates. I find that he knew that his fellow employees would be tied up, and that such force or threat of force would be used upon them sufficient to ensure their compliance with the robbers’ demands. I find that he had closed his eyes to and did not want to know precisely what would be involved, but I do not consider that he either knew of or contemplated serious violence or the use of firearms. It seems entirely understandable and logical to me that those who were planning the robbery with Brockwell would not disclose to him all the details of what it was they intended to do in order to carry out the robbery successfully. It was faintly submitted to me during closing submissions that even if Brockwell’s evidence that what was being planned was an offence at Menzies was accepted, what was done was a conspiracy to steal rather than to rob. This submission is doomed to failure. It is clear from Brockwell’s own evidence that from the discussions which were going on, he knew that force and the threat of force would be used, even though he may not have known exactly was to be done and did not know or contemplate serious violence or the use of firearms. Accordingly, I do not accept the suggestions that theft rather than robbery was involved. 
102.	It is clear to me that in his meetings with Twomey and Cameron, Brockwell was not told everything. The audio tape of 30th January shows that he said to Twomey “the less I know the better”. He did not have phone contact with Twomey, B or Cameron. He was not privy to meetings at the Stag and Hounds Public House, the whole purpose of which was plainly to keep vehicles linked to Cameron and Twomey away from his eyes. He did not know names of Twomey and Cameron prior to his arrest. This is consistent with what happened in relation to B; the telephone matrix shows that he was never in direct contact with Twomey, but used R as an intermediary. 
103.	Brockwell agreed that by the time of his arrest he knew the police were coming for him and he had had a sleepless night, and he had probably given thought to his predicament. He agreed he had lied at once to the police by saying he had been involved in the robbery but that he and his family had been threatened. This was a lie but he thought it would excuse him. He said that he could not recall exactly where he had got the idea from; possibly he was recalling the discussion we heard on the audio tape of 30th January where Twomey appears to be making a similar suggestion about Brian Wake and his wife. It seems to me clear that there must have been discussion between Brockwell and the would-be robbers about a back-up story concerning duress during the planning of the robbery. Such an account would be necessary as a protection for whichever Menzies employee (Wake or Brockwell) was used to bring the robbers into the airside secure area by using a company van. I consider this to be by far the most likely source of Brockwell’s account of duress.  Although he had lied to the police, and was prepared to bring his wife and children into the matter, he had not in fact set them up to provide any false story about being threatened. This was accepted. He agreed that his state of mind immediately after the robbery was that he was most anxious not to be arrested. He agreed that he was prepared to say anything to avoid criminal involvement, and that, once his claim of duress failed to work, he was desperate to reduce his likely sentence.
104.	He agreed that he had pointed out the Harvester pub to the police on the day of his arrest. He had done this to back up his lying account of duress, realising that he and the other two were likely to be on the CCTV. He thought this would put the police onto Twomey, for whom he had no name or any contact details. He had mentioned the Harvester because he thought that the CCTV might support his false excuse about duress. It did not occur to him that by telling the police he might in fact expose to them that his account of duress was false. He agreed it was a serious lie to allege that Twomey had threatened his family with violence, and that he had lied to his solicitor initially at the Police Station about this, as well as to the police. By the time of his interviews on 8th February he had thought out details of the duress explanation. He wanted the police to go for Twomey rather than for him. He also agreed that he had initially lied to the police about saying it was Twomey who had wanted the meeting at the Harvester, whereas the truth was that he had asked for the meeting to take place there. 
105.	He agreed that in his initial interview with the police he had lied in suggesting that Twomey knew when the valuable cargo was coming in. The truth was that he, Brockwell, had not known if the cargo was sufficiently valuable until after the flight landed. He agreed that he had told the police initially that he had been approached only some three weeks before, and that when he had been challenged about his account of duress, he had said that it was “one hundred percent true”. He conceded that it was fair to say that he had twisted the true facts at this stage of the interviews in order to lessen his involvement. He agreed it was wrong in interview when he said that he had been given the one call phone in a car at the meeting at the Harvester on 5th February. He maintained that he had been given the phone on an occasion when Cameron and Twomey were in a white Cavalier or Golf. The phone was handed over at the country park on an occasion when a meeting took place there other than one observed by the police. It was certainly before the 5th February. He denied that his account of this was a further twisting of the truth to implicate Twomey. He specifically denied that he was involved with some other team of criminals as opposed to Twomey and had received the phone from them.
106.	In his second interview with the police he had maintained that he was telling the truth about duress. That was, he acknowledged, a lie. It became clear that the police did not accept his account. He had asked for a consultation with a solicitor because he realised he was in serious trouble and wanted advice to minimise the damage to him. Accordingly, he had then admitted privately to his solicitor that the duress account was untrue. He said that his “co-suspects” had told him to put that story forward. His solicitor then obtained disclosure from the police which revealed the involvement of G, J and B, and which named Twomey and Cameron as “a sophisticated robber and career criminals”. He denied knowing that the police were particularly interested in Twomey, and said that he was not giving evidence against any particular individual. At one point in discussions with his solicitor, reference had apparently been made to Twomey as the “main Defendant”. Brockwell denied any recollection of this, and said he had not viewed Twomey as the police’s number one target. He repeatedly denied the repeated suggestion that he had falsely implicated Twomey as a person conspiring to commit robbery at Menzies. He denied that he was implicating Twomey when in fact he knew full well that others were involved. 
107.	As a result of the disclosure to his solicitor, he was aware that the police were interested in his giving evidence. This had emanated from the police rather than from him. He had discussed the matter with his solicitor. Up to this point he had not confessed any criminal involvement to the police, although it was clear to him that his account of duress was not believed by the police. He had been told by his solicitor that if he gave evidence, he would receive a reduced sentence. He said that that was a powerful factor in his decision to confess. Then he was shown the surveillance video which showed his involvement in the first and second phases of the planning for the crime at Menzies. He told his solicitor that he had been deeply involved in the planning and commission of the offence, but that he had no idea that weapons or violence would be used. He did not class tying people up and putting them in the vault as amounting to violence. He had been told that the police thought that he was “a minor player”. 
108.	From interview three onwards he gave details of the offence and his involvement in it. He agreed that at this stage the police had told him that his credibility would be scrutinised, and that his solicitor had told him to tell the truth. At this stage he had been asked if he had committed any other offences, and he had denied that he had. What he did not mention was his involvement in taking cocaine and introducing J to his dealer. He said in cross-examination that he did not know why he had not mentioned his heavy use of cocaine, and that he did not know if he thought that use of cocaine was an offence. However, he also acknowledged to Mr Aspinall that he had chosen to keep quiet at that stage about his drug use. He had subsequently, in the de-briefing interviews after his guilty plea, acknowledged his drug use after the police had brought the topic up again. At this point he agreed that he had supplied small quantities of cocaine to J on two occasions, and on a third occasion had introduced J to his dealer so that J could buy about £1,000.00 worth of cocaine. The Defence point to this as an illustration of Brockwell lying about himself after he had purported to come clean to the police. It seems to me that Brockwell was to some extent economical with the truth in initially not mentioning his involvement with cocaine, but it is equally clear to me that when the topic came up during his debriefing interviews, he was open and frank with the police about his use of cocaine and the matters relating to J. After the debriefing was over the police in fact visited Brockwell in prison and he gave them details about the dealer to whom he had introduced J. The police raided that man’s premises. They found him in possession of cash and cocaine, and he was subsequently dealt with at Guildford Crown Court for possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply. I do not regard this episode as materially effecting Brockwell’s credibility, notwithstanding the fact that the matter of criticism arose during the course of his dealings with the police over the robbery case. 
109.	He agreed that it would be easy for him to change people’s identities in his account if he wished to do so. Why had he implicated Twomey in the first place? He said he had mentioned the Harvester because he thought there would be CCTV there which would keep his false account of duress alive, and focus attention on the men who had been at the Harvester, and whom he later learned were Twomey and Cameron. 
110.	Mr Aspinall then picked up the point referred to earlier about a discrepancy of detail between what Brockwell initially told the police about the reconnaissance at Menzies involving Twomey on 30th December, and what he said after he had pleaded guilty. He denied that his change of account had anything to do with the police obtaining cell site evidence about Twomey’s phone between his initial account and the later account given in his post-plea debrief. Brockwell said he was now unable to recall when he actually remembered his current account; it was probably at some stage during the interviewing process. It appears that about a week before Brockwell’s second account which he maintains is the correct one, the police had obtained cell site evidence consistent with Twomey’s 2999 phone being in the Bath Road area, as Brockwell’s final version asserts. The issue is baldly raised as to whether he has changed his story because he had been prompted. 
111.	The debriefing police officers, Halbert and Thurlow, were both cross-examined as to whether they had tipped off Mr Brockwell. Each of them denied having knowledge of the cell site evidence at the time Brockwell was being debriefed. The evidence had in fact gone to a specialist unit as part of a mass of detailed telephonic traffic which needed to be analysed. I was satisfied by the evidence of the officers that they had not tipped Brockwell off. They would not have been involved in detailed analysis of the sort that the specialist unit do in preparing for trial. I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence that Brockwell’s altered account in relation to the movements of Twomey on the 30th January was not sinister, it merely reflected the fact that, having had time to work through a series of meetings he had had with Twomey, he was able for himself to correct a mistake which he had made earlier. The result of the cell site evidence is to place Twomey’s phone in an area consistent with his having been dropped off in the Bath Road area after a reconnaissance at the airport on the evening of 30th December. In my view this evidence provides support for the accuracy of the account which Brockwell gives, firstly as to the fact of a meeting with Twomey on the 30th December, and secondly, as to his account that it involved a reconnaissance at the airport involving himself, Twomey and B before Twomey was dropped off in the Bath Road area. 
112.	He denied seeing the telexes on the night of the 6th February, although he agreed he would have the opportunity to do so. He knew that the airplane was due to land at about 9:30, and could check on screens when that happened. He maintained he had only learnt that the cargo was valuable by going out to the aircraft. He denied that his account of having a phone to alert the robbers was untrue, and denied the suggestion that he had already arranged with others that they should have information about the flight well before it arrived. The plan was for him alert others by phone once he was sure a valuable cargo had arrived, and the robbers concerned would then have 20 minutes to get to Spout Lane. Asked to consider the possibility that this would mean men being on stand-by night after night, he said that in fact the robbery had taken place on the first available night. It seems to me that Brockwell’s account of only learning of the size of the cargo after the airplane landed, is much more consistent with the error made as to the size of the potential haul than the Defence suggestion of use of prior knowledge.  
113.	Returning to the night of the robbery, Brockwell said that it was after the airplane had landed that he had seen Wake, and Wake had said that he didn’t want to do the robbery. Accordingly, he had had to change plans and become the van driver himself. He knew that this would lead to his arrest and questioning. He agreed that initially in interview he had not been open with the police about this. He had left Wake out of his account, and only towards the end had told the police about what he said was Wake’s involvement.  
114.	Brockwell was pressed as to why he had become involved in a further plan to rob Menzies after his experiences with G and J. He agreed that by the end with G and J he had not wanted to go through with the robbery, and that he had been threatened with being shot. Why then get involved again? His response was that B had sorted out the threat of his being shot, and had said that others were interested in carrying out the robbery, but there would be no need for Brockwell personally to be involved. He could simply supply information. The revival of the scheme was B’s idea, and he, Brockwell, would get a substantial amount of money if the robbery went through. He said he had been greedy. A successful robbery would mean that G and J got their money, and this would get them off his back. So, he was happy to go along with B and meet the other interested people. That was how it came about that he had met Twomey, and why a series of meetings from around Christmas until February 2004 planning the robbery took place. He agreed that the process of meeting someone such as Twomey would involve the would-be robbers sounding him out at first, seeing what he could tell them about his inside knowledge, and only getting down to detail at later meetings once the robbers were happy with him. The foundation was clearly being laid for the submission that even if Twomey was involved in discussions about a robbery at Menzies with Brockwell, they had never reached a stage firm enough to be described as an agreement to carry out a robbery. Mr Aspinall pursued this theme later with Brockwell, pointing out that the audio track for the 30th January did not include references to the robbers team being on 20 minutes notice or meeting at Spout Lane. Brockwell agreed that on the audio track these things were not being discussed, but disagreed with the suggestion that matters were not at the final stages of planning. It seems to me that Mr Aspinall’s point is somewhat unreal. I accept Brockwell’s evidence that there was at least one further meeting involving Twomey and Cameron after the 30th January, and in addition there was the meeting at the Harvester on the 5th February. In any event the audio track for the 30th January only records part of the discussions which took place on that day. I do not consider that matters were so embryonic as not to amount to an agreement. The evidence points very strongly in the opposite direction. 
115.	At one point Brockwell was asked about a comment the interviewing officer, DC Halbert, had made during the debriefing interviews to the effect that Brockwell had mentioned “off record” talk about the robbers blacking up to disguise themselves. Brockwell said he could not recall this. He had made it his policy never knowingly to talk about the case without his solicitor being present. There was certainly no major conversation with the police without his solicitor being present. He had spoken to officers off tape about concerns he had for his family, but not about the detail of the evidence he could give. Mr Aspinall pursued this point later with the officers concerned. 
116.	Brockwell acknowledged that in interview he had told the police that neither Cameron nor Twomey had ever said to him that they would actually be on the robbery. He said that this was true. To my mind this is a point in support of Brockwell’s veracity. Had he been inclined to put forward a false story to the court, it would have been very easy for him to say that one or both had indicated that they would actually take part. 
117.	He agreed that, having provided statements to the police, he had changed his mind from time to time as to whether he would give evidence. That had arisen because there were times when he was dissatisfied with his handling by the police witness protection officers. He had never in fact refused to give evidence when called to court, but he had on occasions between trials been told that if he refused to give evidence, he could be imprisoned for contempt of court, and he had been warned also that he risked exclusion from the witness protection scheme. 
118.	Mr Aspinall concluded his cross examination by putting clearly a series of matters to Mr Brockwell. Firstly, it was suggested that in about 2001 Brockwell had met Twomey in company with a man called Steve Thompson, and a man called McReadie. Brockwell denied this. He denied a meeting with Twomey and Thompson in Autumn 2003 at a store in Chesham. He denied that there had been any talk about him getting DVDs or electrical goods for Twomey, or that he had handed over £2,000 worth of DVDs in partial discharge of debt owed by Thompson to Twomey. He denied that shortly prior to 10th January 2004 he had been party to any phone call to Twomey about obtaining DVDs. He agreed that he did have contacts in the New Milton area (where Twomey lived), but said that he had no knowledge of a Pound Shop in New Milton which featured in Twomey’s phone records for the 9th January 2004, it being suggested that this was why Twomey had been summoned to a meeting for the 10th January. We heard from David Unwin, the owner of the Pound Shop. He had no knowledge of Brockwell, Steven Thompson, Mr Twomey or Glen Cameron. There was a phone at his shop on the wall behind the till. Although he could not speak as to what had happened on the 9th January 2004, he would not approve of non-staff members using the phone, although it was possible that a member of staff might have let a customer make a local call. 
119.	It was also put to Brockwell that there was no meeting with Twomey on 30th December. He said there was one. In relation to the 10th January, it was put that Brockwell had not got into the white van and that there had been no visit to Langley Country Park. He maintained the opposite. It was suggested that there had been a short meeting on the Crooked Billet car park in which he had indicated he might have DVDs for Twomey. He denied that this was what had happened. He disputed in relation to the 16th January that this was the occasion when a search had been made for a safe meeting place; this he said had happened earlier. He denied that the purpose of any meeting was for handing over illegal DVDs. 
120.	As to the 21st January, he disputed that the piece of paper he wrote on contained details of DVDs, computer chips and the like. He disputed that the conversation was also about stealing silver bullion from premises in Feltham. As to 30th January, he also disputed that the conversation was about a silver bullion theft. He said they were planning to rob Menzies. He denied there was any argument between himself and Twomey on the 30th January. The talk was to do with robbing Menzies, and at the end of that meeting, they had decided to meet again. That meeting took place prior to the Harvester meeting. As to the suggestion that the argument had meant that Twomey was not going to be involved with him again, and so he had decided to frame Twomey, he said this was untrue. 
121.	Coming to the Harvester meeting of the 5th February. It was put that the conversation was about the supply of DVDs, and that there had been no trip to Spout Lane. Brockwell rejected both these suggestions. He denied that he had asked Twomey and Cameron to the Harvester so as to record them on CCTV in order to be able to put forward a duress story. He commented that he was not anticipating being arrested and so would not need to provide himself with this sort of cover. It seems to me there is some force in this because it was not until the night of the robbery that Brockwell was going to drive the van with the robbers into the premises. I accept that, until virtually the last minute, that person was going to be Brian Wake. It was disputed that there had ever been a handover of a one-call phone or a handover of keys, or that there had been any occasion when a scanner had been used. Brockwell reiterated his evidence on those matters. Finally it was put to Brockwell that Twomey had never agreed to rob Menzies, although there had been some discussion about the topic. Brockwell maintained that Twomey had agreed.
122.	Ms Brimelow on behalf of Cameron also cross-examined Brockwell. She pursued similar themes as to Brockwell’s general credibility by referring to the process of interview and his involvement in the matter. Brockwell acknowledged his dishonesty, the lies he had told about duress at the initial stages of the matter, and so on. I did not find that this process added materially to the matters explored by Mr Aspinall and summarised earlier. Plainly it is necessary for Brockwell’s evidence to be evaluated in the context that he was heavily involved in a thoroughly dishonest crime, was prepared to manipulate others into involvement in it, and was prepared to lie and make false allegations against others in order to bolster up a false account of duress once arrested. In addition he has acknowledged his overwhelming anxiety to obtain a shorter sentence for himself as possible by giving evidence. The question for me in the end is whether his evidence is reliable and truthful, notwithstanding those significant attacks which can be made on his credibility and matters raised in relation to his handling by the police.  
123.	Ms Brimelow asked questions seeking to suggest that although Cameron had been at meetings involving Twomey, he was not truly involved. Brockwell did not accept this. He said that whilst Cameron was not the driving force at meetings and tended to sit back and listen to what was being said, he did speak occasionally on the topic of discussion which was the Menzies robbery. Although he did not do a great deal of talking and was not personally involved in making drawings or taking them away, Cameron was present. He spoke. He was aware of what was going on; namely a discussion about a planned robbery at Menzies. At the meeting videoed on 21st January, Cameron was looking at the drawing on the table in the country park along with Twomey. My own assessment of what I saw on that video is that Brockwell’s account is accurate. The suggestion that Cameron was some uninterested person who happened to be present can safely be rejected in my view. No doubt of the two men present with Brockwell, Twomey was the leader and the person who was more dominant in the discussions with Brockwell, but the material I have seen supports Brockwell’s evidence that Cameron was a knowing participant in the meetings, albeit a lieutenant of Twomey’s. 
124.	Brockwell repeated that he did not know if Cameron had been physically present on the robbery, and that he had previously said that he had not agreed to carry out a robbery with Cameron. The remark of course cannot be in any way conclusive on the question of whether Cameron was involved. It is plain from the tenor and balance of Brockwell’s evidence that he was saying that what was being discussed with Cameron and Twomey at these meetings, in which Cameron was a knowing participant, was a firm plan to rob Menzies. Cameron was a part of that. Accordingly, in the eye of the law, if this was so, he is guilty of conspiracy, and has in fact agreed to commit robbery. Brockwell acknowledged to Ms Brimelow that although he believed that Cameron had been left on the Crooked Billet car park when he, B and Twomey had made the evening reconnaissance of Menzies on 30th December, there was some doubt in his mind as to whether Cameron had been present. He adopted a similar stance as to whether Cameron had been present when keys were handed over to Twomey. However, when he later analysed the matter in re-examination, he was saying that Cameron had been present.
125.	Ms Brimelow then put her case on behalf of Cameron. It was to the effect that the discussions involving Cameron had involved selling DVDs or mobile phones or lorry loads of goods, or indeed any criminal enterprise that would interest them. Brockwell said that the only criminal enterprise discussed related to the Menzies robbery, and that Cameron was present and aware of that. He maintained that Cameron was in the car on the occasion when the one-shot mobile phone was provided and a scanner was tried out. He denied that the truth was that G and J were still involved in the matter in January and that the plan was for them to carry out the robbery. He maintained that by then the plan involved Twomey and Cameron.
126.	I have not covered all the detail of matters raised by Ms Brimelow because they follow a very similar pattern to those raised by Mr Aspinall, and I believe this judgment adequately summarises the major points made and issues raised already. I can, however, indicate that I am well aware of the cumulative attacks upon the credibility of Mr Brockwell made by Defence counsel in detail over a period of about five days. I have taken account of all the matters raised in giving careful consideration to the reliability and credibility of Brockwell’s account.
127.	It is convenient at this point to deal with the submission made to me in closing by Ms Brimelow on behalf of Cameron to the effect that I should regard the acquittals of Wake and Davies in the first of this series of trials as demonstrating that the jury positively rejected Brockwell’s evidence, and thus as a matter which I should take into account in assessing his credibility. I do not accept this submission. There has in fact been no analysis of the evidence which was given in relation to those Defendants in their trial in the present case. There is no basis upon which I could necessarily conclude that Brockwell’s evidence had been disbelieved. The acquittals may well represent no more than the fact that the jury applied the burden and standard of proof to a case of alleged conspiracy in which Brockwell’s evidence of those Defendants’ involvement was in short compass, at times ambivalent, and indicated in each case a degree of reluctance on their part to be involved. 
128.	In re-examination of Brockwell the following points emerged. Firstly, that when he advanced the false defence of duress, the man he described as having approached him was of a description inconsistent with Mr Twomey. To my mind this is a strong pointer against the Defence suggestion to Brockwell that at the point when he advanced duress to the police (immediately after his arrest), he already had it in mind to frame Twomey. Allied to that issue is the fact that Brockwell was on the 5th February, when he is alleged to have lured Twomey and Cameron to the Harvester Public House for the purpose of incriminating them falsely, unaware that he was going to be arrested on the 7th February, unaware that the robbery was due to take place on the night of the 6th February, and unaware that after his arrest on the morning of the 7th February he would be driven past the Harvester Public House by the police and thus enabled to point it out. Brockwell also pointed out that although the name Menzies was never written on the drawings provided to Twomey, both Twomey and Cameron were well aware of which building was being discussed, and, of course, he had taken Twomey to see the Menzies premises on the evening reconnaissance of the 30th December. Brockwell said he had worked at Menzies for eight years, and had no detailed knowledge of the inside or outside of any other premises to impart. 
129.	I now turn to the police handling of Brockwell. Brockwell was arrested on the morning of the 7th February and taken to Staines Police Station. That evening a legal representative, Mrs Tranter, attended at the Police Station and consulted with Brockwell, who put forward his false account of duress. The police made some disclosure to Mrs Tranter, but did not disclose at this stage the fact that they had CCTV showing that Brockwell had been involved in planning for many months and thus that they knew that his account of duress lasting a period of two to three weeks prior to his arrest was untrue. The following morning he was interviewed and put forward his account involving duress. After it became clear that the police were sceptical about this account, he asked for a consultation with his solicitor. He admitted to her that his account of duress was untrue and that he was involved. The police then made further disclosure to Mrs Tranter, in which they mentioned the names of G and J, Twomey and Cameron. They indicated that they had video material and that they viewed Twomey as a sophisticated robber. 
130.	As a result of this Mrs Tranter consulted again with Brockwell. Her notes, (which were accepted by the officers as essentially accurate),  show that she told Brockwell that there were “indications from officers…that they want him to give evidence”. Although the police believed they had said this at a later stage in their dealings with Mrs Tranter, they accept that her notes are in general terms accurate and that therefore they must have indicated to her at this stage that they wanted Brockwell to give evidence. This was of course at a stage before Brockwell had admitted anything to the police, and before he had seen the video surveillance material. DC Halbert said that rightly or wrongly, he and DS Walker had made the decision to indicate interest in Brockwell giving evidence at this stage. They had not consulted with their senior officer, DI Wright, before speaking in these terms to the solicitor. Their motivation was that although they knew a great deal about the planning of the robbery, they did not know the identity of the men involved on the night. Firearms had been taken and had not been recovered, and £1.75 million had been taken and not recovered. They felt that Brockwell was going to confess to them, but were anxious about the pressure of time, which they saw as important in seeking to capture the robbers and recover the money and guns. It would be a matter of choice for Brockwell as to whether he gave evidence or simply said nothing when further questioned, as Mrs Tranter had indicated that he might. 
131.	They were aware of the dangers of possible inducement to make a false confession, but assessed Brockwell as someone who was going to confess at some stage because of the flimsy nature of his duress story, and felt that their intelligence and knowledge about the meetings and planning which had taken place would enable them to tell if any account he gave was a truthful one. After this a compilation of some of the video surveillance was shown, and Twomey and Cameron together with other suspects were pointed out and mentioned by name. Then the solicitor had a private consultation with Brockwell, who had admitted to her that he had been deeply involved in the planning, and said he wanted to give evidence. She also noted that the police believed that Brockwell was a minor player. Under challenge about this, the police observed that Brockwell had not played any physical role in the robbery itself, and was not one of those involved with firearms.  It is clear also from DC Halbert’s evidence that the police viewed Twomey as the major player, who, within a period of weeks, had in effect taken over the plan to commit this robbery. 
132.	The Defence were highly critical of this sequence of events. In particular they observed that the decision to indicate an interest in Brockwell giving evidence had been communicated to his solicitor (and thus inevitably to him) at a time before he had admitted his wrong-doing to the police. Secondly, the officers had not cleared the decision to speak in these terms with their senior officer. Thirdly, they had disclosed that Twomey and Cameron were in their view experienced criminal figures (albeit that Cameron has no convictions recorded against him and that there was no criminal intelligence held against him). In addition the officers had indicated that Brockwell was a “minor player”. Moreover, insufficient had been done to check whether Brockwell was a reliable person before approaching him, and in particular, no enquiry had been made as to whether he had previously been an honest employee at Menzies. The thrust of the argument is that, in the circumstances, there was a strong inducement for Brockwell to minimise his involvement and falsely implicate others such as Twomey and Cameron. The police response to this is that they assessed Brockwell as someone who was about to confess, that his account of duress was flimsy, and that they already had information which would enable them to show that it was a false account. In addition they had substantial information about the planning process for the robbery including video evidence, which would enable them to check on the veracity of what Brockwell had to tell them. Moreover that video evidence showed G and J, as well as Cameron and Twomey, so there was no harm in naming names. Whilst Cameron might have a clean criminal record, he had been apparently associated with Twomey in what was, in their view, a serious professional crime. There had been a check on Brockwell which revealed that he had been in the same employment for some years, and had only a minor and old conviction on his record. They had enquired into his working time at Heathrow, there was no dishonesty which could be substantiated against him. Subsequent investigations showed an unreliable mixture of multiple hearsay, rumour and innuendo, but nothing more. The officers said that the reference to Brockwell as a “minor player” reflected the fact that on the night in question he had driven the robbers into Menzies’ premises but had taken no part in the actual robbery of the employee, still less had he been involved in the obtaining or use of firearms. They were of course aware of, and provided, evidence to Brockwell and his solicitor to show that he had been involved in the planning stages for many months. 
133.	At 14:19 hours on the afternoon of 8th February Brockwell started to give an account of his involvement in the matter; describing the planning, and his role with the two interested teams of would-be robbers. The Defence argue that this sequence of events is suspect, in the sense that it was calculated to elicit a false and self-serving confession from Brockwell which would wrongly implicate people such as Twomey, in whom the investigating officers had made plain they had an interest. The competing view is that Brockwell told the police the truth because the police had made it plain that they could explode his duress story, and had a great deal of information about the planning process in which he had been involved, and which had gone over many months. Accordingly, he had little choice but to tell the truth. 
134.	Former Detective Inspector Wright was the officer in charge of the case. On 7th February a policy decision had been made that suspects should be interviewed and asked to give their account. Then they should be confronted with video evidence and asked for their reaction to that. Officers Halbert and Walker had not followed this approach. DI Wright as their superior officer said he had no knowledge in advance of their indication to Brockwell that they were interested in his giving evidence. If they had approached him, he would have told them not to do it. His stance was that the suspect must admit his full part before any formal approach was made about giving evidence and then matters would have to develop from there otherwise the risk of claim of inducement would be a concern. Asked about the “minor player” and “career criminal” remark, he was reluctant to comment on the rationale for the latter as he was not present at the time, and said that he regarded Brockwell as a principal in the robbery. He would probably not have used those expressions had he been dealing with the matter, but those were matters really for Halbert and Walker to answer. Overall it was clear to me that Halbert and Walker had not consulted Wright in advance about an approach to Brockwell, and that he would not have sanctioned such an approach at the stage they made it. Whilst the approach to Brockwell via his solicitor on the 8th February may have been an informal one, the formal process did not take place until March 2004. At that stage the decision was made by the CPS based on the information provided by the police. I think it fair to observe that DI Wright was plainly not comfortable with what had happened, no doubt because of the risk that Brockwell’s confession might not be a genuine one as a result of what had been said to him by the police via his solicitor.  
135.	After Mr Brockwell pleaded guilty at the Crown Court on the 23rd March 2004, he was taken to a secure Police Station in another part of the country so that debriefing could be carried out by the officers in the case, with a view to producing a witness statement from him. Up to this point of course, although he had made confessions, they were in interviews under caution and thus not admissible as evidence against any other Defendant. 
136.	DCs Halbert and Thurlow, who carried out the debriefing process with Brockwell, were both closely questioned as to any conversations they had had with Brockwell outside the taped interview sessions. The set-up at the secure Police Station was such that there would undoubtedly have been contact between those officers and Brockwell before and after formal interview sessions in the presence of Brockwell’s solicitor. There are a couple of examples on the tapes which show that outside the formal interview sessions Brockwell had plainly raised points relating to the case with one or other of the officers. This seems to me to be quite understandable. A person who has been interviewed at length may ruminate upon the matter, and detail may come to him at any time. The officers say that on the few occasions when this occurred, they told Brockwell that they would not discuss the matter off tape, but would deal with it in the next taped interview session. The officers made no separate note of these occasions and were criticised for this. DI Wright said that his practice would have been to have made some brief note. Having seen the demeanour of the officers and, accepting the evidence that neither Brockwell nor his solicitor were prepared to discuss matters pertaining to the case outside the taped interviews, I am sure that contrary to Defence suggestions, there was no discussion of case detail outside the taped interview sessions beyond the occasional point being raised by Brockwell, followed by an indication from the officers that he would have to deal with it at the next taped session. I am sure that the process was carried out properly having seen the officers concerned. I am sure that no information was fed to Brockwell, and that he was not steered in any direction so as falsely to implicate any person. 
137.	Allied to this were questions as to why, once the debriefing sessions had ended, these investigating officers on occasions made visits to the secure Police Station at which Brockwell was being held. I am entirely satisfied by the explanation given that these visits did not involve discussion of the case, but were in the nature of welfare visits which are ordinarily carried out in circumstances where a person who has been involved in serious crime is later involved as an informant with a view to giving evidence against his previous criminal confederates. I do not find there to be anything sinister in this. 
