All language subtitles for Judge John Deed S03E01 Health Hazard

Advertise your product or brand here
contact www.OpenSubtitles.org today

Yeah, I know, I told him that.

Yeah, well, I made it
very clear. I'll see you.

Clive, I don't know how
many times I've told you

but I require you to read
it, that's what I pay you for.

We need to get the
legal advice before...

Why on earth would you say
that it is my fault when apparently...

As soon as we get close to the
deal, you say it's no good at all.

It was fine. They changed
it. They changed it.

Well, where is he? He's
meant to stay with the car.

- Well, perhaps he went to the loo.
- Betting shop, more like.

No, he's had too
many chances, that's it.

- I'll drive myself right now.
- James, you no longer have a licence.

Well, I can't take
the bus, can I, Clive?

Look, Flo, I told you. This
is not up for discussion.

I can't see you tonight.
Unless you want to be my driver.

No, no, I'm going to a Downing
Street bash with my wife.

Yeah, don't give me
an argument about it.

Oh, no. No.

- Mr Justice Everard, the new Presider.
- Yes, we were alerted, sir.

Your Lordship. My
cases are in the back.

Yes, My Lord.

- Well, who's occupying this room?
- Mr Justice Deed is here, My Lord.

Well, I'm the senior judge.

Deed has no right to take
the best room for himself.

His Lordship arrived
yesterday, Your Lordship.

Well, this is very shoddy,
very shoddy behaviour.

My Lord, shall I move
Sir John's things?

No, put my bags back
in the car. I'm not staying.

Thank you for attending
me on the circuit

and agreeing that I should
give judgement by myself.

I will post the full text of the
judgement on the internet.

This is an appeal from a decision
of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

on a point of law,

that the core of the case is the
question whether injuries caused

to Sergeant Jake Bridges

could be legally due to
the work he was asked to do

by his employer, the
Chief Constable for Sussex.

This court does not accept
the argument of the appellant.

You can't be serious.

Sergeant Bridges, disappointing
as this must be for you,

you must know from your
experience as a police officer

that you really mustn't
address the court in this way.

And whilst the court
sympathises with you,

the injuries cannot
be seen in law

as having been
caused by the work.

Working with
computers gave me ME.

Well, I will continue
reading the judgement.

You have a copy and can
consider it with your lawyer.

May I just ask,

I assume the Sussex
Police are not seeking costs?

- No, My Lord.
- Very well.

This another health
hazard, do you think?

I expect so, Judge.

You've got that horrible man who killed
those two little girls and their mother

- next on your list.
- Coop!

- It's alleged he did this.
- No.

He was driving while
on the mobile phone.

I pulled a lot of strings to
get you this case, Judge.

I'm sure that you'll give Mr
Brooklands just what he's got coming.

You're outrageous. Could
have been an accident.

Hi, Jo, it's me.

Any word yet from the
Professional Conduct Committee?

I've been trying
your phone all day,

don't you pick up your
messages anymore?

And, um,

would you like to have dinner?

She's gorgeous.
Where'd you get her?

Where do you think?

No sooner had I got Rosie re-homed
with my sister, Charlie finds this one.

- She a puppy?
- Well, she thinks she is. She's two.

- What's she called?
- Mimi.

- Hello!
- Mimi.

- Hey, I could do with some of that.
- Oh, no, no, no. Mimi's far safer.

My case could come up before the
Professional Conduct Committee anytime.

Wake up, John.

I'm accused of having sex
with the judge I was before.

Which judge is that, then?

I don't think you're
taking this seriously.

I think you're
worrying about nothing.

Fine for you. Me they
can take off the road.

Aren't you taking a
risk coming here, then?

I want help.

I'm up against your ex in a civil case
and I'm feeling a bit out of my depth.

I wouldn't let it worry
you. It'll never get to court.

Not with George,
she'll cut a deal.

Her clients are One-Way PLC.

Oh, that civil case.

And they won't
settle. If they do,

there'll be a flood of claims from
other damaged mobile phone users.

Why are you doing civil work?

Oh, I defended my client's
brother on a drug charge.

She's hoping I can perform
the same magic for her.

Well, it's all good experience
if you want to be a judge.

What stroke is this, Mr
Petros? Where's the defendant?

My Lord, Mr Brooklands
is in a psychiatric hospital.

The psychiatrists say
he's not fit to stand trial.

Are you running a
defence of insanity

to a charge of causing
death by dangerous driving?

No, My Lord, we're not arguing
Mr Brooklands was insane

at the time of the accident,

rather, his incoherent state of mind
now means he's not fit to stand trial.

This case has attracted a
great deal of public concern

and even more anger.

I noticed from the
committal papers

you argued your client couldn't
get a fair trial anywhere in the country

owing to the amount of hostile
publicity that this case has attracted.

You'll get a fair trial from
me, I can assure you.

Events have rather
overtaken Mr Brooklands.

I would direct Your Lordship
to the psychiatric reports.

As set out under the
Criminal Procedure Act 1964,

my client is incapable of
instructing either myself

or his solicitors as to what
submission to put forward.

Well, that must be very
worrying for you, Mr Petros.

However, I'm not prepared to
accept these reports at face value.

Under the 1964 Act,

if there is any doubt as to a
defendant's fitness to plead,

and I'm prepared to give Mr
Brooklands the benefit of the doubt,

we must settle this before
any evidence is heard.

Now, I want you here tomorrow
morning with your client and his doctors.

We shall empanel a jury to give
a ruling as to his mental state.

If their verdict is that he is sane,
we will then try him on the indictment.

If the court decides
that he is unfit to plead,

then under the
Criminal Procedures

Act 1991,

we shall conduct a
trial of the fact alone.

- 10:00 tomorrow.
- With respect, My Lord,

Mr Brooklands' doctors say he's
not fit enough to appear in court.

Do they indicate what the
possible outcome will be if he does?

Severe damage to his
mind is likely to result.

Well, the contention is that he's
already severely mentally damaged.

Further damage will be
difficult to detect, will it not?

I want you here tomorrow morning
with your client and his doctors.

I'm sure he'll be in
very capable hands.

All rise.

My Lord, clearly this
case should not be heard.

Mr Brooklands is
not well enough.

I'm glad you are taking
such an interest, Mr James,

but it's on my list.

Manipulated there
by your clerk, My Lord.

Then it's fortunate for Mr Brooklands
that he has such a fair-minded judge

who won't be influenced by
the size of his political donations.

Excuse me, My Lord.

Are you free for a directions
hearing in a negligence case?

If it's not too
complicated, Mr Harrison.

Oh, half a day, My Lord.

The case itself concerns a claim
for damages against One-Way PLC.

Mr Justice Everard was
to have heard it but...

Well, counsel for both
parties are waiting.

Why isn't Mr Justice
Everard hearing it?

Well, it appears he did
arrive at the lodgings, My Lord,

but was called back to London.

All right, I'll read the papers.
Tell counsel after lunch.

You've had my answer, Mr James.

Have you heard who
we're now before?

Mr Justice Everard.
It's on the list.

Oh, no. It's the Deed.

John? Well, that doesn't
exactly suit me, George.

I could be hauled up in front of
the Professional Conduct Committee

at any moment.

So we all know which
way the case will go.

We could make a joint approach

and ask him to recuse
himself from the case

because of his
relationship with us.

My relationship
isn't the problem, Jo.

- Your relationship is.
- We don't have a relationship.

That's what I hope
the PCC accept.

You'll be lucky.

I don't particularly
want to hear the case.

Mr Justice Everard
is indisposed.

With his leg over some bit.

Sorry, Mrs Channing, what
was that? I didn't quite...

I said, "We'll miss his wit."

The Court of Appeal
laid down guidelines

as to when a judge may recuse himself
from a case. None of them apply here.

With your leave, Judge,
I'm compelled to disagree.

Ex-wives are fine, but
with current wives or lovers,

there's a risk of
possible pillow talk.

