522
345
521
A.
Initially yes because
mybelf.
322.
subsequently
I had opo.cn to lir. Lau
And as an experienced police officer was it clear from the start that conspiracy was a very possible charge?
A.
No. It wasn't my original thought.
A.
A.
¿
درن
A.
I did not consider it but it could have been possible.
Is it correct that the first sec. 14 notice was dated 24/27
I believe it was about that time. I can't be sure of the exact date.
was that notice handed to 1 at or shortly after interview you vere present at on 24/24
I was not present when sec. 14 notice was servod. I certainly interviewed Defendant on 24/2.
and that notice required much information?
Yes.
tendin over several years?
Yeb.
Is it correct it covered over 5 years?
- don't recall the date. It may well be 5 years. extensive period.
The time limit stated in that notice was 48 hours? Yes.
It was an
Dearing in wind what you told us of timehonoured practice of fairness do you consider that that practice was adhered to in relation to that notice?
It was an extremely short period of time in which to ask for this information.
2.
would you answer my question“
A.
A.
I can only repeat it was an extremely short period of time to ask
accused to reply to that section 14 notice and I take responsibility for that.
Do you consider now as a responsible officer that time limit
was fair?
I agree it was unfair. I have since realized to expect fr. Junningham
to be in a position to reply within 48 hours. This was not
appreciated at that time.
lou have had many many years of experience as a police officer in United Kingdom and during many of these years in C.H.D.?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.