Background

So far, the wily Sir Paul, backed by a formidable legal machine and half a dozen archaic laws which protect policemen under such circumstances, has managed to evade the confrontation, despite the fact that he has been subpoenaed to appear in Croydon County Court. As we went to press, another subpoena was on the way.

If Mr. Ford gets his long-desired day in court, then it will be a precedent of immense importance and it will send the law-makers scurrying to the drawing board to change the very structure of the liabilities of the force. It will mean that any person with an alleged complaint against the police may hold the Chief of Police personally responsible for any serious misdemeanour carried out by any member of his force.

This is a fairly new phenomenon in British law and was best illustrated recently in the Michael Foot -v- News International libel case in which lawyers acting for Foot subpoenaed Rupert Murdoch in his own ivory tower in New York and held him personally responsible for a decision one of his editors had made thousands of miles away in London. (To publish a wholly misleading story about the former Labour leader). For the moment, Rupert paid up and ran away. But it is a certainty that one of the issues on his informal agenda when he began flirting with Tony Blair, was a quick change in the libel laws.

The case against Condon is a point of law which in itself does not amount to a hill of beans. In normal circumstances it might have been resolved very quickly in or out of court, probably by police underlings. But David Ford goes out of his way to not operate in "normal circumstances" and I would imagine that by now, Sir Paul realises he has sat on a thorn which at first was a tiny pin prick he hardly noticed, but evolved slowly into the whole inflammation of his tender backside.

The real point of the action is that it will allow Dave Ford to re-open a whole can or worms which will reverberate right down from the ivory tower itself to the Bobbie on the beat in Nether Wallop. There are approximately seven serious charges he will have to answer, and probably a dozen more which will cause severe embarrassment. The action had been taken because, for twelve long years, Dave Ford has been grinding through the system, trying to get answers in a conventional manner about an apparently classic miscarriage of justice.

Each of the seven charges have been the subject of different complaints at different times. Despite this, none of the seven have ever been properly investigated or resolved. If all of them are even half-true, they collectively amount to police corruption, collusion, false evidence, incorrect procedure and the non-return of valuable goods. If Ford's evidence is to be believed (and after reading the million or so words in his well-worn dossier, I am convinced the police have a lot to answer for) the case involves a set-up sting by crooks who shared their booty with the police; the planting of incriminating evidence "to put the nails in the coffin; " making up false statements to frame at least four men (all of whom ended up in custody) and the mysterious sale of four stolen paintings which, actually, were never stolen in the first place.

The strands of this go through the very murky world of a covert homosexual ring based at a luxury country mansion; then through the equally seedy underworld of petty South London criminals, onto opulence and eventually they all lead to a car park. The central allegation is that the police found out at a fairly early stage just who had been involved in the original robbery but for reasons of their own did not arrest the robbers, preferring instead to set up a complicated sting to blame it on a set of people who had only become incidentally involved and were, at the very worst, petty bystanders.

The Robbery

But McKenzie also liked to surround himself with other little playthings in the guise of young men with whom he enjoyed one-night frolics. He had a live-in lover called Colin Bishop, but either together or solo, many others were invited to the house for sex. Some of these visitors came from the same murky underworld that would later figure in this case. But two men were also regulars at these trysts - George Francis and James Barrymore, both friends of Bishop.

Bishop had been given many expensive gifts by McKenzie during the years 1976 and 1980, which included five valuable paintings including Man in a Red Coat.

In early 1981 Mackenzie died of natural causes and in his will he had bequeathed most of his belongings to his two sisters. The actual executor of the will, however, would be another former love, Derek Sherborne, who was the executor of the will with another unnamed man.

The terms of the will are not known to anyone but Derek Sherborne because the will never went into probate until 1994 and has never yet been executed - despite the fact that the will itself could provide vital testimony as to who exactly had an interest in the stolen goods. Also despite the fact that Ford has campaigned vigorously to have the details published.

Very mysteriously a few months after McKenzie died, armed robbers came to Fawns Manor and, after attacking but not injuring Sherborne, but putting his head in a plastic bag, they left with at least the fifty items displayed on the charge sheets. The actual details of the raid are somewhat vague. It was a gang, they were armed and threatening, it happened on the night of 21 September 1982, fifty items were missing, and so on. But the police acting at the time had very little to go on.

