Original subtitles

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