QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE UNDERHILL
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF HARLOW-HAYES||Claimant|
|CAMBRIDGE CROWN COURT||Defendant|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr J Farmer (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the First Interested Party
Mr R Harrison (instructed by Adams Harrison Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Second Interested Party
Crown Copyright ©
"6. The prosecution barrister then presented the choices available to the clients. He said that they could only be bound over to keep the peace if they consented to do so. However, if they did not consent to do so, they would be in contempt of court and could be subject to imprisonment.
7. The clients enquired what a binding over order would entail. The barrister advised that CCTV surveillance could potentially amount to a breach of the peace depending on the circumstances. The judge was unlikely to define specific conditions of compliance in the order. The orders would be confined to the individuals they were made against. There would be a substantial fine for breaching the binding over orders.
8. The barrister told the clients that they could either make the choice between consenting to being bound over and being in contempt of court on their own, or they could seek legal advice. I clearly understood this to mean that the clients could seek legal advice specifically about the choice between consenting and being in contempt. I remember thinking that this was a harsh choice.
9. In the event, Mrs Turner and Mrs Harlow-Hayes decided that they did not need to take legal advice on the choice between whether to consent to being bound over or being in contempt of court. They decided there and then to choose to consent.
10. At no point during the meeting was there any indication that the clients had any right to contest a binding over order. In the circumstances, at the end of a four day trial and with the jury presently out to return its verdict, it certainly did not occur to me, and I doubt very much it occurred to the clients, that there was any opportunity or right to contest the proposed binding over orders."
"They informed me that they felt it had been a harsh choice, and they had no option but to consent to being bound over."
That recollection is supported by a handwritten note that he prepared for the purposes of the file.
"Whilst I accept that in all probability I did not explicitly tell the two sisters that if they sought independent legal advice then that advice might be to challenge the basis upon which the bind overs were being contemplated, I do not feel that it was incumbent upon me to do so given the limited nature of my role in the discussions as indicated above: I was not there as their legal adviser and I made that point abundantly clear."
"Well, let me ask you first of all, Jean Harlow-Hayes, is it right that you have had explained to you what I have in mind and I can't impose a bind over unless you agree to it? Do you agree to such a course?
But it is quite apparent from what is said thereafter that she had then indicated her assent, as did the other complainant, Mrs Turner.