The investigation, they surmised, would have to run backwards. That is, they knew the robbers (in law there is a significant distinction between burglary and robbery), would, after a time to let things cool down, try and sell their goods, probably by placing them on the international art market. As such, of course, Interpol should have been alerted and they in turn almost certainly warned other forces in Europe and America. Curiously, however, the police investigating the case offered all the proceeds of the robbery back to Sherborne for the sum of £10,000 but intimated there would be no arrests. Therefor, Ford clearly contends, if the contents of the robbery were already in police hands, he could not have them in his possession.

It is here that we get into the fog because all police action into the actual robbery itself has not been released, and the case has never been solved. But suffice it to say that George Francis and James Barrymore did eventually try and sell the same five pictures on behalf of Colin Bishop. Meanwhile, also rather mysteriously, Fawns Manor was burnt to the ground and the plot sold to British Airways.

Also, you might think strangely, in trying to find a buyer for Bishop's paintings, Francis and Barrymore exported two of them to New York where they were lodged with Zwerling and Zwerling, notable Broadway lawyers. Irving Zwerling wrote to confirm their arrival on July 17, 1985 and asked for an affidavit from the "present owners" as to their legality. A Customs check was also made. The affidavit as to ownership, sworn in front of a lawyer, was also despatched almost by return post. Zwerlings, however, were unable to reach a satisfactory sale and sent them back to London. On the journey, of course, they had to pass through both US and British Customs all over again. It might be surmised by this, that these four pictures at least at that time were not on any "stolen property list".

If they were reported stolen, would Francis and Barrymore have run the risk of openly exporting them and subjecting them to rigorous controls? There is evidence to show that Mackenzie had actually given the paintings to Colin Bishop between 1976 and 1980. An affidavit confirming this exists, and so do the documents for export and import.

Either way, none of this appears to have occurred to the police and on 29 February 1983, some five months after the robbery, Sherborne (who had filed a complaint) received a letter from the Police Complaints Board confirming that a detective sergeant assigned to investigate the robbery had "failed to take proper steps to circulate details of the stolen property and neglected to make adequate inquiries about the possible suspect you had identified from a magazine photograph." The police themselves were admitting at a very early stage that their own investigation into the robbery had been sadly flawed. The Deputy Commissioner blamed this on "lack of experience" from a newly promoted officer and promised he and his direct superiors would be censured.

This has a special significance at the trial stage when the judge, while summing up, reminded the jury that a very serious robbery had taken place - "of that there is no doubt". The fact that a robbery may well have been fabricated was never brought to his attention. All this was a full three years before we come to the little drama at Heston Service Station where Dave Ford and two others were arrested.

The Sting

Subsequently, Ford was approached by an acquaintance called Mark Hughes who said he had heard about the pictures and thought he knew of a buyer. Hughes was a petty opportunist and it is quite obvious from everything that came later, that at this stage he was acting as a police informer. He asked for a set of Polaroid pictures of four of the paintings in Ford's possession to "show to the potential buyer".

Ford had absolutely no qualms at all about producing these pictures and giving them to Hughes to show who he liked. It was hardly the act of a man who knew he was harbouring stolen property. Hughes quite obviously took these pictures to the police. Mysteriously, even though they had not so far appeared on any earlier stolen list, they suddenly did so now.

After a suitable time Hughes came back to tell Ford he had found someone who may be willing to pay between £125-150,000 for the pictures but he wanted to see them. The man, Hughes said, did not like coming into Central London and apparently resided near London airport. Ford agreed to take the pictures to the Heston Service Station half way between London Central and Heathrow.

He hired a car to do the job and a driver, one of the later defendants, Robert Rother who was at the time out of work. He was to be paid £50 for the day. Ford was coming out in his own car for a 3pm meeting. On the way out he saw Robert's brother Dennis and told him he was going out to meet his brother, why didn't he come along for the ride - a ride which was to subsequently cost him two years of his liberty. Robert and Hughes were already at Heston with the pictures when Ford arrived with Dennis.

