Fit Up (31 page)

J
oining the horde of commuters back into London the following Monday, we were wondering who would turn up today – Dr Bhushan, Hopkins or none of the above!

Before entering the courtroom we joined Andre, Leslie and the legal assistants, who were huddled in a corner, to hear the news that Hopkins was in the building. I could see Leslie was excited at the prospect of questioning him again as he dictated the structure of his approach to his assistant. I said to Andre that Leslie should take it easy with Hopkins because it seemed we had the judge on our side and it would be a pity to lose the ground we had made. Andre agreed and said to Leslie, ‘Les, you need to be sensitive when questioning Hopkins.’ Leslie looked hurt, as if he had been insulted, and said indignantly, ‘I can do sensitive!’ All of us stared at him momentarily in stunned silence before erupting in fits of laughter. Andre stepped in, ‘Seriously, Les, you can’t go into this like last time.’

We filed into the courtroom, settled into our seats as Challenger stood to address Mackay who was probably wondering who he would be seeing that morning too.

‘My Lord, we received a report from Dr Bhushan last Friday and the conclusion is that we have Mr Hopkins here in the building with his wife.
I have spoken to him briefly about giving evidence and what he has asked is that she be allowed to sit close to him in the witness box and that the ordeal is as short as possible. I have made a promise to Mrs Hopkins that the minute this is over she and her husband will be released.’ With his head bowed, he added that perhaps he should not have made that promise.

Mackay said he was right to make it and that he wanted to hear Hopkins’s evidence. Leslie interjected to say that his cross-examination would be short depending on what Hopkins said regarding his evidence from the transcript which the judge confirmed he had now read. ‘As long as there are no surprises, I do not propose to be very long,’ added Leslie.

There was some discussion as to whether Hopkins had reviewed his statement and the judge decided to rise for twenty minutes to allow him time to do this. Before Mackay left, Challenger said he had one other point to put forward. ‘His wife has indicated to me that those people Mr Hopkins finds threatening should not be present, including Mrs Grundy.’ It was an astonishing thing to say to a judge because it indicated that the relationship between Hopkins and Grundy was acrimonious. I jokingly mentioned to Jeremy that Leslie must be considered threatening after last time but he
had
to be in the room. Mackay said it was up to Challenger if he wanted to ask Grundy to leave the courtroom but he didn’t have to as she was on her way already.

A little later the proceedings resumed and Hopkins came into view. The last time I saw him he was in a suit, but now he was dressed in a light-coloured shirt, which was open at the neck, and light-grey trousers. There was a rumpled look about him as he shuffled towards the witness box and took his seat. His wife sat a few feet away and I could see he looked to her for comfort. I had hated this man for so long for what he had done to Jeremy and for all the years that our lives had been on hold in order to reveal the truth. However, observing him now, the rage that I had carried within was somewhat diffused. I saw his wife’s concern for her
husband and realised that, at this moment, we were in the same boat. We both had to be strong and supportive of our men in their time of need.

Challenger asked Hopkins to confirm his name and asked him if he had managed to read through his statement. He said that he had read about 10 per cent of it and apologised as he had got muddled part-way through.

Leslie gently asked Hopkins if, on the last occasion they met, he had told the truth. Hopkins confirmed that he had. ‘So the evidence you gave before will be the same answers?’ Hopkins said he was not sure how to answer that. Referring to the Grundy letter, Leslie said he had about eight or nine questions and proceeded to ask them. However, the responses were that he could not recall anything. Then he moved onto a series of questions regarding the SID document and the dealings with Willcox to which, again, his responses were that he could not recall. I was feeling quite exasperated but not surprised that there was nothing new coming to light. I was, however, surprised that Leslie was still managing ‘sensitive’ mode.

Mr Justice Mackay stepped in to ask Hopkins for clarification on several points but he too received the inability to recall stance.