138.	In the context of the criticisms made of the conduct of the investigating officers in relation to their handling of Brockwell, I have evidence from two senior officers unconnected with this case. DI Anthony Moore dealt with procedures for debriefing criminals who wish to assist the police. He said that his understanding was that there were no procedures in place in 2003/2004 in the Metropolitan Police for dealing with such criminals. He was aware of a Home Office circular 9/1992 concerning resident informants. He did not regard that Home Office circular as constituting Metropolitan Police policy. He agreed that it constituted guidance. Commander Gary Copson took a similar position. Whatever the status of that document, both officers agreed that the handling of serious criminals who were potential witnesses against other criminals needed to be approached with considerable caution. There was a need to ensure the integrity of the evidence coming from the informing witness. Both declined to comment on the circumstances of this case, and made plain that individual cases needed to be looked at individually. However, they acknowledged that in general terms there should be supervision of the handling of such a witness by a senior officer; a detective interviewing a suspect would normally be expected to consult a senior officer before approaching the suspect about giving evidence; the process of approaching a suspect to co-operate by giving evidence should not take place until he has indicated that he accepts responsibility for what he has done; there should be no discussion about the case between the investigating officers and the witness which was not audio recorded; if anything was said outside a formal interview, it would be advisable to make some note about that (although practice apparently varies). I record that I have taken note of their evidence and in particular the cross examination of them. I have also considered the terms of Home Office circular 9/1992 and its comments about the potential danger of familiarity developing between interviewing officers and an informant which could give rise to accusations about the integrity of the evidence to be given by the informant. I have had all those matters in mind as I have considered the handling of Mr Brockwell. In the end I have to make my own decision as to the effect of shortcomings in the police handling of Brockwell and in asking myself the key question of whether anything said or done renders his evidence to me unreliable. 
139.	Darren Brockwell’s evidence plays a central role in this case. His evidence directly affects Twomey and Cameron. It indirectly affects Hibberd. (It does not really impinge upon the case involving Blake). His credibility and reliability as a witness are therefore extremely important. It seems to me that I should approach his evidence with caution. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, on his own account, he was deeply involved in the dishonest planning of a serious crime for a period of several months. He persisted in involvement even though the initial team ceased to be involved. His dishonest behaviour continued up to the point of the successful carrying out of the robbery on 6th February 2004, and on that very night he played a crucial role in assisting the commission of the offence. His conduct immediately after his arrest was dishonest in that he put forward a false claim of duress in the course of which he told lies about his family and about Twomey. Moreover once he had abandoned that initial lying account, his involvement in the matter was exposed, and he knew that he faced a very long prison sentence. By his own admission he was desperate to reduce his sentence. 
140.	I have also had to be alive to the possibility that the way in which DC Halbert and DS Murphy handled the early interview process with Brockwell and his solicitor may have created a risk of a false account being given by Brockwell in order to minimise his own involvement, provide the police with an account satisfactory to them, and ultimately achieve a reduction in his sentence on a false basis. I have concluded earlier in this judgment that there was no malpractice by the police during the interview or debriefing process by way of “tipping off” Mr Brockwell. I therefore do not need to take account of that, but still have to consider the risk of inducing a false or unreliable account. 
141.	Brockwell has one minor conviction recorded against him many years ago. Even though it involved dishonesty, its nature and the passage of time is such that I do not consider it has any material weight in considering his credibility. Questions were raised suggesting that Brockwell had been involved in acts of dishonesty in the course of his employment with Menzies. Such matters had been investigated at the time. No charges were ever brought against Brockwell in relation to them, and they seem to have been founded largely on assertion, rumour and hearsay. None of the matters raised have in any way been substantiated, they are all strongly denied by Brockwell, and I see no basis for taking mere suggestions into account. 
142.	It emerged that Brockwell had been a heavy cocaine abuser in 2003. His evidence that he desisted in about November 2003 was not challenged until Twomey asserted to the contrary in his evidence. Of course his conduct was criminal, and at one point he had involved J. I have previously commented on the way in which this material emerged in interview and remain of the view that it does not materially impact upon credibility or reliability issues. No charge was brought against Brockwell in relation to his drug abuse. I do not regard that as significant as there is no evidence to show that the police made any inducement or deal with Brockwell about this. I can well understand why neither the police nor CPS would have thought it worthwhile to bring a charge or charges based on his admissions in relation to drugs. 
143.	In my judgment, Brockwell’s evidence was remarkably consistent. I am alive to the fact that before me he was giving evidence for the fourth time, but of course this also gave the opportunity to the Defence to point out inconsistencies with previous testimony. These were very few indeed, and where they occurred were minor. The accounts given in pre-charge interview and in the debriefing exercise in 2004 were again largely consistent with one another and with the evidence given to me. Again, the Defence raised surprisingly few matters in this respect, and in my earlier summary of Brockwell’s evidence I have commented on them. Brockwell has, in my judgment, given a logically coherent and consistent account of events. It appeared to me that he readily made concessions about his involvement in the planning, his role in the case, his initial lying account, and his strong desire to reduce his sentence. He readily made other concessions, such as acknowledging that initially he had sought to keep Brian Wake’s name out of his account. His demeanour when strongly challenged was that of a man seeking to meet the questions by responding in an open manner, giving answers apposite to the question. He is not, in my judgment, shown to have lied about any matter which he was not already admitting was a lie. 
144.	Turning to the way in which officers Halbert and Murphy approached his solicitor (and thus him) about giving evidence, it is clear that the process they adopted was unorthodox and created a risk of it inducing a false confession, which I must bear in mind. The lies which Brockwell had told after his arrest about duress were unconvincing and were not persisted in for any significant period. Those lies did not fool the officers and I am sure that Brockwell could sense that. He then admitted to his solicitor in private consultation that his account of duress was untrue. He was thus admitting that he had been criminally involved in the robbery at a point before police made disclosure to the solicitor and indicated their interest in using Brockwell as a prosecution witness. Although of course the police were unaware of this admission, it seems to me to be an important one in the context of this case. This demonstrates that Brockwell was admitting his guilt at a point before he was aware of the police interest in him as a possible witness. He was plainly prepared to admit his guilt because it was apparent to him that his attempt to rely on duress was doomed. This seems to me to be an important point in considering the risk of a false confession having been induced, and it strongly militates against it. 
145.	In addition, I note that after the police referred to Brockwell as a “minor player” in their discussion with his solicitor in which they broached the possibility of Brockwell giving evidence, he then confessed to his solicitor that he had had a deep involvement in the matter. This again is a powerful indication that not only was Brockwell being truthful at this point, but also that he had not succumbed to the temptation of minimising his role or giving a false account so as to favour himself. I should make clear that in coming to my conclusions I have not simply relied on Brockwell’s account as to what took place between himself and the police, but have had the advantage of seeing a file of very detailed notes made contemporaneously by Mrs Bradley, Brockwell’s solicitor, which meticulously sets out all of the dealings which Brockwell had with the police throughout this matter. All sides have proceeded on the basis that these notes provide an accurate and reliable account of the events described therein.  
146.	Although the officers’ conduct can be criticised as ill-advised, I conclude that Brockwell was not induced to provide a false account. Mr Aspinall invited me to consider by analogy s76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That section is not of direct application, but in so far as it causes this court to focus on the reliability of what Brockwell has said in evidence, it has a relevance. However, the matters I have already alluded to satisfy me that notwithstanding the matters raised, Brockwell was providing a reliable account as opposed to giving one fabricated in order to satisfy the police and thereby obtain a reduced sentence. It is worth noting that in addition to implicating Twomey and Cameron (neither of whom he claimed had actually gone on the robbery), he named Wake, Davies and B, friends and work colleagues of his, as having been involved. None of them had been mentioned to him by the police. Moreover, the detailed and consistent nature of the account which he gave in interview, debrief and evidence has convinced me that he has provided a genuine, reliable and accurate account. 
147.	Although his account is not supported in every particular by other evidence, there is much which does provide support. I have referred to this in earlier paragraphs of this judgment. In the first phase involving planning with others, key events described on 16th September, 17th October and 11th November are supported by phone evidence and video and photographic evidence. Brockwell’s account in the second phase is supported in relation to the 30th December by observation evidence, phone and cell site analysis, and evidence that Twomey was in the area where Brockwell claims he was. There is observational CCTV evidence relating to meetings on 10th, 16th, 20th and 30th January, and on the latter two dates there is audio material supportive of Brockwell’s account, as well as evidence of drawings which include exhibit 23. For the sake of completeness, I should make clear that I have listened to the audio tape of 30th January. At one point the Defence suggested that somebody called Rick is mentioned and rely on this since no person of that name has featured in the evidence concerning the Menzies robbery. I have listened to that part of the tape more than once and in my judgment it is impossible to say that a name is being mentioned at that particular point. Accordingly, this part of the tape does not assist the Defence in the way submitted. 
148.	The evidence of a visit by Twomey to the west London area on 3rd February, and in particular his prolific cell siting on the Alderbourne Farm cell site on that day, provides support for his account that in the period  between the meetings of 30th January and 5th February, he met Twomey and was provided with a one-shot mobile phone which he used to alert the robbers on the night of 6th February and then handed over to one of the robbers whom he drove in his van. The meeting of 5th February is recorded on CCTV. There is some support to be found in his telephone records for Brockwell’s evidence that he, Twomey and Cameron went to Spout Lane after the meeting at the Harvester. In addition, it has not been disputed that, whoever the robbers were, Brockwell in fact picked them up in Spout Lane on the night of the robbery. My conclusions elsewhere that the meeting was not set up by Steven Thompson and/or Brockwell with a view to wrongly implicating Twomey lead to the conclusion that this meeting was part of a continuing series. The evidence of drawings recovered (exhibits 20, 21 and 23) tends to show that what was under discussion was a raid involving built premises rather than some dishonest activity involving DVDS, computer chips or other items. The only built-up premises which Brockwell was in a position to draw detailed plans of were the Menzies premises at which he had worked for about eight years. He would not have been able to provide detailed drawings of other premises as was suggested. The details of those drawings are fully consistent with being drawings of the Menzies premises and I am sure that they are. All of these materials appear to me cumulatively to provide support for the account given by Brockwell. None of them, in isolation, provides clinching proof that he has been truthful, but that is not necessary. It seems to me to be an important factor that no area of the objectively available evidence such as videos, cell site or phone traffic contradicts or is inconsistent with the account given by Mr Brockwell. 
149.	In my judgment therefore, notwithstanding the caution with which his evidence must be approached, both on account of his character and on account of the police handling of his case, I feel that it is safe to rely upon his evidence which is amply supported by other evidence. 
Searches concerning Brockwell
150.	On the morning of 7th February 2004 Brockwell was arrested at his mother’s house. Those premises were searched and a contemporaneous record was kept. Some items were found, but nothing turns on them. Then Brockwell’s Vectra motor car was searched and a similar contemporaneous record was kept by DC Graves. Two sets of plans, exhibits 20 and 21, were found, which Brockwell acknowledges he had drawn for the robbers. The system was that as each item was found by an officer, it was taken to the Exhibits Officer who noted in the search log who had found it, when it had been found, and where it had been found. Brockwell would then be asked to comment on whether he accepted the item as his own, and the Exhibits Officer, DC Graves, would then put the item in an exhibit bag with a unique seal number. The bag would be sealed at the time, before the next item found was logged. Exhibits 20 and 21 were the only drawings found on the search of the car. Each was drawn to Brockwell’s attention. He specifically accepted that he had made those drawings. In my view, this evidence is of significance in supporting the Crown’s case (dealt with later) that exhibit 23, two other drawings, were found at Twomey’s home by the police and had not been found by the police in their search of Brockwell’s car. 
151.	An issue, however, arises in relation to other items found in the search of the car. Correspondence referred to as DG/26 was found in the glove box by DC Halbert. Correspondence found in a Next bag in the boot was initially given a reference number DG/36, but was then placed in the evidence bag containing the correspondence from the glove box, and so what was DG/36 became part of DG/26. The item DG/36 had been found by DS Walker. Both Walker and Halbert said that on finding correspondence of this type, they would look quickly through it. If there was no item which struck them as having immediate evidential significance such as, for example a drawn plan, they would keep the papers as miscellaneous correspondence recovered, and they could subsequently be examined more carefully to see if there was anything of significance to the investigation within it. So, this filtering process had plainly produced exhibits 20 and 21 separated out as significant items. DC Graves, the Exhibits Officer, explained that in relation to items of general correspondence, it was not his practice to seal the exhibit bag when the initial correspondence was found. Thus item DG/26 remained open and was enabled to receive the correspondence found in the boot by DS Walker, and which had been initially referred to as DG/36. The glove box and the boot correspondence were thus mingled. 
152.	I accept the account of the system adopted given by the officers, and the explanation by DC Graves as to how items of correspondence found were handled. Whilst this meant that any document found in the glove box, and not singled out at the initial stage as significant, could then not be differentiated from a document found in the boot, I do not think that this flaw in the system is significant and I certainly do not think it to be a sinister one. However, the suggestion clearly made on Twomey’s behalf was that one of the searching officers would have had the opportunity to palm a document found in the general correspondence, not log it in with DC Graves, retain it, and then subsequently plant it in an evidence bag containing material found at a search of Twomey’s house, which was taking place about a hundred miles away on the same day. The Defence have explored this point because Twomey disputes that exhibit 23, alleged to have been found at his house by the police, had in fact been found there. The assertion is that it is a document in fact found in Brockwell’s car, which has been transposed to something found at Twomey’s home in order to incriminate him. Whilst all three search officers agreed that there was physically an opportunity for an officer to palm a document in that way and not log it into the search book, each of them denied that anything like that had happened. I found each of them to be honest and accurate in this respect, and reject the suggestion put forward on behalf of Mr Twomey. In particular I accept that officers Halbert and Walker handed to DC Graves every item which they found. I accept their evidence that they did not retain any item from the search of Brockwell’s car so as to enable it to be put at a later stage into an evidence bag in a way which would make it appear that the item had been seized from Twomey’s home. I find that the manner in which the search officers gave their evidence was open and responsive, that the search was clearly and contemporaneously documented, and that there was no basis for finding that impropriety had taken place. 
Search at Twomey’s Home
153.	On the morning after the robbery (7th February), officers armed with a search warrant, went to Twomey’s home in New Milton, Hampshire. A search book was kept by DC Rodger, who acted as Exhibits Officer, and logged items of interest found and seized. A video recording was made of some of the search. The search took place inside Twomey’s house. It involved his white Mercedes van parked outside, and also involved a search of rubbish bins outside the house. Only scenes inside the house were filmed. The officers found exhibit 33, Mrs Twomey’s mobile phone. She told the police that Mr Twomey’s phone “this week” could be found in the directory under “Babe”. That phone of Twomey’s ends with a number 9498. Also found in the kitchen was exhibit 34, a blue Virgin phone, with a number ending 2999. This is agreed to be Twomey’s and features extensively in phone records prior to the robbery. He was not present in the house at the time of the search, and so could not be contacted at that point. 
154.	I have watched a video of part of the search. The Defence point out that although the finding of items inside the house is filmed, there is no filming of the finding of exhibit 23, drawings alleged to be of Menzies’ premises, which the police say were found in a rubbish bag outside. The finding of this item is hotly contested by Mr Twomey. The absence of a video record of the finding is asserted to be significant. The police response to this is that the video made did not cover the finding of everything. It did not cover the outside searches. It did not cover the van outside the premises which was searched separately. There was only one person doing the videoing, and the search of the van and the outside of the premises was taking place simultaneously with the search inside. Particular attention had been paid on the video to the search of the safe because it was thought that that might contain sensitive items. Apart from the safe it was not really possible to predict where or when a significant item would be found so that the camera could be there to record its finding. It is quite clear to me that the primary purpose of making a video of the search was to record the state of the premises before the search, and then after the search was completed, so, as to be able to meet any allegations about damage done. I do not consider that there is any significance to be attached to the absence of a video record of the search of the rubbish bags outside the house. 
155.	PC Bignal was the officer who found exhibit 23 in a rubbish bag outside the house. I am satisfied that he found that exhibit in that rubbish bag, and at the end of the process sealed what he had found in an evidence bag, having recorded what he had found with the search officer, DC Rodger. Within the same bag he found three mobile phones, a box for a mobile phone, four pieces of paper with a total of five different mobile phone numbers written on them, and a number of different top-up receipts. It would appear that shortly prior to 7th February Mr Twomey was having a clear-out of mobile phone related items. 
156.	The Defence also criticise the fact that the search record does not state the specific time at which any item was found, but simply records each item has having been found between 10:55am (the start of the search) and 13:24pm (the end of the search). This was said to be a normal practice, and in any event, the list in the search book was created chronologically and the finding of some items could be timed by looking at the video. I heard evidence from DC Lynne Goodwin, who has previously trained officers in exhibit management to the effect that it was acceptable practice, and taught as such to exhibits officers, for the details on the search form relating to time and date found simply to recite that the item was found between the start and end times shown for the search. There are in fact other examples of other searches in this case where officers did note the precise time at which each item had been found, but I accept that this is not universal practice, and more importantly I do not think there is anything sinister in the practice adopted at Mr Twomey’s house.  I have considered the criticisms made by the Defence with a view to supporting their assertion that exhibit 23 was not found at Twomey’s house as described by the police. In my experience in most police procedures some criticism can be made of methodology, but I do not consider that any of the matters raised cast any doubt on the question of whether exhibit 23 was found at Twomey’s home. It is, however, right to say that the searching team were seizing items which might be of potential interest to the enquiry, but were not in a position on the day of seizure to appreciate whether what they were seizing was in fact of actual significance. Accordingly, even though I find no support for any suggestion that exhibit 23 was not found at Twomey’s home, this state of affairs still leaves it open to the Defence also to suggest that exhibit 23 was planted in the relevant evidence bag by the police once it had been removed to Finchley Police Station. It is, however, in my view significant that in exhibit 40, the search book compiled at Twomey’s house by DC Rodger, the description given to exhibit 23/item CMB11 matches the description of the item now produced before the court, namely “two pieces of paper with drawings on”. 
157.	The evidence shows that DC Rodger took all the items recovered to Finchley Police Station, where they were initially booked in under two types of record, known as Form 66 and Book 105. The items were delivered to DS Murphy, who was the exhibits officer for the investigation as a whole, and who had received exhibits seized in relation to a number of arrests on the 7th February. 
158.	It is clear from the evidence of Mr Styles that on 9th and 12th February he photographed certain items at the request of DS Murphy. First of all on 9th February at Finchley Police Station, he photographed paper exhibits found in Brockwell’s car (exhibits 20 and 21 shown in photographs 71 to 73). On 12th February, again at Finchley, DS Murphy asked him to photograph exhibit 23/CMB11. Photograph 76 shows the result. It depicts two pieces of paper which the Crown alleges are plans of Menzies and which came from Twomey’s bin. It is clear from Mr Styles’ evidence that he had no responsibility for the integrity of the exhibits, in the sense of tracking their progress at the police station, checking seals on exhibit bags or knowing where the items came from or what their place in the investigation was. He merely acted as a photographer at the direction of DS Murphy, the exhibits officer. There is no suggestion made against Mr Styles’ integrity or that he photographed anything other than that which is shown in his photographs. The suggestion made is that DS Murphy, as exhibits officer, took the opportunity to present as exhibit 23 an item which had truly been found in Mr Brockwell’s car. By planting what appears to be a plan of the Menzies premises in a way which made it look as though it had come from Twomey’s home he was in effect, it is alleged, perverting the evidence and helping to frame Twomey. Two immediate problems arise with this suggestion. First of all, the exhibit as photographed matches the description recorded by the search officers when the article was found on 7th February. Secondly, the fact that Darren Brockwell’s fingerprint was found on one of the two pieces of paper containing drawings of Menzies premises was not known to the police at the time the item was photographed on 12th February. This information only emerged months later. 
159.	I heard evidence from a fingerprint expert who examined exhibits 20 and 21 taken from Brockwell’s car, as well as exhibit 23. He told us that on exhibit 21 there were ten finger marks attributable to Darren Brockwell and six marks which were not attributable to any person he had made comparisons with. On exhibit 21 there were two marks which were not attributable to any person. There is nothing in these findings which is inconsistent with Brockwell’s evidence. In addition, his examination of exhibit 23 showed that on one of the pieces of paper Brockwell had left his left thumb mark in a position in the bottom left hand corner consistent with him either holding that piece of paper or perhaps pressing down on that piece of paper. There are no unidentified marks on this exhibit, and Mr Twomey’s fingerprints do not appear on it. The part of exhibit 23 upon which Brockwell’s thumb print was found is a part identified in evidence by Brockwell as having been drawn on by Mr Twomey and not by him. There are no marks at all on the other plan which is part of exhibit 23. In my judgment the finding of Brockwell’s fingerprint on this item is consistent with his account which I accept, having approached his evidence with appropriate caution. Brockwell’s fingerprint was not discovered until 22nd June 2004. This weighs against Twomey’s case that in some way exhibit 23 had been “planted” by the police during February 2004. The absence of Twomey’s fingerprint on the exhibit does not, of course, prove that it was not in his possession. That question needs to be looked at in the light of the evidence as a whole. 
160.	Mr Aspinall for Twomey conducted a thorough and very careful examination of the documentation relating to exhibit 23. It became plain that, unlike the items seized from Brockwell’s car and photographed on 9th February, there had been a failure by DS Murphy properly to log matters relating to the movement of exhibit 23 from the store for the purpose of being photographed on the 12th February. That process would involve opening the evidence bag and removing the item in a way that would require the item to be put into a new evidence bag with a new seal number once photography had taken place. The documentation did not show the new seal number of the new evidence bag, nor did it cross reference the item to a new entry made for it in Book 105. In addition, in cutting open the original evidence bag, the officer had destroyed the seal number printed on that bag. These and other detailed criticisms of the way in which DS Murphy had handled this exhibit were made. I need not repeat all the detail, but I have considered this passage of cross examination very carefully. The question for me is whether these matters do or may reveal some impropriety on the part of DS Murphy in his handling of this exhibit. I have given very careful consideration to this as, if evidence of this sort was or may have been planted, it would have very serious repercussions on my view of the case as a whole. Having reviewed the evidence it seems to me that the explanation for the much criticised entry in Book 170 (the property movement book) at page 27 of exhibit 62, is that the entries there, referring as they do to the exhibit with its original evidence bag seal number, had been made prior to the bag being taken away for photography. Having later had the article photographed, Mr Murphy then failed to annotate the record to include that fact, and to insert the new evidence bag seal number. At the time he was responsible for logging a very large number of exhibits seized in this operation and was involved in the process of changing the items from one type of property book (Book 105) to another type (Book 170), a process which took two to three days. I am satisfied that what happened was an oversight, rather than something which amounts to evidence of deliberate malfeasance. In this context it is of note that the item actually photographed by Mr Styles matches the description of the item seized by the police from Twomey’s home, whereas the items seized from Brockwell’s car and said to consist of plans are fully accounted for in the photographs which were taken on the 9th February, and the descriptions in their exhibit books (exhibit 25) do not refer to any additional pieces of paper resembling plans as would have been expected to be the case had they been seized from Brockwell’s car and then planted by DS Murphy at Finchley Police Station. There was a query as to why the items seized from Brockwell’s car had been photographed on the 9th February whereas the Twomey exhibit was not photographed until three days later. It is clear that the Brockwell and Twomey exhibits were logged in separate books, as indeed were exhibits seized from a significant number of other sources. The explanation that DS Murphy was working his way through a large number of items in different evidence books over the period seems to me to be entirely plausible. 
161.	In the light of the potential importance of exhibit 23 I have examined the evidence relating to its finding, transmission photography, and retention very carefully indeed. If the exhibit was found at Twomey’s house, as the Crown assert, it amounts to a telling piece of evidence supportive of Brockwell evidence that what he was discussing with Twomey was a proposed robbery at Menzies premises. If Twomey’s case that he was never in possession of this item is or may be correct, it would not only remove an important piece of evidence from the case marshalled against him, but would also cast a huge shadow over the integrity of the police investigation. Having examined the evidence, including Twomey’s own account, I am sure that his denial of possession of exhibit 23 is untrue and I am sure that the Crown case as to the finding of this document as Twomey’s premises is true. It therefore follows that this piece of evidence provides a significant addition to the evidence against Twomey. It tends to implicate him in the planning of the robbery, and in my judgment, in actual participation in it, since if Twomey were a mere planner, he would be likely to pass the document on to someone who was actually going to enter the premises rather than retain it for himself. Moreover I consider it highly unlikely that a person who was plainly closely interested in the physical layout of the premises, as Twomey was, would not actually be going to enter the premises himself. 
162.	An alternative submission was made to me on behalf of Twomey and Cameron to the effect that even if I were to be sure that what Brockwell was discussing with them was a robbery at Menzies rather than other criminal activity, I could not be sure that sufficient agreement had been reached to constitute a conspiracy. In my judgment this alternative line of argument fails. It is clear to me that there was a significant number of meetings involving Brockwell, Twomey and/or Cameron starting prior to 30th December 2003 and culminating in the meeting of 5th February 2004. I am sure that there were meetings other than those which the police were able to observe. The process would begin with a degree of neutral trust-testing and familiarisation, it would then move onto the general proposal, and if agreement was reached about that, onto the specific details. It is quite clear to me that that is the process which took place in this case. By 21st and 30th January the parties have got as far as detailed consideration of drawings of Menzies premises, and the audio tape shows detailed discussions for example of the layout of the premises and how a person who is to bring the robbers in might protect himself against police enquiry. Those and other aspects have all the hallmarks of an agreement to commit a crime, followed by a working out of the precise means by which it is to be committed. The meeting of 5th February is again entirely consistent with this process, representing a necessary reconnaissance of the pick up point for the robbers.  
Cell Site 
163.	The Crown called Edward Sexton. I am satisfied that he qualified as an expert witness in this field based on an extensive past experience. He has in the way that has become usual considered various phone numbers thought to be significant and examined call data records. He did not examine any phone data relating to Blake or Hibberd because by the time of their arrests, such data was no longer available for the relevant period. He explained the principles of cell site analysis. I do not need to dwell on the details here. 
164.	Dealing with Twomey’s 2999 phone for 30th December 2003, he showed how Twomey had travelled up from Hampshire that afternoon and made calls in the general Western London area between 16:03 and 17:44. At 18:16 he is sited on a Northolt cell site. At 19:37 there is a call logged to his phone. It is shown as “call forwarded”. There is no cell site information for this call. That would be consistent with the phone being switched off, as Twomey did during meetings at this time. At 19:52 Twomey’s phone makes an 11 second call to Cameron’s phone. The cell site is the north facing cell site for Terminal 2. At 20:01 that same cell site is used to receive a call from Mrs Twomey. By 20:44 Twomey receives a call sited on the SSE Longford cell site which is just south of the M4/M25 junction. Thereafter his calls show him returning to Hampshire.
165.	In April 2007 Mr Sexton had a survey done of the coverage of the north-facing Terminal 2 cell site. Only a small area of the Bath Road and Northern Perimeter Road, north of Heathrow, would be served by that cell as the strongest signal. Even taking account of second and third tier cells only a small area of Bath Road, perhaps 1200 to 1500 metres, would be covered by the possible cell site. This evidence is of relevance and significance as the timing of the calls located to the Terminal 2 site support the Crown’s case and support Brockwell’s evidence that at a time between 19:00 and 20:00 hours on 30th December 2003 Twomey did a reconnaissance of Menzies, after which he was dropped off at a hotel on the Bath Road. According to Brockwell, Cameron was not part of the reconnaissance and so the call from Twomey’s phone to Cameron is consistent with that as well. 
166.	Mr Aspinall elicited in cross-examination details of another phone ending with the number 730. Records showed that it had used cell sites in a broadly similar pattern to those used by Twomey’s 2999 phone. The case has proceeded on the basis that the 730 phone number was one used by Twomey at times material to this case. I am satisfied that it is safe to proceed on this basis. 
167.	Since the 730 phone was one which was used by Twomey, then in relation to 30th December 2003 further information emerges. At 19:38 hours the 730 phone calls Cameron’s phone. It is sited on the Terminal 2 South East sector. At 19:46 the phone calls another number. It is now sited on Terminal 2 North sector. As previously indicated, Twomey’s other phone 2999 uses Terminal 2 North at 19:52 and 20:01 hours, a few minutes later. There are thus two phones making four calls in a period of about twenty minutes using Terminal 2 cell sites. Mr Sexton agreed that the pattern of usage would be consistent with Twomey travelling south down the A312 in a vehicle, and using both phones in the period described, taking a route which would take him to Colnbrook. This possible scenario represents Twomey’s account that on the evening in question he went to Colnbrook and waited for his step-daughter Holly before heading for home by the M25, rather than making an exploratory visit to the Menzies premises as alleged by Brockwell. Mr Sexton said that he could not rule out the 19:38 hours call representing a car travelling down the A312 and onto the eastern part of the A4 Bath Road. That would be consistent with the Defence case. However, an equal possibility was that the phone at that time had been to the south in the Heathrow Terminal 4 area, and was travelling north across the airport to Bath Road. This equal possibility, (looking at the matter solely from a cell site analysis perspective), is consistent with the Prosecution case of a reconnaissance of Menzies as described by Brockwell, ending in a journey from the south up to Bath Road. Twomey’s version represents a journey from the north down to the Bath Road. The Crown also say that it is significant that on the evening of 30th December, Twomey’s 2999 phone moves from Ruislip at 18:16 hours and then goes west to Alderbourne Farm at 18:28 hours before it and the 730 phone are sited on the Terminal 2 cell site between 19:38 and 20:01 hours. They suggest that this is not consistent with a trip by Twomey from the north. It is more consistent with a visit by him to the Crooked Billet Public House prior to going over to the Menzies Heathrow area. 
168.	The material about the 730 phone only emerged part way through this trial when the police discovered data which had previously been believed to unavailable. I am satisfied that this was due to inefficiency or mistake rather than for some improper reason. In previous trials and until the third week of this trial, there had only been limited reference to the 730 number, and DC Graves had attributed that number to R and Twomey, rather than Twomey as is now the case. During the third week of the trial the Crown disclosed for the first time, full call data for the 730 number. It had previously been stated that such a document did not exist. That was plainly wrong, and I am satisfied that the Crown disclosed it as soon as it became aware of the document’s existence and the error previously made.  DC Graves was closely cross-examined about the history of the matter, and having seen him, I accept that he made some form of error. Mr Aspinall was at pains to consider the possibility that the 730 phone material had been deliberately withheld when the phone data was submitted to Mr Sexton for preparation of his cell site analysis and the phone matrix. He was also anxious to explore whether there had been deliberate suppression of the 730 calls by officers wishing to support Brockwell’s account that Twomey had been dropped off in Bath Road on the north side of Heathrow after a reconnaissance on 30th December. 
169.	I found nothing in the account given by Mr Graves to cast doubt on his explanation that he had genuinely made an error of attribution, and find that there had been no question of a decision to suppress the fact that the 730 was in fact a Twomey phone. It also seemed to me wholly implausible that in a very large investigation officers would be focussing on a small detail involving one evening buried in a mass of raw cell site data. Moreover, the evidence of Joanne Graham, a Higher Intelligence Analyst, and Mrs Amy Newton, another Intelligence Analyst, demonstrated convincingly to me that the handling of the raw data obtained from the phone companies and its organisation would be primarily dealt with by analysts as opposed to investigating officers. DC Graves was then a point of contact with them and would have, on occasions, directed their attention to certain individuals’ phones or dates which needed particular analysis. I am satisfied that he would have been burdened with a mass of telephone data from a large number of phones into which enquiries were being made. Having seen him give evidence over several hours, my judgment is that he would have had neither the inclination nor sufficient understanding to focus upon and then suppress the fact that two calls involving the 730 phone logged onto the Terminal 2 cell site on the evening of 30th December. Even though the raw data on phone 730 had included some cell site information, I think it extremely unlikely that investigating officers would have been in a position to analyse its significance, and thus form a decision to suppress it. I specifically accept the evidence of DS Halbert and DS Walker that they had not suppressed the 730 phone data. I accept their evidence that within the enquiry it was essentially the task of DC Graves to deal with enquiries into phone use, and that he would have liaised with the analysts whilst they attended to other aspects of the enquiry. I also accept DS Halbert’s evidence to the effect that prior to his involvement in the debriefing of Darren Brockwell in March 2004, he had not gained knowledge of the cell siting of the Twomey phones in relation to the 30th December so as to be able to tip off Brockwell and influence his evidence on the point. It seems to me that for some malpractice to have taken place in relation to the phones, an officer would not only have to appreciate the time and place at which those calls were sited out of a enormous mass of information, he would also have to have appreciated the range of coverage of the cell site. This information would not have been available to the police at the time any malpractice is alleged to have taken place. Quite apart from the impression made upon me by the officers, this constitutes an additional powerful reason for rejecting an attack upon the integrity of the police in relation to this aspect of the matter. 
