The Heirs of Owain Glyndwr (32 page)

68

Thursday 14 May 1970

Mr Justice Overton gave
the jury a firm direction that they could not convict any defendant unless the evidence satisfied them of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He defined a conspiracy as an unlawful agreement to commit a criminal offence. He warned them that Dafydd Prosser's decision not to give evidence was a decision every defendant in a criminal court was entitled to make, and that it must not be held against him in any way. It was certainly no evidence of his guilt. There were only a few other matters of law to deal with, and he dealt with them succinctly and clearly. He then spent a good deal of the day reminding the jury of the evidence they had heard, and putting it in context. It was a long, but necessary, task. Towards the end of the afternoon, he was ready for his concluding remarks.

‘Members of the jury, what does it all come down to? The Crown say that Caradog Prys-Jones and Dafydd Prosser, with the absent Trevor Hughes, made an agreement to plant a bomb in Caernarfon Castle, set to detonate during the Investiture, with an obvious risk of loss of life and serious injury to many people, including the Queen and Prince Charles. The Crown say that they recruited Arianwen Hughes to carry the bomb in her car from the garage factory in Bangor to the square in Caernarfon, for Caradog Prys-Jones to collect, using her young son to give the impression of a normal family activity. Caradog Prys-Jones had ready and unquestioned access to the Castle because of his job as a night watchman, and had already selected a site for the bomb to be placed, close to the Royal dais and to several seating stands for guests.

‘Members of the jury, this is a case in which it is impossible not to have strong feelings about the evidence you have heard. Any act of planting a bomb, especially where there is a strong probability that lives will be lost or terrible injuries caused, must cause revulsion in any right-thinking person. When those lives might have been lost and those injuries caused during a joyful national celebration, when the victims might have included the Queen, or Prince Charles, or another member of the Royal Family, the act becomes one which strikes at the very heart of British life, the very fabric of our government. No one in this court expects you not to have strong feelings about that. That would be impossible, wouldn't it?

‘That makes what I am about to say all the more difficult. But I must say it. I must and do direct you now, not to disregard your feelings, not to deny them, but to put them to one side for a time while you deliberate about this case. I say that, because the law requires you to do what you have taken an oath to do, that is to say, to return a true verdict in accordance with the evidence. You cannot return a true verdict according to the evidence if you start with any prejudice against these defendants. Every defendant who comes before our courts is innocent until proven guilty, and that applies whether the charge is one of a minor theft, or a crime of the utmost gravity, as in this case. That principle applies to this case just as much as it would to a case of shop-lifting. It applies to every case which comes before the criminal courts of this country. You must, therefore, put whatever feelings you have about the case on one side and decide on the basis of the evidence.

‘I also want to make this clear: that none of these defendants is on trial for believing that Wales should be an independent nation, or for engaging in lawful political activities to further that cause. None of the defendants is on trial for believing that England has in the past acted with aggression against Wales, or for believing that England has been indifferent, if not actively hostile, to the preservation of the ancient Welsh language as a living language. Indeed, having heard the historical evidence presented to you, you may think that in some ways they have a legitimate grievance. I make that clear because both Caradog Prys-Jones and Arianwen Hughes have told you frankly that they are nationalists. They are perfectly entitled to hold those views and to promote them in every lawful way. They are not to be convicted because of their beliefs, and you are not to be prejudiced against them because of their beliefs, even if you may personally disagree with them.

‘Nor are you to be prejudiced against Caradog Prys-Jones because of his behaviour earlier in the trial, which led me to have him taken down to the cells. Indeed, you may well regard his refusal to recognise the court as no more than another protest against all things English – an ill-advised and ill-timed protest, you may think, but perhaps no more than that. He returned to court subsequently. He has made no further protest and, indeed, he has given evidence, although more on behalf of his sister than on his own account.

‘The Crown say, of course, that this was not simply a matter of holding beliefs or promoting them by lawful means. The Crown says that this was a serious crime, which would have been a serious crime even if it was not committed in a political cause. It is illegal to cause explosions in these circumstances, regardless of the motive of the person who causes the explosion.

‘Let me deal first with the case of Caradog Prys-Jones. I have reminded you of the prosecution's evidence. It is said that he was the leader of the Heirs of Owain Glyndŵr; that he commissioned Dafydd Prosser to build a device capable of being detonated during the Investiture ceremony; that he found a place to plant it, making use of the access he had to the Castle as a night watchman; and that he was prevented from carrying the plan out only because of his arrest. When interviewed by the police, he gave them a written statement under caution. It is not disputed that this was a voluntary statement. You may think – of course, it is a matter for you to say – but you may think you would be perfectly entitled to regard that statement, not only as an admission of guilt, but as a defiant statement of self-justification. Indeed, you may think that, on its own, it is more than enough to convict him, and certainly when it is taken together with the other evidence you have heard. But that is a matter for you.