By his demeanour and tone, I could sense Leslie was coming to the end of his questioning. He stared darkly at Hopkins and said, ‘Let’s look at the facts. You have been exposed as a liar in that you say of Mrs Grundy’s letter that you did not give her instructions, you say you do not recall giving a statement to DS Willcox, you knew you were potentially destroying Mr Fouhey’s reputation and this shows you are prepared to act in a malicious way.’

‘No,’ muttered Hopkins.

‘This is your nature, these are the indicators of
you
, as a man,’ said Leslie quietly and then sat down. That has to hurt, I thought. If someone had said that to Jeremy I would have wondered what he had done to prompt such a comment.

Hopkins’s short ordeal was then over and he and his wife left the courtroom as quickly as they could.

Leslie and Challenger presented their submissions and then proceeded to discuss damages for Jeremy should Mackay award judgment in his favour. It was a lengthy process with Leslie pushing for the maximum amount possible and Challenger trying to limit it by discrediting Jeremy.

Finally, the trial was at an end. Mackay indicated that he would give his judgment as soon as possible, but it would not be the next day as he had another commitment. We were concerned about this, and hoped it would not be as long as when we were waiting for Cranston’s judgment.

Both legal teams started to pack up, with Leslie and Challenger engaging in some post-battle banter. As always, Jeremy asked Andre if he thought we had won and he said that he believed we had, but he was disappointed that Mackay was not awarding exemplary damages, nor would he take into account the conduct of the police’s legal team. He said that there could be a number of reasons for this but it was probably a desire to avoid an appeal as the judge would not want a third trial to take place. The best estimate he could give would be about £50,000, but feared it could be lower. This was definitely not what we wanted to hear as we had hoped it would be substantially more after all these years of suffering the emotional and financial impact on our lives. I was relieved that the trial was over but now the tense wait for judgment would begin.

D
ays went by and there was still no news. The waiting felt worse this time because if we failed we would be catapulted into catastrophe.

About two weeks after the trial ended, we were sitting in the car one evening, trying to get the enthusiasm to venture into the supermarket. Jeremy could stand it no longer and called Andre who tried to calm him
down, saying that these things can take time and that the judge was probably busy with other cases. ‘But, Andre, this is what happened last time when Cranston promised his judgment the next day but he disappeared for weeks only to return to say we had lost.’ There was a moment’s silence at the end of the phone and Andre said, ‘You’ve got me worried now. I am going to see if I can find anything out.’

With each passing day I became more nervous, half expecting Jeremy to turn up at my office door like last time with a grave expression to tell me that we had lost the case. It was now 11 February, just over three weeks since the end of the trial, and I was beginning to resign myself to devastating news. The phone rang, interrupting my miserable thoughts. It was Jeremy to say that he had heard from Andre. He sounded sombre and fearfully I took a deep breath, to brace myself for the inevitable. ‘We’ve won!’ he screamed. I could barely take it in and was rendered momentarily unable to speak. I had been expecting the worst and here was the news I had been waiting years to hear. ‘I can’t believe it’s over,’ I managed to blurt out. For the first time in years I could hear joy in Jeremy’s voice as he recalled the moment he heard from Andre. I felt euphoric and didn’t know whether to stand or sit with the realisation that we could now begin to put the years of fear, struggle and sadness behind us. I imagined the reactions of Challenger and Grundy to Mackay’s judgment and continued to smile for justice had now been done. Too excited to remain at work, I told Jeremy I was coming home for we had a lot of celebrating to do.

I
t had taken over seven years since Jeremy’s arrest to finally achieve justice and to clear his name from being associated with such an abhorrent subject matter. The fight had revealed not only a dishonest policeman, but also a dishonest legal team that defended him.

We were encouraged by Leslie and Andre to consider making a complaint against Hopkins to the Director of Public Prosecutions for committing perjury in the first trial and attempting to pervert the course of justice in Jeremy’s original criminal prosecution. To do so, we were advised to make a request to Hertfordshire Constabulary to investigate the matter, which we knew would go nowhere and decided to let it rest.