170.	As we have seen, and as the evidence stands, the addition of the 730 phone to the information relating to the evening of the 30th December by no means rules out Brockwell’s version of events for that evening. The whole episode of the emergence of information about the 730 phone at this trial for the first time, together with the handling of the raw data in 2004 was very carefully probed by Mr Aspinall with a series of witnesses. His enquiries included examination of exhibit 100, a spreadsheet prepared in 2004 by Mrs Newton. Criticisms were made of the disclosure process in respect of this aspect of the case. Those criticisms not only focussed on the late revelation of this material, but also the fact that the original disclosure officer in this case, DS Malcolm, had had investigatory responsibilities in interviewing alibi witnesses, carrying out some observations, and had been present during the interviewing of Barry Hibberd. After acting as disclosure officer up to the end of the second trial, he was moved on to other duties and DS Walker took over as disclosure officer, although he had had an investigatory role in this case. Although I understand why it may have been convenient for him to take over as disclosure officer on grounds of convenience and knowledge of a highly complex case, there is force in the criticism that an investigatory officer should not have undertaken the important role of disclosure officer. To the extent that DS Malcolm dealt with the matters I have identified above, he too might be considered an investigatory officer, but I accept that his involvement in aspects of the investigation was relatively limited. Nonetheless these circumstances have required me to look with particular care at the suggestion of police malpractice and suppression of evidence in relation to the phone 730. I have done that and in the end have no doubt that the whole episode is due to a degree of inefficiency and error rather than anything more sinister. It is right to record that the police frankly acknowledged their errors and that Prosecuting Counsel throughout my involvement in this trial have impressed me greatly with their close regard for observing the necessity for proper disclosure. A significant point in favour of my finding is the fact that, as exhibit 100 shows, when on 1st April 2004 specific enquiry was made into calls made on 30th December 2003, the only phone enquired into in relation to Twomey was his 2999 phone. The absence of enquiry into the 730 phone seems to me to support the police evidence that they had overlooked the potential significance of this phone, rather than that they were suppressing it. Accordingly, I reject the line of enquiry pursued by Mr Aspinall with a view to suggesting that the late appearance of the 730 phone data is an indication of some earlier police malpractice. 
171.	Going to the 10th January 2004, the cell site evidence tracks a journey by Twomey from home in Hampshire, arriving in the Iver Heath area after midday. Whilst there, Twomey’s phone calls the landline of a Mr Boggins at 12:30pm, and makes a second call at 13:48. There is no dispute that on this day Twomey and Cameron were meeting Brockwell at the Crooked Billet Public House. Coincidentally, on the day of the robbery, Mr Boggins’ son is observed going to Days Hotel, (see later), on the late afternoon of the 6th February. There was insufficient evidence to make a case against Boggins Junior, but the calls to his father’s landline on 10th January are timed at the start and end of Twomey and Cameron’s meeting with Brockwell on this day. There are calls to Twomey’s phone at 13:08 and 13:14 shown as calls forwarded, and thus without any cell site attributed, which would be consistent with Twomey keeping his phone switched off during the meeting. 
172.	Turning to the 16th January. Twomey’s phone comes up from Hampshire, and is recorded at 12:26 as using the north facing cell site for Heathrow Terminal 2. The Crown’s suggestion is that R took Twomey and Cameron to look at the Heathrow area before a meeting took place with Brockwell on this lunchtime, but I have already rejected this, and comment further below. Between 12:37 and 13:01 there is a series of calls which are all call forwarded and so no cell site is recorded, and then at 13:17 Twomey checks his voicemail. This is sited to Alderbourne Farm, which would cover the Langley Country Park area.
173.	In April 2007 Mr Sexton did a further survey at Langley Country Park. The purpose was to see whether the country park was served by the Terminal 2 North cell site. The results for the best serving cells did not include the Terminal 2 cell site. Of course it must be borne in mind that cell site analysis cannot pinpoint precisely where a phone was when a call was made or received. It merely provides a general indication of the area of usage of a phone. Mr Sexton himself had commented that given the lapse of time between early 2004 and tests carried out by the Defence expert, Mr Banks, in March 2005, and his own firm in 2007 in relation to the Langley Park, it would be unsound to draw firm conclusions as to the usage of phones at the country park in early 2004. Of greater significance is to concentrate on the patterns of movement, rather than results for individual cells. In the light of the lapse of time between Mr Sexton’s tests and 16th January 2004, I do not consider it safe to rely on the cell site analysis so as to conclude that R, Twomey and Cameron conducted a reconnaissance at Menzies on this day. 
174.	Then we come to 21st January 2004. At the beginning of the day calls on Twomey’s phone are consistent with being made at Days Hotel, where it is common ground that he was. There is evidence consistent with Twomey using his 2999 phone at the Langley Country Park during the meeting involving himself, Cameron and Brockwell, which was observed taking place between approximately 12:30 and 14:00 hours on that day. There is also evidence that during this meeting Twomey and Cameron used mobile phones other than their regular 2999 and 6049 phones. Twomey certainly used the 730 phone. 
175.	The next police observation is on 30th January 2004. Twomey travels up from Hampshire so that by 10:55 he is cell-sited just to the south of Heathrow, on the Terminal 4 cell site. There was a suggestion by the Crown that Twomey had taken the opportunity to make a reconnaissance of Menzies, but I find the evidence inconclusive. Brockwell and Twomey were observed in the Langley Country Park from around 12:50 to around 14:05. During that period there are a number of empty cell calls logged to Twomey’s phone, consistent with his having the phone switched off during the meeting. Shortly before the end of the meeting at 13:59 he calls Cameron. Within a few minutes both Brockwell and Twomey were seen to have left the country park.
176.	Moving to the 5th February. The records show that Twomey’s 2999 phone was in Hampshire all day. Other evidence shows that he was in the west London area, so he must have left this phone behind. On the evening of this day there is evidence relating to Darren Brockwell’s phone consistent with his visiting the Harvester pub on the evening as other evidence shows. 
177.	Turning to the 6th February, the day of the robbery. Again Mr Twomey’s phone is in Hampshire all day. Once more the evidence shows that Mr Twomey was in the west London area. 
178.	On the 7th February Mr Twomey’s 2999 phone was in Hampshire in the morning, until it was seized by the police. Of course, as other evidence shows Twomey was not with his phone when it was found by the police on this morning. 
179.	The last call registered on the 730 phone until records cease on 10th February is at 11: 11 hours on the 6th February. Twomey was in the west London area where it is cell sited. The evidence is consistent with the 730 phone being in his possession. Use of Twomey’s 2999 phone ceased on the evening of 5th February. It is clear to me that Twomey had the use of at least one other phone from 6th February onwards. There is CCTV material of him using a phone which cannot be 2999 or 730 on the afternoon of 6th February, and Mrs Twomey told the police on 7th February that her husband was using a phone that week described as “Babe” in her mobile telephone directory. 
Days Hotel
180.	This hotel is in Long Drive, South Ruislip. It is about ten miles away from the Menzies premises. The records show that Twomey took a room there for two people and stayed the nights of 20th and 21st January 2004. He paid by credit card so his personal details were on record. (The police had discovered the connection to Days Hotel from a credit card document found in the search at Twomey’s house). During the stay, phone calls were made to both the Twomey and Cameron homes in South Milton, indicating that Cameron was the person sharing with Twomey. On 31st January Cameron booked in for two nights, so that he left on the morning of 2nd February. He was the sole occupant of his room. When he registered he gave an address nearby at 38 Melthorne Drive, South Ruislip. It is agreed that this is Cameron’s brother’s address. The records also show that Mr Twomey booked in and stayed two nights on the 5th and 6th February. He used Room 103 which he shared with Cameron. Both these latter two visits were paid for in cash, but the evidence showed that a person intending to pay cash would have to provide some form of identification or information about themselves at reception before they were allowed to take the room. Ordinarily the front door would be shut at 01:00 hours so that anyone arriving after that time would have to ring a bell and attract the attention of a security guard or the person on reception. 
181.	There is an extensive CCTV system at Days Hotel, and I have viewed recordings covering the period for the 5th to the 7th February. On the 5th Twomey and Cameron arrive at around 16:30 hours. Cameron is carrying two holdalls. At 16:44 the pair leave their room and go out, and are not seen again until around 22:35 hours. In the interim the evidence shows that they visited the Harvester Public House and met Brockwell, as well as making what is a disputed trip to Spout Lane (the pick up point for the robbers). Having returned to the hotel at about 22:35 both men go to the bar area. The evidence shows that Twomey had a soft drink and some crisps. The CCTV clearly shows him signing for these, thus rebutting a suggestion in his evidence that he had ordered an alcoholic drink which he had paid for at the bar. After spending fifteen minutes or so there, both men retire to their room. There is no sign of Twomey being intoxicated on this or any other of the CCTV footage from Days Hotel. On 6th February both men go out shortly after 08:30 hours. Twomey returns briefly at around 09:15 hours and leaves the premises and shortly afterwards a blue Cavalier is seen leaving the hotel. At 13:04 hours both men return. Cameron is carrying a holdall and a carrier bag. At 13:41 both men go out again, and their departure is followed by a sighting of the blue Cavalier. Twomey is to be seen carrying a pair of white trainers. The Crown point out that robber number one on the CCTV footage from Menzies can be seen wearing a pair of white trainers. At 17:35 hours Cameron and Boggins Junior return to the hotel and go to Room 103. They then leave the hotel a few minutes later. There is no further sighting on the evening of the 6th. Of course, the robbery itself, was taking place shortly after 23:00 hours. 
182.	Moving to the 7th February. At 00:23 hours Cameron is seen entering the hotel and going to Room 103. At 00:59 hours he leaves that room and meets Twomey and Barry Hibberd downstairs. The three men then took the stairs up to Room 103. The footage shows Twomey carrying a black Reebok holdall which appears to be full and heavy upstairs. Immediately behind him is Barry Hibberd with a bag. At one point Cameron can be seen assisting Twomey with the holdall. The bag which Hibberd is carrying appears to be full. At 01:21 hours a member of staff takes six full pint glasses to Room 103. At 04:47 hours Hibberd leaves Room 103 with a blue bag and a mobile phone in his right hand, and leaves the hotel having asked reception to let him out. By around 08:30 hours Twomey and Cameron are seen having breakfast. They return to Room 103. At 09:06 Cameron leaves the hotel with a large blue plastic bag with a black bin liner inside it. At 09:19 hours he returns to the hotel and Room 103 without that bag. At 09:32 hours both men leave the room and the hotel. Cameron can be seen carrying what appears to be the same black Reebok holdall which Twomey brought in at 00:59 hours, and also a second smaller bag. Twomey can be seen carrying a blue Nike holdall over his right shoulder, an Adidas holdall in his left hand and a smaller dark holdall in his right hand. When the men leave the hotel they take those bags with them. The bags appear to be heavy and laden. 
Steven William Thompson
183.	Mr Thompson features in this case because at an earlier trial, Twomey gave evidence seeking to suggest as part of his case that he, Twomey, was not involved in the conspiracy to rob Menzies, that Steven Thompson had been involved in the planning, and may well have participated in the robbery himself. He alleged that Thompson had been party to setting up Mr Twomey, particularly in causing him to go to the Harvester Public House on the evening of 5th February. Twomey’s evidence developed this further. 
184.	Steven Thompson is 53 years old. At the end of 2003 he was on bail awaiting a trial on a charge of conspiracy to supply cannabis. The trial was due to take place at Snaresbrook Crown Court in February 2004. Towards the end of 2003 Mr Thompson fled this country in breach of his bail. His trial went ahead in his absence and he was convicted and sentenced to ten years. Subsequently a confiscation order for more than £412,000.00 was made against him. This sum represented realisable property; the sum found as benefit representing the proceeds of drug trafficking was £1.75 million. Thompson has a criminal record for other matters. They include s 20 Grievous Bodily Harm in 1974, a robbery in 1975 for which he received four years imprisonment, and a conviction for fraudulently evading the restriction on contraband or prohibited goods, namely cigarettes, in 1998 for which he was fined. 
185.	Thompson’s position was that not only had he had nothing to do with the robbery at Menzies or any aspect of it, he had not been in the country at the time. He had flown to Paris, then gone to Amsterdam, and had arrived in Brazil about a fortnight after he left the UK. He had not been in contact with his family for three or four months after his leaving the country, and he had remained in South America for over a year after his arrival. After Brazil, he went to Venezuela and Colombia, where he was arrested. His evidence, therefore, was to the effect that he had been out of the country from the latter part of 2003 for at least a year before he returned. This tallies with evidence of DC Hale, which shows that early in 2005 Thompson was detained by the foreign authorities prior to being returned to this country. DC Hale also gave evidence which demonstrated that Thompson had disappeared from his home in November 2003, and despite regular checks and enquiries being made in December 2003 and January and February 2004, both at Thompson’s home and in the west London area, Thompson appeared to have absconded. The evidence of DC Hale plainly supports Thompson’s account. 
186.	Whilst abroad and in Brazil Thompson stated that he had received money, mainly by Western Union, sent out to him by people he knew. The names of Barbara Thorn, Paul Hunter and John Beymon were given; in all he gave the names of about a dozen people. They were not sending him his own money. They were people he had known or helped in the past who were helping him out in his time of need. Mr Thompson said that when money was sent to him, he doubted if it was sent to him in his correct name, because identification had to be produced at the time of collection and he did not want to risk arrest. Accordingly, he had frequently used girlfriends and taxi drivers to act as the recipient for the funds sent to him. There was evidence which showed that on 8th January 2004 £1,000.00 was sent to Steven William Thompson in Brazil by Barbara Thorn through Western Union. The documentation produced showed that this money had been collected. The system would require the recipient to prove his identity by means of a passport. Accordingly, it looks very much as if, despite Mr Thompson’s recollection, he had on that occasion used his correct identity to receive money. When this was put to Mr Thompson, he said he could not remember doing so, but indicated that at times he had been desperate for funds, that he had acted recklessly, and had often been badly affected by abuse of drink and drugs at that time. 
187.	If his evidence is correct, he would not have been in this country in January or February 2004 when, it is suggested, he was doing things here calculated to involve and frame Mr Twomey. Thompson said he did not know Darren Brockwell. He knew Twomey through his business partner, Ray Yates. He had seen Twomey in public houses, but Twomey was not a friend. He believed Twomey had brought furniture from his business at some stage, but it was Yates who had dealt with him and he did not really know him at all. He did not know Cameron, B, G, J, Blake or Barry Hibberd. Nor did he know the Wise family or ex-DC Hywel-Jones. He did know R. He had known him through his business partner, Mr Yates, for about twenty years. R had a café which they used and he had visited R’s house twice. He said he had not met Twomey and Cameron on 5th February 2004 at the Foxes Public House, Ruislip Manor, and told them to go to the Harvester pub at Ottershaw. He did not know New Milton, from where a phone call made in a Pound Shop was made to Twomey on 9th January 2004. He had no recollection of phoning Twomey to arrange for him to meet somebody else the following day. 
188.	Thompson’s account that he had had no involvement in the robbery at Menzies or its planning and had played no part in involving Twomey in those matters, (albeit with Twomey ultimately refusing to participate in the robbery), was challenged by Mr Aspinall for Twomey. Mr Aspinall examined at some length Mr Thompson’s involvement in what was plainly a significant drugs conspiracy. He examined Thompson’s businesses in the early part of the decade and his property interests in a way designed to show that Thompson must have made a great deal of money from criminal activity. He was suggesting that Thompson had made his money from drugs and other criminal ventures, but had run into financial difficulty by 2003 when his assets had been frozen as part of the upcoming criminal proceedings. Thompson denied that his financial needs would cause him to get involved in robbery. It was fairly and squarely put to him that he may well not have gone to Brazil at all but had been in Britain in January 2004, either lying low or coming and going from abroad. In effect it was being suggested that his fleeing bail in about November 2003 was establishing a false alibi abroad which enabled him to be involved with the planning of the Menzies robbery. It was specifically suggested that the money transfer transaction for the 8th January 2004 was in reality a sham designed falsely to suggest that Thompson was in Brazil at the time. 
189.	Thompson agreed that R had a business partner or associate called Del or Darren. He had come to Thompson’s warehouse on a couple of occasions. R and Del or Darren were wheeler-dealers like himself, and their dealing would include DVDs. It was suggested that in May or June 2002 Thompson had taken Darren and a man said to be his brother in law, Gavin McReadie, to the Black Horse Public House in Ruislip, and that there he had introduced Del or Darren to John Twomey as a man with a load of phones for sale. This, it was suggested, led to Twomey finding a buyer for the phones so that Del/Darren was able to sell them, leading to Twomey getting a commission. Thompson said he had no recall whatsoever of such a transaction. Whilst it was the sort of deal that he was doing everyday, he had no recollection of selling mobile phones to or via John Twomey. He did, however, agree that in October or November 2003 he met Twomey, and that Ray Yates had done a deal over some furniture with Twomey. He recalled that there was a problem over money due regarding the furniture. His recollection was that the deal was Yates’ deal. As to the suggestion that he had given Twomey £2,000.00 or £3,000.00 in cash and a thousand DVDs in settlement of the deal, he said he had no recollection of cash being given by him to Twomey, but he had some recollection of DVDs being handed over in part settlement of the debt on the furniture.
190.	Then we come to 9th January 2004. It was suggested that Thompson had phoned Twomey from a Pound Shop on the south coast near Christchurch, and told Twomey that Del/Darren had more DVDs available. At this Twomey had indicated interest, and Thompson was alleged to have said he would get Del/Darren to phone Twomey. Thompson denied that he had made such a phone call, and said he had been in Brazil at the time. This matter was put forward by and on behalf of Twomey because there is in the telephone records evidence of a telephone call made from a Pound Shop on the morning of 9th January 2004 to a number which is Mr Twomey’s. Twomey says that this was the trigger for him to go to, what he claims, was the first meeting with Brockwell on 10th January 2004. As stated, Thompson rejected this suggestion. He denied that by this stage he was involved with R in the planning of the Heathrow robbery, having become desperate for money after his assets had been frozen in the drugs case. Whilst agreeing that he was very short of money, he vehemently denied that he would have become involved in something like an armed robbery. The further suggestion was made that in the Foxes Public House in the Ruislip area on the evening of the 5th February 2004, a pub which he acknowledged he used, he had met Twomey and Cameron and arranged for them to go to the Harvester Public House at Ottershaw to meet Del/Darren. It was said that the purpose of this was so that they could be caught on CCTV and framed for the robbery. Again, this suggestion was denied. Although Mr Thompson had on more than one occasion said to Ms Brimelow in cross-examination that he was abusing drink and drugs heavily in early 2004 and so had no memory of a lot of things he was doing at that time, he said that if on the occasion suggested he had had a conversation about the robbery, he would have recalled it and that he knew he was in Brazil on the 5th February 2004. 
191.	Mr Thompson’s credibility was rightly tested, particularly by Mr Aspinall QC. It is plainly necessary for me to exercise caution in looking at Mr Thompson’s evidence. He has been convicted of a serious criminal offence which must have required a degree of sophistication and organisation. He has other criminal convictions on his record. A confiscation order was made against him in a very substantial sum after the drug proceedings. There was material to suggest to me that in his wheeler-dealing he had certainly at times operated in what may charitably be described as a legally grey area, and he failed before me properly to face up to his involvement in the drug conspiracy of which he had been convicted. I have given full weight to those and other challenges which can be made to Mr Thompson’s credibility, but he gave to me a compelling circumstantial account surrounding his breaking bail and fleeing to Brazil, and an account which was plausible and acceptable about his life once he had arrived there. I find that he did receive the money sent to Brazil on 8th January 2004. After Mr Thompson had completed his evidence some documents emerged from the Banco de Brasil, (admitted in evidence as agreed hearsay), which suggested that, in addition to the payment of 8th January 2004, payments had been made on 9th January, 16th January, 21st January, 27th January and 28th January to Thompson in Brazil. Thompson was recalled and these matters were put to him. He explained that although he had no recollection of signing the documents, now that they were presented to him he recognised his own signature as the recipient of money on those dates put to him. He had not remembered personally collecting money until those documents emerged, and explained that he had been using drugs and drinking a great deal at that time and had been desperate for money in a way which must have made him act recklessly in using his correct identity. I am satisfied on the evidence I have seen and heard that Mr Thompson was in Brazil throughout the period between 8th and 28th January. I accept his evidence that he was away from the UK and in South America between late November 2003 and the early part of 2005. As previously stated his evidence was convincing in its circumstantial detail, and it is in fact supported as to the important time in this case of January 2004 by the documentation relating to money transfers which could only be finalised if there had been presentation of Mr Thompson’s person and passport at the beginning of this series of transactions. In addition, I have already commented on the support provided by DC Hale’s evidence. 
192.	In the light of these documents Mr Aspinall then suggested to Mr Thompson that if he had not made a phone call on the 9th January 2004 to Mr Twomey, he must have made one on or about the 3rd January 2004. It was suggested that in the alternative, Thompson was in the UK on that date, or was using an English mobile phone abroad. Thompson denied these further suggestions, stating that he had been abroad since November 2003 for a period of 15 months, and so could not have phoned Twomey from this country, nor had he the use of an English mobile phone whilst he was abroad. It will be recalled that the purpose of the phone call was alleged by Twomey to be an invitation or direction to him to meet Darren Brockwell. When the matter was initially put and concentrating on the 9th January, it was put on the basis that the phone call was to arrange a meeting “the following day”. After the emergence of the material about money transfers, Mr Aspinall then made the alternative suggestion. I am quite sure that Mr Thompson was abroad and so could not have made any phone call from England on the 3rd January, and I accept his evidence that he was not making a phone call to Mr Twomey from abroad on an English mobile phone on that date either. That suggestion seems to me to be wholly implausible. If, as I find, Thompson was on the run and in South America, he would have no reason to set up a meeting involving Brockwell and Twomey in England, there being no evidence of substance that he knew Brockwell, and the evidence showing that he had had precious little previous dealings with Twomey.  
193.	It follows that the setting for the alleged events of the 5th February 2004 put forward by Twomey does not exist. In any event I find that Thompson was still in Brazil in early 2004 and did not set up Twomey and Cameron in the way alleged. These, after all were on the unchallenged evidence, men with whom he had had little contact in the past, who are not friends or regular acquaintances, and with whom he had exchanged but a few casual words at most. I find his denial that he would have been involved at that time in planning a robbery to be convincing, as did I find his denial that he had involved Twomey and Cameron in some sort of set up to frame them on the evening of the 5th February 2004. There is no sufficient evidence from which any tenable inference could be drawn that the man Del/Darren was or may have been Darren Brockwell, and, as will be seen later, I do not accept Twomey’s assertion that Darren Brockwell was present at a meeting involving Twomey and Thompson at the warehouse in Chesham in November 2003. In short then, insofar as Mr Thompson’s evidence assists the Crown in rebutting an account put forward by Twomey, I accept his evidence and reject the Twomey case.  
Blake
194.	In May 2005 Mr Blake was arrested in relation to an unrelated matter. At that time he provided a DNA sample. He was bailed to return to Paddington Green Police Station on the 18th July 2005. In the meantime his DNA sample was compared to the results of Mr Scott’s findings in relation to exhibits 4 and 8, the piece of latex and the woolly hat recovered from Menzies. As previously stated a match was found to Mr Blake’s DNA profile. Accordingly, when he attended at the police station on 18th July officers Halbert and Murphy were waiting for him, and arrested him for attempted murder and involvement in the Menzies robbery. He was photographed both in May 2005 and on his arrest in July 2005. 
195.	On the evening of his arrest Blake was interviewed twice in the presence of a solicitor. He made no comment, even after being told that he was linked to the crime by his DNA on the piece of latex and the hat. The evidence shows that Blake was awake for virtually the whole of the night of the 18th to 19th July, and that he was agitatedly pacing his cell before seeing the officers in the case on the morning of the 19th. On the following day, 19th July, Blake contacted the jailer at 10:21 hours and indicated he wanted to speak to the officers in the case without a solicitor being present. Officers Halbert and Murphy were informed of this and went to the cell passageway area, where they had a conversation through the door of the cell with Blake between 10:29 and 10:32. The officers say they had cleared this visit with the custody officer and, having spoken to Blake, caused entries of what had happened to be entered on the custody record at 10:34 and 10:35. I have viewed CCTV for this day. The cameras at Paddington Green cover inside Blake’s cell, his cell corridor, and the charge area where the custody officer is. That system also records audio, and notices displayed in the police station, including the cell area, refer to this. The officers thought that the audio system was working on that day, but subsequently discovered that it was not. Accordingly, there is only a video record of contact with Blake.  
196.	Between 11:20 and 11:35 officers Murphy and Halbert made a note of the conversation which they had had with Blake at his cell. According to them he was asking if there was any chance of a deal. He said he could give them a planned £3 million van job in which he had been involved, and could give them the name of one other involved. In return he wanted bail. The officers say they told him that that was impossible. Blake then remarked “you’re passing up the chance of Chris McCormack”. DS Murphy said that he later learnt that McCormack’s name had come up in 2004 in enquiries after the robbery at Menzies. The officers repeated that nothing could be done about bail, at which Blake is alleged to have remarked “I’m looking at life”, and then to have said “I’ll just have to do my time and spend my money when I come out”. Although this visit to Blake was documented on the custody record, as is the fact that Blake had made a request of the officers, the detail of his request does not appear on the custody record. The officers said that this was because they regarded Blake’s proposal to them as sensitive. Having made the note in a notebook, DS Murphy attempted to get those notes time and date stamped. However, the relevant machine was not working and so he took the notebook to the custody officer, who at 11:41 endorsed the notebook to the effect that the machine was not working. That endorsement appears immediately after the text of the alleged cell conversation. So, when Blake’s solicitor came to the custody area at about 11:50 and the officers made disclosure about the robbery to him, they did not disclose the cell passage conversation. They say that they regarded it as having no bearing on the offence, and in any event Blake had approached them in confidence. 
197.	At 12:36 there was a further interview in which Blake was shown a compilation tape of the Menzies robbery and asked if robber four was him. He made no comment. He was given a form of special warning about the piece of latex and the woolly hat and made no comment. David Westwood’s statement was put to him and again he made no comment. At the end of the interview the officers urged him to tell the truth because they knew that he was involved. Blake asked to speak to his solicitor. He had a brief conversation with his solicitor, and then a further interview resumed at 12:55. Blake said when asked if he had anything to say, “I feel sorry. I have to make no comment”. After that Blake had a further consultation with his solicitor. 
198.	The video tape shows that between 13:15 and 13:19 DS Murphy took Blake back to his cell and spoke to him for about four minutes. Then at 13:55 Blake was brought out of his cell to the custody desk for the purpose of making a phone call to his girlfriend. He can be seen in the desk area between 14:03 and 14:07 in conversation with officers Halbert and Murphy. Then he can be seen on the phone between 14:07 and 14:13. Between 14:14 and 14:15 he is in the custody desk area with the officers, and then between 14:15 and 14:28 is in their company on a bench in front of the custody desk. The video shows that during these periods there were others in close proximity, including uniformed police officers and someone who appears to be a member of the public. 
199.	At about 14:17 the police produced to Blake the notes which they had made of the conversation at 10:29 (in which he had sought bail) for him to consider and sign. The notes were read over to him. Blake declined to sign them. This event can be seen on the video tape, but it is apparent that conversation took place after the giving of the opportunity to sign the note. At 15: 55 hours the video captures officers Halbert and Murphy delivering a change of clothes to Blake’s cell. They are there for about three minutes and the video shows them inside his cell having conversation with him. I saw nothing significant in the body language of the parties on the video. The Defence have focussed on these various cell contacts with Mr Blake. 
200.	 At 17:06 Blake was charged. At 17:35 he was drug tested. DS Murphy was present when this happened. He said that by this stage on the second day of Blake’s detention, their relationship was better than it had been on the first day when he had been shocked and hostile. Murphy’s observation was supported by evidence from the detention officer, PC Else, who recorded on the custody record at this time that Blake had spoken to the officer in the case “in jest”. At 17:41 Blake requested a visit from his girlfriend, Ms Gabrielle Martello. Murphy and Halbert had facilitated that, and between 20:05 and 20:22 Ms Martello visited Mr Blake. There was a recording device in the room in which that visit happened. There are competing versions as to what that tape reveals. One has been prepared by the police, one by a Professor French for the Crown, and one by Blake himself. I have heard the tape for myself (exhibit 53). The tape is of very poor quality and the speech is difficult to decipher. At times both Mr Blake and his girlfriend appear to be whispering, no doubt to avoid being overheard. 
201.	I heard from Professor Peter French, an acknowledged expert in speech and audio analysis.  After repeatedly listening to the tape of the conversation between Blake and Ms Martello, he produced his transcript of what he said the tape revealed to him. It is clear that significant parts of the tape are inaudible, and that in other parts there are gaps in comments being made, or that there is more than one possibility as to what it is that is being said. As already stated there are three versions before me of the recording. The Crown rely on parts of the recording as indicative of an acceptance by Mr Blake of his guilt on the robbery charge. The Defence on the other hand say that certain passages are consistent with Blake’s claim that the officers were pressurising him to admit his guilt and give evidence against McCormack in return for a lighter sentence. In the end it is for me to evaluate what the recording shows was said, whether sense can be made of all or parts of it, and what it means in the context of the issues between the parties (a) as to Blake’s dealings with officers Halbert and Murphy, and (b) as to the case as a whole. I have been provided with my own DVD of the recording to listen to. 
202.	Mr Wilson, counsel for Blake, strongly challenged the police version of events for the 19th July. The officers agreed that they had been expecting a solicitor to attend for further interviews that day. They disputed an allegation that they had deliberately delayed contact with the Defence solicitor and Blake for an interview, so that they could do a deal with Blake in which he would implicate a man called Chris McCormack. They said that the only time McCormack’s name had come up was when Blake had volunteered his name in the conversation through the cell door at about 10:30. It was accepted that they had spoken to Mr Vine, a legal representative, at about 10:50 hours, and that DS Halbert had said that he had some urgent enquiries to make. He apparently had another operation going on at the same time. It seems to me that the fact that this encounter with the solicitor was after the 10:30 cell door conversation with Blake and is inconsistent with the suggestion put that the officers were keeping the solicitor out of the way so that they could make an approach to Blake. 