You've been listening
to the gossip, George.

You know what they say,
"No smoke without fire."

There's another saying,
"All gong and no dinner."

Well, I can see I'm
going to have such fun.

There are remedies to redress

any miscarriage you feel may
follow from my having heard the case.

Now, can we get started?

Ian. Mrs Channing
just phoned me.

- Deed is hearing the One-Way case.
- So it seems.

It's a recipe for disaster.

We're doing all we can
to retrieve the situation.

But short of a bomb going off...

Well, surely there's some
way we can head it off.

It's already at court,
that's the problem.

Mrs Channing will have any number
of delaying arguments at her disposal.

Let's hope she uses them.

Meanwhile, I suppose
the claimant might die.

That would seem rather
heartless, even for the government.

I will get an update on her
medical prognosis, Minister.

I gather her brain
tumour's quite aggressive.

Good. Keep me informed.

What happened down
at Highfield, Laurence?

If any case needs
a reliable judge

it's this negligence
action against One-Way.

Mr Justice Everard
is refusing to sit.

It seems Mr Justice Deed arrived first
and took the best rooms at the lodgings.

Is this what I am to tell the Lord
Chancellor if this case goes wrong?

It will go wrong under
Deed's perverse management.

- Get it away from him.
- Well, we don't see how, Sir Ian.

There's a lot of bad
feeling between them.

It came about at the Human
Rights Seminar at Warwick.

Then putting them together wasn't
a sound management strategy.

Why wasn't Deed sent to
Carlisle or somewhere instead?

He wanted Highfield
again, Sir Ian.

You thought Mr Justice
Everard would check him.

Then Everard must get
back there and check him!

- Where is he?
- In chambers in the Strand, sir.

- I better go and talk to him.
- Deed is due to start

the directions hearing
after lunch adjournment.

If he does, there's no way
we can prise the case away.

We could always appeal
to his better nature.

Yes, why not?

- Sorry to interrupt your lunch, John.
- Sit down, Ian.

The matter is of
some importance.

It's vegetables
and tomato ketchup.

Best cook could come
up with at short notice.

Didn't she know
you were arriving?

Yes, yes, I just forgot to tell
her I'd become a vegetarian.

Ah, that could make official
dining functions awkward.

No, not really.

I'll just get Mrs Cooper
to alert them in advance.

- Your daughter's influence?
- Mmm, yes.

But however, I did weigh
the evidence as I usually do.

And came to your usual
perverse judgement.

Yes.

Now you're worried about a perverse
judgement in the mobile phone case.

Have you taken up
mind-reading, John?

The more experience one gets
the more contacts one makes.

I got an email from
somebody in your department.

Would you mind telling me who?

When we breed a culture
of spying and reporting back,

eventually we get spied upon

and reported back.

It's thought less than desirable
your hearing the cell phone case

with Mrs Mills involved,

in view of her hearing before
the Disciplinary Tribunal.

Is that still going ahead?

If this cell phone case were
to go against the company

- it could prove difficult for you?
- Not me personally.

I mean, it could open
a floodgate of litigation.

Like with tobacco and asbestos.

We'd regard it as a great favour
if you were to let it go to back to

Monty Everard in the Strand.

The claimant is very
poorly and she lives locally.

It seems unkind to ask her
to go all the way up to London.

On the other hand,

being owed a favour by your lot

might be a very good
position to put myself in.

We would be grateful.

Is Monty Everard
amenable to pressure?

Ah.

Does that mean you're not
interested in what we might offer you?

Just not convinced
you could deliver.

You'd have my word.

Then talk to me about my
elevation to the Appellate Bench.

The Lord Chancellor
regrets not having a mind

such as yours in
the Appeal Court.

And this ridiculously unfair PCC
hearing against Mrs Mills being dropped.

The Lord Chancellor's department
had very little influence there.

They're all reasonable men
on the Disciplinary Tribunal.

Well, the only question remaining,
then, Ian, is can we achieve all this

within the next 20 minutes?

I hardly think
that's practicable.

Because that's when I'm hearing
the arguments for directions

in the mobile phone case.

We respect the integrity and
independence of the judiciary, Sir John.

But there comes a point
when its very existence

depends upon a workable
relationship with the Executive.

Never more so than in the
case you're about to hear.

See, with the licence revenue from
the mobile phone companies at stake,

well, what is it, £22 billion,
this workable relationship

might easily deteriorate into
a master-servant relationship.

Couldn't it, Ian?

Sure you won't stay for lunch?

Did you get anywhere
with Monty Everard?

No, sir, I'm afraid not. But
one of our sources told us

that Deed slept with an attractive
French judge at the Warwick seminar

after Mr Justice Everard had
spent three days chatting her up.

There's no longer time for Everard
to get here before Deed starts.

I'll speak to Everard.

Meanwhile, you better come up with some
delaying strategies and fast, Laurence.

- What's happening, Coop?
- It's a bomb scare, Judge.

How long are we
going to be displaced?

Well, the police are making a
minute search of all the buildings.

That could take all afternoon.

The court manager is advising judges
to send their cases home for today.

Is he?

Row, its John, I'm at court.
We've got a bomb scare.

If I needed some information,
could you get it for me?

I doubt if I'd tell
you, even if I could.

It'd be available on a need-to-know
basis only. Why do you need to know?

Oh, maybe I'm
just being paranoid.

Listen, thanks,
Row. I'll call you later.

Police don't know where
the warning came from

but the caller had enough
information about the building

for them to take it seriously.

So the caller knew the building?

Can I get in and get my papers?

Everyone wants
to do that, Judge.

Find Mrs Mills and Mrs Channing.

We'll start the directions
hearing at the digs.

Mrs Hulsey, as the claimant and
the person most inconvenienced

by this action, I need to
ask you some questions.

These you can answer directly
yourself or through your counsel.

- It's Ms, sir. I'm not married.
- I do apologise.

- Is this your son?
- Yes. Michael.

- How old are you, Michael?
- I'll be eight on June 5th.

- What's the book you're reading?
- Lord of the Rings.

Is it? That's
impressive for seven.

- What book you on?
- Two Towers.

Wow! I was 11 before
I read the first book.

- He's a very keen reader.
- Yes, he must be.

Ms Hulsey, is it your earnest
intention to pursue this claim?

It is. It's why I'm here.

Well, you see, it needn't
necessarily follow.

No doubt your
barrister, Mrs Mills,

has explained to you what
will happen, but believe me,

whatever she has said,
that's only the half of it.

Is your health such that
you're likely to be able to finish?

Some days it's better than
others. I'm determined to continue.

This case was to have been
heard by Mr Justice Everard.

Would you prefer to wait for him

or are you content to
be heard here by me?

My client would prefer to
be heard as soon as possible.

She feels that if there are protracted
delays, her health might give out.

All right. And do you understand
that this is just a hearing

about whether
evidence is admissible

and that should the
defendant's arguments prevail,

I might prevent you
from proceeding?

Yes, Jo... Mrs Mills
explained that to me.

All right. Is there any way
that this case can be settled

without recourse to the court?

We don't accept
there is a case to settle.

No need to stand. Mrs Mills?

The defendants have
approached us on several occasions

to argue points they feel
will invalidate the case.

We don't accept the contention.

Then it seems likely
you're going to trial.

But the case is ready
to go before a judge?

That's what we're about to
hear, Ms Hulsey. Shall we start?

Before we do, My Lord, I have
a point of law I'd like to raise.

- Go on.
- I wish to challenge the legality

of your conducting this
hearing in this informal setting.

You have an authority to support
this challenge, Mrs Channing?

Well, I'm sure I do, My Lord, if
only I were in a formal setting

where I had access
to Halsbury's Laws.

Well, alas, we are
not and you don't.

However, I am certain

that my decision to hold the
directions hearing here is sound.

The Supreme Court Act
1981 is a bit like the Bible.