‘Turning to Dafydd Prosser, he has not given evidence, but for the reasons I have explained, you will not hold that against him. The Crown say that he is linked to the bomb by a good deal of circumstantial evidence found in the garage in Bangor, fingerprints and fragments of dynamite and electrical wire, and by the fact that he collected the bomb in the car driven by Arianwen Hughes and delivered it to Caradog Prys-Jones in the square in Caernarfon. When the bomb disposal officers arrived, he continually assured them that the device was not armed, which the disposal officers soon confirmed for themselves.

‘The Crown say that there can only be one reason why Dafydd Prosser would know whether or not the device was armed, and that is because he built the device and was familiar with its condition when it arrived in Caernarfon. Obviously, it would be a sensible step not to arm it until the last possible moment, which was just before Caradog Prys-Jones put it in his duffle bag to take it into the Castle; and you will bear in mind Mr Morgan-Davies's observation that it was obvious to the bomb disposal officers almost immediately that it was not armed. But that, of course, does not begin to explain the fact, if you accept it as such, that he brought the device from the garage in Bangor to Caernarfon.

‘Turning lastly to Arianwen Hughes, she has given evidence, supported by her brother, that she knew nothing about the plot to plant a bomb in the Castle, and that she had no idea that the item she carried back from Bangor was a bomb. As I said earlier, members of the jury, if that account is true, or if it may be true, then you cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she had knowledge of the plan, and without proof of that knowledge she cannot be convicted of conspiracy.

‘The Crown's case, you may think, turns on the argument that she knew all three men well, and well enough that she must have known what they were planning – that it is, from a practical point of view, impossible that she could not have known after such close contact with them over such a long period of time. It is for you to say where the truth lies, but I remind you that the test is not what she
must
have known, but what she
did
know. You must bear in mind, as Mr Schroeder reminded you, that her husband is absent from this trial, and that Mr Schroeder has not had the opportunity to cross-examine him about what his wife knew or did not know. That is a point to consider, but I remind you that you may not speculate about evidence that has not been given. You must try the case on the basis of the evidence you do have. The Crown do not suggest that she did anything other than carry the bomb to further the goals of the conspiracy. It is not suggested that she participated in any way in the planning, or in building the device.

‘You have heard evidence, not only from Mrs Hughes herself, but from a number of prosecution witnesses, about her distress, particularly about being parted from her son. You cannot, of course, base your verdict on any sympathy for her about that, assuming that you have any such sympathy. But you may take her distress – which was, you may think, quite obvious when she gave evidence – into account; and you may take into account the feelings she has about her son when you ask yourselves whether she would have allowed herself to become mixed up in this plot, or whether, as she herself told you, she would have gone to the police herself if she had known of it. The Crown say that the fact that Harri was in the car when she drove from Bangor with the bomb in her boot is evidence of her fanatical devotion to the conspiracy. But you must remember also Mr Schroeder's argument that it could equally well show that she did not know what was going on. He suggests to you that no woman would expose her son to a risk of being blown up, however slight that risk might have been.

‘As in the case of the other two defendants, you must not be prejudiced against her because of her nationalist views and, as in the case of her brother, you must not be prejudiced because of the way she expressed herself in court – in her case when, during her evidence, she referred to the Prince of Wales as “Charles Windsor”. That may have been a deliberately slighting or insulting remark, or simply one made in the heat of the moment in the course of what was certainly a very heated exchange during Mr Roberts' cross-examination. But, members of the jury, it has nothing to do with the evidence in her case. The only question for you is whether you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that her act of driving the car in the early morning of 1 July was a knowing act of participation in the conspiracy, or whether it may be that she did so not knowing what it was she was carrying.

‘Members of the jury, I am not going to send you out this afternoon. I know that you may be out for some time, so we will start fresh at 10.30 tomorrow morning. We are adjourned for the day.'

69

Friday 15 May 1970

The jury retired to
begin work the next morning just after 10.30 without undue ceremony. Ben made his way down to the cells to see Arianwen, but the tension made it impossible for either of them to say anything meaningful, and before long he left Barratt and Eifion to wait near the court for news, and returned to the Bar Mess. He found Gareth sitting in an armchair with a cup of coffee, reading
The Times
. He smiled.

‘You look very calm. Where's Donald?'

‘He went for a prowl around somewhere,' Gareth replied. ‘He couldn't sit still for very long.'

‘I'm not sure I can,' Ben said. ‘Does it ever get any easier waiting for juries?'

‘Not in the 20-plus years I've been doing this job,' Gareth replied. ‘Mind you, it's not too bad when you have a client like Dai Bach, who's going down like a lead balloon. Not much drama in his case, I'm afraid, or in Caradog's. But they may be out for some time with your girl. I think she has a shot. Your closing speech was very persuasive and much as I hate to admit it, I thought Overton treated her very fairly in the summing-up.'

‘Too fairly,' Ben said, seating himself in the armchair next to Gareth's. ‘I'm not sure he's left me anywhere to go on appeal if she goes down.'