203.	Admissions were made before me which show that McCormack was a man with a criminal record for violent crime, who appears to be associated with organised gang crime. There was evidence which showed that on a day in 1998 when McCormack was under observation by police, Blake had been seen in his company. The operation was not a Flying Squad operation, and they would not have had access to this intelligence. Blake was never arrested or charged as a result of the observations. The 2004 investigations into McCormack had failed to find evidence sufficient to arrest or charge him in relation to the Menzies robbery. DS Murphy and DC Halbert denied that the police were very anxious to implicate McCormack in this matter and that in effect that they were hoping to use Blake as a means of doing so. DS Murphy agreed that the 10:30 visit to Blake’s cell lasted a little over three minutes, whereas the substance of his notes lasted for perhaps one minute. He frankly agreed that other things must have been said, but said he could not remember what they were. The officers rejected the Defence case put which is that the police referred to their DNA evidence and wanted Blake to plead guilty, give evidence, and implicate McCormack. If he did this the attempt murder charge would be dropped, and the police would make sure he only got seven years. Blake is asserted to have rejected this offer and to have said he hadn’t done anything. It was also suggested that Blake had admitted during the 10:30 visit trying on a latex mask in December 2003 when McCormack had approached him about carrying out a robbery at Heathrow. The officers denied that this had been said by Blake. It now, of course, features as part of his explanation for the DNA found on the piece of latex. When Blake gave evidence to me, he gave an account which followed that which had been put on his behalf by Mr Wilson. 
204.	Moving on to the 19th July 2005, the day after his arrest, Blake’s account was that when the two officers came to his cell at 10:30, they referred to the fact that the DNA found on the mask “fucked” him. It is common ground that the DNA evidence had been disclosed the previous evening. They then said they wanted him to tell them about McCormack in confidence, whereupon Blake claimed that he had admitted to them that he had tried on the mask at McCormack’s house and explained that he had declined to join the gang who stole money from Heathrow. He claimed that the police said that all they wanted was McCormack and that if he “went Queen’s evidence” against McCormack, they would drop the attempted murder charge and make sure he only got seven years. Blake says that his response was that he had done nothing, and was told that if he did not accept the police’s offer, he would get a life sentence. He stated that these officers had maintained pressure on him throughout the rest of the day to do this deal. This included the period when he could be seen in the custody area after 14:00 hours, at which point the officers not only repeated the offer, but were taunting him about what would happen if he was in prison and his girlfriend was on the outside. Blake then went on to say that when he had the private meeting with his girlfriend at 20:05 hours on the evening of the 19th July, he had told her about the pressure which the police were putting on him to implicate McCormack and to do a deal to benefit himself. None of this version of events relating to the police and 19th July appears in Blake’s Defence Statement. All that appears is the following. “In respect of the alleged verbals attributed to the accused…on 19/07/05, issue is taken as to the content and accuracy of the same.” The Crown invite me to draw an inference under s11 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. I consider it proper and reasonable to do so. I infer that the account now given in relation to 19th July is untrue, and that it undermines his claim to have tried on the mask innocently at McCormack’s house. 
205.	It seems to me that the police are correct in asserting that, had Blake put forward to them any explanation to account for his DNA being on the latex mask, they would have disclosed that to the Defence solicitor and raised it in the next available interview. The fact is that in the next interview the police were pressing Blake to give an account for his DNA being found on the latex, even to the extent of giving a special warning, yet Blake made no comment. Had his version of events in relation to the cell conversation been correct, he would surely have advanced at that stage of the interviews the account which he now advances, which is in effect an innocent explanation as to how his DNA comes to be on the piece of latex. The officers denied that there was any such conversation, and said that it had consisted of Blake offering information in return for bail. They denied that the Flying Squad were desperate to convict McCormack. There is plainly a serious issue to be considered between the evidence of the police officers and that of Mr Blake on this matter. 
206.	It seems to me to be significant that it was Blake who sent for the detention officer at 10:21 hours, and that only then did the officers go to Blake’s cell, after having been informed of this, and having cleared the visit with the custody officer. It is also significant that Blake told the detention officer that he wanted to speak to the officers in the case without his solicitor being present. The evidence of officers Halbert and Murphy was confirmed by the detention officer, PC Else. These factors favour the police version much more strongly than that put forward by Blake. They are entirely consistent with Blake wanting to see if he could do some sort of deal with the police, rather than the police instigating a process of putting pressure on Blake. They then reported back immediately afterwards to the custody officer to the effect that Blake had made a request of them which they had declined. Shortly afterwards they made their note, which was then promptly countersigned by the custody officer in the absence of a working machine, and at around 14:17 that afternoon can be seen on the video going through that note with Blake. That chain of events seems to me to have the hallmarks of transparency and consistency. I found Murphy and Halbert to be open and honest witnesses. Blake on the video tape at 14:17 does not appear to exhibit any sign of surprise or indignation at the note which is being shown to him by the police officers. Had the police been pressurising Blake at this stage or putting to him for agreement a record of conversation which they had invented and which made it appear that Blake was seeking to do a deal with them, I would have expected Blake’s demeanour to be rather different, particularly since he was in an open area, and there was a custody officer or officers present. I also consider it highly implausible that if officers were putting the sort of pressure alleged upon Blake in the custody area after 14:00 hours, that they would have done so in a public area, particularly when talking about a well known criminal figure such as McCormack, and offered to do a deal involving Blake pleading guilty and giving evidence for the Crown. Nor do I find it plausible that one of them would have taunted Mr Blake about the effect of a long period of imprisonment for him on his sex life with his girlfriend in such a public arena. I also find it surprising that if Blake’s version of events is correct, he did not refer during the course of the interviews which took place at 12:36 and 12:55 that morning to improper pressure by the police seeking to get him, as an innocent man, to implicate some other person in the robbery. In addition, if Blake’s case that at the 10:30 cell conversation he had told the officers that he had tried on the mask is or may be correct, it would mean that the officers were playing out a complete charade in interview with Blake and his solicitor when they pressed him to provide any explanation as to how his DNA came to be on the mask and hat. Such a course would also have run the risk that Blake would respond by putting on record in the presence of his solicitor the fact that the police were pressuring him to do a deal. In my view this is a strong indicator that Blake’s account is not true. On the other side of the coin I find the police evidence that they did not disclose to the solicitor the substance of Blake’s offer to them in the 10:30 conversation because it did not directly bear on this offence, and because what was said was put forward in confidence, as a plausible and acceptable explanation for not mentioning it to the solicitor or putting it on record. 
207.	Mr Wilson pursued his theme of pressure to implicate McCormack by drawing attention to the video which shows that between 13:15 and 13:19 Murphy took Blake back to his cell after he had seen his solicitor and spoken to him. There is no note of what the conversation was about. Nor is there anything on the custody record. Murphy denied that he was trying again to persuade Blake to “go Queen’s evidence” against McCormack. He said there was no note or record of the event because whatever the conversation was about, it was not to do with the case. 
208.	Then from 14:03 to 14:07 the officers can be seen speaking to Blake at the charge desk. After this Blake was provided with a phone and was able to make a phone call. This part of their contact in front of the custody officer plainly related to enabling Blake to call his girlfriend. 
209.	Between 14:15 and 14:28 the video shows the officers sitting on a bench with Blake, a few feet away from the custody desk. It is clear that the first few minutes are spent reading over the notebook in the way already referred to. DS Murphy accepted that there must have been about ten minute’s conversation after the refusal to sign the notebook. He recalled that part of it involved Blake and Halbert talking about some old armed robbery where both knew the people involved. There was no record of what was in fact being discussed, but what was happening was taking place in the full view of the custody desk, and I find DS Murphy’s response to the suggestion that the police were still trying to persuade Blake to plead guilty and give evidence against McCormack by saying that if they had been so minded, they would never talk about those matters in such a place and in such circumstances to be convincing. As already stated, I have noted Blake’s apparent demeanour during this episode. He appears to be relaxed. I see nothing to suggest a man under pressure, being asked to admit a very serious crime which he had not committed, and then give evidence against a very serious criminal. I accept the police evidence and reject that put forward by Blake. 
210.	Subsequent to this there is a further contact. The officers delivered clothing brought by Blake’s girlfriend to Blake in his cell. The video shows this taking place between 15:55 and 15:58. There is an entry in the custody record about this. Plainly part of that time will have been taken up with conversation about the clothing, but the suggestion was that the police were making one final attempt to get Blake to implicate McCormack. Given my previous conclusions, I again accept the Crown case and reject the Defence case in relation to this as there is nothing in this final encounter which could change my view. Having viewed the video, there is nothing significant to be gleaned from the body language of those in the cell. 
211.	Mr Wilson also drew attention to the fact that at 13:34 hours, DS Halbert had spoken to a Branch Crown Prosecutor who had given authority to charge Blake at that stage. Blake was in fact not charged until 17:06 hours. It was suggested that the gap in time was engineered by these officers in order to have a further opportunity to pressure Mr Blake. The officers say that the timing of charging would be a matter for the custody officer. The custody officer had undoubtedly been told about authority to charge at 13:34 hours, and there is video material consistent with the evidence given by Mr Murphy, which was to the effect that at around 14:15 hours he had gone behind the desk with a custody officer with a view to drafting charges. I do not accept that a delay in charging was sinister. Indeed, the very fact that DS Halbert had spoken about charges at 13:34 hours to the CPS in my judgment militates against the case for the Defence that, during the course of the afternoon, these officers were seeking to persuade Blake to implicate himself and McCormack in return for which the attempted murder charge would be dropped. Such suggested conduct is in my view inconsistent with the obtaining of sanction for charges to be preferred within about half an hour of the end of interviews. Had the police been of a mind to take such a course with Blake, they would have held off involving the CPS over charges at this stage so as to keep open the possibility of a further interview or interviews with Blake. 
212.	It was only discovered on 17th May 2006, some ten months after Blake’s arrest, that there was no audio on the CCTV tapes from the police station as there should have been. The discovery came about when DS Halbert asked another officer to check on the audio. It is significant and in favour of the bona fides of the police that this check was being made prior to the scheduled start of a trial involving Blake, and  prior to any indication by way of Defence statement calling into question the police account of events relating to 19th July. 
213.	An important part of the case advanced by Blake was that the police were particularly anxious to implicate McCormack in the Menzies robbery. I accept the police evidence that in about April 2004 some other crime agency had passed on information suggesting that McCormack might be involved in the robbery. Police officers, including DS Halbert, had had a number of meetings to consider the information, which was plainly not of great strength. The papers were put to counsel, who advised that the evidence was insufficient to justify arrest. These enquiries had concluded by the autumn of 2004. I accept the officers’ evidence, and in particular that of DS Halbert, which was to the effect that he did not know one way or another whether McCormack had been involved in the robbery. Because of his criminal activities there is a suspicion that he might have been, but there was no evidence. I accept the evidence that the police were not targeting Mr McCormack in relation to the Menzies robbery by the time Blake was arrested. I accept that the police had no evidence from any quarter to link McCormack to any of the various names which have cropped up in relation to the robbery at Menzies. Moreover, although it is the case that some connection can now be demonstrated between Blake and McCormack in the past, there is absolutely no evidence to show that in July 2005 these investigating officers had any reason to connect Blake to McCormack.  
214.	Shortly before the end of the Prosecution case Blake absented himself from court without permission. He remained at large for several days before surrendering himself the following week. He returned in time to give evidence on his own behalf in his natural place in the indictment. I make plain that his unauthorised absence from the proceedings does not constitute additional evidence against him, nor has it affected my assessment of his evidence or his case. 
215.	Mr Blake was born in 1952. He agrees he has led a life of crime, starting out with many burglaries and thefts, and then graduating to an offence of robbery in 1982 at a building society where no firearm was involved. Then in 1983 he committed a robbery with a man called Mehmet and, he says, Christopher McCormack. Whilst he and Mehmet were convicted, McCormack was never charged. He said his role was as a getaway driver and that he had pleaded guilty to a firearms offence because he knew that Mehmet had such a weapon. Then in 1992 he admitted a conspiracy to rob involving a security van. He and his confederate had between them an imitation and a loaded firearm. Blake said that he had the imitation firearm. He said he had always pleaded guilty to offences alleged against him. 
216.	Blake said that prior to his arrest he had no knowledge of or contact with his three co-accused, Brockwell, J, G, B, Wake, Davies, ex DC Hywel-Jones, any of the Wise brothers, Steven Thompson or R. There is no evidence to the contrary, nor did the police at the time of the robbery, have any intelligence linking Blake to those people. It is clear that the first time the police connected Blake with the Menzies robbery was in mid 2005 when his DNA was found to match that on the hat and latex recovered at the scene. 
217.	He spoke of McCormack’s fearsome reputation as an intimidating and violent criminal, and said that he had worked for him after his release from his last sentence in 1999. His job was to pick up and deliver packages containing large amounts of money and also to place large bets for McCormack. The clear implication was that this was money-laundering. This work continued until mid-2005, and formed the background to the proposition which he says was put to him in December 2003, namely to take part in an offence at Heathrow, leading to his trying on a latex mask and hat, albeit that he was not intending to take part in any such offence. Blake gave an account of having in December 2003 been asked by McCormack to go to a flat, where he met two other men who were strangers to him. McCormack told one of them, referred to as Smiler, to tell Blake something he had already told McCormack. Smiler said that they had an inside man at a Heathrow warehouse who would let them know when the vault was open, and they could just go ahead and steal some money. Blake acknowledged that violence or the threat of it would necessarily be involved. Blake said that his reaction was that he did not want to get involved, and that the others could see surprise on his face. However, he had said nothing at the time. He said that he did not want to embarrass McCormack. Smiler then at McCormack’s prompting, produced a holdall containing masks, hats and fluorescent jackets, which McCormack then suggested Blake tried on. Accordingly, Blake said he had tried on at least two masks and a hat. He assumed he had been approached because he had committed robberies in the past, including one with McCormack, and had worked for McCormack since coming out of prison. Blake then said there was discussion between the four men, but he could not remember what it was. However, he had at no stage agreed to be party to any robbery. Eventually he took McCormack aside and said that he had not done a robbery since 1992, and that his mother had not long to live, and so he did not want to be involved in violent crime. He said that McCormack understood and merely commented that he was passing up a gift. After that he left the flat and was given a lift to the station by McCormack, and there was no further discussion between himself and McCormack about the matter. This, therefore, is Blake’s innocent explanation as to how his DNA came to be found on items recovered at Menzies. 
218.	As to his mother’s illness, he described how by the end of 2003 she was terminally ill with cancer, and had been in a hospice. She came out of the hospice on 24th December 2003 with only a few weeks to live. From that time he had visited his mother in Battle in Sussex every Monday, Wednesday and Friday until she died in early March 2004. He would drive down from London with his girlfriend on those days. On Fridays he would arrive at his mother’s at 2:00pm and stay until 7:30 or 8:00pm. Then he would go to his sister’s and relax for a couple of hours before setting off for home, some time between 10:00 and 11:00pm. He would take him about two hours to get home. He said that this was what he was doing on Friday 6th February 2004 when the Menzies robbery took place, and so he could not have been taking part in the robbery at Heathrow. The day before the robbery, 5th February 2004, had been his sister’s birthday, and on Friday 6th he had taken a card with £100.00 and had given it to her as a present when she had called in at his mother’s house during the afternoon of Friday the 6th. 
219.	He had not heard of the Menzies robbery at all until he was arrested for it on the 18th July 2005. He explained that although he had legal advice at the time of his interviews, he answered no comment to questions put because “I never speak to the police”. I am satisfied that this was his own independent decision, taken on his own responsibility and aware of the possible adverse consequences of so doing. This position is mirrored in the evidence which he gave when asked about the refusal of his sister and his girlfriend to be interviewed by the police once they had been put forward as alibi witnesses. Mr Blake said that he had told them not to speak to the police. He had not wanted them to speak to the police, even though his alibi was a true one. He observed that by law they were not required to speak to the police, and agreed that he had not mentioned his alibi when interviewed, even though the robbery was on the day after his sister’s birthday, and had not raised the matter at all until his Defence statement was provided in May 2006, some ten months or so after the robbery. 
220.	Mr Blake’s alibi was supported by his sister, Susan Blake-Gould. She is Peter Blake’s younger sister, and acts as a surety for him in this trial. She is a woman of good character who holds responsible employment as a telecommunications manager with an NHS Trust. She confirmed Mr Blake’s account regarding the evening of 6th February 2004. She described the progress of her mother’s fatal final illness, and said that from 24th December 2003 until the time of her mother’s death, Mr Blake had made a trip from London to Battle in Sussex every Monday, Wednesday and Friday without fail. He would be accompanied by his girlfriend, Gabrielle. The family had got into a routine. She said that her birthday occurred on the 5th February and that Mr Blake had apologised to her on a visit the day before that he had forgotten her birthday card. She said he brought with him such a card on Friday 6th February and confirmed that inside it was £100.00. On the 6th February Mr Blake had arrived at her mother’s house mid-morning, had come to her house no later than 7:00pm, and had left between 10:00 and 10:30pm after watching sport on TV. She said she was sure of that. 
221.	The basis upon which she claimed to be sure was that she said that in her mother’s terminal illness every day was significant to her, and so those events had stuck in her mind. She said she would be able to distinguish each day after Christmas until her mother’s death, and particularly the first week in February. She agreed that while her brother had been on remand after his arrest in July 2005 she had visited him on a number of occasions, but had not discussed with him what he was in prison for other than the fact that it was a robbery of some sort. He had not said anything to her, for example, about DNA evidence in his case. She said that had she been asked earlier she would have been able to recall the 6th February 2004, but that it was not until May 2006 that Peter Blake spoke to her and asked her to go to court to give evidence. After that his solicitor had contacted her for a statement. It follows therefore that the statement made by this witness was not made until some two years and three months after the events with which her evidence is concerned, and it is apparent that over many months prior to the making of that statement, Mr Blake had not asked her if she could provide such evidence. 
222.	In evidence to me Mrs Blake-Gould had said that her brother had told her that he could not have committed the offence because he was with her and her husband. However, when shown a transcript of her evidence from the trial taking place in November 2008, she had told Judge Roberts that Blake had not said “I could not have done it because that was the day I was down with you, the day after your birthday”. She told me that Mr Blake had not told her not to speak to the police if they enquired into the alibi. This was not consistent with Mr Blake’s own evidence, that he had told his girlfriend and his sister not to speak to the police. She was asked about the fact that Mr Blake’s solicitor had told the police that she was unwilling to speak to them. She said she could not remember saying that to the police. The police had not in fact contacted her, but if they had done so, she would have told them to speak to Mr Blake’s solicitor. She said that she did not have a close relationship with Mr Blake. When it was pointed out that in November 2008 she had agreed that she had a very close relationship with him, she said that their relationship had been a lot closer at that time. Although she still loved him, she did not feel so close to him now. She maintained she was not putting forward a false alibi to support her brother in his difficulty, and said she was sure that he was at her house on the evening of the 6th February 2004. 
223.	I also heard from John Vine, a legal representative, who attended at Paddington Green Police Station to assist Mr Blake on 19th July 2005. He is a former police officer. I found him to be an honest and impressive witness. His evidence of his dealings with DC Halbert and DS Murphy was consistent with the account they had given. He felt the level of disclosure which they had given in relation to the DNA evidence was appropriate. When he entered the custody suite at 11:45am he checked the custody records and saw that entries had been made concerning the officers’ visit to Mr Blake’s cell. He acknowledged that it was not unusual for officers to speak to a prisoner without the solicitor present. He regarded it as “quite proper”. When he saw Mr Blake he had asked him about the entries on the custody record, but Blake did not tell him what request he had made of the police, or what the conversation was about. He also made the following note. “Did try on mask but refused to go on robbery. Not wish to say anything at this stage.” He said that if Blake had said anything else of significance on the topic, he would have noted it. Blake did not say when he had tried the mask on, where he had tried it on, anything about the circumstances in which he had tried it on, what the robbery was, or anything about the hat. Blake had indicated that he did not want to say any more about the matter at that stage to Mr Vine. Mr Vine advised him to make no comment given the nature of the DNA evidence and the paucity of information from his client. Blake had said that that was what he wanted to do. Mr Vine’s view was that Blake had not said sufficient to him to warrant advancing an account to the officers. He commented that if he had felt Blake had something to say of importance which might assist his case, he would have advised him to mention it. Blake had not given the impression to him that he had given information to the interviewing officers. When he saw the officers interacting with Blake during the course of the interviews on 19th July, he saw no indication of difficulty or unpleasantness between them. He commented that they seemed to do their job professionally. 
224.	In considering the case as it affects Blake, I have come to conclusions about the specific aspects of his case. I will deal with first of all the DNA evidence relating to the hat and latex mask recovered at Menzies. The evidence from the forensic scientist provides extremely strong evidence to show that it was Mr Blake’s DNA on the hair recovered from the latex mask, on the DNA found both inside and outside the mask, and on the woollen hat which was plainly worn by the robber who wore the damaged mask. Blake does not challenge this, but in his evidence provided an alternative explanation as to how his DNA got onto those items. I have found that Blake did not mention this alternative explanation to the police in the cell conversation at 10:30 hours on 19th July 2005. I have accepted the police account of those events for reasons given already, and observed that the police themselves would have raised that matter in interview had Blake in fact provided them with his alternative explanation. As the interview records for that morning show, the police pressed him hard by way of inference and special warnings, to provide any innocent explanation for the finding of his DNA on the hat and mask. Blake had been told that he was linked to the robbery by the finding of his DNA, and as an experienced criminal, would have realised the significance of that. Yet he made no response when given more than one opportunity. The Crown submits that I should draw a s34 inference in the light of the fact that Blake did not put forward the account he gave in evidence which would explain his DNA on the mask and hat. Mr Wilson for Blake invited me to bear in mind the evidence given by Mr Vine, (which I accept), to the effect that Blake had told him on the day of interviews that he had tried on the mask. What was said to Mr Vine was sparse in the extreme, and I do not consider that it can be equated with what was said in evidence by Blake. In my judgment, if Blake had a genuine account to give, he would and could reasonably have been expected to mention it when questioned. He did not do so. In the circumstances, I think it appropriate to draw an inference. I am sure that the reason he did not put forward the innocent alternative explanation, even in general terms, at that stage was because it had not in fact occurred and he had not yet fully worked it out. During the conversation between Blake and his girlfriend covertly recorded on the evening of 19th July, the tenor of the conversation is of an acceptance that it is his DNA in circumstances where he has no answer to it. His girlfriend’s reaction is that he will have to try to say that the DNA is contaminated. Blake is plainly speaking to her in terms consistent with it being damning evidence against him. 
225.	As to the innocent account itself, I do not find it credible. It was only put forward in May 2006. Blake’s claim that he had not put it forward prior to then because he did not wish to mention McCormack’s name in public and only did so after the Crown had put McCormack’s name in evidence by serving the officers’ versions of the cell conversation and the covert recording is unconvincing when seen in the context of Blake’s facing serious charges. He feared they would mean that he would spend the rest of his useful life in prison. The account itself of being summoned to a flat by McCormack and meeting two complete strangers who were apparently to be part of a very serious robbery, does not withstand scrutiny. It defies belief that those strangers would be content for a person unknown to them to be informed of a prospective robbery at Heathrow, at a warehouse, and with an insider involved, before that person had indicated his willingness to participate in the crime. Blake’s claim that from the start he was unwilling to be involved in such a crime, yet agreed to try on the masks and a hat, does not ring true. On his own account he declined to take part in the robbery once he had tried on the masks and the hat. He would surely have declined before the trying on of those items, had there been any truth in his account. His claim that he was reluctant to refuse to try on the masks and hat out of fear of offending McCormack, does not sit well with the fact that immediately afterwards he said he did not want to take part in the robbery. It has all the hallmarks of a story tailored to meet the inconvenient fact that his DNA is on the mask and hat, and that is exactly what I find it to be. 
226.	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of the DNA expert, and taken account of his acknowledgement that as a matter of science he cannot say when Blake’s DNA got on the items, and that he cannot say that it necessarily got there on the same occasion as Mr Westwood’s DNA got there (which plainly must have been at the time of the robbery). However, once the innocent explanation falls to the ground, as I find it does, there is only one other occasion when Mr Blake’s DNA can have got on those items, namely on the evening of the robbery, and as Mr Scott, the forensic scientist, observed, the finding of Blake’s DNA is consistent with the sequence of events in which robber number four was involved on the night in question. There seems to me, in addition, to be force in the point that since Smiler and Perez had produced a selection of hats and masks, it was a remarkable coincidence that robber number four, if not Mr Blake, should have picked up both a mask and a hat which Blake had tried on in innocent circumstances some three months earlier.  This DNA evidence therefore provides extremely powerful evidence to show that Blake was robber number four. 
227.	I turn next to consider Blake’s alibi. This was not put forward until May 2006, even though Blake had had the opportunity to do so prior to that time, and in particular when questioned in interview. The Crown invite a s34 inference. Counsel for Blake asks me to consider the point that although the occasion of the robbery was made known to Blake, the day of the week was not specifically pointed out. The suggestion is that the absence of this information could reasonably explain Blake’s failure to put forward his alibi. I cannot accept this. Blake was in custody over a two day period during which he was interviewed. He had ample access to qualified and experienced legal advice during that time. He and his legal advisors were aware from the outset that the date of the robbery was 6th February 2004. It was the day after his sister’s birthday. I find it inconceivable that since Blake was denying the robbery, neither he nor they had directed their minds to the day of the week on which it had occurred. This is particularly so in Blake’s case because according to him he was visiting his sick mother without fail each Monday, Wednesday and Friday at that time in the period leading up to her death in March 2004. I find that the fact of Blake’s alibi was a matter he could reasonably have been expected to mention at the time of his questioning, yet he failed to do so. Accordingly, I feel that it is safe and fair to draw the inference that this failure provides support for the propositions that his alibi is untrue, and that he had not at that stage thought up its details because they did not in truth exist. It is surprising that Blake’s sister, who supported the alibi, provided no statement to Blake’s solicitor until May 2006, even though it is acknowledged she had visited him whilst in custody on a number of occasions in the months prior to that. One would have expected that if Blake had a genuine alibi available to him, and had he been the victim of a wrongful accusation, he would have been only too keen to put forward an alibi supported by an apparently respectable source very much earlier. The veracity of the alibi is also overshadowed by the reluctance of Mr Blake to have the police investigate it. Blake admitted that he had instructed both his girlfriend and his sister (who had also been put forward as an alibi witness) and his sister not to speak to the police about it. Mr Turner, Blake’s solicitor, presumably acting on his instructions, had clearly indicated to the police that these ladies did not wish to be interviewed. I found Mrs Blake-Gould to be somewhat evasive on this point. I also found her claim that she could remember every day of the period between Christmas 2003 and her mother’s death in early March 2004 to be unrealistic and unconvincing. In my view, she sought to minimise her bond to her brother in a manner inconsistent with evidence she had given at a previous trial, and despite her good character and respectable employment, I felt that family loyalty had overcome her duty to tell the truth. 
228.	Having given careful consideration to her evidence, I conclude that Mrs Blake-Gould was supporting a false alibi, rather than a genuine one. As will become apparent, I have formed a negative view of Mr Blake’s credibility overall. This extends to his account of his alibi, which I felt was couched in somewhat general terms. His explanation that at the time of his interview he could not have put forward his alibi because although he knew the date of the robbery, he did not know on what day of the week it had occurred, is not one I can accept. A man accused of such a serious offence which he had not committed, with time to reflect and with access to legal advice, knowing that 5th February was his sister’s birthday, and knowing that at that time he had been visiting his ill mother every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, could not fail to have appreciated the position and been in a position to put forward any genuine alibi. 
229.	Although there were at least two other potential supportive witnesses if this alibi were true, namely Blake’s girlfriend and Mr Gould, I will assess the matter solely on the evidence of Mr Blake and his sister, and without reference to the possibility of what others might have said or why they were not called as witnesses. I do not consider that this alibi is or may be true, having evaluated it on its own merits. Moreover, when the conclusion to be drawn from the DNA evidence is added, together with my views on Blake’s overall credibility, there is additional support for a safe rejection of his alibi. 
230.	Another important feature in Blake’s case is the covertly recorded tape of a conversation between him and his girlfriend on the evening of 19th July. As previously stated, there are three competing versions of what was said. The quality of the tape is extremely poor. I have listened to a recording on a number of occasions assisted by the three suggested versions. Of those three versions, I find Professor French’s to be the most reliable. But even in his version there are many uncertainties, and his version has undergone a number of amendments at different stages of these trials. Indeed after he had concluded his evidence before me, I received by agreement a further amendment to his suggested version. Ultimately it is a matter for me to determine what appears on the recording to the extent that I believe that it is safe to do so. Although it can be in no way determinative, it is worth noting that in a case where the officers are accused of framing Mr Blake, this recording was not suppressed as perhaps might have been had it been as supportive of Mr Blake’s case as he suggests. Whilst it does appear to me that Blake is telling his girlfriend that the police want him to “go fucking QE” against McCormack, and to do a deal with them, I do not believe that this genuinely represents the truth of the situation. I have previously commented on the events of 19th July and given extensive reasons as to why I accept that the police account of events is essentially true, and why that put forward by Blake is not. Had Blake’s version of events been truthful and accurate, I find it inconceivable that he made no mention of the police approach and the pressure put upon him to his solicitor, Mr Vine. I find it inconceivable that he would not have told his solicitor that the police had put pressure upon him to plead guilty, do a deal and implicate McCormack. In my judgment, what Blake was doing, having made an offer to implicate McCormack in some other offence as a price for bail, and having had that rejected, was to seek to put a story out via his girlfriend to his criminal associates, (with whom she was plainly in contact from the context of their conversation), to the effect that the police had broached a deal involving McCormack with him. I am satisfied he was doing this in an effect to protect his name in case his offer to the police to implicate McCormack emerged in evidence put forward by the Crown. I therefore reject the suggestion that the reference to “going QE” shows that his version of what took place between himself and the police, is or may be correct. There are references in the transcript such as saying “I done it” and referring to replacing someone else in some criminal activity which the Crown have relied on as pointing towards an acknowledgment of guilt of this robbery. The transcript is so fragmented and the context so unclear that I do not feel it safe to draw such a conclusion.
231.	However, there are other parts of the transcript which to my mind have some significance. He refers to his age and the fact that he had forgotten he was facing a mandatory life sentence because of his previous offending. He is plainly speaking in terms of a lengthy prison sentence. He also refers to the DNA in the mask, saying “it fucks me”. To my mind the context in which these remarks are made appear to be consistent with an acknowledgment of guilt, albeit, not expressly. The context of his exchanges with his girlfriend on these topics is considerably more consistent with guilt than they are with someone who is merely repeating objectively what the police have said to him or who is discussing the possible consequences of being wrongly convicted for something he has not done. I recognise that care needs to be taken in attaching too much weight to the contents of what can be heard on the covert tape. The quality is very poor and there is a danger of those remarks which can be heard being taken out of context. It is for that reason that I have only referred to a small number of areas which can be deciphered. Where I have not referred to other suggested parts of the transcript, it is because I do not think the remarks are of significance, or I am not sufficiently sure of what was said. In summary therefore, I do not consider that the content of this conversation supports Mr Blake’s case. If anything, it provides some support for the Crown’s case, albeit that in the circumstances I only think it safe to regard that support as being limited. 
232.	I have, of course, assessed Mr Blake as a witness, having observed his demeanour in the witness box as well as the content of his evidence. He was an unconvincing witness in my view. He delivered much of his account in chief as if by rote. When cross-examined he appeared to bluster a great deal, and to play for time in certain passages of the questioning. He is a man who gave the impression of being a seasoned criminal who would not be cowed by police officers or by the prospect of giving evidence. He struck me as someone well able to look after himself in those situations. It is perfectly clear to me that when interviewed he decided not to give any account to the police, not as a result of any advice his lawyer gave him, but as a result of his own volition. There was in fact no suggestion to the contrary, nor was there any suggestion that legal advice might operate as a reason as to why an s34 inference should not be drawn. It appears that in private consultation he had told Mr Vine, his solicitor, that he had tried on the mask. It is clear to me that when he spoke to his solicitor, Blake, who had been awake for virtually all of the time since he learnt of DNA in the interview which took place on the evening of the 18th July, had come forward to his solicitor with a embryonic excuse, whose detail had not been worked out. I conclude that he had thought it up overnight. I am equally sure, as I have already said, that he did not put it forward to the police in the 10:30 cell conversation, either in the embryonic form mentioned to his solicitor, or in the full detailed form in which he claimed he had mentioned it to the police. Had he given the full version to the police in the 10:30 conversation, there would have been no reason for him not to provide that same account to his solicitor. However, he did not do so. 