- My Lord, I wish to develop my argument.
- Then do so.

You know very well
I can't at present.

Then, Mrs Channing,
to quote Wittgenstein,

"Whereof we cannot speak,
thereof we must remain silent."

Let's hear your argument on the
evidence you want excluded, shall we?

I cannot remain silent
and witness an injustice

perpetrated against my client.

If you don't remain silent on other than
the substance of the pre-trial hearing,

I'll hold you in contempt,
and this is your only warning.

Is this going to be your argument
on the evidence you want excluded?

As you will know from your
papers, My Lord, my argument relates

to an email the claimant
illegally obtained from the internet.

I'd gladly develop my argument,
if only I had access to my papers,

which at this moment sit
inaccessible in Number 2 court.

Fine. Well, then,
having started this case,

I will adjourn it till tomorrow.

When, Mr Clerk, I'm afraid
I'm unable to say at present.

But I would like both parties

to stand by until I'm
free of my other case.

Until the morning.

Jo?

I'm afraid the Disciplinary Tribunal
is going ahead with the hearing.

They keep me waiting on
tenterhooks for 11 months

and I get to hear
it from you. Great.

I meant what I promised,
Jo. I will fight them with you.

My head of chambers thinks
that might make matters worse.

Do we know who's
chairing the hearing?

No, it'll be a High Court judge,
though. You'll come out of this all right.

I don't want to come out
all right, I want to be cleared.

It's all your fault anyway.

- They didn't find any bombs, John.
- No, I bet they didn't.

Now, I find it hard to believe
that a senior civil servant

would pull such a stroke just
to stop you hearing a case.

Oh, I doubt if Ian actually
made the call himself.

Or the circuit administrator.

But if it was done and
they've involved someone else

they're at an even
greater risk of exposure.

You have to consider
what's at stake.

Mobile phone licences are worth
£22 billion to the government.

If juries start finding
in favour of claimants,

they could blow some of these mobile
phone companies right out of the water.

Presumably their insurance
companies would pay.

Insurance companies
are now declining cover.

Yes, well, I see the pressure.

I'll try to find out
more about the bomb.

A word, sir?

Do you want your
clerk to hear this?

Well, I can't think it's
anything that she won't know

within five minutes of your
leaving my chambers, Monty.

This is going to be
a difficult term for us.

- Is there a problem?
- Oh, don't be cute, sir.

I'm the Presider. I have
seniority in court and in lodgings.

You took my room at the digs.

Well, I'll move my things if
it matters so much to you.

The issue is one of good
manners. I've moved to a hotel.

What is of greater
importance is the case

that you've taken
which I was hearing.

No, I take cases as they
arrive, the cab-rank principle.

You'd declined to sit, so as the next
most senior judge, the case came to me.

No, I was going to
hear it in the Strand

but the claimant was ill, so
I agreed to hear it on circuit.

Well, if you wanted the case

the normal procedure is
to reserve it to yourself.

Don't presume to instruct me
in procedure, I know the form.

I want my case back.

I'm happy to give you the room, Monty,
but the negligence case is now mine.

No, sir, you will observe the correct
procedure and give the case up.

No.

In all my days on the bench, I have
never encountered such discourtesy.

I'm shocked by your
behaviour. I won't tolerate it.

You'll come to regret
crossing swords with me, sir.

All right. Still
don't get the case.

I seriously doubt your ability
to hear this or any other case.

Goodbye, Monty.

Oh, dear. Hadn't you better
let him have the case, Judge?

He is the Presider, after all.

In another country one might
suspect him of being venal.

He could have shares in
the mobile phone company.

Oh, I doubt it. He'd
have to recuse himself.

You know what they call
him around the Strand, Judge?

You mustn't repeat such things.

Yes, I know. Legover Everard.

Keep your ear to
the ground, Coop.

This won't be their last
attempt to get the case back.

You're up about late, Ian.
Or did you dine locally?

I came bearing an olive branch.

Oh, do we need one?

We cannot allow this rift to deepen
between you and Sir Monty Everard.

I agreed to give
him the best room.

What I won't agree is to
relinquish a case I've now started.

I understand the
principle entirely.

Does Monty Everard?

This is so unnecessary. It
seems Mrs Channing is to offer you

an argument that will provide you
with a neat exit from this impasse.

Is it an impasse?

Oh, thank you.

This is entirely
coincidental, John.

But there is a vacancy
arising on the Appellate Bench.

Regardless of the
opposition from your brethren,

the Lord Chancellor
is keen for you to fill it.

Are you making me an offer?

You know we only have
the power to recommend.

The Queen would appoint you,
should you indicate your willingness

to accept the elevation.

Well,

in view of our past, Ian,

I think I would need
to see the small print.

Judge, Mrs Mills has just
heard the Disciplinary Tribunal

is on Thursday and Friday.

This Thursday and Friday?
What brought that on?

Did she say who's chairing it?

Only that she needs
to be free of court.

She doesn't want to leave the beginning
of the mobile phone case to her junior.

That case might not even run,
Coop, at least not before me.

I trust you now
have some authority

for your argument
yesterday, Mrs Channing?

St Edmonsbury and Ipswich
Diocesan Board of Finance and Clarke,

Chancery cases
1973, at page 323,

was what I was
groping for, My Lord.

Mr Justice McGarry took the
Chancery Division to Suffolk

to take evidence from an
84-year-old witness in poor health.

He did so without the
authorisation of the Lord Chancellor.

The Appeal Court judge held
that it wasn't constitutional to do so

and overturned the judgement.

I confess to not being familiar
with this case, Mrs Channing.

Accepting that time
is against the claimant,

I could overrule you for
compassionate reasons

as I have heard
nothing so far to suggest

that anything I did is
remotely anomalous in law.

I am reluctant to do so.

If any judgement in
favour of the claimant

might be overruled
on a technicality.

Although as you are
perfectly well aware,

I made no ruling other
than to adjourn the hearing.

I see no point in proceeding with
this until I've read the authority.

So, I'll give my ruling
first thing in the morning.

My Lord...

I'll hear from you first
thing, Mrs Mills. Till morning.

All rise.

Are we winning?

The fitness to plead
in the causing death

by dangerous driving
case is waiting, Judge.

Is the defendant present now?

Yes, Judge, with an
army of psychiatrists.

Oh, I'm sure Mr
Brooklands can afford them.

Perhaps you'd get
me some coffee, Coop?

Yeah.

- Are you still in the building?
- Yes.

Fancy some coffee?

I don't think so, not
without George present.

Oh, we won't talk
about the case.

Anyway, Coop's here.

We can invite George if it'd
make you feel more comfortable.

She already embroiders this
relationship more than she should.

Thanks, Coop. Would
you mind staying?

We are going to discuss
Mrs Mills' disciplinary hearing.

Well, I've been called as a
witness, Judge, for the Bar Council.

Ah, I forgot. You've been
asked to give a statement.

Well, no, perhaps
you better not stay.

I don't know what they
think I can tell them.

What you can or cannot tell them
is not what interests them, Coop.

They really mean
to get me, don't they?

All rise.

My apologies for the
delay. I have another case.

There is difficulty in
being in two places at once.

Now then, Mr Petros.

Does your client
understand where he is?

More importantly, does
he know why he's here?

Alas, the nature of his illness

is such that he dips in and
out of his cognitive functions.

I would direct you to the
Crown against Pritchard in 1836.

As I am sure Your
Lordship is aware,

this is the leading
case of determination.

Baron Allison characterised
this most important question thus,

"Is the defendant
of sufficient intellect

"to comprehend the course
of the proceedings in a trial,

"so as to make a
proper defence?"

The answer here,
you will discover,

on examining both the
defendant and the doctors

is certainly that he is not.

Yes, thank you, Mr Petros, I
am familiar with this leading case.

In current law,

the question to be
tried by a judge and jury

is whether the defendant is capable
of giving, receiving, and understanding

communications
relating to a criminal trial.

