Print document
 33 of 94 
“As best as I recall we spent the first night sleeping in the car in France then travelled south to
Biarritz and then went to Spain via San Sebastian. Then we camped somewhere and went direct to
Oporto where we spent 2/3 nights. In Oporto I can remember only walking around a town, visiting
the Port lodges, visiting the tower bridge and Fado restaurant and we spent most of the time
together never using any form of transport. I do not recall going anywhere on my own.”
My Lord, that is interesting:
“I do not recall going anywhere on my own. I do not recall visiting any tourist offices. I think we
used the campsite office for any information.”
He then spoke about the most memorable occasion being a local festival at a place called Vittorio.
“I had a map. I must have had a map to find our way there. I do not recall meeting any particular
person. We did not speak the language. I don’t recall myself or Mick using the telephone during our
stay there or at any time on this holiday. My only recollection of the bars we used was one in the
main square which I think we visited twice. I cannot remember how long I used that particular
campsite in Oporto. I certainly did no research into the selection of this or any other campsite. After
Oporto we went straight to Madrid.”
He was then shown a map at the bottom.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: What is the relevance of this statement?
MR. TANSEY: The relevance of the statement is that the defendant was interviewed and he gave
his explanation that he was there, he was on holiday, that he was with another man called John
Watson. He was interviewed and, my Lord, what the defendant said in interview is confirmed
effectively in general terms by this particular witness. My Lord, I rely upon the fact ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: How do you rely on that for admissibility? I can see if it goes in you
might want to call Mr. Watson which goes to weight; I do not see how it goes to admissibility.
MR. TANSEY: When your Lordship considers the overall circumstances about the evidence in
question, my Lord, I would ask you to bear this in mind in considering ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I see your main point on Oporto that it is far too long ago and it is
tenuous, but I cannot see how Mr. Watson really applies.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, the second point is there the suggestion is, “Well, the marks on the map
suggest Tradecraft”, and here we have the defendant saying, “Nonsense: a holiday.” The police
mention who he was with and it confirms what he is saying in effectively broad, general terms. We
submit that your Lordship should not cast that aside because it is relevant to a matter on which one
of the key issues is relevance and prejudice and in overall terms, and the inference that one can draw
from the map in question, because as the Crown are saying: “This is no holiday. This is all
nonsense.” We suggest that this was a holiday; he has told the police who he was with; they have
interviewed him and it confirms his account. My Lord, that is the relevance, that this was a genuine
holiday operation and not, as the Crown suggest, an occasion for a practice run for him.
Further (if I can then move on from this particular point) my Lord, the further matter is that if one