233.	As part of Blake’s evidence I learnt that he has been a criminal for the whole of his adult life. In the 60’s and 70’s he has many convictions for offences of dishonesty, and a smaller number for relatively minor violence. Blake says he pleaded guilty to all of those matters. Beyond confirming the impression that Blake is a man extremely well versed in the ways of courts and criminal procedures, I attach no significance to those convictions. As far as his convictions for robbery and/or conspiracy to rob are concerned, particularly the two matters where firearms were involved, the convictions have some significance. They show a propensity to commit armed robbery. They show a propensity to involve himself with criminals intent on serious organised robbery and to give way to the temptation to take part. (Blake’s case, of course, is that he was invited but declined). They also show to me that Mr Blake is the sort of person who by reason of his criminal history would be likely to be approached by fellow criminals contemplating an armed robbery of the sort with which this case is concerned. Indeed Blake appeared to acknowledge as much when putting forward his account of the approach in December 2003. The fact that Blake on his own admission had since his release from his last sentence in 1999 been working for a man he describes as a major criminal, and had also been working in a separate enterprise involving dealing in cannabis, shows that Mr Blake had not by 2004 put the criminal world behind him. The 1992 sentence did not end until 2002, albeit that Blake was released in 1999. I have taken account of the fact that none of Blake’s activities since 1999 involved violence or robbery, but it seems to me that Blake’s continued involvement in a significant way in the criminal world, including involvement with a gangster with whom he said in the past committed a robbery, is relevant to the question of whether the convictions recorded for robbery can be regarded as having been lived down or rendered evidentially neutral by the passage of time. In the circumstances I consider that the propensity to rob which Mr Blake had demonstrated in the past had not been lived down by 2003/2004. At one stage in his evidence Mr Blake made a comment which demonstrated that the prospect of a ten year sentence, involving serving five years in real time, was not a type of sentence which would have unduly concerned him. I conclude from these matters that whilst of course they go nowhere near proving that he is guilty as charged, they provide some limited support for other evidence of Mr Blake’s guilt in the sense that they show that he was the sort of man who would be likely to be approached to join in a venture of this sort, and who by early 2004 had not left the world of serious crime behind. 
234.	I am in the circumstances sure that Peter Blake was involved in the Menzies robbery on the night of 6th February 2004. The evidence shows that he is the person described as robber number four, and thus the person who was involved in a scuffle with Mr Westwood and who aimed and fired at least one shot directly at him. I am sure that the alibi which Mr Blake has advanced is untrue and I have rejected his allegations as to the way in which the police handled the case against him. Accordingly, I find Counts 1 and 2 proved against Mr Blake, and also find him guilty in relation to Counts 3 and 5. 
Twomey
235.	John Twomey was arrested at Staines Police Station on 18th February 2004. He was accompanied by a solicitor. He had attended the police station by arrangement. He was interviewed later that day. He made no comment to many of the questions put to him, but indicated he did not dispute presence at meetings on 16, 21, and 30 January 2004. He claimed they were not meetings about the robbery. They involved something which was not “completely innocent”. Beyond that he would not comment on the subject matter of the meetings. He alleged he was being implicated in the robbery because of matters which had taken place many years ago. That appeared to be a reference to his involvement in Operation Countryman which took place about thirty years ago. 
236.	He specifically denied giving Brockwell the single use phone. He denied that exhibit 23 (the sketch of Menzies), had been found at his home. He said it was nothing to do with him and if it had been found at his home, it must have been put there. Later he said that the sketch was not his work; it might have been his daughter’s. As to his whereabouts on the night of the robbery, he said that he was an alcoholic receiving treatment, that he was engaged in a drunken binge lasting two or three days, and that he did not know where he was. He did not say anything about his presence at Days Hotel. 
237.	Mr Twomey gave evidence. John Twomey is now 62. Born in Ireland, he has lived much of his life in the west London area prior to moving to New Milton, Hampshire, in about 2002. He lives there with his wife. They have two children. Both have children from previous relationships. Twomey said that he had been an alcoholic for many years. He either did not drink at all or would indulge in binge drinking which could last for days. When that happened, he would have black outs and could not recall anything.  
238.	In 1971 Mr Twomey was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to five years imprisonment. The robbery was a £27,000.00 wages snatch from a security van. It involved an imitation firearm or firearms. His brother in law (not Cameron) was involved. Subsequently in 1977 Mr Twomey says he was charged with robbery and possession of firearms. Eventually those charges were dropped against him, but at around this time he went to court as a witness as part of Operation Countryman, and he gave evidence against officers of the Flying Squad. They were apparently acquitted. Subsequently he was arrested by Flying Squad officers for a robbery. He told me that he had been acquitted of that, and that he took civil proceedings against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. That matter was settled in 1985 with a payment to him of £25,000.00 and his costs. Although not made explicit, the underlying suggestion is that because of those matters recited, Flying Squad officers might have a grudge against him. Mr Twomey asserted that DC Halbert had been in some way involved in the criminal proceedings which led to the civil proceedings referred to. That matter had not been put to DC Halbert during his appearances in the witness box. Twomey said he had told his solicitor about this, but that his counsel had decided not to use the information. I can only assume, given the thoroughness with which Mr Aspinall has pursued Twomey’s case, that if indeed Halbert was a member of the Flying Squad in the early 1980’s and had some connection with the case referred to, his involvement was not significant. Mr Twomey has been convicted of other offences since that time, but they are not of a nature which is significant in this case. 
239.	I have come to the conclusion that I should not draw any conclusion adverse to Mr Twomey based on his conviction for robbery or other conduct since then, including what was plainly dishonest conduct in relation to the goods he was selling up to the time of the Menzies robbery. To be explicit, I do not regard this evidence as having relevance to any issue in the case, whether it be propensity to commit offences or truthfulness. 
240.	Having moved to New Milton, he and his wife opened a furniture shop, but it closed after a year as he was having difficulty in getting supplies. It sold Indonesian furniture. He knew Ray Yates, Steve Thompson’s partner, and Ray Yates agreed to have his unsold furniture from him when the shop closed. This was in mid-2003. On 13th November 2003, not having been paid, he went to a warehouse in Chesham where he believed his furniture was. He did not see Yates but did see Steve Thompson. When he arrived Darren Brockwell was also there. Thompson paid what was due on the furniture with a mixture of cash and one thousand DVDs. Twomey understood that the DVDs were Brockwell’s. On this date he said that he had been provided with Thompson’s phone number and had spoken to him in order to get directions to the warehouse. He said he had previously met Thompson in 2001 or 2002 in the Black Horse Public House, Ruislip, which he, Twomey, part-owned. Thompson had come to the pub wanting to sell phones. He was accompanied by Brockwell, who was introduced was Del. There was a third man present introduced as Brockwell’s brother in law. Brockwell’s brother in law is called Gavin McReadie. Mr Twomey saw Gavin McReadie because he was called as a prosecution witness. When Twomey gave evidence he said that McReadie looked similar to the person he had seen on the occasion referred to at the Black Horse. 
241.	Just pausing for a moment, McReadie gave convincing evidence that he had never met Twomey or Cameron in his life, and that he had not been present at any such meeting at the Black Horse. He said he was a builder and that he had never been involved in the sale of goods with Brockwell, Twomey or Thompson, nor did he have any knowledge that Brockwell had been involved in selling phones or DVDS or other items. 
242.	Returning to Mr Twomey’s evidence, he later said that he had had contact with Steve Thompson by phone in early January 2004 and had seen him on 5th February 2004 at the Harvester Public House. I will return to these two matters a little later. 
243.	After selling the furniture shop Mr Twomey said he had gone into business buying and selling a wide range of items such as clothing, DVDs, trainers, fireworks and so on. He was trading from home and travelling regularly to London, where he had many customers. He used Glenn Cameron, his brother in law, to drive for him quite a lot, and by reference to his phone records, indicated frequent trips from his Hampshire home to the London area from November 2003 onwards. Some of those trips coincide with dates when he met or is alleged to have met Brockwell. Some of those trips are on dates where there is no suggestion that he met Brockwell. The trips to London often involved going into Central London, but also included visits to the western London area which is featured in this case. Mr Twomey said that he had many friends and family in that area as well as customers. 
244.	He denied that any proposal about a robbery at Menzies had been put to him in 2003, and said that he had had no dealings or meetings with Darren Brockwell during December 2003. The phone records showed that he had visited the London area on 22nd, 23rd and 27th December. On the last occasion his phone had been sited on the Alderbourne Farm cell site, near Iver, which is in the general locality of the Stag and Hounds, the Crooked Billet and Langley Country Park. He said he had gone to that area on this occasion to see his wife’s relations and/or to do business and/or to collect money. On 30th December 2003, which is a date when Brockwell alleges there was a meeting and which Twomey denies, he had come to London. A purpose of this was to collect his step-daughter Holly Friday and bring her back to Hampshire. The cell site evidence shows that by 15:49 hours Mr Twomey had gone to the Paddington area. He said he might have been visiting a sister and other relatives. Then at 16:59 he is in the Amersham area. At 17:44 he is in the Ruislip area and at 18:31 he is on the Alderbourne Farm cell site to the west. He said he did not know where he went at that point. He denied Brockwell’s account of a meeting at the Crooked Billet. He denied getting into B’s Freelander and making a visit to Menzies, and he denied that after that reconnaissance he had been dropped off at a hotel in the Bath Road. He said he was due to meet his step-daughter Holly with her father at a public house in Colnbrook known as the Punch Bowl. A common route he would have taken to go to Colnbrook would have involved coming south down the Hayes bypass (the A312) and turning right into the Bath Road and taking that road across the north side of Heathrow airport before arriving at Colnbrook. 
245.	Mr Sexton, the cell site expert, had agreed that the cell site data could be consistent with this route, as it could be consistent with a reconnaissance of Menzies. However, Twomey’s account in evidence in chief was that he thought he was at the Punch Bowl when he made or received the series of four phone calls already referred to between 19:38 and 20:01 hours, and recorded on both the 730 and 2999 phones. Mr Twomey had no recollection of whether Holly was at the Punch Bowl when he got there or whether he stayed in his car or went inside the pub. The next cell siting is at 20:44 hours, where the SSE Longford site records a call on the 2999 phone. That is a site which is near the junction of the M4 and the M25. Mr Twomey told me that he would have gone to the M25 at junction 14, and that he would have taken the shortest route there, which would have involved going past the village of Poyle. If that is what he did, he would almost certainly not have logged onto the SSE Longford site. He must either not have been in Colnbrook at all as he claims, or he must have made his way back to the M25 from Colnbrook by a more roundabout route. Because that call was logged at 20:44 hours, Mr Twomey commented that he must have been waiting at Colnbrook for Holly for quite a while, but he did collect her and take her down to Hampshire. 
246.	Two of the calls recorded on the Terminal 2 cell sites in the series between 19:38 hours and 20:01 hours were made to Glenn Cameron. Mr Twomey denied that Cameron was with him that night in the west London area. He said he was driving himself. He was not phoning Cameron to pick him up. He may have been phoning Cameron in Hampshire where he was celebrating his father’s birthday. He could not give more detail because he had only seen the cell site evidence a very long time after his arrest, and indeed had not seen the 730 phone material until the time of this trial. 
247.	Moving to 9th January; Mr Twomey referred to the call made that morning from the Pound Shop in Hampshire. He said in evidence that the call was made by Darren Brockwell, who said that he had DVDs to sell and made an arrangement to meet Twomey the following day, 10th January. Brockwell suggested meeting at the Crooked Billet Public House. Earlier in the trial the suggestion had been made to Mr Thompson that this call had been made by him. Twomey’s evidence, however, was that he had in fact received a call prior to this from Steven Thompson and he identified the 2nd January by reference to the 730 phone records, pointing to two numbers calling him which he said he did not recognise. Thompson had said that Del would be getting in touch about DVDs and when Twomey expressed interest, the arrangement was made that Brockwell would call Twomey. Thus it was that the call of 9th January was made. 
248.	Accordingly, on 10th January there was a meeting at the Crooked Billet between himself and Brockwell. Cameron was present. He had first of all called in at the Stag and Hounds and seen a family friend and R had offered to take him and Cameron to the Crooked Billet which he did not know. When he met Brockwell at the Crooked Billet, the meeting only lasted for five or ten minutes. He disputed any visit to the country park and in particular disputed DC Styles’ observation of a return to the Crooked Billet Public House about an hour after the initial meeting with Brockwell. He said that R had simply taken him and Cameron to a friend to look at some watches and other merchandise, and that R’s van had merely passed the Crooked Billet on its way back to the Stag and Hounds. I have commented earlier on DC Styles’ evidence in this respect. 
249.	On 16th January he came to the west London area. He met R at the Stag and Hounds, where he had gone prior to a meeting which he had agreed to have with Brockwell. Again R happened to be there and offered him and Cameron a lift to the Crooked Billet. Twomey said he had known R for a few years. He lived in Iver. By the end of 2003 if Twomey was in the Iver area, R would come and see him at the Stag and Hounds. He denied that prior to going to the Crooked Billet, they paid a reconnaissance visit to Menzies. He said they went direct to the Crooked Billet and saw Brockwell there. Then they went in convoy to the Langley Country Park, so as to be out of the sight of CCTV cameras. At the country park the talk was about DVDs, computer chips and lorries. All of these represented apparently stolen goods which Brockwell could get hold of. There was no discussion about a robbery at Heathrow. 
250.	On 20th January, Twomey booked into Days Hotel, producing a credit card for identification and payment. He said he could have provided false papers if he had wished to. He was accompanied by Cameron as they had a large number of deliveries and collections to make. There had also been an arrangement to meet Brockwell the following day, 21st January. On that day there was a meeting at the country park. He denied that a series of calls made from noon onwards to G and then to R related to the meeting with Brockwell or the fact that when he and Cameron arrived, there was no sign of Brockwell at the country park. When Brockwell did arrive at the country park, he said the discussions which took place were not about Menzies. Brockwell was proposing various criminal enterprises, including stealing lorry loads from a warehouse where a girl he knew worked. Twomey said that he was not interested in that proposal. Then Brockwell was said to have mentioned theft of precious metals from a place near Feltham, where his brother in law worked. When Gavin McReadie, Brockwell’s brother in law, gave evidence he said that he had never discussed stealing precious metal with Brockwell and had never himself worked in a warehouse where silver bullion or precious metal was stored. 
251.	Mr Twomey said that such talk as was overheard about binding people and speaking of distances and dimensions and a cage related to the bullion premises. There was some drawing done by Brockwell on a piece of paper. That was of computer chips and company names and also a small sketch of the premises at Feltham where the bullion was stored. Twomey can be seen putting that paper in his pocket at the end of the meeting. He said he subsequently threw it away. 
252.	On 30th January Twomey came to the London area. He acknowledged that he met Brockwell at the country park that lunch time. Twomey said he had got there driving his father in law’s white Escort van. There is an audio transcript of part of this meeting. Mr Twomey’s evidence was that all the references there related to discussions about the theft of silver bullion and not to Menzies. Despite the detailed discussion which is apparent from the audio transcript and the talk of “tools”, of the layout of the premises, and other detailed matters, Twomey said that this was not a final proposal and he had not agreed to take part in any robbery. He had been expecting Brockwell to deliver some goods for him on the 30th January and at the end of the meeting when it became clear that he had nothing with him, Twomey said he became angry and accused Brockwell of being a grass, and had come to the conclusion that he was not prepared to get involved in any enterprise with Brockwell. He had by now concluded there was something definitely wrong with him. At one of the earlier meetings, on the 16th or 21st January, he had come to the conclusion that Brockwell was on drugs and indeed Brockwell had asked him if he could get hold of drugs for him. In cross-examination Twomey agreed that he had not mentioned Brockwell and drugs in the trial which took place in 2007. He said he had forgotten it and in any event was unwell at the time he gave evidence. 
253.	Twomey’s case therefore was that at the end of the meeting on 30th January, he was finished with Brockwell after an angry confrontation. I have viewed the covert video taken on that day. There is nothing in the footage of Brockwell or in the audio track is available to suggest that he was affected by drugs at that time. There is nothing, in my view, which shows an argument between the two men. On a couple of occasions as the men walk back to their cars, Twomey can be seen gesturing and later speaking to Brockwell, perhaps emphatically. However, there was nothing I saw which demonstrated the sort of abusive quarrel described to me by Twomey, nor at any stage does Brockwell appear agitated. Apart from a few seconds of what may be emphatic conversation from Twomey, the two men appear to be perfectly relaxed in one another’s company, even after the possibly emphatic conversation. In my judgment the video footage does not bear out Mr Twomey’s claims. 
254.	On 3rd February Twomey came up to the London area, but although there are cell sitings of his phone throughout the day on the Alderbourne Farm cell site, he denied that he met Brockwell on that day and specifically denied giving him the one shot-phone on this day. In cross-examination he said he had been to Iver Heath that day to see friends. When it was pointed out to him that there were calls on both phones to or from R, including calls sited on the Alderbourne Farm cell site, he maintained a denial that he had seen Brockwell that day. 
255.	On 5th February he again returned to London leaving his 2999 phone behind in Hampshire. He said that this was not deliberate. He was now using the 730 phone exclusively. He and Cameron had travelled up to London and booked into Days Hotel. The reason for this was that he, Twomey, had started on a drinking binge, and also because they had items to sell. He described himself on the 5th February as “mostly drinking and selling bits and pieces”. On that evening he went to the Foxes Public House in Ruislip. He said he saw Steve Thompson there. Thompson told him that Brockwell was not a grass and then said that he had Brockwell on his phone. Brockwell apparently had items to sell which Thompson said were worth having. 
256.	Accordingly, Twomey said he spoke to Brockwell and so did Glenn Cameron. Brockwell wanted them to come to a Harvester pub and they received directions from him. So, Twomey said that he and Cameron went to the Harvester pub. He was driven by Cameron, but did not know what car Cameron had. When they met at the Harvester he was expecting to see computer chip samples. He said he had a pint of beer with Brockwell and then Brockwell said that the samples would not be arriving until much later in the evening. His brother in law would be bringing them. At this, Twomey said, he lost his temper in the car park with Brockwell and left the pub. Cameron drove him back to Ruislip. He denied that there was any trip to Spout Lane that evening with Brockwell as a reconnaissance for the collection point for the robbers who were going to go into Menzies. Having returned to Ruislip, Twomey said he carried on drinking with Glenn Cameron, but was not sure where he went. He spent the night at Days Hotel. 
257.	Turning to the 6th February; Twomey said he had carried on drinking but may also have gone out with Cameron and sold items. During the evening he went to the Railway Club at Paddington. Cameron was with him. Amongst other people he met Mick Leahy. They spent an hour or two there, having arrived at about 7:00 or 8:00pm. Then they went to Ruislip and ended up in the Foxes Public House. Some people from the Railway Club came with him, including a man called Jimmy Moynihan. He stayed there until the Foxes closed at about 11:30pm. He then left the Foxes with Cameron, Moynihan, Leahy and a man called Hunter. Whilst at the Foxes he had seen Barry Hibberd there. Although he was able to recall that much of his activities, his memory was unclear because he was drinking and he had to rely for any additional detail on what people had subsequently told him. After leaving the Foxes he believed he went to two private houses in Ruislip. One was Micky Hunter’s and the other was Jane Rowe’s. He could give little detail about this, but believed he had not been admitted to those houses. After that he had been told he had ended up at Jimmy Moynihan’s house. After that he had gone to Days Hotel. He did not think that Glenn Cameron had accompanied him to Jimmy Moynihan’s house. 
258.	It will be recalled that the CCTV at Days Hotel shows Cameron entering on his own at 00:23 hours on 7th February, and then Twomey and Hibberd arriving together at 00:59 hours. Twomey said that the holdalls and bags which the three men can be seen carrying up the stairs of the hotel to Room 103 contained beer as well as items including clothing which he had brought to London to sell. The bags were brought in because the boot of the car was full and they did not want to leave these bags on open display in case they were stolen. Hibberd accompanied him back to Days Hotel because he had been at the Foxes Public House when Twomey was there earlier that evening and had stayed with him drinking. 
259.	On 7th February Twomey said he carried on drinking. He had probably heard about the Heathrow robbery on the news but had not connected it to himself and Brockwell. He said he first connected the robbery to himself when he saw his face on a news bulletin on television. I had heard evidence which showed that on 9th February 2004 the London local news programme carried a report of the Menzies robbery. In the course of the report Cameron and Twomey were named as suspects. Their photographs were shown and Twomey was described as a face from the past who had been convicted of armed robbery in the 1970’s. Twomey said he saw a television report and it worried him so he did not go home. He had either been thinking of going home or was on his way home when he heard the report. He was also sure that his wife had told him that the police were searching his house. There is a problem with this account because the police search of Twomey’s house took place on the morning of 7th February, whereas the television report did not go out until 9th February. Twomey said that having seen the news report he went drinking and once he had recovered, went to Staines Police Station with his solicitor. That was on 18th February 2004. The account given by Twomey would of course completely alibi him for participation in the Menzies robbery on the evening of 6th February, and his account of his dealings with Brockwell would mean that he had not been party to any of the planning. However, when he was questioned by the police, he knew he had spoken to Brockwell about a possible bullion theft, and Twomey said he was concerned that he would be charged with conspiracy to commit that offence if he mentioned what he had been talking to Brockwell about. Accordingly, he had said nothing in interview beyond indicating that his dealings with Brockwell were not “completely innocent”. 
260.	Ms Brimelow on behalf of Cameron cross-examined Mr Twomey. It appeared that Mr Twomey had known Cameron well before Twomey married Cameron’s sister in about 2001. He described how from the end of 2003 he had offered Cameron work as his driver and as a helper in his buying and selling of goods. He agreed with the suggestion that Cameron had played little or no part in the meetings with Brockwell. He said it made no difference whether Cameron was present or not. He said that it was Cameron who had become dubious about Brockwell, and who advised Twomey not to have anything more to do with him. He said Cameron refused for that reason to attend the meeting of 30th January. Cameron was not the sort of man who would be interested in robbery. He said that Cameron’s presence on the 5th February at the Harvester meeting was simply because Cameron was giving him a lift. He reiterated that Cameron had been with him during the evening of 6th February, but when asked any question of any detail about that evening, said he could not really remember. After he had seen the television news report he had told Cameron about it and had told him that he had previously been fitted up by the Flying Squad. He had told Cameron that he would go to the police and sort matters out for Cameron. 
261.	When cross-examined on behalf of Hibberd, Twomey said that they had no business relationship. They knew each other from meeting in public houses. At some point in 2003 Hibberd had wanted to borrow Twomey’s caravan in Bournemouth so as to get away from the west London area and deal with his heavy drinking and use of cocaine. Later in cross-examination it emerged that Twomey had arranged for Hibberd to rent Cameron’s caravan. On the evening of 6th February Hibberd had tagged along with him and that was why he had come back for a drink at the Days Hotel. 
262.	When cross-examined by Mr Russell-Flint it was pointed out to Twomey that in previous testimony he had denied using more than one mobile phone at the relevant time, whereas now the records of the 730 phone have come to light, Twomey accepts that that was a phone used by him. Twomey said that the 730 phone was used by him and his family, that he had not previously lied; he simply had no idea that there was another phone. In any event the 730 phone was one for the use of himself and his family, and he would not consider that a secret phone. He said he had genuinely forgotten the 730 phone. 
263.	He was asked about a sequence of calls showing that prior to the meeting with Brockwell on 21st January he had called G’s phone and then R’s. He denied that these related to the meeting with Brockwell or to the robbery. He alleged that R was working for the police, and trying to ensnare him with Brockwell and the Flying Squad. Asked why he had denied in his previous trial that R had referred to him in his phone directory as “JT”, he said he now believed that he was JT and that R was trying to set him up and in particular had falsified an entry in his own phone diary for the night of 30th December in order to implicate Twomey. 
264.	Dealing with 30th December; Twomey continued to deny meeting Brockwell and said that there had been an arrangement to pick up his step daughter in Colnbrook that evening. He said he did not think that Cameron had accompanied him on this day. Although the arrangement was to pick up Holly at 20:00 hours, he had left Hampshire about six hours before, probably because he was going to see family or friends or collect money when he came to London. He agreed that at the relevant time Holly’s father lived in Northwood, about twenty kilometres away from Colnbrook, and nearer to Ruislip. Although the cell siting had shown him in Ruislip at 17:44 hours when he would have been five minutes away from Northwood, he had not collected Holly then because the arrangement was to pick her up at the Punch Bowl in Colnbrook at 8 o’clock that night. 
265.	Mr Russell-Flint took him through his movements as demonstrated by cell siting. They showed him moving from the Central London area, north-west to Amersham, and then back to Ruislip between 15:49 and 17:44. Mr Twomey said he did not know what he had been doing. At 18:28 his 730 phone contacted R using the Alderbourne Farm site. He said that this was a coincidence and was not a call made to R for a purpose relating to a meeting at the Crooked Billet. He agreed, however, that he had also called R just before he had left Hampshire that day. It was put to him that the sequence of calls between 18:41 and 18:47 hours between B, Brockwell and R prior to B’s observed arrival at the Crooked Billet car park at 18:48 hours supported the Crown case that Twomey had met Brockwell at the Crooked Billet on this evening. Twomey maintained his denial that he was present, and said that the description of a male apparently consistent with him on that night at that car park fitted R. He denied that the reason for R taking himself and Cameron to the Crooked Billet on any occasion was so that Brockwell could not see a vehicle directly connected with himself and Cameron. He said R had wanted to take them to the Crooked Billet. He denied that there was any similar pattern when there were meetings at Langley Country Park.
266.	Still dealing with 30th December, Twomey said that he did not know what he had been doing between the call to R at 18:28 hours sited at Alderbourne Farm and the call recorded at 19:38 hours sited on Terminal 2 South-East, at which time he had called Cameron. He had thought long and hard about what he had been doing but could not assist. He agreed that the travelling time from the Alderbourne Farm site (Iver Heath) to the Bath Road area covered by the Terminal 2 site was about ten minutes. He did not know why he used two different phones in the sequence of calls between 19:38 and 20:01 hours. He said he had not gone there that night with Brockwell and had been driving himself in his wife’s Previa motorcar. He made those four calls between 19:38 and 20:01 either when he was in Colnbrook or on the way there. 
267.	I should observe at this point that given cell site evidence I have heard about the coverage of the Terminal 2 cell sites, it seems extremely unlikely that they would have provided coverage at Colnbrook. He said he could not remember how long he had waited for his step daughter at Colnbrook and he could not account for the gap in time between the call recorded on Terminal 2 North at 20:01 hours and the next call recorded at SSE Longford at 20:44 hours when he would have been starting the journey back to Hampshire. He denied that he had been waiting for Cameron to collect him from a hotel, and said that the two calls to Cameron made between 19:38 and 20:01 were not for the purpose of being collected by Cameron after being dropped off by Brockwell and B. 
268.	He said that two phones found in a rubbish bag at his home on 7th February were phones which did not work anymore. He denied that he had a third phone at the beginning of February in addition to the 730 and 2999 phones. He was then asked about the finding of a phone at his home on 7th February in whose directory under the entry “Babe” there was a number ending 9498. Mrs Twomey had indicated to the police that that was a number being used by Twomey “this week”. Twomey said that the number must be an old one he had in the past; he denied having that number with him in London on the 5th or 6th February. 
269.	The questions then moved to Steve Thompson. Twomey maintained that he had been phoned by Thompson on the 2nd January 2004 in order for Thompson to set up a meeting with Darren Brockwell. Twomey had identified two phone numbers which called his phone on that day as potentially representing Thompson’s call. However, when Mr Russell-Flint analysed the phone data for those two phones numbered 453 and 783, it was apparent that they could not be Thompson’s numbers since they were numbers which had frequently been in contact with Twomey according to the phone data. Twomey also continued to maintain that Brockwell had called him on the 9th January in order to set up the meeting of 10th. Brockwell had called him on his 2999 phone. He identified a call which we now know came from the Pound Store in Hampshire to Twomey. The Pound Store is only a short distance away from where Twomey lives. He agreed that this is the only occasion when Brockwell called him, and so the question naturally arose as to how Brockwell had got hold of his phone number. Twomey said that R had supplied it. Twomey also maintained that Thompson had met him in the Foxes Public House on 5th February 2004 so as to set up the meeting with Brockwell at the Harvester. He disputed that it was coincidence that Thompson must have met him there, notwithstanding the fact that he was (a) in London, (b) embarking on a drinking binge and (c) in the Foxes Public House. He said that R knew he was there and by inference must have alerted Thompson. 
270.	Twomey acknowledged that Thompson was not mentioned in his provisional Defence Case Statement of June 2004 which was served upon the court in advance of the first trial which began in March 2005. There was a revised Defence Statement dated 21st March 2006 served on the court before the second trial. There was in this the first mention of Steve Thompson, who had not been mentioned in Twomey’s interviews. The reference was an oblique one. It was in the terms of a general enquiry in a list of items on which information was sought: “Any information…concerning Steven Thompson who was put forward by Counsel [for a co-accused at the first trial] as having links to Darren Brockwell or John Twomey”. When these matters were pointed out, Twomey claimed that it had always been his case that Steven Thompson had been involved. When he had been taken ill during the first trial he had provided the information about this to Counsel for B, a co-accused. He denied that what had happened was that he had belatedly given Thompson a false status in the case. During re-examination it was accepted by the Crown that Twomey had mentioned Thompson to his solicitors in November 2004 and had also made mention of the Feltham premises. In addition, Twomey produced an un-served Defence Statement signed by him in February 2005. This does not mention Thompson, but does state that Twomey believed that others were trying to secure his wrongful conviction and that the meetings between himself and Brockwell had been orchestrated wrongfully to incriminate him in the robbery. It also stated that he believed he was discussing handling stolen goods with Brockwell, although on one occasion Brockwell was discussing a theft. 
271.	When asked about his assertion that Brockwell had provided phones to him in company with Thompson and Gavin McReadie at the Black Horse Public House, Ruislip in 2001/2, he declined to name the person to whom the phones had been sold other than saying that they were sold to someone who had a shop nearby. 
272.	Questions were put about various dates at the relevant period. The thrust of these was to analyse patterns of phone calls involving B, R, Brockwell, G and Twomey, with the suggestion that a pattern emerged of those individuals being concerned with arrangements for meetings which were to take place. Of those, the only person with whom Twomey had direct telephone contact was R. He maintained that his contacts with R were unrelated to the robbery. They were to do with other matters such as goods Twomey had for sale. He denied that the involvement of Brockwell in the sequences showed something different. 
273.	Turning to the 30th January; he said that he, unlike Cameron, had been prepared to see Brockwell on that day, even though Cameron had told him to have nothing to do with Brockwell because he had had phones and DVDs from Brockwell in the past. 
274.	In the light of Twomey’s evidence that the drawings found at his home had not been taken there by him, and his evidence that although a small sketch was done on a piece of paper in his presence, that paper also included written lists and drawings of computer chips. Twomey was asked about the audio track for 30th January in which he says “let’s look at the drawings”. He denied taking any paper out of his pocket. The video tape was viewed. The sequence shows Twomey producing paper from his pocket, then extensive discussion about it between himself and Brockwell, and then Brockwell drawing on the paper. After that Brockwell hands the paper to Twomey who appears to put it in his pocket. Twomey said that he did not know if he had taken the paper or papers on 30th January, but if he had taken them, he had thrown them away. He denied that what was shown was what had been found in the rubbish bin at New Milton. It was put to Twomey that the two pieces of exhibit 23 were, as indeed they appear to be, an exact fit, as if they had both been torn from the same notepad. Twomey maintained his position and pointed out that his fingerprints do not appear on either piece of paper, although Brockwell’s print appears on one of them. 