We had considered reporting Challenger and Grundy’s conduct to their respective employers but we had become tired of them being in our lives.

This case was not just about the money, which was just as well, as Mackay awarded Jeremy only £20,000 damages, which was raised to £30,000, once Andre had threatened Grundy with an application to appeal.

The upside was that we were awarded 100 per cent costs for both trials, which cost Hertfordshire Constabulary over £750,000 and more than likely resulted in similar costs for their own legal representation. Included in those costs was an amount which was awarded for the work
we did as litigants in person. In his statement to the press, Andre said that, in his opinion:

Unrestricted by budgets, they mistakenly overpaid Tuckers Solicitors £150,000, which, obviously, was returned forthwith to the public purse. However, it was with some irony that a few days after the trial had finished I read an article in the local paper headed: ‘Police merger could save £697,000’. It seemed that traffic policing operations in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire were to be merged in a bid to save money. Evidently, the same policy was not being applied to the legal services!

After the second trial, Jeremy’s case attracted a lot of positive attention from the public and media sources globally. So it was with some disappointment to see
The Sun
’s bold headline: ‘“Perv” Compo’. This, and the typical
Sun
slang text, inferred that Jeremy was a paedophile who got a lucky win of £20,000. As we were so used to litigation, Jeremy made a phone call to
The Sun
’s solicitors to make a complaint. Their defence was that the word ‘perv’ was in inverted commas, therefore they did not really mean it but, rather than be involved in legal wranglings, they made an immediate offer to settle and sent a cheque for an amount that we are legally bound not to disclose. However, we had a lovely holiday from it and they also gave us a written apology. At the time of writing Jeremy is still awaiting an apology from Hertfordshire Constabulary.

I
ask myself if I would do all this again. Initially, when I think of the time, money and mental anguish that Jeremy and I have gone through, my response is ‘no’. Perhaps we should have let matters lie after the criminal case failed, but could we have lived with that decision knowing that Hopkins had tried to stitch Jeremy up? The answer to that would also be ‘no’, as the desire for retribution, especially being associated with such an abhorrent subject matter as child pornography when you are innocent of any wrongdoing, was too great.

In the autumn of 2011 we received a letter from Andre containing Jeremy’s PNC (Police National Computer) information consisting of his DNA profile, photos and fingerprints. The return of this information expunged any possible record about Jeremy held on police computers. Although Jeremy was not his first client to have successfully petitioned for the return of these items, Andre was nonetheless ecstatic for him because it was such a rarity for a police force to capitulate to such a request.

We were initially euphoric at the result of the trial, but Andre had called it a Pyrrhic victory. Meaning that although we were victorious, the heavy toll negated any sense of achievement.

Even though he was totally vindicated from any wrongdoing, Jeremy found little satisfaction in this because he could not get past the accusations that had been levelled at him and felt that he would now always
be associated with such a reviled subject as child pornography. With the case having been so widely reported in the media, it made him feel that he was under much more scrutiny to the point of paranoia. He still keeps saying that everyone is talking about him despite my reassurances, but he continues to say that people do not understand his case or accept that he is completely vindicated.

The police had been involved in our marriage for just over seven years and we had talked of little else. Before this we had both been of a happy and optimistic disposition and I realised that I was drained and exhausted. It had been a long time since we had actually enjoyed life. When I had first met Jeremy he was humorous, engaging and confident, but the depressive episodes Dr Turner had referred to in court had never gone away and became more frequent. The upheaval of our lives had taken its toll and we made the decision to separate because the man that I had married had long since disappeared. I cannot be sure if he will ever return but while he continues to battle his demons we remain friends.

There have been times when we have been able to impart our knowledge and comfort to others who find themselves in a similar position and when we receive letters with comments such as: ‘Thank you for your kindness and support, we wouldn’t have coped without it; your support has been so helpful and stopped me going mad on many occasions’, this reduces the negation of any sense of achievement and can be looked upon in a positive sense as a result of our experience.