Day 236 - 17 04 96 - Page 55

 
 

                                                                  Day 236
 
                                        TERENCE EDMUND CARROLL - EXAMINED
 
 
 
     1        whether it is a photocopy that she wrote on and then
     2        copied, I do not know, but, anyhow, this is evidently not a
     3        leaflet as distributed by the group because the legend over
     4        the hat is itself a copy.  The leaflet would not have been
     5        distributed with that on it since it is Edi Bensilum's
     6        signature, so that is the only one which is not what I call
     7        an original.  All the originals, apart from that one, are
     8        now here.
     9
    10   MS. STEEL:  The question I am asking is the position about where
    11        the originals are for the exhibits to, for example, Mr.
    12        Nicholson's statement, Mr. Bishop's statement,
    13        Mr. Carroll's statement, Mr. Clare's statement.  Just the
    14        exhibits to those.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  They are not exhibits; they are documents
    17        which are referred to in the statements.
    18
    19   MS. STEEL:   They are not exhibits?
    20
    21   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  Had they been affidavits rather than
    22        statements, they might have been exhibited to the affidavit
    23        and when the person swore the affidavit, they might have
    24        been asked by the Commissioner for Oaths, or the solicitor
    25        in front of whom they swore the affidavit, to identify the
    26        documents which would be exhibited.  You have made an
    27        affidavit.  You will be familiar with the form it takes.
    28        But these are not affidavits; they are statements which
    29        were served pursuant to the court's direction and they
    30        refer to certain documents.
    31
    32   MR. RAMPTON:  What has happened is, and it is not for your
    33        Lordship because I know your Lordship ----
    34
    35   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  As I understand.  I am saying this so that
    36        I understand myself is that right?
    37
    38   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, it is perfectly correct.  What happened was
    39        that when the statements came to be made, and I will
    40        demonstrate that it is so in a moment, in 1993, the
    41        solicitors made copies of the originals which are now in
    42        court, the little ones like that, and they then put them
    43        with the statements and then the witnesses, when they read
    44        and signed their statements, said " Yes, that is a copy of
    45        the document which I saw at the time".
    46
    47        One can see that that process has happened because the
    48        attachment to Mr. Nicholson's statement, appendix 1, if one
    49        looks at the front sheet of that, there is a copy of
    50        exactly the same original as was used in TEC2.  We have now 
    51        found the original May 1991 documents. 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  As I understand it, Mrs. Brinley-Codd has
    54        brought to court the actual original documents to which it
    55        is said -- and I am only concerned with Mr. Carroll at the
    56        moment -- but Mr. Carroll has referred ----
    57
    58   MR. RAMPTON:  That is right.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  In his statement, although when the
 
                                      55