275.	Twomey had said that Brockwell denied working at Heathrow. Accordingly, he was cross-examined on a passage in the revised Defence Statement of 2006, which said “John Twomey made it clear to Darren Brockwell that he was not interested in a robbery or theft at the airport”. It was put to him that his evidence was inconsistent. Twomey denied knowing that Brockwell worked at the airport and said that when Brockwell mentioned the theft or robbery at Feltham, he had asked if it was to do with the airport, and Brockwell had said “no”. 
276.	The cross-examination also covered Twomey’s stay at Days Hotel between 5th and 7th February and his claim that he was on a drinking binge at the time. He said that he was dependent on others for details of his alibi for the 6th February. That he had no independent recollection. He was challenged about his claim to have been drinking. Amongst other things video footage from Days Hotel were shown, including footage appearing to show him drinking a soft drink which is supported by the hotel bill. Other topics in relation to the stay covered the fact that Cameron was apparently using a different vehicle to drive the pair around, a blue Cavalier, not previously connected to either of them. It also covered footage of Twomey using a mobile phone which was neither 2999 nor 730, and his case that the three men seen carrying bags upstairs in Days Hotel shortly after the robbery were carrying bags containing drink and clothing. Twomey said that the bags must have come from a customer or from Jimmy Moynihan’s house. He had wanted to have additional drink in his room, and this was the case notwithstanding that shortly after arrival at Days Hotel the three men had ordered room service consisting of six pints of beer. 
277.	Twomey said that Hibberd could confirm his alibi and that of Glenn Cameron’s, and also knew what was in the bags carried into the hotel. When out on bail before the second trial he had approached Hibberd to give evidence, but Hibberd had not agreed. (At that stage, of course Hibberd had not been arrested by the police). Twomey said he had not put Hibberd on his list of alibi witnesses in his revised Defence Statement of March 2006 even though he knew who Hibberd was and was aware of the CCTV footage, because Hibberd had not agreed to give evidence for him.
278.	Twomey was asked about the gap between the robbery and his surrender to the police. He said he had continued drinking but would not give details of people he had stayed with. He had been with Glenn Cameron, and had continued drinking at friends’ houses and in pubs. This latter observation strikes me as doubtful since by 9th February Twomey’s face had appeared on television and he had been publicly identified as someone suspected of involvement in the robbery. 
279.	There were a number of witnesses called in support of Twomey’s case. Glen Rees gave evidence that on 10th January 2004 he had been collected in a van by R, Twomey and Cameron. They invited him down to the Stag and Hounds for a drink where Stan Cameron, his father in law, would be. They had not gone directly to the Stag, but had gone to some other pub (presumptively the Crooked Billet) where they had briefly met someone and had then driven onto Iver Village and met someone else before going back to the Stag. 
280.	Police observation photographs for that day showed the rear view of a man’s head in the front passenger seat of R’s van. Glen Rees identified himself as that person. The point of this evidence was that Brockwell had said that B had been in the van on that day. The photograph was not of best quality, and when Lynn Rees, the wife of Glen Rees, was shown the photograph, she said that it was possibly a photograph of her husband but she could not be positive without seeing the face of the man. It seemed to me that the rear view of the male head shown in the photograph was of a man who was rather bigger than Glen Rees and who had an obviously fatter head. There is no evidence that Mr Rees had lost weight since 2004, and in my judgment, this photographic evidence is inconclusive. Mr Rees’ recollection of the journey on the 10th was of one of relatively short duration, maybe ten to twenty minutes. This is significantly at odds with the observation evidence for that day, which shows a journey of about one hour and twenty minutes. Moreover, the police observation evidence of the brief time it took for the van to travel between the Stag and Hounds and Crooked Billet Public Houses undermines Glen Rees’ evidence that Twomey had gone into his house and chatted to Mrs Rees en route to the Crooked Billet. 
281.	The Defendant’s step-daughter Holly May Friday, now aged 19, described how she went to stay with her natural father, Tony Friday, on 27th December 2003. She said she went with her siblings Chloe and Robin, but because she wanted to go to a New Year’s Eve party in Hampshire, had been collected by her father on the 30th December 2003. She remembered that her wish to go to the party had caused trouble with her mother. Accordingly, Mr Twomey, on his own, had collected her and her siblings from a pub car park in Colnbrook. It was the usual picking up and dropping off place when she went to visit her natural father, who had lived in Colnbrook before moving to Northwood. She could not place a time at which she had been picked up beyond saying that it was dark. Twomey was waiting for her when she was brought to the car park. Her evidence that all three step-children had been picked up was at odds with Twomey’s recollection of events.  
282.	She said that at some time after May 2005 when Twomey had been released on bail, she had overheard Twomey and her mother talking about this matter at the family home. She had told her mother that she could remember that evening, and so she decided that she would give a statement. In due course Mr Twomey’s solicitor was contacted. She said that Glenn Cameron who was her uncle, had not been present when her father collected her on 30th December. She said that she and her siblings would visit Mr Friday about once every four to six weeks. The arrangements for collection were always the same. 
283.	Peter Foulkes was general manager of a children’s wear company from 2000 to 2005. He recalled Twomey and his wife regularly buying clothing from his firm’s Park Royal warehouse. Other witnesses including Twomey gave evidence that he had in 2003/4 a business selling clothing, shoes, and other items to customers in the London area. I have no difficulty in accepting that Twomey conducted such activities and that they explain at least in part his visits to London and his movements around the London area. 
284.	Michael Leahy said that on the evening of 6th February, the day of the robbery, he had seen Twomey in the Railway Club at Paddington, and had then moved on with Twomey and others to the Foxes Public House in Ruislip. Leahy had not been in Twomey’s immediate company but had seen him at both sets of premises. Twomey was someone who he had known for over twenty years. The occasion of 6th February was the first occasion that he had seen Twomey since seeing him at his, Leahy’s, father’s funeral in 2001. Despite that, he had said no more than “hello” to Twomey when he had seen him and had not spent time in his company. He did not see that Twomey was obviously drunk, although he was not keeping a particular look-out. He said the evening was unusual for him, first of all because he had not seen Twomey for some time, and secondly because his visit to the Foxes was a rare visit. He had last been there about eight months previously and he recalled phoning his wife at the end of the evening to collect him from the Foxes. She had never done that before and normally collected him from the Railway Club on a Friday evening. When he left the Foxes at around 10:30 Twomey was still there. In his company he named Gary Hickey, James Moynihan senior and Mike Hunter, all of whom worked for Mr Leahy. He did not see Twomey with any bags, and said that Twomey had travelled from the Railway Club to the Foxes in a mini cab. He was not sure if Glenn Cameron had been present on that evening. He said he had seen Twomey mentioned on television on the following Sunday in connection with the Heathrow robbery. That would be on 8th February, although the evidence before me was of a television news transmission on 9th February. He said he could not believe what he saw. However, he did not make contact with Twomey’s solicitor until July 2004 and did not make a statement until 20th August 2004. 
285.	Jane Rowe who lives in Ruislip and is extremely close to Twomey’s present wife confirmed the effect of alcohol on Twomey when he indulged in a drinking binge. Glenn Cameron is her cousin and she confirmed that he acted as a driver on occasions for Twomey. She recalled being at home on a Friday evening waiting for her twins who were due to come home before midnight. At some time after 11:00pm there was a knock on her front door and she saw Twomey and Cameron. Twomey was asking if his wife was there. He had obviously been drinking and was half coherent. She said she was certain that Cameron was present with Twomey. This was not the first time that Twomey had come to her home when drunk looking for his wife. There was no one else with them at the front door and they had no bags with them. The following day she learnt from Caroline Twomey that the police had raided the Twomey house. At that stage Caroline was not specific as to why, but Mrs Rowe subsequently saw something on the news about Twomey and Glenn Cameron. She said she realised that she could help Twomey, but “it passed my mind and I did not give it thought”. She agreed she had visited both Twomey and Cameron while they were in custody, and that she had not made a statement to Twomey’s solicitor until 17th August 2004. She said Twomey’s wife was aware of the situation prior to that. 
286.	Julia Hunter lived with her husband in Ruislip in 2004. She had known Twomey for over forty years. She was aware of his alcohol problems. She said that in 2004 she was doing temporary work as a medical secretary and remembered that she had work in the first week of February 2004. She had seen Twomey at her house on Thursday 5th February when she came home from work to find Twomey there with her husband. He was not there long. As to Friday 6th February, she remembered having gone to bed and that her husband had gone out. She heard her husband return while she was upstairs. She said she could hear several men laughing and joking. She was annoyed about the noise. She did not go downstairs, but looked from the landing and saw the back or top of Twomey’s head. This would have been between 10:45 and 11:30. The men did not bring any drink with them and there was no drink in the house for them to have. She had not put her recollection into writing until after February 2005, and when seen by the police in April 2006, had said that when Twomey and her husband had returned home, the other man may have been her uncle, namely Jimmy Moynihan senior. 
287.	James Moynihan junior recalled seeing Twomey in company with his father late one evening at the Moynihan family home. This was some time early in 2004. This was after midnight on a day possibly near the end of the week. There was one other man present, described as balding. Mr Moynihan made it clear that the presence of these men was not welcome. He said there was no drink in the house, and after he had made his displeasure clear, they had left the house in company with a black cab driver, Eddie Owens, who had offered them a lift. He said he could not help as to when this event had happened. It did not stand out in his memory. At some point later he had met Twomey in Ruislip, and Twomey had asked Moynihan if he recalled Twomey being at his father’s home. He said Twomey obviously could remember that night, but he himself did not know how long after the event Twomey approached him. 
288.	Raymond Yates was someone who knew R, Twomey, B and Thompson. In 2003 he had a furniture shop selling Indonesian furniture in Fareham. At the time he had business interests in Portsmouth and lived in that area, but had a business association with Steve Thompson, of which the Indonesian furniture shop in Fareham was part. He agreed to buy surplus furniture from Twomey’s furniture shop in Bournemouth. He and Thompson had gone to look at it and had agreed to purchase Twomey’s furniture for £5,800.00 with six months to pay. Yates said that Thompson handled the finances, and that he learnt that by the beginning of November 2003 Thompson had paid £3,000.00 together with a £1,000.00 worth of DVDs. The DVDs had been acquired from a friend of Thompson’s called Darren. In early November 2003 there was an outstanding balance of £1,800.00. Yates said he received a phone call from Twomey asking for Thompson’s number in order to sort out the debt. Yates provided Thompson’s number and said he subsequently learnt from Twomey that the debt had been cleared by the provision of further DVDs. As to the man Darren, he said that he had seen him a couple of times in a pub owned by Thompson, but had never spoken to him. The name he had was Darren rather than Derek or Del. 
289.	Yates went on to say that at the end of November 2003 Thompson disappeared. Yates became aware that his nephew David Collis faced charges in relation to the drugs alongside Thompson and he was angry about that. He said he next spoke to Thompson in January 2004. Thompson contacted him asking him for Twomey’s number and he had supplied it. After that he next spoke to Thompson in February 2004. Thompson said he was two or three hours away and wanted to meet Yates. Yates did not agree to meet him. He did not want anything to do with him because of what was happening to his nephew. Neither of these two matters were put to Mr Thompson for his comment when he gave evidence. 
290.	When cross-examined Mr Yates was clear about the dates of two phones calls in early 2004 from Thompson to him. However, on any other matter he was asked about he seemed to be extremely vague in relation to chronology. He initially said he had made a statement about the matter in 2004. It turned out he had made the statement in 2007. He did not know when in 2003 he had seen the man Darren in Thompson’s pub. Initially he said it was at the end of 2003, then he said it was at the beginning of 2003, then he said he was not too sure because it was all a long time ago. He agreed he had spoken to Thompson’s parents after Thompson’s disappearance, but had not told them that he had received phone calls from Thompson. 
291.	Turning to the furniture matter, he said that he had never been to the warehouse in Chesham where it is Twomey’s case that Thompson settled the furniture debt with Twomey in the presence of Brockwell. There is a series of phone calls that day passing between Twomey and Yates which Twomey had said represented him finding out directions to the warehouse from Yates. Yates said he would not be in a position to give directions to the warehouse. He said he had received a single call from Twomey. The telephone evidence shows that there were multiple calls within a space of twenty minutes. It also shows that within that period of time, Twomey was in contact with R on three occasions. He was unable to explain that sequence. 
292.	The account which Twomey and his witnesses put forward appeared to me to have all the hallmarks of a carefully prepared response to the Prosecution’s allegations, but one which lacked credibility. Mr Twomey did not impress me as a truthful witness. His case involved what appeared to me to be unsupported assertions of a combination of people intent on framing him; these included Brockwell, Steve Thompson, R and members of the Flying Squad. At different stages and in different ways, these different people are alleged to have put their heads together to ensnare Mr Twomey and create a false evidential picture against him, both before and after his arrest. The trouble and lengths to which individuals would have to have gone in order to create pieces of evidence useable by the Crown against Mr Twomey stretch credulity. If, as the logic of the Defence case suggests, the robbery was committed by a different team of robbers not including Twomey and Cameron, those who were intent on framing Twomey and Cameron must have taken the chance that either or both would in fact turn out to have a cast-iron alibi for the night on which the robbery in fact took place. There was also some reference during the trial to the activities of ex DC Hywel-Jones, a corrupt and convicted former police officer, and an allegedly criminal family by the name of Wise. A member of the Wise family had been involved with Hywel-Jones in making enquiries of police intelligence held on computer. Some of those enquiries made by Hywel-Jones related to the Menzies robbery and/or some of these Defendants. However, it was not known if enquiries which had been made were corrupt or legitimate ones. In the end there was no sensible evidence to show any sinister connection between Hywel-Jones’ activities and this case. I am sure that this aspect of the matter is a red herring. 
293.	I do not accept that Darren Brockwell had any dealings with Twomey prior to the matters alleged to involve the Menzies robbery. There is no credible evidence of any link between Darren Brockwell and Mr Twomey prior to the events with which this case is concerned. There is no evidence apart from assertions by Twomey of any connection between Brockwell and Steve Thompson at all. Mr Twomey’s assertions that he had previous shady dealings with Brockwell in 2001/2 and November 2003 are in my judgment not true. In relation to the November 2003 meeting at Chesham, there was no evidence from Thompson to suggest that Brockwell was present. When cross-examined Twomey was unable to explain why Brockwell should have been present. His presence there would have been entirely coincidental on a day Twomey happened to visit the London area, and there was no sensible explanation as to why DVDs which Brockwell allegedly had for sale should form part of a deal resolving debt owed to Twomey over some furniture. I conclude that Twomey has taken the grain of truth of a meeting at Chesham with Thompson in November 2003 and has falsely embellished it so as to assert that Darren Brockwell was present, in order to set up his claim that Brockwell and Thompson were later in league to frame him. The credibility of Twomey’s claims of prior dealings with Brockwell can also be tested by reference to the evidence of McReadie, Brockwell’s brother in law. I accept his evidence that he had had no involvement with Twomey, either in 2001/2 or at any later stage. It was Twomey’s case that his discussions with Brockwell in January 2004 involved a proposed theft of precious metals from a warehouse in Feltham, where McReadie was said by Brockwell to be a security guard. McReadie, of course, did not work as a security guard at those or any other premises, and I found his denial of any knowledge to be convincing. 
294.	Twomey’s case depended heavily upon allegations involving a connection between Darren Brockwell and Steve Thompson, and involved Thompson setting up the meetings which Brockwell had with Twomey on 10th January and 5th February. Both of those were key to the central thrust of Twomey’s case, which was that he was being framed. It is perfectly clear from Thompson’s own evidence and from banking evidence that Thompson had fled to South America at the end of November 2003 and remained out of the country until about March 2005. Quite apart from the banking evidence which confirms his presence in Brazil in January 2004, it is inherently unlikely that Thompson, having jumped bail in this country, would have taken the risk of returning whilst still wanted and whilst his trial was still pending. For Twomey’s account to be correct, Thompson must have returned to the UK on not one, but two occasions, firstly in early January 2004 and then in early February 2004. Initially Twomey’s case had identified the 9th January as a date upon which Thompson was alleged to have returned to this country and made a phone call to Twomey from the landline at the Pound Shop in Hampshire, setting up a meeting with Brockwell the following day. However, after certain banking evidence had been called, the focus shifted to 2nd January, with Brockwell then being put forward as the person who had made the call on 9th January as a result of an earlier call made by Thompson on 2nd January. 
295.	I have some misgivings about the change in account put forward, but am prepared to accept that this may have been due to a difficulty of recollection over the sequence of events given the passage of time. However, even making that allowance, the case advanced by Twomey simply does not hold together. As to the call allegedly made by Thompson on 2nd January, closer examination of the phone matrix shows that neither of the two possible calls identified by Twomey as representing the call made by Thompson could have been made by him. As previously stated, the numbers identified in relation to those calls were calls which it could be shown had been in regular contact with Twomey,  and which on previous occasions had been involved in calls with him in close conjunction with one another. It is plain therefore that these two numbers were used by people much more familiar with Twomey than Steve Thompson. They could not have been calls made by Thompson on any sensible analysis of the phone matrix, quite independently of my finding that Thompson was in South America at the relevant time. 
296.	In addition, the assertion now made that as a result of Thompson’s call on the 2nd, Brockwell called Twomey on the 9th January to fix a meeting for the following day is not credible either. The call identified by Twomey has been traced to the Pound Shop in Hampshire, a few minutes away from where Twomey lives in New Milton. The evidence of the owner of the shop demonstrated that it was inherently unlikely that a complete stranger would have made a call from there. More importantly, it would be a complete coincidence if Brockwell, who lived and worked in the area west of London, should have happened to make a phone call to Twomey from a Pound Shop in Hampshire many miles away from his usual haunts. There is absolutely no suggestion that he knew where Twomey lived at that time, and the coincidence would be enormous. Furthermore, if Twomey’s account were true, this would represent the only time that Brockwell called Twomey. That in itself would be extremely surprising given the ongoing course of meetings between Brockwell and Twomey. The fact is, that throughout dealings with Brockwell, Twomey never revealed his name, his phone number or his personal circumstances, no doubt as a matter of elementary security. When pressed as to how Brockwell could have got his phone number, Twomey asserted that R must have given it to Brockwell. If this had happened, I do not believe that Twomey would have become involved with Brockwell at all.
297.	I have previously considered when dealing with Brockwell’s evidence, the nature of the discussions which were taking place from late December onwards between Brockwell and Twomey and Cameron. I found Brockwell’s version of events to be coherent and internally consistent. His evidence is supported, for example, by the plans recovered and by the contents of the audio tape of 30th January and to a lesser extent by what was overheard on 21st January. The audio tape of 30th January demonstrates an intimate knowledge of the premises being discussed on the part of Brockwell entirely consistent with those premises being Menzies, and inconsistent with those premises being the Feltham warehouse, since a person who did not work there would not have had the necessary detailed knowledge. The tape also shows Twomey talking in terms of what was to happen which are entirely consistent with what in fact did happen at Menzies. Additionally, on more than one occasion he speaks of “we” doing different activities in a manner which suggests his own personal involvement. When asked about the use of the word “we”, Twomey unconvincingly said that he had no other persons in mind since he was not intending to carry out any crime either at Heathrow or at Feltham. I do not believe him. 
298.	There is similar difficulty in Twomey’s account of the meeting at the Harvester on 5th February, amounting to some sort of set-up involving Thompson and Brockwell. Firstly, I accept that Thompson was in fact in South America at the time. Secondly, it seems to me that it would be an astonishing coincidence that on the very day Twomey had arrived in London for a drinking binge he should have met Thompson in a public house, and that Thompson, who can be demonstrated by bank transactions to have been receiving money for his upkeep in Brazil on 28th January, should have returned to the UK, learnt of Brockwell’s fall-out with Twomey on 30th January, and been interested in bringing the two men together at a time when his primary interest must have been evading justice for the very serious charges against him. Moreover, if Twomey’s account of a major argument on 30th January is true, and if his claims of having plenty of customers in the west London area for his goods is true, I do not find it credible that he and Cameron would have interrupted what is said to be Twomey’s drinking binge to make a half hour journey to a public house they had never visited before on the prospect of doing a deal over some DVDs with a man who had let them down, according to them, more than once in the past. 
299.	As to Twomey’s claim that from the 5th February he was involved in a drinking binge and thus could not have been involved in the Menzies robbery, I do not accept it. Footage of Twomey at the Days Hotel, checking in and out of reception, walking through the premises, spending a few minutes in the bar having a soft drink and some crisps, having breakfast, all combine to refute the assertion. The same applies to footage from the Harvester pub, Brockwell’s evidence that Twomey was not drinking alcohol there, and Twomey’s own evidence that at times he had been out buying or selling goods. Twomey’s claim that he was on a drinking binge is of course central to his alibi which places him drinking on the evening of 6th February. 
300.	Twomey’s case as to his alibi was that in reality he had had so much to drink, he had little memory of where he had been on the night in question, albeit he knew that he had not been out participating in the robbery at Menzies. For the details of his alibi he relied on alibi witnesses considered below. His account was also supported by the evidence of Cameron and Hibberd who claimed to have been part of the chain of events representing Twomey’s alibi. To that extent their alibis were bound in with his. As to the witnesses called in support of the alibi, those whose evidence purported to be specific to the evening of 6th February, that is Hunter, Rowe and Leahy, all had close and long term connections to Twomey or his family. Although Leahy and Rowe said they were aware of Twomey’s alleged involvement in the Heathrow robbery within days of its occurrence and knew that they had seen Twomey on the evening of the robbery, neither of them provided a statement to Twomey’s solicitor until several months later. I find this extremely surprising in the case of Mr Twomey, a man who is well versed in the ways of the criminal justice system, who was claiming he had been wrongly accused and who was being held in custody, and who had immediately available to him evidence that he could not be guilty. In the case of Julia Hunter, she did not put her recollection into writing until after February 2005, at least a year after the event. The evidence of these witnesses did not appear to me to be genuine. It appeared to me that out of loyalty to Mr Twomey or members of his family that the witnesses had been persuaded to provide false supportive evidence. The evidence of Mr Moynihan was non-specific in relation to 6th February. As will be seen, the evidence given by Cameron and Hibberd in relation to their alibis which support that of Twomey, was equally unimpressive. I reject the case advanced on behalf of all three men that they could not have been committing the robbery at Menzies premises on the night of 6th February because they were out drinking in west London on that night. 
301.	I have also considered the evidence of Holly Friday, Mr Twomey’s step-daughter, who gave evidence of being collected by her father on the evening of 30th December. Although the time frame involved would not preclude a meeting with Brockwell that evening, and a reconnaissance of Menzies as described by Brockwell, Twomey relies on Miss Friday’s evidence as perhaps supporting an alternative explanation for the siting of his phone to the north of Heathrow on that evening. I was not impressed with Miss Friday’s evidence. Whilst she provided evidence in support of Mr Twomey’s case, her answers were very vague and general in relation to any other events occurring around that time. This was in contrast to the detail of her core account. This account was not put forward until at least mid-2005 and I have serious doubts as to its accuracy. Even if it were true, it would not contradict Brockwell’s account in any material particular for that night, but it seems to me that this evidence is of a piece with that given by Mr Twomey’s alibi witnesses. I do not believe it to be truthful or accurate. 
302.	As to Twomey’s claim not to have met Brockwell on 30th December and not to have made a visit to Menzies premises, I have already commented on aspects of this earlier in this judgment. Having accepted Brockwell’s evidence as essentially truthful, I accept what he says about having met Twomey on the night of 30th December, and what he says about a reconnaissance at Menzies involving Twomey on that night. Twomey’s presence is supported by the description of a man meeting Brockwell on the Crooked Billet car park that night given by DC Halbert. The description is entirely consistent with the clothing and general appearance of Twomey as he appears on later CCTV footage at admitted meetings with Brockwell. The cell site evidence is consistent with and supportive of Brockwell’s account that after the reconnaissance, Twomey was dropped at a hotel in the Bath Road on the north side of Heathrow. The fact that during the time that Twomey was meeting with Brockwell and allegedly visiting Menzies, a call made to his phone could not be connected, is consistent with what appears to be his practice of turning off his phone during meetings. Calls made to R at this time are consistent with the pattern on days when admitted meetings were taking place. The alternative explanation put forward, and considered by Mr Sexton, of a journey from the north onto the Bath Road (as opposed to one from the south and Menzies) is undermined by Twomey’s failure to give any evidence to explain where he was coming from at that point in the evening, and secondly, by my rejection of the account put forward by Holly Friday. The fact that two calls were made to Cameron’s phone by Twomey on that night is in my judgment consistent with him seeking to contact Cameron for a lift away from the hotel in the Bath Road area, and consistent with Brockwell’s evidence that he believed that Cameron had accompanied Twomey on this night to the Crooked Billet, but had not taken part in the reconnaissance. The fact that his calls to Cameron at 19:38 and 19:52 hours were of sixteen seconds and eleven seconds duration respectively, is much more consistent with calling Cameron to be picked up than Twomey’s suggestion in evidence that he might have been phoning Cameron in Hampshire where he was celebrating his father’s birthday. There is also telephone and cell site evidence showing phone traffic at 19:55 and 19:59 hours between R and B which is consistent with B returning towards Iver Heath from the Heathrow area. The fact that R and B are in contact is consistent with their role as facilitators of meetings between Twomey and Brockwell. For these reasons I am sure that the Crown’s version of events in relation to the 30th December is accurate, and that Twomey’s is not.  
303.	There is also the evidence of Raymond Yates to be considered. I did not believe him. The detail of two alleged phone calls received from Thompson in January 2004 and February 2004, intended no doubt to support Twomey’s case that Thompson was in this country at those times and thus in a position to help set up meetings between Twomey and Brockwell and thus frame Twomey, was given with a precision as to time which was in marked contrast to any other event Mr Yates was asked about. What he said appeared to me to have been a prepared account rather than something representing the truth. His credibility was further undermined by the fact that although he was on good terms and in touch with Thompson’s parents and had been a friend of Thompson’s for thirty years or so, he never mentioned these contacts to the parents even though Thompson had disappeared. He also said that he was unaware that Thompson had gone abroad, which I do not believe. 
304.	Turning to the events of the furniture debt settled in 2003, Yates’ account was at odds with the accounts given by Thompson and Twomey in important respects in relation to the transaction. In as much as he said that a man called Darren was in some way involved, such evidence as he could give, was hearsay. I did not regard him as a truthful or reliable witness, but in any event he gave no evidence or description which could suggest that Darren was Darren Brockwell. The account which he gave does not in any way cause me to think that Brockwell may have been present at any transaction between Thompson and Twomey on 13th November 2003, nor did his account make me think that Thompson may have been in the UK in January and February 2004. I am sure that neither of those propositions is true for reasons already given and Yates’ evidence makes no difference to the position and does not advance Twomey’s case in this respect. 
305.	I have previously considered the hotly contested issue of the drawings, exhibit 23, said to have been found at Twomey’s home on 7th February. In summary I have found that those items were in fact found at his home by the police, and that there has been no malpractice or substitution of materials at some later stage by the police. Since one of the drawings bears a very close resemblance to that of the layout of Menzies premises, and since it tallies very well with the audio track recorded at the meeting of 30th January 2004, and since part of the exhibit bears a fingerprint of Brockwell, this document is powerful evidence of Twomey’s involvement in a conspiracy to rob Menzies. It explains the vigour with which an attack was made on the provenance of exhibit 23 during the course of the Crown’s case. I am entirely satisfied that this document provides a direct link between Twomey, Brockwell and the planning of the robbery, and reject the case advanced by Twomey as a false one. 
306.	I was urged by the Crown to draw a s34 inference against Twomey in respect of three particular matters. The first, a failure to mention that his conversations with Brockwell involved a theft or robbery of bullion involving entry into premises at Feltham, secondly, allegations that Brockwell, Thompson and R had in addition to the Flying Squad been party to fitting up Twomey, and thirdly, in relation to his alibi. Mr Aspinall QC put forward reasons in relation to each category as to why I should not draw an adverse inference from a failure to mention these facts when questioned. Without further lengthening this judgment by going into the pros and cons of the different arguments put forward, I will deal with the matter by stating that my conclusion is that I should not draw such an inference in relation to any of the three matters referred to. 
307.	In the light of all these findings I am sure that Twomey was not only the major planner with Brockwell of the robbery which took place at Menzies on 6th February 2004, but also that he was personally involved in the robbery as robber number two. The evidence of Twomey’s deep involvement in the details of the planning make me sure that he would have had to have been involved in the robbery itself, and the role played by robber number two on the night depicts someone who was fully aware of the details of the plan and who was directing the other robbers in accordance with it. Twomey’s role and involvement are further supported by the evidence that he, Cameron and Hibberd returned to Days Hotel with heavily laden bags within a short time of the robbery. As discussed later, I reject the conflicting Defence evidence given about those bags, and am sure that they contained all or part of the proceeds of the robbery itself. I find that the alibi which Twomey has put forward is a false one, and that his allegations against the police and others are unfounded. In my judgment, his guilt is clear. Accordingly, I return guilty verdicts against him in relation to Counts 3 and 5. 
Cameron
308.	Cameron was not arrested until 15th March 2007. Crime squad officers went to a chalet type holiday home in Perranporth. The chalet accommodation was described as “fairly basic”, but officers found in the living room literature from estate agents thanking Mr Cameron, (under an assumed name he was using of Withey), for his enquiry. It appears that with one agent his enquiries covered properties in the £300,000.00 to £600,000.00 range, and with the other agents the details of properties provided were between £500,000.00 and £750,000.00. Cameron acknowledged that he was looking for property.
309.	Having been arrested at the scene, Cameron was present while the premises were searched and commented to DC Wilkinson “I’m glad this is all over. The timing must be due to the trial of John Twomey. I’m fed up with all this hiding. I knew I was wanted”. In the police car on route to London he remarked that he had wasted three years of his life and that he had seen himself on Crimewatch which he watched monthly. Cameron was co-operative with the police during the arrest process. 
310.	Evidence from the letting agents showed that in his dealings with them Mr Cameron had used the name Ray Withey, and had used a credit card in that name to pay for a rented property in September and October 2006. At the end of that month he moved to the accommodation in which he was arrested. Bedding for four people was provided and there was evidence of occupation by a female and children. In the second property Mr Cameron paid the rent in cash at varying intervals and in varying amounts. Post for him was directed to the agents’ office rather than to the accommodation. He had told Mrs Lumley, one of the agents, that he was looking to buy property in Cornwall with a business partner. He had said something similar to the owner of the property in which he was arrested, speaking of wanting to get away from London and to buy and develop property in Cornwall. 
311.	After the police had arrested and taken Cameron away on the 15th March 2007, Mrs Hitchins, the owner, began to clear up the chalet. She found a hot water bottle in Cameron’s bedroom. Inside it she found two notebooks, a phone top-up card with JT written on it, and some pages of notes. Those notes clearly refer to the alleged offence. They represent a denial of the offence and a purported account and explanation of events which acknowledges meetings between himself, Twomey and Brockwell, but in which he suggests that Brockwell was offering to sell stolen goods of various kinds. There is then a highly circumstantial account of the days between the 4th and 7th of February. It seems to bear  similarities to the account eventually advanced by Twomey in explanation of the Crown’s evidence. It concludes by purporting to explain why Cameron did not go to the police although he knew he was wanted from a very early stage. This document was plainly prepared well after the conspiracy to rob had come to an end. I shall therefore treat it as providing evidence only in the case of Cameron and certainly not in the case of Twomey. These notes appear to me to have all the hallmarks of someone preparing and rehearsing an account to be put forward if arrested.