The issues the court will
focus on in deciding are

the challenging of a
jury, the idea of a plea,

evidence given in the trial and

whether he is capable
of instructing his solicitors.

I assume he did
instruct solicitors?

Initially, then, subsequently
he dropped out of the box.

His wife has been
instructing them since.

- Is Mrs Brooklands in court?
- She is.

Ah, Mrs Brooklands.

Is your husband capable of
giving you his instructions?

No, not any longer.

I instruct his solicitor according
to what I believe he would want.

I see. Thank you.

You see, the crime with
which Mr Brooklands is charged

is extraordinarily grave.

That he recklessly drove his car into
two young children and their mother

causing their death and
then wantonly left the scene.

Were he to walk away
from court without a trial,

either to establish
his mental condition

or to see if he was indeed the
author of this dreadful tragedy,

might lead the public to wonder

whether justice is
possible under the law.

We must first establish whether
the defendant is fit to plead.

Sp let us empanel a
jury for the first part.

My Lord, would you hear
an argument in chambers?

No, Mr Petros,

this is a matter now for a jury,
for the reasons I've just given.

Let's have the jury
candidates, Mr Clerk.

I'm not sure, but I think I might
agree with defence counsel.

There's a possibility Brooklands
might not get a fair trial.

You must be joking, Judge.

Do you think he's
faking his illness?

You can't let him avoid
his responsibilities.

Men do that too easily, Judge.

We going to school or court?

Mum?

I'm sorry you have to
cope with this, Michael.

You're so very brave.

Most adults wouldn't
have a clue what to do.

Have you got to stay here?

No, I won't do that, darling.

- Hi, Michael.
- Hi, Armac.

What are we going
to do with you, Di?

Has it got worse?

It's now a grade 4 astrocytoma.

They don't get any better, Di.

Did you think any more
about that radical radiotherapy?

Have the odds improved?

It's still six-to-one.

But if we leave it, then...

- How's your case going?
- Well, at least it's going to court.

Mmm. You're not
going to give up.

Well, here we are
again. All very cosy.

John just itching to
give you your way again.

George, what is your problem?
Are you still in love with him?

I don't think I ever was.

Then why don't you
leave him alone?

It's the unfairness of the
situation for my clients.

How could you be married to a
man for so long, bear his child,

and still know so
little about him?

John would never say
or do anything dishonest.

- There's no denying you were in his bed.
- When?

I've seen the photos.

Photos, what photos?

I'd like to know how he's going to
save this career he's worked so hard on.

George, what is
that meant to mean?

You work it out.

They're ready in court.

- What photos? Who took them?
- You tell me.

They're your rooms I was
in. I was drunk, remember?

A spy sneaked into my room.

You know how much faith courts
and tribunals place in such evidence.

I'll be finished.

Mrs Channing, I have
read your authority,

and it seems to me that you've
completely reversed the meaning.

Either that or you're
being entirely facetious.

Oh, entirely facetious.

Mrs Channing, you'll
have to speak up.

I do apologise, My Lord,

in my haste to prevent an
injustice, I misread the authority.

However, there is another
point of law I'd like to raise

concerning your hearing
this case, My Lord.

- You surprise me.
- Doesn't she?

With respect, My Lord, my argument
concerns your hearing this case.

In view of your personal involvement
with counsel for the claimant,

my client fails to see how they
can get an impartial hearing.

That would be a
matter for appeal

should this court find
against your client.

Well, it's a simple matter, My
Lord, that can be resolved here.

My clients would
feel more comfortable

were you to recuse
yourself from this case.

The functioning of justice in
this country is entirely dependent

upon the impartiality
of the judiciary.

As Lord Bingham
pointed out in Locabail,

All England Reports
2000, Volume 1, page 69,

that right is guaranteed by the European
Convention of Human and Rights.

Do you want the
full quotation? No.

I would direct Your Lordship
to the Pinochet Appeal 2000.

The House of Lords held
that the appeal was unsafe

because the wife of
one of the appeal judges

had a relationship with
Amnesty International.

I fail to see the relevance.

There the connection,
if tenuous, was plain.

I have no relationship
with Mrs Mills,

other than the fact that like many
other barristers, she appears before me.

My Lord, this won't
satisfy my clients.

Mrs Channing, judges are not
there to be chosen by litigants

as they might choose a car.

She's appearing before a
Disciplinary Tribunal of the Bar Council.

No, no, no. No, that's enough.

I want to address you on
what she's accused of doing.

No. I have ruled. This
matter is now closed.

It's something for the Court of
Appeal if this goes against your clients.

Now, do you have
any more points of law?

Might we have a short adjournment
while I consult my clients?

Fifteen minutes?

Ian, I've just been called out
of a cabinet sub-committee

by George Channing.

- You know what I'm about to say.
- Minister.

We're doing all we can to
wrestle the case away from Deed.

That's easy in theory, in
practice it proves very difficult.

This is getting
out of hand, Ian.

All the ministers with an
interest are unanimous on this.

Then perhaps they
have a solution.

No. That is for our civil
servants to come up with.

I'm in the hot seat because the
Department of Trade and Industry

sold these cell phone licences.

And, of course, I do find myself
in a rather delicate position

because George Channing
is involved in the case.

Perhaps you could get
her to assassinate him.

We'd happily supply the gun.

You do realise
what's at stake here?

Mobile phones are
not a health hazard.

Then we've nothing to
concern ourselves about.

Everyone suffers from
such negative publicity.

I doubt it will cost the government
or companies much in lost revenue.

After all, negative publicity hasn't
cost the tobacco companies anything.

Mobile phones are
entirely different.

Tobacco is not an essential element
of business or social interaction.

If this goes wrong, Ian,
mobile phone companies

could be faced with swingeing
compensation claims against them.

We do have one
more lever under Deed,

when Mrs Mills appears
before the disciplinary hearing.

A big shock.

Mmm. It had better
amount to something.

Call me on my land line.

It is my clients' wish

that I do not pursue the matter of
your impartiality further, My Lord.

Then can we get on?

For fear it will
prejudice their case.

It couldn't, as you well
know, Mrs Channing.

Now, you have some objection to the
evidence being offered by the claimant.

The claimant and her counsel
have not only behaved unfairly,

indeed, they have
behaved unlawfully, My Lord.

They have in their possession
copies of erased emails

sent by my clients
and to my clients.

These they obtained in
contravention of the laws of procedure.

Were these documents
sought in disclosure, Mrs Mills?

They were, My Lord.
Despite frequent requests,

the defendants failed
to produce them.

For the simple reason they did
not exist as disclosable documents

at the time this
action was started.

Mrs Channing, documents, whether
physical or electronic, are disclosable

if they relate to the case.

These relate
directly to the case.

The documents contain a
report showing a causal link

between the radiation in the form of
microwaves produced by cell phones

and scrambled patterns of
electrical activity in the brain.

This leads to the stripping
of proteins from cells

which can in turn
lead to tumours.

These do sound like disclosable
documents, Mrs Channing.

Had they existed in
the control of my clients.

The fact is they had erased them
long before this action was started.

So our contention is that
they are not disclosable

and should not be admissible.

Well, it's a fair
point, Mrs Mills.

Are we to assume that these documents
form the main plank of your case?

They are important supportive evidence
and show the defendant's culpability.

One-Way was alerted to the
problems, the health problems,

their product posed.

Now, instead of accepting the
advice of independent scientists,

they chose to erase both
the paper and electronic trails.

We now have a situation
where there is a floodgate

waiting to burst
open with claims,

and a company, whose
sole economic imperative

is to keep the
gates firmly closed.

My Lord, my clients are an
internationally quoted company

with a reputation both in
employment and social equity

which they guard jealously.

There is no question of their
attempting to foist a deceit on the public.

To do so would be
counterproductive to their business

and run counter to their ethos.