‘I'm not sure he has. I have to say, I have been quite impressed with Miles in this case. After all the years I've known him as one of the most combative and opinionated Silks in the business, he seems to have become the model judge. Perhaps he is behaving himself because he's in the public eye. Perhaps he will show his true colours when he has to buckle down to the everyday business of the Queen's Bench Division.'

‘How is Bernard enjoying life on the bench? Do you hear from him? I've hardly seen him since he started. Harriet was in front of him last week on a short matter and she said he was his usual formal self, very business-like.'

‘He is thoroughly enjoying himself. We have been in touch about chambers matters, my taking over as Head of Chambers and so on, and the impression I get is that he's in his element.'

‘Well, at least standards will be maintained at the Bar with Bernard on the bench,' Ben grinned. ‘Woe betide anyone who appears in his court with wrinkled bands or his waistcoat unbuttoned. Can I get you some more coffee?'

Gareth shook his head. ‘No thanks. It's ghastly stuff, isn't it? I don't know why I drink it – to pass the time, I suppose. Let's hope we're not here too long.'

Leaving Gareth to
The Times
, Ben poured himself a strong coffee and returned to sit and wait. Members of the Bar involved in other cases came and went, and he chatted to one or two, but most of the morning was spent sitting in the armchair, trying without much success to concentrate on an article about the reform of the criminal law which he had optimistically brought with him. Lunch time brought some relief, the chance to enjoy the hubbub of the Mess, to hear tales of what was going on in other courts. But when 2 o'clock came, the Mess emptied again and they were left alone with the silence.

The worst time was at about 5 o'clock, when the courts had risen for the day. The barristers in other cases had returned to chambers; the building was deserted; and the cleaners wandered dispiritedly through the rooms, clearing away the coffee cups and gathering up discarded newspapers, trailing humming vacuum cleaners behind them, and circling the chairs where they sat with an unspoken resentment about having to clean around them, so that they felt like intruders in their own Bar Mess. At 6 o'clock, Geoffrey the usher entered and disrupted the crushing silence by asking them to return to court.

‘Mr Roberts,' the judge said. ‘I have been told that the jury has reached a verdict in the case of two of the three defendants, but not the third. Unless there is any objection, I propose to take the two verdicts now, and then allow the jury further time to deliberate about the remaining defendant.'

Evan looked along counsel's row and saw no reaction.

‘My Lord, I do not think anyone would seek to persuade your Lordship otherwise.'

‘If any of the defendants is convicted,' the judge continued, ‘I propose to sentence this evening.'

Evan looked along the row again. This time, Gareth stood slowly.

‘My Lord, I can't object to that, of course,' he replied. ‘But I do invite your Lordship to consider whether it might be better to adjourn until tomorrow morning. Inevitably, a verdict of guilty in the case of any defendant will be a stressful and emotional moment, not only for the defendant, but also for counsel and solicitors. It may be that a short adjournment would allow both counsel and your Lordship some time for reflection about mitigation and sentence.'

‘I don't think I need any time for reflection,' Mr Justice Overton replied. ‘I have had plenty of time for that during the trial, and I imagine that counsel have had ample opportunity during this long afternoon.'

‘As your Lordship pleases,' Gareth replied. He resumed his seat, and turned to Ben. ‘I take back all the nice things I said about him,' he whispered.

‘I didn't think they were all that nice,' Ben whispered back.

At a nod from the judge, the clerk of court stood and asked the defendants to stand.

‘Members of the jury, who shall speak as your foreman?'

The foreman of the jury stood. He was a precise-looking man, who had worn a pinstriped suit and a tie throughout the trial, and had taken copious notes of the evidence. In everyday life he was a high-ranking executive of a City bank.

‘I am the foreman, my Lord.'

‘Members of the jury, in the case of Caradog Prys-Jones, has the jury reached a verdict on which you all agreed?'

‘We have, my Lord.'

‘Do you find Caradog Prys-Jones guilty or not guilty of conspiracy to cause explosions?'

‘We find the defendant guilty.'

‘You find the defendant Caradog Prys-Jones guilty, and is that the verdict of you all?'

‘It is, my Lord.'

‘Members of the jury, in the case of Dafydd Prosser, has the jury reached a verdict on which you all agreed?'

‘We have, my Lord.'

‘Do you find Dafydd Prosser guilty or not guilty of conspiracy to cause explosions?'

‘We find the defendant guilty.'

‘You find the defendant Dafydd Prosser guilty, and is that the verdict of you all?'

‘It is, my Lord.'

‘Members of the jury, in the case of Arianwen Hughes, has the jury reached a verdict on which you all agreed?'

The foreman coughed.

‘No, my Lord.'

There was a silence. After some time, the judge nodded.

‘Then, please retire again, members of the jury, and continue your deliberations as to Mrs Hughes.'

When the jury had left, he added: ‘I will remand Caradog Prys-Jones and Dafydd Prosser in custody for sentence.'

As the judge left the bench, Ben turned around to see all three defendants sitting, pale and motionless, in the dock.