312.	Glenn Cameron was interviewed at Staines Police Station. Once the nature of the investigation had been disclosed to him, he provided a prepared statement, in which he explained that at the end of 2003, having been laid off work, he had begun to act as a driver for Twomey, selling items and delivering samples in the Ruislip area. He had met Darren Brockwell around Christmas. Brockwell had indicated he could get lorries to go missing and thus provide stolen goods. The meetings which had been videoed did not involve the robbery. Brockwell was talking about items he could steal from the airport. 
313.	As to the 5th February, he and Twomey had received a call from Brockwell, who claimed he had things which he could sell them at the Harvester pub. When they went there, an argument broke out because Brockwell did not have any goods with him. As to the 6th February, he described Twomey as drinking, and said that he himself was drunk in the evening. At the end of the evening he had returned to his hotel. He later heard Twomey trying to get in, and had let him and another man whom he did not know into the hotel. They were carrying bags which he thought were full of drink and clothes. They had drinks in the bedroom. He concluded by saying he had not been involved in the robbery or in discussion of any plans for it. Having provided the prepared statement summarised above, Cameron indicated that he had nothing more to say. 
314.	It was put to DS Halbert that Cameron had said to him in the presence of his solicitor on 16th July 2003 that Cameron had seen the officer in the Harvester Public House on the night before the robbery, and that the officer had replied “you’re wrong”. DS Halbert said he had in fact never been to the Harvester Public House, and that he had no recollection of any such remark being made to him. Although he had been cross-examined in previous trials, this was the first occasion that such a suggestion had been made to him. When Cameron gave evidence he referred to the incident which was also confirmed by his solicitor, but more than once made observations to the effect that he might well have been mistaken. Since there is no other evidence suggesting that DS Halbert was at the Harvester, and since DS Halbert himself gave convincing evidence on the point, I do not think there is any significance in this incident, and find positively that Halbert had not been present at the Harvester. 
315.	Mr Cameron is now 50 years of age. He gave evidence to me. He has not previously been convicted and prior to this matter has not previously been arrested. There was evidence from three witnesses testifying to his general good character and hard working nature. Although Cameron had undoubtedly involved himself in shady and dishonest practices in his involvement with buying and selling goods with Twomey in 2003/4, I still think it right for the purposes of this case to grant him the benefit of his good character. Accordingly, in assessing Cameron’s credibility I shall bear in mind in his favour that he is a man of good character. Having reached a mature age, and in considering whether he has committed any offence, I shall treat his good character as meaning that he is less likely than might otherwise be the case to get involved in an armed robbery. Those are plainly factors in his favour and I will treat them as such, but if the evidence nonetheless drives me to the conclusion that he was involved, then they cannot save him.  
316.	He seems to have spent his life in the west London area until a relationship with a woman by whom he had a child broke up in 2002. For a period around 2001/2 he had worked at the Black Horse in which Twomey had an interest, and said he had seen Steve Thompson in there as “just a punter”. After Cameron split up with his partner he had lived in various places with family members but used his parents’ home in New Milton as a base. He was laid off from a building job in December 2003 and Twomey offered him work driving and delivering clothes, shoes and other items. He started this work shortly after Christmas. He was guaranteed £200.00 a week and if Twomey had a good week would be given an extra £50.00 or £100.00. This carried on until the time of the Menzies robbery. He would never know who Twomey was going to meet on any given day. He would simply go where Twomey took him. The only occasions he had met Brockwell were those observed by the police (10th, 16th, 21st January and 5th February). He had never been to an evening meeting, thus excluding 30th December, and had simply met Brockwell in what he said was the course of delivering goods with Twomey.
317.	Dealing with the individual meetings, he said that the one held on 10th January was brief, and he had not spoken to Brockwell; he was merely a driver. He did not know why they had travelled in R’s van. On 16th January they had gone looking for a place away from CCTV cameras so as to be able to load up DVDs which Brockwell said he could supply. He denied being in R’s van with B on that day. He said he did not know why he was there meeting Brockwell. He had simply gone along for the ride. He regarded Brockwell as just one of Twomey’s punters and had not discussed the matter with R or Brockwell. Then, on the 21st January the meeting took place at the country park. He and Twomey had walked there because there was no headroom for their van in the country park car park. It was not a question of concealing their vehicle from Brockwell. He had not been expecting a long meeting, but Brockwell spoke about where he worked and goods he could get, including laptops and computers and items on lorries. He said he was not really taking any notice of the conversation and, when Brockwell started talking about bullion at Feltham, this was not “his scene”, and he just wanted to get out. Brockwell had written lists of things including makes of laptops and so on. He said that Brockwell’s appearance was unlike that in the witness box. It was obvious that he was on something such as cocaine; he was going at a thousand miles per hour. Afterwards he had said to Twomey that Brockwell was a junkie, and he had not wanted to see Brockwell again. 
318.	He had not met Brockwell on 30th January and Twomey had not told him about that meeting. As to vehicles to which he had access over this period, he mentioned a Fiat Panda of his own, Twomey’s Mercedes Sprinter van and his father’s Escort van. In addition, on the 5th February he had had a car from a friend on trial. He thought it was a Rover but it might have been the blue Cavalier caught on CCTV at Days Hotel. He said he had never handled firearms. 
319.	Turning to Days Hotel, he said he and Twomey had stayed there on the night of 20th January because they had had a busy day in London and were anticipating a busy day the following day. That of course was a day which included a meeting with Brockwell.
320.	Cameron described coming up to Days Hotel with Twomey on 5th February. After arriving at the hotel in late afternoon, he had started on deliveries. That evening he went to the Foxes Public House and met Twomey there. He saw Steve Thompson and ended up going to the Harvester to meet Brockwell. He believed that he was given the directions by Steve Thompson. Although they had only arrived about three and a half hours previously, he thought that this amounted to a chance to head back to Hampshire, which is what he said he wanted to do because Twomey was drinking. However, he later said that he knew that Twomey had started drinking the previous day, 4th February, as a result of a phone call from Twomey’s wife. When faced with an apparent contradiction between his desire not to see Twomey harming himself by going on a drinking spree, and his bringing him up to London at least in part for the purposes of having such a spree, he said that Twomey would do whatever he wanted. When asked about what would happen to their possessions at the hotel if they had headed straight back to Hampshire that night, he said he would have been willing to come back from Hampshire and collect the items later. 
321.	As to the meeting at the Harvester with Brockwell, he said he paid no attention to the conversation. He was just a driver. However, he recalled that Twomey and Brockwell had an argument in the car park just before they drove off. He denied that any journey was made with Brockwell to Spout Lane to scout out the picking-up point for the robbers. Because Twomey did not want to go to Hampshire, they had returned to South Ruislip. The CCTV shows them arriving back at their hotel at 22:35 hours. He said they may have stopped off on the way back for a Chinese meal. 
322.	On 6th February he had gone out in the morning making deliveries and collecting money. He could not remember whether he went out on his own or with Twomey, although it was pointed out that both had returned to the hotel around 13:00 hours and had then gone out together at 13:45 hours. Later he said he believed he had completed all their deliveries by 13:00 hours on 6th February, but could not account for what they had done in the afternoon. Cameron returned alone to the hotel at 17:35 and spent a few minutes in his room with a man called Dennis Boggins. Then he can be seen leaving at 17:42. He said he had gone looking for his brother in some pubs locally including the Foxes. Then he had headed for the Railway Club, Paddington. He thought he had driven there on his own, although he said he had seen Twomey in the Foxes prior to going to the Railway Club. At the Railway Club he sold some cigarettes which he happened to have in the boot of his car. He had sold them with Twomey’s permission. He said he did not stay long at the Railway Club. He wanted to take the car back to Ruislip and to start to have a drink himself. He went back to Ruislip and to the Foxes where he remained until closing time at about 11:30. He had seen Twomey there. He said he thought he had given a couple of people a lift but could not remember their names. Nor did he name anybody he had met at the Foxes. He said that he and Twomey had left the Foxes together and he thought they would head back to the hotel. He said they got a lift and that Twomey had wanted to go to Jane Rowe’s house. They fell out about this as Cameron did not want to disturb Jane Rowe, and so Cameron had not gone to her home. I pause to observe that this does not tally with Jane Rowe’s evidence. Because of the falling out he parted company with Twomey, and having got a kebab for himself, went back to the hotel on his own, arriving at 00:23 hours. He believed he had left his car parked not far from the Foxes Public House in a side street so that he could have a drink on his return to the Foxes. He took the keys to the car with him, and when he went to Days Hotel, he did not have any bags with him. 
323.	At 00:59 hours Twomey and Hibberd came to the hotel. He said he did not know Hibberd well and only remembered seeing him at the opening of the Black Horse in about 2001. He did not know if Hibberd had been in the Foxes or at the Railway Club that night. By this time the hotel was locked, but the CCTV shows Cameron going down to let Twomey and Hibberd in. He said he must have seen or possibly heard them and let them in. He saw the holdalls and bags being carried up to the room and could hear beer bottles rattling. He thought they were bringing drink in. They had then ordered drinks from room service. He had had to stay up until Hibberd went some hours later because they were all in one room. He said Hibberd was telling football stories. The next morning he had tidied up the room including, he said, removing empty bottles. Shortly after 09:30 he and Twomey checked out. There was reference to a car seen leaving on the hotel CCTV which does not tally well with Cameron’s earlier evidence that he believed he had left the car in a side street near the Foxes Public House. After leaving the hotel Cameron thought that he and Twomey had gone to Paddington. That morning he learnt of searches taking place at his home and Twomey’s home in New Milton. He told Twomey about it. Twomey was not bothered and just wanted to carry on drinking. He had not thought the searches related to him, but rather to Twomey.  The drinking binge carried on and he saw his and Twomey’s faces on the television news on the 9th February. He had panicked and asked Twomey what was going on, but could not get a lot of sense out of him. He had not handed himself into the police, although he had a full answer to the allegation, because he relied on Twomey to sort the situation out for him. He said that he, Cameron, had no experience of such matters, and that for several days he was trying to get Twomey to sober up so that he could sort matters out. Then when Twomey eventually went to the police, Twomey was locked up. Cameron could not face the thought of going to prison, he was not thinking straight, and he did not have the guts to hand himself in. He lay low for nearly three years, mainly staying in London, all the time frightened to come forward because of a fear of prison. He went to Cornwall in late 2006. He denied that the brochures found at his caravan meant that he had money stashed away, and that he was looking for expensive properties. He was asked about the notes found in the hot water bottle in the caravan. He agreed they were his, and said he had made them without assistance from anybody else. He denied being involved in the Menzies robbery in any capacity. He said he would not have been involved in such a crime, and had taken little interest in Twomey’s dealings with Brockwell. 
324.	To Mr Aspinall for Twomey he said that on the night of the 6th February, by the time he left the Foxes for the second time, he was drunk and so his memory of the circumstances of leaving the pub was patchy. He said he had some memory of them parting at Jane Rowe’s house and that he and Twomey could not have parted at the Foxes Public House. Mr Aspinall cross-examined in this way because Ms Brimelow for Cameron, having cross-examined Twomey when he gave evidence, later asked to put a further matter to Twomey during the course of the Crown’s cross-examination of him. She specifically put to Twomey that Cameron and Twomey had split up on leaving the Foxes Public House on the night of the 6th. Twomey did not accept that. It was part of the case to be advanced by him that Cameron had accompanied him to Jane Rowe’s home. The evidence given by Cameron as to this therefore appeared to have changed from the case which Ms Brimelow had made a point of putting to Twomey only a couple of days previously. The Crown suggested that Twomey had persuaded Cameron to alter his evidence to fit in with Twomey’s case. He denied that. 
325.	When Cameron was cross-examined on behalf of Hibberd, he agreed he had seen Hibberd in the Foxes Public House at some stage on the evening of the 6th. When Cameron was cross-examined by Mr Russell-Flint, his evidence was at times extremely vague. He agreed he was happy to get involved in a little dishonesty in selling counterfeit clothing and suspect goods in order to earn some money, but said that he was not a robber. Although he had known Twomey for about fifteen years, he did not at the time know that he had been to prison. He maintained that the notes found in the hot water bottle did not derive from information provided to him by others, and so his attention was drawn to aspects of those notes which appear to reflect information which would have been provided by way of evidence in the criminal proceedings brought against others whilst Cameron was on the run. He was taken to the detail of that document and also to the prepared statement which his solicitor had written on his instruction at the time of his interviews post arrest in March 2007. Amongst the points made were the allegations that he had clearly been receiving information from others about the case, and that contrary to his present evidence he was saying that he and Twomey had left the Foxes and gone back to the hotel on the evening of 6th February, only stopping for something to eat on the way, there being no mention of a quarrel or a visit to Jane Rowe’s or anyone else. In the documents there was no mention of Mr Leahy, Micky Hunter, or Jimmy Moynihan senior. It was pointed out that although Cameron knew who Barry Hibberd was, he had only referred to the man who came to Days Hotel with Twomey on the night of the 6th as “the fella” in the notes found in the hot water bottle. At the point when the notes were written, Hibberd had not been arrested or named by the police. Cameron denied that he had been trying to keep Hibberd’s name away from the police. 
326.	There was alleged to be a difference between the two written accounts as to the details of how he and Twomey were asked to go to the Harvester on the night of the 5th February. The notes also spoke of a “big row” taking place between Twomey and Brockwell on the 21st January, in the course of which Twomey told Brockwell “not to phone him anymore”. Neither the notes nor the prepared statement contained anything about Brockwell having mentioned a robbery or theft of bullion or precious metal. Without going into all the detail put, the suggestion made by the Crown was that features such as those identified above showed that Cameron had whilst on the run, prepared a false account. Cameron maintained that he was giving truthful evidence.
327.	Questioned about the bags which could be seen being brought by Twomey and Hibberd in the very small hours of 7th February, Cameron said he had brought no bags to the hotel, and that when he had left Twomey, Twomey had no bags with him. The bags with their stock had been locked in the boot of the car and he, Cameron, retained the keys. Cameron had originally said that he had parked the car in a side street near the Foxes that evening. In cross-examination he was less firm, saying that he could have parked it at the back of the hotel. Either way, if as might be expected, Cameron as the driver had the keys to the car, it is hard to see how Twomey’s account that those bags had come from the car could be correct. The alternative put forward by Twomey which was that the bags came from a customer that evening, is not supported by Cameron’s evidence that he and Twomey were not doing business that evening, with the exception of a chance sale of some cigarettes at the Railway Club, and the further possibility put forward by Twomey that the bags had come from Moynihan’s house was a third and highly unconvincing possibility put forward by Twomey alone and contradicted, at least in part, by Mr Moynihan junior’s evidence that no drink was kept in the Moynihan house. 
328.	At the end of Cameron’s cross-examination Mr Russell-Flint put to Cameron that his role in the robbery was as a driver taking the armed robbers to Spout Lane where they could transfer into the van driven by Brockwell. Cameron denied playing this or any other role in the robbery or its planning. 
329.	Even allowing for Cameron’s previous good character and the fact that of the Defendants, all of whom gave evidence before me, he seemed the least intelligent, I found Cameron’s account of events not to be credible. At times it was vague, at other times it appeared to be contradictory or inconsistent with other evidence. The thrust of Cameron’s case as to his dealings with Twomey and Brockwell was that he was no more than a driver who attended some meetings but took no part or interest in them and was not party to any agreement with Brockwell or Twomey, let alone one involving a proposed robbery of Menzies. I simply do not believe this. 
330.	The CCTV evidence of 21st January belies this, as it does Cameron’s claim that on that day there was a dispute involving Twomey and Brockwell suggestive of a lack of agreement between the two men. Cameron was seeking to convey that by the end of the meeting on that date, he could not take Brockwell seriously as a man to be dealt with and had sought to dissuade Twomey from having anything further to do with him. Moreover, it was Cameron’s case that on 21st January he was expecting to take delivery of a consignment of DVDs from Brockwell, and that this was the purpose of his visit to the country park with Twomey on that date. I find this incredible, since if this was the purpose of the visit, Twomey and Cameron had not taken a vehicle to the country park for the purpose of collecting the DVDs. They had walked to the country park from the Crooked Billet. I find that the reason they did this was so that Brockwell would not see what vehicle they were using. Nothing I saw in the tape on that day supports Cameron’s account; indeed it conveys the contrary. Cameron’s overall case is further belied by the meeting which Twomey had on the 30th January and the meeting that both men had with Brockwell on 5th February. It is simply unrealistic to suggest that Cameron played an uninvolved role in the matter. Twomey would never have permitted Cameron to be privy to his plans unless he was going to be part of them. It must be remembered that at this time Cameron, who was out of work and needed money, appears to have been very much a trusted lieutenant of Twomey. I am sure he had been persuaded to lend his support to the criminal venture upon which Twomey had embarked.
331.	I have previously commented on the credibility of Brockwell’s account and nothing which Twomey or Cameron have said causes me to doubt Brockwell’s account. When Cameron’s account of the final trip to London and the stay at Days Hotel is examined, there are in my view inherent implausibilities in his account which appeared to be unable to decide whether the reason behind the trip to London was to sell goods (which forms a necessary backdrop to part of Cameron’s account), or whether it was to enable Twomey to indulge himself in a drinking binge away from his family in Hampshire. Cameron’s account was never able to reconcile these two particular reasons. His account of the meeting with Brockwell on the evening of 5th February engineered by Steve Thompson is wholly implausible for reasons previously discussed, and in any event I reject it as untrue because I have accepted that Thompson was not in this country on that date. I am sure that the meeting which took place at the Harvester with Brockwell on 5th February represented a final meeting prior to a robbery taking place, such meeting having been arranged between Brockwell and Twomey. 
332.	Cameron’s suggestion that, having only just arrived in London, he was thinking of using the trip to the Harvester as a way of taking the drunken Twomey back to Hampshire that night is completely unbelievable. It is plain to me that the purpose of the meeting at the Harvester was to put the final touches to arrangements. It would be essential for the conspirators to visit Spout Lane as the meeting point at which the conspirators could get into a van on the night of the robbery in order to be taken airside through security, as indeed happened on 6th February when Brockwell collected the robbers and brought them in by that means. There had been no previous visit to Spout Lane and so it is clear to me that Brockwell needed to go there on the evening of 5th February with Twomey and Cameron in order to confirm the meeting point. This would be particularly important in Cameron’s case since he was the person who was to drive the robbers to the meeting point, enabling them to transfer into the van which would take them airside. No team of robbers could embark on a robbery of this nature without such a reconnaissance taking place. I am sure that Cameron went along on the trip to Spout Lane because he had a designated part in the robbery which was going to take place, namely to drive the robbers to the meeting point at Spout Lane, and, no doubt to take them away afterwards. Earlier in the case the Crown appeared to suggest that Cameron may have been one of the robbers who actually entered Menzies’ premises. By the time Cameron came to give evidence the allegation being put to him was that he had participated in the robbery, but not by entering the premises. The allegation put was that he had acted as the driver of the van which took the robbers to meet Brockwell in Spout Lane. I am, as I have indicated, quite sure that Cameron was present at and involved on the night of 6th February. His participatory role in the meetings which Twomey had with Brockwell satisfies me that not only did he have knowledge of what was to take place, but also he was to have a role in the events. The role of driver ascribed to Cameron by the Crown appears to me to make sound logical sense. Cameron’s previous good character, and in particular the absence of violence from his record, suggest strongly to me that he would have been unlikely to be allocated the role of a person who had to enter premises, threaten or intimidate staff, and carry a firearm. 
333.	Turning to events of 6th February and what is in effect a joint alibi put forward by Twomey and Cameron, and then Hibberd, Cameron’s evidence was inherently vague. Whilst he supported Twomey’s general account, he seemed to me in evidence to avoid committing himself to any detail. In addition, there were inconsistencies between the notes found in his chalet, and the prepared statement made at the police station, and also between the case specifically put to Twomey by Ms Brimelow and Cameron’s subsequent evidence on the matter. Once Cameron gave evidence, he appeared to me to wish to make his account dovetail with that of Twomey. I infer that this was because he was not giving a truthful account, but do not consider it safe to conclude that the contrast between the case put and Cameron’s evidence arose from pressure exerted by Twomey. I do not accept the alibi put forward by Cameron, and whilst of course, the failure of his alibi does not prove that he was at Menzies on the night of 6th February, his participation in the meetings involving Twomey and Brockwell, and his close involvement with Twomey make me sure that he was involved and present at Menzies on that night. I find it significant that Cameron, who knew who Hibberd was, had referred to Hibberd merely as “the fella” when he wrote his account of the night’s events in his chalet notes. I conclude that neither Twomey nor Cameron would have revealed Hibberd’s identity as the third man in Days Hotel until they knew the police were aware of his identity. The plain inference to be drawn from this is that the reasons for their association with Hibberd on the night were not innocent. 
334.	 As previously indicated, at the conclusion of the evidence there was discussion as to whether I should draw inferences under s34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and under s11 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act. Although a concession appeared to have been made that I could draw a s34 inference against Cameron based on his failure to put forward his alibi in his prepared statement at the time of questioning, I am not minded to do that because there is reference in the prepared statement to Cameron’s alibi, albeit not in the more detailed terms which he gave in evidence. I note also that in the notes recovered from the chalet which precede in time the prepared statement, Cameron refers the Foxes Public House, which he does not do in terms in his prepared statement. There is in fact no reference to the alibi in Cameron’s Defence Statement, and this would permit the drawing of an inference under s11(5)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. However, in the circumstances I do not think it necessary to draw an inference under this provision either since I have already taken account of inconsistencies in Cameron’s case relating to the alibi as part of an exercise in considering its credibility. Accordingly, I will draw no additional statutory inference in relation to the alibi. The position is, however, different in relation to another matter. At no point in his prepared statement tendered at interview or in his Defence Statement provided in May 2008 did Cameron make reference to a fact upon which he now relies, namely that at a meeting or meetings with Brockwell, Brockwell had been putting forward plans for a robbery of bullion from a warehouse at Feltham. This seems to me to be a significant omission. The evidence now put forward by Cameron is plainly designed to seek to support Twomey’s case in explaining the drawings which have been recovered by the police. In my judgment, Cameron could reasonably have been expected to mention this fact. Although both statutory inferences are capable of being drawn, it would not be sensible to pile one upon the other, not least since the statutory provisions are couched in almost identical terms. In the circumstances I shall simply draw the inference that the failure by Cameron previously to mention a bullion robbery at Feltham was because his claim that Brockwell had mentioned that was untrue. 
335.	When one turns to the events surrounding the return to Days Hotel in the very small hours of 7th February by the three Defendants, it seemed clear to me from a viewing of the CCTV that Cameron was awaiting the arrival of the other two, something he would not have been in a position to anticipate if his account of an evening’s drinking ending in his parting company with the other two so that they could continue drinking or socialising with other people were true. He seems to me to have left Room 103 to meet Hibberd and Twomey in order to be ready to assist them with what they were bringing back to the hotel. The accounts of Twomey, Cameron and Hibberd were at sixes and sevens as to how the bags carried into the hotel could have carried stock and/or drink. In my judgment the suggestion that there was nothing significant or sinister in the bags was patently untrue, and given my rejection of the alibi evidence put forward and my finding as to the roles of Twomey and Cameron in the robbery, I have little difficulty in inferring that what was being carried into the premises so shortly after the robbery was some or all of the proceeds of it. In addition it is clear to me that Cameron was trying to keep Hibberd’s name out of the case. In the notes found in the chalet in Cornwall he twice referred to Hibberd as “the fella” who had arrived at Days Hotel with Twomey. Further, in his prepared statement he described Twomey as arriving with “another man I didn’t know”. Cameron would not have been doing this if he were an innocent man and if Hibberd was a means by which his innocence could be demonstrated. This secrecy about Hibberd clearly supports the Crown’s case that Cameron was involved in criminal activity on that night. 
336.	Cameron’s account of the events from 7th February onwards was extraordinarily vague. He could give no account of his or Twomey’s movements, nor any satisfactory explanation as to why he as a man of previous good character, who had been wrongly mentioned by the police as wanted for questioning in connection with the robbery, should neither have returned home nor contacted the police, but instead have gone on the run for a period of over three years. Some of the content of the notes found in the chalet, taken together with the phone card with the initials JT written on it, suggest clearly to me that, whilst on the run, Cameron was in touch with Twomey and ascertaining how the case was developing. His lack of detail and of any plausible explanation for his conduct is a further reason for rejecting the account put forward. 
337.	Taking account of all the evidence, I am sure that Cameron was privy to the planning of the robbery at Menzies and that he was present at Menzies on the night of the robbery in the role of the driver who took the robbers there, albeit that he did not enter the premises himself or carry a firearm. I am sure that his alibi for that night is untrue. The role which Cameron played in the robbery was an important one. It was played with full knowledge of what was to transpire. Accordingly, I find him guilty of Count 3.
338.	In relation to Count 5 (the firearms charge), it was submitted that even if I were sure that Cameron participated in the robbery by driving the robbers in a van to Spout Lane, that did not necessarily mean that he was guilty of Count 5. Reliance was placed on the fact that Brockwell had given evidence that when he had collected the robbers at Spout Lane, and they had transferred from the van (which I find was driven by Cameron), he had not seen any of them carrying firearms. I do not accept that a parallel can be drawn. Brockwell was a man who I find was not privy to all the details of what was to take place during the robbery, and in any event, the robbers who were transferring from one van to another were disguised so as to look to any casual observer as an employee of Menzies. The overt carrying of firearms might attract attention from some chance casual observer in a way which would not occur if the guns were not on open display. Cameron’s position, however, is very different. He was a trusted lieutenant of Twomey, who was plainly the organiser. On that basis alone I am sure that he would have been privy to much greater detail as to how the robbery was to be carried out than Brockwell would. As the driver of the van taking the robbers to Menzies, he would have had significantly greater opportunity to have seen the men and what they were carrying than Brockwell would have. Brockwell’s situation involved a quick transfer from one van to another at a time when the men would be unlikely to be displaying firearms, and is wholly different from Cameron’s prior knowledge and, I find, significantly greater contact with the robbers prior to driving them to Spout Lane. I therefore feel that it is safe to conclude that Cameron, even in his role of driver, knew of the fact that firearms were being carried by the robbers whom he was driving for use in the robbery at Menzies. Accordingly, the separate submission made in relation to Count 5 is rejected, and Cameron is guilty of that Count on the basis of joint enterprise. 
Barry Hibberd
339.	Counts 6 to 18 relate to Hibberd alone. They arise from the execution of a search warrant on the 9th October 2002 at Garage 6, rear of Burleigh Road, Uxbridge. This garage had been rented to a Simon Brown. On that day, following information received, officers searched a number of garages at the rear of Burleigh Road, and in the sixth and final garage entered found a substantial quantity of firearms and ammunition. Inside a doubly-padlocked garage which was carpeted, they found a motorbike with a crash helmet and sunglasses, at one end of the garage. The motorbike had been stolen in December 2001. By the right hand wall, clustered in a group with other items, they found a paper bag with the letters AV on it and a rucksack. On the opposite side of the garage, but underneath the carpet, they found a firearm in addition to the firearms found in the rucksack. I will deal with the findings now in greater detail. 
340.	When the crash helmet was examined, DNA was found in the mouth and chin strap area. Analysis showed that the most likely contributor was a Marvin Herbert. It was decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Herbert. When the sunglasses were examined, DNA found provided some support for the view that it was the DNA of a Simon Brown. 
341.	Inside the paper bag with AV printed on it was found a yellow post office bag. Staining was found on that bag with DNA matching the components of the profile of Anthony Hearn, with a match probability of 1 in one billion. The staining was indicative of being saliva. Inside that yellow bag was a black balaclava, which yielded no DNA profile. There were also two golf gloves showing DNA from more than one person, and providing some support for the view that Anthony Hearn’s DNA was present on each glove. 
342.	Inside the rucksack were found three sets of dark blue overalls and three balaclavas. On one of them, exhibit 95/GWP16, an area of material at the bottom inside and outside of the mouth hole, was analysed. It produced an incomplete DNA result, but if all nineteen of a possible twenty components detected came from a single donor, (and there was nothing to indicate that there was more than one DNA donor), it matched the DNA profile of Barry Hibberd, with a match probability of 1 in one billion. It was not possible to say whether the DNA came from saliva or by handling. The provider of this DNA also matched the provider of DNA found on a silver and black Beretta (exhibit 81/GWP19) which was also found in the rucksack. That DNA came from the back of the handgrip and showed DNA from more than one person, with the major contributor most likely being male. This DNA matched Hibberd with a match probability of 1 in one billion. On this same gun there was found DNA profile matching that of Anthony Hearn with a match probability of 1 in one billion on the left side of the grip on the slide of the gun. This gun features in Counts 6 and 7 of the indictment. It had a magazine containing fifteen 9 millimetre cartridges and there is a single 9 millimetre bullet in the chamber. In addition, and separately in the rucksack was found a magazine suitable for use with this Beretta (exhibit 88/GWP22). There were thirteen 9 millimetre cartridges in the magazine. These are represented in Count 14.  
343.	Also found inside the rucksack was a submachine gun, exhibit 84/GWP20. This is represented in Counts 12 and 13. There is DNA on the grip from more than one person, most likely male. The identity of the depositor is unknown, and so he is referred to as “unknown D”. A magazine for the machine gun containing ammunition, exhibit90/GWP24, was also found to have DNA which matched this unknown person (unknown D), who had deposited DNA on the grip of the submachine gun. This is represented in Count 16. On item GWP18, a black balaclava found in the rucksack, a DNA profile around the mouth area also matched unknown D. In a separate magazine found in the rucksack, exhibit 89/GWP23, again compatible with use in the submachine gun, was found twenty six parabellum cartridges, some of which were of the type used with a silencer. This ammunition is represented in Court 15.  Further associated with the submachine gun and also in the rucksack was exhibit91/GWP25, a silencer, which yielded a partial DNA male profile, dubbed “unknown E”. This is represented in Counts 17 and 18.  There was also found a Baikal self loading pistol and silencer (exhibit 85/GWP21) which is represented in Counts 8 and 9. A swab from the left grip of the Baikal revealed DNA from more than one person with a major male contributor. Subsequent analysis provided some support for the proposition that a Simon Brown had deposited that DNA. Inside the Baikal was a magazine with six cartridges, and there was a single bullet in the breech. There was also found on the safety catch of the Baikal, DNA from more than one person, with a female major component. That person is referred to as unknown C. 
344.	On the opposite side of the garage and underneath the carpet was found a fourth firearm. It was a Colt self loading pistol wrapped in a white cloth. The pistol is exhibit 92/MAP5 and is represented by Counts 10 and 11. There was a magazine with five bullets inside the gun, and there was a single bullet in the breech. DNA found on the slide matched that of a Gary McGovern with a match probability of 1 in one billion, and a short hair found in the trigger matched McGovern’s DNA with a match probability of 1 in 1,400. As to the white cloth in which the Colt pistol had been found wrapped, a reaction for what may well be saliva staining was found. It gave a DNA match for the same Simon Brown whose DNA was found on the Baikal pistol, with a match probability of 1 in one billion. Tests for firearms residue showed that all four weapons recovered had previously been fired. 
345.	A number of other items found in the garage were analysed, but either provided no DNA or no DNA which was suitable for comparison purposes. Not every item inside the rucksack was analysed. 