Profit does not equate
with social irresponsibility,

as my learned friend
seems to be suggesting.

The question a jury
might reasonably ask is

why did the company
erase the emails?

The reason is simply that if my clients
had to keep every electronic message,

they would be required to maintain
unimaginable hordes of documents

in an electronic
warehouse in cyberspace.

It's not an unreasonable
argument, Mrs Mills.

It wouldn't be unreasonable until
you consider the content of the emails

and who they were from.

Independent scientists who
One-Way employed to test their phones.

Correspondence from whom
they were happy to retain

until they began
receiving negative findings

which no longer supported their
contention that their phones were safe.

If you look in your
bundle marked A, My Lord,

you will see a trail of emails

and supporting correspondence
from the early development

of the ZP-9 phone, the
type Ms Hulsey used.

On average there were
some 11 emails a day

passing between the
company and the scientists,

up until December 3, 2000,

when they announced
their negative findings.

The gap between December
4th and December 12th

are the crucial missing emails
which spelt out the causal linkage

between the phones and
the damaged brain cells.

On the 13th of December,
the emails resumed,

terminating their contract.

You have a logical
explanation, Mrs Channing?

I'm reliably informed by the
company that during that period

they were being attacked
by internet viruses

and that their network was
shut down for long periods.

Then how do you account for
these emails that were retrieved?

We would argue there is no proof
they are our clients' documents.

Yeah, all right,

in which case you are right
to stoutly resist their inclusion.

I think the safest
way to proceed

would be to call the expert
who retrieved these documents

and find out whether
or not they are forgeries.

Do I have the written
report of this expert?

It’s in your bundle,
marked 6A, My Lord.

Yes. Okay. Got it.

And is the witness available?

- He is, My Lord.
- My Lord,

the admissibility or
inadmissibility of these documents

does not depend on how some
spotty cybernerd retrieved them

but whether they
are disclosable.

They were not because
they did not exist.

Only the spotty cybernerd
can tell us that, Mrs Channing.

We'd better have him in.

Mr Arditti, could you look at the
report marked 6A in your bundle

and tell us what it is?

A report I compiled based on
recovered material to One-Way PLC.

Can you tell the court of
what that material consists?

Erased emails sent by One-Way
and some received by them.

Mr Arditti, if emails are erased
how can you pick them up?

Nothing is ever truly
erased, Your Honour.

It's indelibly
printed on the ether.

Anyone can pick up
this material and read it?

With the technical know-how,
sir, if they can reconstruct them.

And you can clearly
identify their origin?

Oh, yes, from their ISP ident.

Yeah, but where do
they actually exist?

Perhaps if I were to
reveal the information?

Yeah.

Mr Arditti, how many lost or erased
emails have you or your firm recovered?

Thousands. It's what we do.

In what circumstances
do you do this?

Mostly material lost by
power cuts and viruses.

Sometimes people
hit the wrong button.

In your expert
opinion, Mr Arditti,

could you say whether the documents
deleted by One-Way and recovered by you

had been deleted intentionally?

My Lord, this witness cannot possibly
give an answer to such a question.

He is an expert
witness, Mrs Channing.

He isn't an expert
in mind-reading.

He couldn't possibly know
the intentions of my clients.

I'll rephrase my question.

Is it possible that even
an inexperienced IT user

could have erased nine separate
but related emails by mistake?

No, not even by block erasement.

My Lord, under Rule 31-7
of the Civil Procedure Rules,

defendants are
under a duty to make

a reasonable search for documents
which adversely affect their own case.

It would seem
they didn't search.

They couldn't, because
the emails had been erased.

Mrs Channing, I'm sure
you've advised your clients

that Section 450 of
the Companies Act 1985

provides that a company officer

who destroys, mutilates
or falsifies a document

affecting the company's affairs
may be liable to prosecution?

The directors of One-Way PLC

are conversant with the laws governing
companies and are not in breach of them.

We would argue
in the alternative,

were the documents deemed admissible,
as you seem determined they are.

I'm determining no such thing.

I would contend
there is no proof,

they are or ever were
the company's documents.

They have One-Way's logo

and bear the name of the
Marketing Director, Max Solveigh.

Anyone could have
printed these documents.

First we'd better establish if
these documents are authentic.

Mr Arditti, can you trace these
documents back to the company?

As if it had been a physical
letter on their stationery,

using their old typewriters with the
director's signature at the end of it.

Yes, but as Mrs Channing pointed out,
anybody could have sent such a document.

If you compare these emails with those
sent by the research company earlier,

you'll see the same phrasing,
the same use of jargon.

Is Mr Arditti now
a language expert?

It might be useful, My Lord,
if we were to ask Mr Arditti

how he came to
the missing emails?

Yes, all right. Mr Arditti?

We had asked the research
company, Whitten and Malle, for them.

They did the testing for
One-Way on the ZP-9.

They refused to help because it
was part of their confidentiality clause.

But it was later sent to us by
Whitten and Malle as a ghost,

mistakenly attached to their email
response to some innocuous enquiries.

My Lord, this is more
and more ludicrous.

I would ask that the court reject
these documents as inadmissible.

No, I'm not inclined to without
further investigation of their source.

First, I'm going to consider
them over an adjournment

to see if they are
germane to the case.

You would.

All rise.

- Well, we can see where this is going.
- I hope so, George, I do hope so.

I daresay you'll decide
that in bed together.

Oh, wouldn't that be nice?

George.

Ah. This is a surprise.

Of course, I was hoping to
hear some of the argument.

The Deed already suspects
some sort of government collusion

to protect my client.

The presence of the Secretary of
State in court would convince him.

Neil.

- Good to see you.
- Max, how are you?

At this rate I'm going to
be the marketing director

of an insolvent mobile
phone company.

Our shares slipped
another two points today.

Oh, it will stop.

I promise you.

Mrs Cooper, is it possible to
have a word with the judge?

As a failed litigant, I think
you know better, Sergeant.

It's not about my case.

Well, I wouldn't
hold your breath.

Mrs Mills, might we have a word?

If you're brief, Mr James.
I have a tuba lesson.

We wondered if we
might be of any assistance

over your appearance before
the Disciplinary Tribunal?

Why would you? It came from
your department in the beginning.

We were compelled
to act on a complaint.

Then make it go away.

That is almost entirely in
the gift of Mr Justice Deed.

Shall we walk you to your car?

The Brooklands case isn't
coming back this afternoon, Judge.

Mr Brooklands had a fit.

I thought he was on so many
drugs he could barely move.

Is Mrs Mills going to
win the argument, Judge?

No, I don't think so, Coop.

Not if the emails
were obtained illegally.

Oh, dear, that's more
bad news for her.

I heard Mr Justice Everard

is presiding at her
Disciplinary Tribunal hearing.

Where'd you hear that?

Mr Justice Everard's clerk.

You could get us
out of this, you know.

The circuit administrator implied
that if you dropped the cell phone case

my Disciplinary
Tribunal would vanish.

Now, that is illegal.

I'll have him bounced
right out of the system.

It's my word against his.

And who'd believe me,
especially if I lose the hearing?

Jo, I told you I'd give
evidence at the Tribunal.

And what will you say?
That I wasn't in your bed?

If necessary.

Great, then they'll produce
the photos and prove you a liar.

Don't even know
what's in the photos yet.

George says
they're of us in bed.

Who's doing the hearing
for you? Is he any good?

Eleven months this
has been going on.

- Finally, you ask.
- Si...

What's his name?
Simon Norwalk, isn't it?

He's got a good reputation.

Providing he gives
it full attention.

If you are not going
to stop this hearing

the less I have to do
with you at the moment...

What do you want me to do?
Make a deal with Ian Rochester?

Give the case to Legover?

Fine, I'll make it all go away.

I don't know!

I'm not sure that's the best thing
for Diana Hulsey and her son.

No, it's best for
you, though, isn't it?

You think that's
taking responsibility?

Oh, I see, that's what
it's all about, is it?

Fine, I'll resign, and
we'll get married.

Oh, grow up, John!
Right now I feel as if

I am drowning and everything that
you do is just another stone in my pocket.

Yeah, go on, walk out.
No, don't! Don't do that.

Stop.

Let's think about this logically,
there's bound to be a solution.

Think about your
dinner. The oil's burning.

Judge, my husband James
Brooklands, he's not faking it.

Why do you assume I think he is?

Well, I thought that...

Really, you mustn't approach
me like this, Mrs Brooklands.

He's such a decent man,
he's kind and generous.

Members of the jury,

this a trial unlike any
you've come across before

or are likely to again.

You are not trying the defendant
as to his being guilty or not guilty.

You are being asked to decide
whether he is capable of understanding

what is unfolding before him.

Our contention is that he is
incapable of understanding

and therefore should
not be in the dock.

He should, as I hope you'll
agree after hearing evidence

from our eminent psychiatrists,

be in hospital
receiving treatment.

Dr Shapiro, are you professor of
psychiatry, King's College, London,

and author of Uncognitive Mind?

Yes, I am.

Have you examined the
defendant, James Brooklands?

Yes, at length over
the past four months.

Has he shown any
change in that period?

He has. Unfortunately,
none for the better.

He has withdrawn
into a catatonic state

where he has no
recognition of what is present

and what is past.

Can he function in this state?

Tie his shoelaces,
shave, clean his teeth?

He's not unconscious.

Catatonic states merely cut off
conscious recognition or response.

If you saw him in the
street and called, "James..."

He wouldn't respond.

I see.

Dr Shapiro, if the defendant
were found guilty as charged

and sent to prison,

what in your opinion
would be his reaction?

Because of the absence
of cognitive powers,

it would make no difference
to his sense of well-being

whether he was given a long prison
sentence or a complete discharge.

Mr Gaydon?

Could a patient fake
this illness, Doctor?

- I've never seen it faked.
- Will he recover, Doctor?

If I may, My Lord, please.

Dr Shapiro, did you
write a paper in 1995

positing that any
number of mental patients

were at any given time

faking their illnesses?

I don't think so.

Is that a paper written by you?

Are you exhibiting
this, Mr Gaydon?

I will be, My Lord.

That is my paper. I have
to confess to have been

heavily influenced at the time by the
then professor of forensic psychiatry

at Birmingham University.

Like him, have you
known offenders

who, because they've
been declared mentally ill,

have been allowed to shuffle
away from the Crown Courts?

Then to be released from the
mental hospital a few months later

completely cured and free?

Not with a catatonic condition.

When was Mr Brooklands last able
to give his defence team instruction?

He was barely able to instruct them
when I was first asked to examine him.

But he was, to all intents and
purposes, instructing his defence?

I doubt it. He can barely
conduct a coherent conversation.

Mmm.

Yet less than five weeks ago

he wrote a cheque in part
payment of defence expenses.

How could he do that, Doctor?

He can still write his name.

He doesn't know
what he's writing.

Then it's fortunate for the defence
team that they put his chequebook

duly filled in with all
the details in front of him.

Would you confine yourself
to questions, Mr Gaydon?

I do apologise, My Lord. I
have no further questions.

Mr Petros, do you
want to come back?

Dr Shapiro, was there any
process of cognitive treatment

that Mr Brooklands underwent
during the time you've been seeing him?

Yes, of course. He was encouraged
to partake in familiar functions.

Was signing a cheque
one of these functions?

Yes, it was part of his
cognitive behaviour therapy.

What is your prognosis
for Mr Brooklands?

It is hoped that with sustained
cognitive behaviour therapy

he will recover
some recognition.

In what sort of time frame
might you expect a result?

Perhaps in two or three
years. It's hard to quantify.

It's not likely to
happen suddenly?

I've never known
patients to recover quickly.

Is this sort of treatment
available through the NHS?

Mr Brooklands is
being treated privately.

Oh, I see. Another cheque?

There is treatment available
through state medicine

but too many psychiatrists have
jumped on cognitive behaviour therapy

because it's inexpensive, but
they don't employ it properly.

Would it be injurious
to Mr Brooklands

if he were to go
into the witness box?

He simply wouldn't
know why he's there.

I see.

All right, let us assume,
just assume for the moment,

that it was Mr Brooklands
who brought about the deaths

of this young mother
and her two children

and then fled the scene.

That the terrible regret
that he then suffered

caused him to lapse
into this catatonic state.

And then two or
three years later

he emerges from the
psychiatric hospital,

your treatment having
been successful.

What is it then that would
prevent him from lapsing back

into this catatonic state

when he's faced with the
prospect of standing trial?

Part of the treatment is to bring
about self-awareness in the patient.

The idea is to get him to
face all that he's escaping from.

Yes, yes, yes, I see,

but in the meanwhile he's
a risk to himself and others.

That is why he's in a
psychiatric hospital, My Lord.

Well, seems eminently sensible.

So I think for his own safety
and in view of the public outrage,

under the Mental Health Act,

perhaps I should commit
Mr Brooklands to Broadmoor.

No, no.

You can't, I'm mentally ill.

My Lord, it's not
a proper response.

Well, of course, you're
quite right, Mr Petros, it isn't.

Your client doesn't
seem to think so either.

Patients quite often have such
moments of lucidity, My Lord.

Your words, Doctor, not mine.

I think I'm going to
take a short break.

Members of the jury, why don't you
go and get yourselves a cup of coffee.

I wish to see
counsel in chambers.

If you tell me, as counsel, that
you had no part in this conspiracy

to deceive the court...

- Judge.
- Mr Petros.

If as Queen's Counsel, you
tell me that you're blameless

then I must believe you
and there the matter will end,

provided we move swiftly
to the trial on the indictment.

My Lord, I'm guided entirely
by the psychiatric team.

I'm convinced the defendant
followed every word that went on

and so is this jury.

Now, we can continue
and Mr Gaydon

can bring in expert witnesses
to challenge the highly paid team

the defence has amassed.

Or you can take instruction
from your perfectly lucid client,

we'll swear another jury and
proceed to trial on the indictment.

I'm aware of no conspiracy
to deceive the court.

Fine.

I'll talk to the instructing solicitor
and seek instructions from the client.

Good.

It doesn't matter that you
haven't been called upon

to deliberate in this instance.

Mr Brooklands' return to
lucidity has been accepted

by his lawyers as permanent.

So if you will go with the
jury bailiff for now. Thank you.

Mr Gaydon, I assume the
prosecution is ready to try the charge

on the indictment?

Yes, My Lord, we are.

With your leave, My Lord, in
light of the changed circumstances,

might we have an adjournment?

I don't really want this
to drag on. How long?

Two weeks would be sufficient.

Mr Harrison?

Three weeks would be more
convenient, My Lord. The 29th?

Yes, all right, 29th it is.

In the meanwhile, Mr Gaydon, the
CPS might reconsider the charge.

Causing death by dangerous
driving might more reasonably be

ratcheted up to manslaughter
through gross negligence.

My Lord, that seems hardly
fair to my client at this late stage.

And how fair would it seem
to the deceased's family

or to the general public, if
in the light of Mr Brooklands

being found guilty, I could
only sentence him to 10 years?

Now, if there is sufficient
evidence it seems reasonable that

a graver charge be
put on the indictment.

Then might the same
bail terms be kept?

Mr Brooklands is currently in
hospital receiving treatment.

In the changed circumstances,
hospital isn't appropriate.

He will be remanded in custody.

I think there is a very
real risk that he'll abscond,

based on what I've seen today.

No, Alexander,
don't let this happen.

He can't do this to me.

Mr Brooklands, this
miraculous recovery

is enough to make
true believers of us all.

Now, I'm encouraged
that you now seem fit

to face up to your
responsibilities.