346.	Mr Stein QC on behalf of Barry Hibberd cross-examined two of the search officers about the possibility of contamination. Both officers agreed that in 2002 there was a greater risk of contamination in the handling of exhibits when found. However, it appears that those who were to have contact with the exhibits were masked, wearing an overall, and were double gloved if handling a firearm. DS Porter said that each time he picked up a firearm he had swapped gloves in order to avoid cross-contamination, but also agreed that the numbers of used gloves retained could not account for all of the touching if his evidence was accurate. It was also acknowledged that when the items were put on the carpet of the garage to be photographed, they had not been put on some clean surface such as brown paper, but were put directly onto the carpet, which in the photograph could be seen to have leaves and other material on it. DC Minoli made safe the three firearms found on the right hand side of the garage. He was wearing a face mask and double rubber gloves. At the end of the exercise he handed over his mask, a paper bag, and two latex gloves. 
347.	DC Power thought there was a realistic possibility that some person or persons had failed to hand over the gloves that they had used in the search. It appears that this officer, together with another, was responsible for putting the items discovered into exhibit bags once they had been photographed and the firearms made safe. They did not, apparently, change their gloves after handing each item, but wore a single pair each. 
348.	Ms Bridget March, who was a senior Forensic Scientist who had performed the DNA analyses, and who was a fair and impressive witness, responded to a number of points made by Mr Stein QC. She agreed that it was not possible to say when DNA was deposited on an item, although advice could be provided in the case of an identifiable body fluid if, for example, there was information as to when the item had last been washed. In relation to the DNA attributed to Mr Hibberd, and not challenged, she could not say when either the DNA found on the balaclava or his DNA found on the Beretta had been deposited. The amount of Mr Hibberd’s DNA was very small. It was not possible to say whether it represented saliva or skin cells; if the former it could either have got on the article by direct contact with saliva or by transfer of saliva by a hand which had touched the mouth. 
349.	Possible explanations for the Barry Hibberd findings were (1) that he had worn or handled the balaclava, (2) that he had handled the Beretta, (3) the two items could have been in contact with a source of DNA matching that of Barry Hibberd, but without him touching them, for example, by sneezing or by transfer from some third object or person which had come into contact with Barry Hibberd’s DNA. Since the balaclava and the Beretta had been found in the same rucksack together, that could account for transfer of DNA; the fresher the DNA, the greater the chance of transfer. Transfer by touching or by rubbing items together is much more likely than airborne transfer of DNA from one item to another. Ms March considered that to be a low possibility in the rare or fanciful range. 
350.	Ms March confirmed the police officers’ evidence that since 2002 when these items were seized, knowledge about the risks of contamination by transfer had improved. She had heard the officers’ evidence and confirmed there was potential for contamination if DS Porter had not changed his gloves on every handling of items. Since he had not expressly stated this on two previous occasions when he had given evidence, I propose to work on the basis that he had not in fact changed his gloves on every handling of the items. There was also a potential for contamination based on the evidence of Mr Power who said that the two officers packaging the items had not changed their gloves, and there had been a potential for transfer of DNA because the Beretta and balaclava had been found within the same rucksack. She spoke in terms of airborne transfer of DNA from the carpet to the Beretta or balaclava as being of low probability. She pointed out that for the officers gloves to have been the source of transfer or contamination of the Beretta and balaclava, they would have needed some other primary source of Hibberd’s DNA, and that there were no other items examined in the rucksack which had bore his DNA profile. In her view the primary means of DNA deposit was by the touching, or wearing of an item, or speaking close to it. For secondary contaminating transfer to take place, it must be assumed that Mr Hibberd’s DNA had been in the garage and had transferred onto one of the items. Such a transfer would have to take place very quickly because if a person with DNA on his hands, for example, touched something else or washed his hands, he would lose DNA. She would not expect secondary transfer to take place the next day. If two items were in a rucksack together and one of them had Hibberd’s DNA on it, transfer of DNA from one item to the other could occur at anytime until the DNA degenerated. Clearly, any analysis of the significance of the finding of Hibberd’s DNA must take into account the concessions made by Ms March. 
351.	All of the items found and referred to in the indictment are firearms, prohibited firearms or ammunition as the case may be within the meaning of the Firearms Act, as set out in the indictment.
352.	Three of those whose DNA was identified on items at the garage were prosecuted. There were links between them. In June 2004 each pleaded guilty to a charge contrary to S16(A) of the Firearms Act. McGovern and Brown pleaded to a charge involving the Colt self-loading pistol, and Hearn to one involving the Beretta. The only fingerprint identified from the search of the garage was one of McGovern’s, found on the bag marked AV. 
353.	Barry Hibberd was arrested on 21st May 2006. After caution he said “I don’t know anything about an armed robbery”. He was interviewed in the presence of a solicitor. He initially made no comment to questions put and then provided a prepared statement. In that he said he was not involved in the robbery. He said he had been at Days Inn on the 6th February 2004. He said he had bumped into Twomey and Cameron in a pub in Ruislip. After a few drinks there, they had gone to a house in the area for a drink and then he drove the three of them, together with baggage, to their hotel. He had helped them carry the baggage inside and upstairs. He thought the bags contained fake designer clothing. He had had a drink with them and had then driven home. 
354.	Hibberd had been identified on the Days Hotel footage at the end of April 2004. An officer who knew him from football-related matters identified him. Up to that point it was agreed that there was no evidence to connect Hibberd to the robbery, but the finding of Hibberd’s DNA profile on items from Garage 6 (see above) was a factor taken into account by the police in their decision to arrest him on 20th May 2006. 
355.	Whilst on remand at Belmarsh Prison, Hibberd was arrested on 1st August 2006 for the firearms offences arising out of items found in Garage 6. He made no comment in interview, but it is agreed that in the circumstances there should be no criticism or adverse inference for failing to answer questions in interview about the firearms findings because there had been a failure of proper disclosure prior to interview. However, whilst being booked in at the police station and told what he had been arrested for, he asked “Is this what Gary McGovern and that got arrested for?”. 
356.	Mr Hibberd gave evidence to me. Barry Hibberd is 43 years old. He has always lived in the Shepherd’s Bush area of London. From about 2000 he was involved in pub management work for a friend of his called John Whitley. By the time of his arrest in May 2006 he was assisting Mr Whitley in his car sales business. Hibberd has a criminal record centring around football hooliganism in the 1980s. There is a single conviction in the 1990s for possessing a bladed article. His last conviction was in 2002 for taking a vehicle without consent. He has never served a prison sentence. He denies that he is a robber or a person who has been involved in firearms. In his evidence he made it clear that he has been throughout his life prepared to use his size, build, and strength to use physical violence to settle disputes.
357.	It is necessary to consider the significance, if any, of Hibberd’s convictions and related matters in this case. I disregard his convictions for taking a vehicle and possessing a bladed article as irrelevant. His convictions for thuggish violence in the 1980s might in the absence of other evidence have faded into irrelevance by reason of the passage of time. However, in seeking to portray himself as a person who would not act as a robber carrying firearms, Mr Hibberd freely admitted that in the course of his life up to the time of the events with which this case is concerned, and indeed afterwards, he had not infrequently resorted to significant physical violence against those whom, for one reason or another, he felt deserved it. Accordingly, whilst this evidence cannot demonstrate a propensity to commit an offence of the type with which he is charged, namely the firearms and armed robbery offences, there is in my judgment a residual relevance to the evidence, namely that Hibberd might be seen as a person who could handle himself well in the context of an armed robbery involving the threat or use of force upon employees, and might well therefore have appeared to be a potential recruit. To that limited extent the evidence relating to Hibberd’s character has a place to play in this case. 
358.	Hibberd first dealt with the firearms allegations against him alone, Counts 6 to 18. These relate to the finding of firearms in a garage in west London in October 2002. Hibberd denied ever visiting garage 6, and in particular denied handling the Beretta gun on which his DNA was found. He agreed that there were connections between himself and the three men who pleaded guilty to firearm charges arising out of the discovery. Gary McGovern was a lifelong friend of his. Brown and Hearn were associates of McGovern who, Hibberd said, where not well known to him, although he had seen them on occasions when they were in McGovern’s company. Equally he had only a passing acquaintance with Herbert and Hardwick, whose names also featured in the evidence relating to the garage. In 2002 a friend of McGovern’s, Steve Maynard, was shot dead. McGovern was extremely upset over this and was in fear for his own safety. When McGovern pleaded guilty, he and his co-Defendants had claimed that they had acquired firearms to protect themselves in the light of the shooting of Maynard. It is, however, to be noted that when the firearms were recovered, balaclavas and overalls were also recovered. After Maynard’s shooting McGovern tended to stay at different addresses and would spend about a couple of nights a fortnight staying at Hibberd’s flat. 
359.	Hibberd put forward two potential explanations for the finding of his DNA on a balaclava and a Beretta gun found in a rucksack in the garage. Firstly, he said that he had owned a moped, and that McGovern had taken it for a period of six weeks. There were gloves, a mask and a helmet under the seat. When the moped was returned, the gloves and the mask, which was a lycra type ski mask, were missing. Hibberd said he complained about this and was given a woolly balaclava and some woollen gloves. He was unhappy about this and handed them back to McGovern. He had not put this balaclava on. The second potential explanation was that on one occasion he went fishing with McGovern and two of McGovern’s friends. He was unable to say when this was beyond saying that the weather was cold. He had recently found out from McGovern that the place at which they had gone fishing was near Uxbridge. Hibberd said that as it got dark, the weather became cold. He said his head was freezing. He was bored, and he wanted to go. The two friends of McGovern had a rucksack with a number of hats in it. Hibberd said that the only decent hat was a dark balaclava, which he put on top of his head, rolled up. At some point, though, he pulled the balaclava down over his face and began messing about with a catapult used for distributing bait. The others did not find his behaviour funny and so he took the balaclava off. He said that when he left, he left the balaclava behind. He went on to say that he did not know whether either of the two balaclavas was the one found at the garage by the police and bearing his DNA, but denied that he had handled the Beretta. 
360.	On 19th September 2002, about three weeks before the discovery of the firearms, the police gave Hibberd an Osman warning, to the effect that his safety might be in danger. Hibberd said he thought it might relate to the McGovern/Maynard matter, or else to the fact that he was “belting people every week in the pub”. He mentioned one specific incident in early September 2002 when he had badly punched a man who had harassed Hibberd’s girlfriend. He said that man had connections to a Yardie family.
361.	In August 2006, upon being told that he was being arrested for possession of firearms, he had asked if that was what McGovern had been arrested for. He said that at around Christmas 2005, McGovern had been released from prison and had told him that his name had been mentioned during his court proceedings, and that his DNA had been found in the garage. Pausing there, it is acknowledged that Hibberd’s name was perhaps inadvertently mentioned in this way by the Crown at those proceedings in June 2004. 
362.	Hibberd then turned to the Menzies robbery. Of his co-accused he did not know Blake, but did know Twomey, whom he had met while drinking in about 2000. They might meet while drinking four or five times a year, but were not very close. However, it became clear that in the autumn of 2002 Twomey had arranged for Hibberd to use Glenn Cameron’s caravan for two or three weeks in the Bournemouth area. This was in November 2002, and whilst Hibberd stayed at that caravan in order to stop taking cocaine and cut down on his drinking he had met Twomey, and, on a separate occasion, Twomey’s wife had brought him a birthday present. Hibberd said that he knew Glenn Cameron who was always with Twomey, but did not really speak to him. He did not know any of the other people whose names had cropped up in this case. 
363.	On 6th February 2004 Hibberd said that he had been working for John Whitley, delivering and picking up vehicles in Milton Keynes and Bristol. He got home to his girlfriend’s mother’s flat in Shepherd’s Bush at about 21:00 hours. He was suffering from gout. His girlfriend thought it was due to his taking cocaine, to which she had objected, and which he had stopped taking in the autumn of 2003 at her insistence. There was a heated argument and this led to him leaving the flat and going to the Askew Public House across the road at about 10:00pm. He did not wish to stay there in case his girlfriend came into the pub and embarrassed him. So, he phoned a girl called Caroline, whom he had previously met. She said she was in Ruislip and he said he would meet her, and so he drove over to Ruislip and met her at the Bull Public House. He had asked her to get a couple of “tickets” of cocaine. He arrived at Ruislip at about 22:30 hours, and had some cocaine and continued drinking. He said he was behaving loudly, and Caroline asked for one of the “tickets” of cocaine and went to the ladies lavatories. However, she did not return and when he phoned her, she did not answer her phone. She had bolted. Hibberd said that he does not know her surname, no longer had her phone number by the time he was arrested, and has not been able to trace her. 
364.	Hibberd said he was not keeping track of time, but he ended up at the Foxes Public House. He saw Twomey in a group with Glenn Cameron. By now he was feeling sick. He was still suffering from gout, although the drink had dulled the pain. However, his foot was swollen. Since Twomey sold fake designer clothing and always had bags with him, he must have had a bag or bags with him that night in the Foxes. Having met Twomey at the Foxes, Hibberd wanted to carry on drinking and had said to Twomey “let’s go”. Hibberd had a car with him, and said that as far as he was aware they had gone to a couple of houses. He said his memory was poor about the detail but he thought he had gone with Twomey, possibly Glenn Cameron, an old man and maybe someone else. He said that his car was full, and that he simply went where he was told. He could not recall meeting anyone or speaking to anyone, but said he recalled being sick outside a house. He could not recall going inside any house. 
365.	He said that the three of them had ended up at Days Hotel. He had driven there. He believed he had left his car on the hotel car park. However, he agreed that when he left the hotel in the small hours of the morning having visited Room 103, the CCTV footage appears to show him waiting in reception, as if for a cab. He said he and Twomey had arrived at Days Hotel together. He had thought that Cameron was with them, but he now knew from the CCTV that Cameron had arrived there earlier. As to the CCTV which shows him and Twomey carrying bags up to Room 103, he said he did not recall doing that. He said he did remember heading straight for a bed and said that he must have “crashed out”. He thought he had only been at the hotel for an hour and a half, whereas the CCTV shows that he stayed for considerably longer. His evidence about “crashing out” is to be contrasted with that of Cameron, who said that Hibberd was telling football stories in the bedroom, and Twomey’s which suggested that the three men were all drinking. Hibberd denied that there was any discussion about the robbery in Room 103 or that he had seen any money or equipment from the robbery. As to the CCTV footage which shows Hibberd leaving the hotel at 04:47 hours, he said that the bag which he was carrying contained his trainers, a tracksuit top, and some cigarettes. He had been sick on his own trainers and was wearing a pair of Gucci style trainers which Twomey had given to him. He denied that there was money in the bag representing proceeds of the robbery. It was subsequently pointed out in cross-examination that he had not previously mentioned being given a tracksuit top and some cigarettes by Twomey. The suggestion was that he had added this detail in order better to account for the apparent weight of the contents of the bag which he took away in the small hours from Days Hotel. 
366.	After 6th February he had heard on the grapevine that Twomey had been arrested a couple of weeks later. When Twomey was released on bail in 2005, he had made contact with Hibberd and they had arranged to meet in a café in Ruislip. Twomey had said that Hibberd was on the Days Hotel CCTV with him. Twomey wanted Hibberd to be an alibi witness for him, but Hibberd said that he did not want to be involved. 
367.	After his arrest in May 2006 Hibberd was interviewed, but made no comment. He did not have a clear recollection of events and so put forward a prepared statement at interview. He said that it was his decision to make no comment and to put forward a prepared statement because he could not remember a great deal. 
368.	The prepared statement was before the court, but Stuart Harris, a solicitor with Saunders Solicitors, gave evidence about what Hibberd had said to him leading to the preparation of the prepared statement. Mr Harris said that his firm was also acting for Twomey, but that he was not personally involved in Twomey’s case at the time and he had no detailed knowledge of it. Hibberd is now represented by other solicitors. Mr Harris’ notes show that Hibberd told him that his memory was “not great” due to a combination of alcohol, cocaine and the time gap. He described an argument with his girlfriend and then going to a flat in Shepherd’s Bush or his mother’s in Uxbridge. He had gone to Ruislip for a few drinks after the argument, hoping to bump into some friends who drink there. He had spoken of the cocaine in a way that suggested he was using it regularly at the time, rather than relapsing on that night. In Ruislip he had met girls called Caroline and Stacey. He had gone to several pubs but could not remember their names. He had bumped into Twomey, Cameron and a few others. After the last pub he went to a house but could not remember any details, and after that the three of them had gone to a hotel. He had also said that from the house they had gone to the hotel “with the owner who was out with us”. He had helped carry bags up to the hotel room. The bags contained designer clothes and shoes. He knew this because Twomey had given him some dark Gucci trainers. He stayed at the hotel briefly and had another drink, but felt ill and went home. This was what the prepared statement said. 
369.	When Mr Harris was cross-examined, Mr Russell-Flint brought out that Hibberd had not mentioned to his solicitor having discussed the matter with Twomey in 2005, nor had he said anything about an arrangement to meet Caroline in Ruislip. He had not said anything about Caroline taking his cocaine and leaving him in the lurch. Indeed he had indicated that he was already taking cocaine that night before meeting her, as opposed to obtaining cocaine from her. He had only said he felt sick that evening whilst at the hotel, and that this was his reason for leaving. He did not say that he had been given cigarettes or a tracksuit top by Twomey. 
370.	It was admitted that at the time of the Menzies robbery the police held no intelligence to suggest any link between Hibberd and the Menzies robbery.
371.	When cross-examined on behalf of Twomey, Hibberd had said that the bags which were carried into the Days Hotel had been taken there in the Ford Focus which he was driving. 
372.	When cross-examined by Mr Russell-Flint, Hibberd said that 6th February was the first occasion that he had relapsed back into cocaine use since the previous autumn. Hibberd agreed that in the prepared statement he had put forward to the police there was no reference at all to the girl Caroline and he had stated that having argued with his girlfriend, he had been on his own. Mr Harris had said that he had been careful to check the prepared statement with Hibberd more than once prior to putting the signed document forward to the police. Hibberd said that he had in fact left the Bull Public House with Caroline and taken her to the Foxes, and it was there that she had left him, after which he bumped into Twomey and Cameron. It was pointed out that the shoes he wore into and out of Days Hotel were the same light coloured shoes. Hibberd said that he did not know when he had got the shoes, he had not changed shoes in the bedroom, nor had he changed shoes in the pub. Perhaps it was outside one of the houses they had visited after leaving the Foxes. The CCTV does not show Hibberd carrying another pair of shoes into Days Hotel with him, and the trainers he can be seen wearing at Days Hotel are light coloured and appear to be Nike brand, rather than dark Gucci trainers. 
373.	He was asked about the contrast between his prepared statement of May 2006 and his Defence Statement of January 2007. In the former he described himself as driving home from the hotel. In the latter he states that he was unable to keep driving that night because of his state and that he was uncertain about the extent of his driving and uncertain about how he had got home. He said he had no recall of entering any house after the Foxes. He had not gone inside any property because he was feeling unwell. It was pointed out that he appears to be happy and smiling as he carries the bags up the stairs to Room 103 at Days Hotel. He replied that he was “buzzing” and felt better for having been sick. It was put specifically to him that he was robber three on the Menzies footage which depicts a man wearing light shoes or trainers similar to those shown on the Days Hotel CCTV. He denied this. He denied that he had been recruited because of any prior involvement with firearms. He denied involvement with the firearms found at the garage or that he had been party to acquiring weapons after the Osman warning had been given to him in September 2002.
374.	He said that he could not remember whether the first balaclava he had handled (that relating to the moped) had been handled before or after the Osman warning, and the same applied to the balaclava worn briefly on the fishing trip. 
375.	I shall begin a consideration of the counts against Hibberd by dealing with the firearms offences relating to the cache found at the garage in October 2002. It is important to recognise that the only connections between him and the items found are the findings of his DNA on the Beretta and the balaclava found in the rucksack, and the fact that he was a good friend of Gary McGovern. There is no evidence to associate him with the renting of the garage, no evidence to show that he ever went there, and no evidence that he had a means of entering what was a securely locked garage. It seems to me that particular care needs to be taken in those circumstances in analysing what the evidence amounts to. Since the Colt pistol (Counts 10 and 11) was found under the carpet on the opposite side of the garage and cannot be connected to Hibberd by any DNA of his, I cannot be sure that this item can safely be taken to represent part of a general cache alleged by the Crown to be represented by the items in and around the rucksack on the opposite side of the garage. Accordingly, I find Hibberd not guilty on Counts 10 and 11.  
376.	Turning then to the remaining firearms and ammunition found in the rucksack, I leave aside for the moment the Beretta upon which Mr Hibberd’s DNA has been found. There is no DNA evidence to link Hibberd to those other items. The case is put on the basis that the items found in the rucksack represent a form of joint possession of all items by McGovern, Hearn and Brown. It would, in my judgment, be over simplistic to equate the fact that four guns were found in the garage and to add Hibberd’s name to that of McGovern, Hearn and Brown, so that there was one gun available for each person. The fallacy in this approach is revealed by the fact that there is evidence of DNA from unknown persons found on some of the firearms. Nor in my judgment is it sufficient to say that the firearms and ammunition are all found in the same rucksack. Individual firearms are very easily portable and do not necessarily have to have been introduced into the rucksack or the garage at the same time. Accordingly, the fact that Hibberd’s DNA was found on the Beretta (particularly when it is borne in mind that Hearn’s DNA was on that same gun) does not necessarily safely associate Hibberd with those other guns. There is no evidence as to the circumstances in which Hibberd’s DNA got onto the Beretta, and so no evidence as to whether it got there at a time when that gun was part of a wider cache or merely a single gun un-associated with the other items. There is no evidence to connect Hibberd to the rucksack itself.  There is nothing to associate him with other items such as handcuffs, overalls or other balaclavas. It also seems to me to be a relevant point that the other three individuals, McGovern, Hearn and Brown, with whom Hibberd is alleged to jointly possess this cache of arms, have distributed their DNA more widely and on items which are outside the rucksack, thus leading to the inference of rather greater contact with items found in the garage. In these circumstances I do not consider it safe to infer merely from the finding of Hibberd’s DNA on the Beretta and a balaclava within the rucksack that he was jointly in possession of the other firearms and ammunition found. Accordingly, he must be found not guilty on Counts 8 and 9 and 12 to 18 inclusive. 
377.	That leaves for consideration Counts 6 and 7; alternative counts in relation to the Beretta upon which Hibberd’s DNA was found, but each dependant on the Prosecution proving possession on his part. The Crown seeks to prove possession by referring to the finding of Hibberd’s DNA on the back of the handgrip of the gun. The evidence of Ms March clearly demonstrates that an assumption cannot be made, because Hibberd’s DNA was found on the gun, that it necessarily follows that he has handled that item. Her evidence recognised that there were other possibilities to be considered. For example, if the balaclava bearing Hibberd’s DNA had been in close proximity to the handgrip of the gun within the rucksack, it was possible for a transfer of DNA from the balaclava to the pistol to take place. This possibility needs to be viewed in the light of the fact that the amounts of DNA found were miniscule, that it could not be stated when the DNA got onto the balaclava and/or the Beretta, and that tests were unable to show whether the DNA found on the balaclava came from saliva or some other substance. Ms March also said that although transfer would be more likely when DNA was fresh on an item, in the case of two items together in a rucksack, transfer could occur at any time until the DNA had degraded. 
378.	It was also clear from the evidence I heard from Ms March and the police officers that the police handling of the items in the garage provided the potential for cross-contamination. Obviously for such cross-contamination to take place there would have to be a source of Hibberd’s DNA present on one item in order for it to be transferred to another. It seems to me that a further possibility of airborne transfer of DNA can be disregarded as a theoretical possibility rather than a realistic one. 
379.	Ms March was plainly right when she said that the relevance of the DNA profiles obtained must be considered in the context of the evidence in the case overall. Mr Stein QC submitted that both the gun and the balaclava might have acquired Hibberd’s DNA through a human intermediary, or by a third object touching both items. Bearing in mind that the fresher the DNA the more likely the possibility of transfer, it seems to me that there is no evidence of any situation in which the Beretta and balaclava were together so as to be in a position to receive Hibberd’s DNA through a third party. Such a possibility is in my judgment speculative in the circumstances of this case.  The alternative put by Mr Stein is that the DNA found on the gun may have been transferred from DNA on the balaclava which was within the same rucksack. He points out that the DNA found in the mouth area of the balaclava was not necessarily saliva, and that there was no definitive evidence to show whether the DNA recovered came from inside or outside the mouth area. Accordingly, the Crown was not in a position to say whether the item had been worn or handled so as to receive the DNA. 
380.	In his evidence Hibberd put forward two potential explanations as to how his DNA might have got onto the balaclava, although it was clear that he was not in fact in a position to assert that the balaclava mentioned in either of his explanations was the one found in the garage. The first episode related to a balaclava which he very briefly handled arising from the borrowing of his moped by McGovern. The matters described by Hibberd in his evidence do not appear in his Defence Statement, something I would have expected to be the case if his account were true. In addition, I note that whilst the Defence Statement asserts the fact that the moped had been smashed up by McGovern, there was no reference to this memorable feature in the account given by Hibberd in evidence. These discrepancies lead me to conclude that this account was not truthful. The second account (that relating to the fishing trip) again did not appear to me to be genuine. In this account, two friends of McGovern’s not previously mentioned by Hibberd in his Defence Statement appear. Since they were the alleged providers of the balaclava which was apparently returned to them after Hibberd had played his joke with it, that seems to me to be very surprising and fatally damaging to the credibility of this account. 
381.	It is important to recognise that the burden of proof lies with the Crown, and also to be alive to the possibility that Mr Hibberd may have put forward these false accounts in relation to the balaclava, not because he is guilty, but out of a misguided desire to bolster up a genuine defence. I have considered this possibility carefully and have come to the conclusion that I cannot safely exclude it. I also find that I am left with a sense of unease, both as to the possibility acknowledged by Ms March of contamination by DNA transfer to the Beretta, either by contact with the balaclava whilst in the rucksack, or during the handling processes by the police in the aftermath of the discovery of the contents at the garage. It follows that, although there are suspicions arising from the finding of Hibberd’s DNA on both the balaclava and the firearm, I cannot say on the totality of the evidence I have heard that I am sure that he was in possession of that firearm as alleged by the Crown. Accordingly, I must find him not guilty in relation to Counts 6 and 7. 
382.	It follows that there is no finding of criminal association with firearms for me to consider taking into account in Hibberd’s case in relation to the Menzies robbery. The Crown also submitted to me that if I were to conclude that Hibberd was guilty of the Menzies robbery, and thus on that occasion involved with firearms, it was a matter which could be legitimately used in assessing the evidence in relation to the cache found at the garage. In my judgment, given the absence of compelling evidence in relation to the 2002 matter, it would be dangerous to work backwards from a finding of guilt in the 2004 matter and to use it in support of the Crown case on the earlier matter. Accordingly, I shall not do so.  
383.	I will deal next with the Menzies robbery. I accept that unless Twomey and Cameron are guilty of the robbery, Hibberd cannot be guilty, since the case against Hibberd is based on the fact that he was with Twomey when they brought back to Days Hotel what are alleged to be all or part of the proceeds of the robbery. Barry Hibberd’s alibi is composed partly of an account of his actions on the evening of 6th February which is independent of Twomey and Cameron, but which then at a point later in the evening runs in parallel with their accounts. His account of what he did prior to meeting Twomey and Cameron contains a number of serious inconsistencies between what he told his solicitor and what he said in evidence. Even making allowance for delay I did not believe him. As to his claim to have met Twomey and Cameron at the Foxes Public House, I reject this first of all because I am sure that Twomey and Cameron have put forward a false alibi in that respect, and also because I do not consider that Barry Hibberd was telling me the truth about it when he gave evidence to me. There are, in my judgment, significant problems with his account as to the bags carried back to the hotel, as to what happened once he had left the Foxes, as to whether or not he was using a car that night, as to where he was when he felt sick, as to whether he was given some dark trainers by Twomey that night, and as to what took place once he had arrived back at the hotel. It seems to me that there has been an unsuccessful attempt by the Defendants to co-ordinate an alibi for the evening of the robbery and an explanation for the Days Hotel CCTV footage in a way which has been exposed as false by their individual and cumulative evidence on the topic.
384.	It seems to me to be significant that when Twomey came out on bail in 2005, he met Hibberd and discussed the fact that Hibberd had been at the Days Hotel with Twomey and Cameron on the night in question. If, as all three claim to be the case, their association that night was innocent and the visit by Hibberd to Days Hotel was innocuous, it is surprising that Twomey was prepared to accept Hibberd’s apparent reluctance to be an alibi witness. 
385.	The collective alibis of the three men, all in my judgment being untrue, there is plainly some other reason as to why all three were together on the night. The truth can be inferred from other evidence. Twomey and Cameron had not been out selling goods on the night in question and had not been carrying their wares with them in the bags taken into Days Hotel. Twomey and Cameron had undoubtedly been involved in the planning for the robbery and had, in my judgment, taken part in it with Twomey as the organiser and a robber who entered the premises and directed events, with Cameron being the person who drove the robbers to the rendezvous point at Spout Lane. The only sensible inference to be drawn from the fact that those two robbers were in company with Hibberd within a short time after the robbery must be that he was involved as well. I found it inconceivable that Twomey and Cameron, who would have to get away from the scene of the robbery, dispose of clothing and weapons, change, and make their ways to Days Hotel some ten miles away from the scene of the robbery, would have been in company with some uninvolved third person so soon after the event. There being in my judgment no innocent explanation for the contents of the bags being brought into the hotel, it is inconceivable that someone who was not involved in the robbery would have been assisting in taking the proceeds into the hotel and then spending a number of hours in a hotel room with two of the robbers. The sensible inference is that the bags brought into the hotel contained some or all of the proceeds, and that Hibberd being present at and party to those events, was someone who had been involved in the robbery with the two men in whose presence he was. His presence implies both participation in the robbery and a particular degree of trust being reposed in him. This latter point confirms my clear impression that Hibberd knew Twomey and Cameron rather better than he was prepared to concede in the course of his evidence.  I am sure that the account which he put forward is false. I am sure that in the circumstances the correct analysis is that he, too, was one of the robbers. 
386.	I have come to this conclusion recognising that the case against Hibberd centres on his presence with Twomey and Cameron at Days Hotel. I have rightly been reminded that in Hibberd’s case there is no surveillance evidence, no contemporaneous police intelligence, and no forensic scientific link between Hibberd and the offence. Those matters are in reality another way of stating that the case against Hibberd must focus on the Days Hotel evidence alone. I am not impressed by the argument that the use of Days Hotel represents conduct inconsistent with such a professionally executed robbery. Firstly, I have found that Twomey and Cameron were in fact involved in the robbery. Secondly, Days Hotel was ten miles away from the scene of the robbery in an area which is densely populated with small hotels, so that its use would be difficult to detect without some luck on the part of investigators. In this case there was a stroke of luck, since the police found a credit card receipt in Twomey’s rubbish on 7th February 2004, which in turn led them to trace Days Hotel and to obtain the CCTV material before it had been destroyed or lost. Weight was also attached to the fact that Hibberd appears to have stayed in the west London area between the time of the Menzies crime and his arrest. Of course, that fact must be viewed alongside the fact that Hibberd’s name, unlike that of Twomey and Cameron, was never publicised by the police. Even accepting that Hibberd was unaware that he appeared on the CCTV until told by Twomey at some point in 2005, he may well reasonably have concluded that since he had not been arrested by then, the police had failed to identify him so that he was thus safe to remain in the area. Whether those observations are accurate or not, I do not consider that this point is sufficient to cause me any doubt as to Hibberd’s participation in the robbery. I therefore find him guilty on Counts 3 and 5.