This is a trait often lacking in
men who appear before me.

- Take him down.
- Alexander, this is not fair.

Do something!
Clive, call someone!

Coop, get hold of Simon
Norwalk for me, would you, please?

He's Mrs Mills' barrister.

I'd like to meet with
him as soon as possible.

Yeah.

Thank you for fitting me
in at such short notice.

Presumably you didn't
discuss this with Mrs Mills.

- No.
- She didn't want you called.

It is necessary I point out
the risk you run, Sir John,

in becoming a
witness for Mrs Mills.

What risk is that, Mr Norwalk?

If she were to be found guilty
of professional misconduct,

it might damage your reputation.

Equally if I fail to take
responsibility for my part.

I have to be frank, sir.

Did you sleep with Mrs Mills?

No.

There appears to be
evidence to the contrary.

Photographs taken by some
peeping Tom. What's in it?

I'm under a strict embargo

not to discuss disclosed
documents with other witnesses.

Jo got paralytic,
I put her to bed.

In your bed, Judge?

Have you any idea how judges'
lodgings work, Mr Norwalk?

It's all about seniority.

The judge is practically
the sovereign where he sits.

If he has a guest, then that
guest has the next best room

and everybody else
gets pushed down one.

No way was I going to bounce
everybody out of bed at 2 a.m.

Mrs Mills got put into my room.

The chairman of the
Tribunal is bound to ask,

even if counsel for
the committee doesn't,

did you sleep in the
same bed with Mrs Mills?

I certainly didn't
sleep in a chair.

The photos are of
you two in bed, sir.

The question we have to
consider is this, Mr Norwalk.

Would they dare not
believe a High Court judge?

Got an email from
Sergeant Bridges.

Oh, he's very persistent.

This is got some information
about the cell phone case.

He wants to meet up with me.

Well, do you think you
should? I mean, not on your own.

Maybe I'd better take
Row Colemore with me.

Yeah, I think that
might be best, Judge.

- Do you think he's going to turn up?
- Because of you?

All we could find out about the
bomb hoaxer who cleared the court

was that the call was
made from a public box

outside the LCD
building in Victoria Street.

You might be right. It
could have been to stop you.

Oh, I hope not.

John, you're not backing off now
we've gone through all this trouble.

Bomb hoaxes are bad news.

I just can't countenance an officer
of the court being responsible.

Mr Justice Deed?

Sergeant Bridges.

You know who I am?

I do. Deputy Assistant
Commissioner Colemore.

How did you obtain a highly
confidential email address?

Row, let's see what
Mr Bridges has to say.

If it's authentic, it's
pretty damning evidence.

How did you get this?

I hacked into the
One-Way computer system.

- In breach of the Data Protection Act.
- I'm not an interested party.

You're here, Sergeant. You've
been following the case in court.

I wanted you to see this, My
Lord, before you gave a ruling

on the on the
inadmissibility of the emails.

This email is inadmissible
because of how you obtained it.

I know that, My Lord.

Was there anything else there?

If I'd found it, that, too,
would be inadmissible.

Thanks, Sergeant.

Seems like a good man, Row.

The police should hang onto him.

He's quitting his job
on health grounds.

Perhaps he needs
appreciating more.

My apologies for the late start.

- Ms Hulsey, how are you today?
- Fine, thank you.

Good.

Before I give my ruling on the
admissibility of the erased emails,

I want some further information
on how they were obtained.

Mr Arditti, would you mind going
back to the witness box, please?

Remember, you
are still under oath.

Now, Mr Arditti, you said you were
accidentally sent erased emails.

Yes? So, how did you proceed
to recover further emails?

I mean, where were they exactly?

Think carefully
before you answer.

With the internet
service provider, My Lord.

Yes. So, presumably you have
an arrangement with someone there

who allows you
access to their dustbins?

You searched their records

in contravention of
the Data Protection Act.

Well, it's not quite
like that, My Lord.

Oh, isn't it?

Go on, you can sit down.

- Yes, Mrs Channing.
- My Lord, I would like to argue

that this erased email
evidence be omitted

on account of how it was
obtained by illegal means.

I would refer Your Lordship

to the Attorney Generals
Reference number 3 of 1999.

You will see that in a case where
the police had illegally retained DNA

on a suspect, the House
of Lords said the fact

that the evidence had
been illegally acquired

could be a strong factor in
persuading a trial judge to exclude it.

Yes, yes, yes, but the law
was amended by Section 82

of the Criminal Justice
and Police Act 2001,

and in any event that's all
criminal law and this is a civil case.

In that case, My Lord, I would
ask you to exclude the evidence

under the standard set by
the Civil Procedure Rules.

There was criminal intent.

The emails, which by my learned
friend's own admission were erased,

indicate that her clients knowingly
infringed the Companies Act.

It's punishable
by a £10,000 fine

or six months in prison
on each count, My Lord.

This is ridiculous.

The law sometimes is, Mrs
Channing. Here, however, it's not.

Before I rule

I want to see what else there is that
may or may not have been erased.

My Lord, you have heard ample
argument to omit this evidence.

- I implore you to do so.
- No.

I'm gonna make an order for the
claimant's legal team to make a search

of the computer records of
One-Way PLC, Whitten and Malle

and their respective internet
service providers if they so wish.

They must return here with
their findings next Monday.

I'm obliged, My Lord, but
two days is so very little time.

They can work Saturday and Sunday,
Mrs Mills, and they better get started.

All rise.

Well, my only hope is that
they manage to drag him down

along with you tomorrow.

Who are they, George?

What does this mean, George?

It means that if you're hiding
anything, Max, they'll find it.

Off the record, John, the
Lord Chancellor has concerns

over the possibility of the mobile
phone case getting to a full hearing.

Has he seen the evidence,
sir? Because I haven't.

He was approached by
another cabinet minister

about the financial difficulties
the company could get into.

Neil Haughton, eh?

He feels it incumbent upon
him to try to find a solution.

And what's he suggesting, then?

Nothing that might benefit the
claimant, not with my ex-wife involved.

He suggested an
out-of-court settlement.

Does he have influence with
One-Way PLC? Sit down, Ian.

Thank you.

Mimi, get off! You're not supposed
to be on the chairs. Come on.

- May I?
- Please.

Off you get.

The mobile phone company will
defend their position if they have to.

The damage that does to
the company and the country...

They do generate £10
to 15 billion of income,

all of which comes
back to Britain, John.

In this worsening
economic climate

that is something any
government must take notice of.

Pursuit of a fair out-of-court
settlement is entirely proper.

But you're talking
to the wrong person.

The defendants' legal
representatives are concerned

you are encouraging,

at the claimant's request,

a public trial.

Well, I do see this as a
very important test case.

This is perverse.

Thousands of livelihoods are dependent
upon the viability of this company.

And the thousands, possibly, who
might be damaged by the phones?

There's no evidence of that.

There never is when there are
vast sums of money involved.

Did you know in the 1700s
that gin was sold by pharmacists

as a health drink for women?

The government of the day

tacitly endorsed an
8-million gallon consumption.

Fortunately the government
today show more concern.

Yes, over 100,000 people were killed
by alcohol in the UK alone last year.

Jo Mills isn't a fool, Ian.

If the settlement is honourable,
she'll advise the claimant to accept it.

- Mmm.
- Mmm.

- How are you feeling?
- Angry. No, furious.

Oh, Mrs Deed. I do beg
your pardon. Mrs Mills.

Would you tell the committee what
your relationship is with Mr Justice Deed?

He was my pupil master, then
my lover, sometimes my mentor

and hopefully my friend.

Would you say he was
still an intimate friend?

We discuss intimate
matters at times.

Do these discussions
translate to the sort of

physical intimacy that
leads you into his bed?

No.

That's not the evidence three
officers of the court have given.

They saw you kissing the
judge in an intimate way

around the 11th of June last
year when you were before him.

Why should this
Tribunal believe you,

when you say you
weren't intimate with him?

We weren't! Not as you suggest.

The evidence informs of a
somewhat different behaviour pattern

with this judge you
again find yourself before.

Sir James, we do like to afford
witnesses the opportunity to respond.

Even though your statement
didn't call for a response.

Do you wish to reply?

This disciplinary hearing
has called into question

the standard of behaviour
by which I conduct myself,

both professionally
and privately.

My behaviour is determined by a
personal sense of what I believe

to be right and proper and fair.

It doesn't allow one to
collude with criminal clients

whilst knowing
that they are guilty,

nor does it allow one
to conspire with others

to undermine someone
honourable, decent and courageous.

I am comfortable with the
conduct of my relationships.

I have done nothing with which
I feel I need to reproach myself.

Beyond that, My Lord,
I have nothing to say.

I think you've said quite
enough. Thank you, Mrs Mills.

We would like to
call Mr Justice Deed.

Why didn't you tell me you
were calling him as a witness?

Because you would have objected.

No, we can dispense with
that. He's a High Court judge.

If he can't be relied on to tell
the truth, then what hope is there?

Sir John, some of these questions
are of a somewhat delicate,

intimate nature, sir.

So is the offence of
which we are accused.

You are not accused, Sir John,

nor were you summoned
before this tribunal.

Well, it's not one hand clapping
that Mrs Mills stands accused of.

You are here merely as a
witness to character and fact.

One who is accused
with her nonetheless.

Get on with it, Sir James.

My Lord, on the
11th of June last year,

Mrs Mills was before you
prosecuting two drug addicts for murder.

A case in which I
myself was involved.

She was also before me
in an injunction hearing

about a minor who didn't
want a heart transplant.

It appears that had
ended by the 11th.

Yes, well, the hearing had.

The boy died immediately
following the operation.

Mrs Mills was upset
as a result, was she not?

Extremely.

She called on you
at your lodgings.

Can you tell the
committee what happened?

Yes, she appeared
drunk, she got more drunk,

finally she collapsed

and I put her to bed.

- At the lodgings?
- Yes.

- In whose bed did she sleep?
- Mine.

Sir John, would you mind telling
the committee where you slept?

I didn't, for the most part.

I was concerned that
she didn't vomit and choke.

Did you and Mrs
Mills sleep together?

No.

Are you absolutely
certain about that, My Lord?

I think I might have remembered.

- Do you remember?
- Yes. I've given you my answer.

Then perhaps you can tell
us what you did that night?

I've told you. I made
sure she didn't choke.

I see.

Sir John.

Did you have sex with this
lady while she was in your bed?

Whilst she was drunk? That
would be very ungentlemanly.

Don't you think?

Regrettably, I haven't
had sex with Mrs Mills

in a very long while.

Is that meant to
be clever, Sir John?

I didn't come here to be clever,
I came here to tell the truth.

We have heard evidence to the
contrary from members of the staff.

Then it's entirely mistaken.

Sir John, let us be
entirely clear about this.

Are you saying you
have never been

in a compromising
situation with Mrs Mills

since you and she were
lovers some 16 years ago?

If you read back the
tribunal reporter's notes,

you will find
exactly what I said.

Are you saying that you have never
had sex with her in all that while?

Is that what you're telling us?

I have already told you.
Do you think I'm a liar?

Well, we think no such
thing, Sir John, we...

We could not. We could not.

Is there anything else
you wish to share with us,

before we consider our findings?

Yes.

Mrs Mills is a hard-working
Queens Counsel

who has helped a lot of people

who would not otherwise
have found access to justice.

This hearing is
shabby and unjust

and I believe that it has another
and altogether sinister agenda.

It has been brought about for
reasons which I would suggest

are the opposite of those
ideals of fairness and decency

which you and I
have sworn to uphold.

Well, you're entitled to express
your opinion, Sir John. We note it.

We shall retire for a
moment before we report.

What do you think
this is all about?

I think this is all
about to end now.

They may yet
present their photos.

Well, we'll soon know.

Well, I'm not going to
call for closing speeches.

Having considered the testimony,

and the particular weight to
what Sir John Deed told us,

that he did not have sexual
relations with Mrs Mills,

we can do no other
than to take his word.

Therefore the case is dismissed.

Congratulations, Jo.

They didn't find me
not guilty, Simon.

They didn't believe me
or even exonerate me.

They were simply
obliged to believe John.

You're innocent,
Jo, end of story.

But they don't believe it.

It's better than having the case
proven and being taken off the road.

Do you think I'd
ever let that happen?

I have no problem with losing
when it's an even playing field.

It never is with John. He seems to think
anyone who made a profit in business

did so by foul means.

Calm down, darling,
all is far from lost.

Why didn't you produce the
photographs of them in bed?

To have done so

in the face of His Lordship denying
they had an affair or were in bed,

would be to bring the
bench into disrepute.

To say nothing of having to
admit that your staff at the lodgings

broke into his bedroom.

The government has as much, if not
more to lose than your clients, George.

We're as anxious as you
to see this case founder,

assuming, as you say,
there is no case to answer.

That depends on whether
he admits the illegal evidence.

We've been trying to help
you there, Mrs Channing.

Our research department
has found every precedent

for refusal to admit
tainted evidence.

My Lord, I know you have heard
arguments but before you give your ruling

on whether or not to admit
the illegally discovered evidence

on behalf of the claimant,

I would like you
to give full weight

to the principle behind
the Civil Procedure Rules

to deal with cases justly.

I would implore you to exclude

the unlawfully obtained
emails on this basis.

Or would you like
to see the photos?

What photos, Mrs Channing?

Ah, the photocopies of
the authority, My Lord.

I think you're being
facetious, Mrs Channing.

However, I am
denying the claimant

the right to use this illegally
discovered information.

My Lord, can I direct you
to Kuruma and the Crown?

No, Mrs Mills, I don't
need to hear any more.

Giving carte blanche for
the illegal trawl of emails

would set a bad precedent.
The evidence is tainted.

I can't allow it. To do
so would be unsafe.

Then I would argue
under Section 3, My Lord,

that as the main plank of
the claimant's case has fallen,

there is no claim to answer.

I would therefore ask
you to throw out the claim.

Yes, I can see where
you're coming from.

But before I give my ruling, I
need to know if the electronic search

I ordered on behalf of the
claimant has yielded any results

that might affect my
decision. Mrs Mills?

Our data recovery experts
did find other erased emails

that relate directly to
the action. Nine, in fact.

The most telling of these was
one sent on December 9, 2000

by Tim Listfield, the
CEO of One-Way PLC,

to Max Solveigh, the
marketing director. It reads,

"Max, what tosh. We don't spend all
these millions developing our phones

"to have a bunch of pinheads tell
us they could be harming customers.

"Find another result."

My Lord, you can't
admit this, you agreed.

No, Mrs Channing, I agreed not
to admit evidence gathered illegally.

I made an order for this discovery.
I'm going to admit this evidence.

My Lord, this is not in the spirit
of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Mrs Channing, I have ruled.

Unless you have an argument that relates
to this legally discovered material,

I'm going to allow
this case to go forward.

Further, I'm going to reserve it
to myself to be heard here in...

three weeks, Mr Harrison?

Three weeks, My Lord, the 30th?

The 30th it is. Until then.

You really are
pushing your luck.

I expected the defendant's
counsel to be here.

One-Way are going to fight this,

and fight dirty, I
shouldn't wonder.

- You're going to need some help.
- Not from you, thank you.

No, there's a Sergeant
Bridges who might prove useful.

I'll get Row Colemore
to put you in touch.

Do you want to
see a film tonight?

I've just about got my reputation
back. I'm not in a hurry to risk it again.

Is there a risk, Jo?
You're not before me now.

Anything to do with
you is a risk, John.

Please rate this subtitle at www.osdb.link/8pse9
Help other users to choose the best subtitles