The police had chosen Heston for the sting, of course, because it came into their Middlesex jurisdiction. After a preliminary chat, two of the men went into the service station for hamburgers and then re-joined the others. At that point dozens of policemen pounced, seemingly out of nowhere and, of course, Mark Hughes was able to make his escape - almost certainly picking up substantial informants pay at a later date. (On conviction).

The police may have been entitled at this stage to think it was a "fair cop." After all, they had apprehended three men with valuable "stolen" property in their possession. But just to make a copper-bottomed nab of it, a small bottle of Johnson's baby oil turned up mysteriously in the hired car and by some grotesque coincidence, this was filled with liquid ammonia and had been doctored for use.

This amounted in technical terms to the men being "armed." It directly flew in the face of all the other behaviour of the accused on that day. The three men had operated quite openly under instructions from what they now know was a paid nark and had gone there to act as middle men on the sale of some paintings. The ammonia would be crucial evidence in the later summing up of the judge and the sentences dished out. It was, of course, sent for forensic tests and confirmed that it was ammonia. But, strangely, no fingerprints were taken.

They were not taken because the police knew very well that the accused had not touched the bottle. While Ford and Robert did have criminal records of a fairly non-serious nature, they had never been convicted of anything that was even remotely violent. Ammonia just didn't fit their behaviour patterns. All three men strenuously denied knowing anything of the ammonia to the very end (and after). But to these three men and several others, this was only the beginning of the nightmare.

The Charges

The men were all, naturally, interviewed at some length by various officers up to the rank of inspector. What the three men recall is that they protested vigorously that it was a frame-up, that they believed the pictures had not been stolen, and that they refused point blank to sign anything until they were allowed advice from a solicitor. Ford's solicitor heard about the arrest within two hours of the incident at Heston.

He tried very hard to gain access to his client, but was consistently refused. When he did see Ford, after exerting considerable pressure on New Scotland Yard, no statement was produced, and no custody records. Ford told him he had not said anything that may be attributed to him. The solicitor advised him just as strenuously not to sign anything. Therefore, statements attributed to him later in court, did not at this stage exist. Or were certainly not produced. And if they had been, their veracity would have been vigorously protested.

The case of Dennis Rother was particularly underhand. He had a completely clean record and had literally just been walking around when David Ford had spotted him and, with nothing else to do, he had gone along for the ride. Stolen paintings and baby bottles of ammonia were utterly new to him. He knew nothing about them.

He had nothing at all to gain by going to Heston. He was not involved with the sale, nor was he a driver of either of the two vehicles. He just happened to be the brother of Robert Rother who had been hired to drive the compromised vehicle.

Convinced he was lying, however, and unable to break his story, the police fabricated the fact that the other two had made full statements blaming him for everything. The carefully worded contemporaneous notes of the statement Dennis was said to have made, had him saying things like: "Okay, you've got me fair and square for handling, but I promise, I don't know anything about any ammonia."

The police, of course, played this tactic separately on all three men, telling each of them that the other two had put all the blame on him. The three had no contact with the outside world, nor with each other. At any time of the day or night, they would be brought from their cells for further questioning. As the week progressed and the police began to learn more about each of the men, the fabrications got more and more sophisticated and under this traumatic regime, the police desperately hoped one of the men would crack.

All three, however, knew very well that they were innocent and spotted what the police were up to. It didn't make sense to Ford that Dennis, for example, should admit to a serious crime which he (Ford) knew very well he had not committed. What the police were really trying to do, of course, was pin the robbery itself on them and with hindsight it might be rather surprising they didn't go the whole way and do so.

At the end of a week, however, the police had nothing to go on except their own fabricated and unsigned notes. These, however, proved enough to have the three men remanded in custody to await trial.

The Trial

The jury was given the full prosecution side of events. Sure, the police officers were cross-examined and held to their story, but none of the men were able to refute the allegations under oath. They were relying on the fact that the judge would point out that contemporaneous notes were virtually useless as evidence. In fact, from reading the judge's directions and summing up it is quite clear that he felt they were as guilty as hell and he clearly saw them not going into the witness box as a sign that they feared cross- examination.

Ford himself was relying on the fact that his own solicitor would be able to give evidence that he had been unable to see his client, and when he did so, his client denied signing any statement at all and that he had charged from the very beginning that he had been seriously "verballed." This became the subject of a crucial submission (without jury) to the court which clearly shows the judges attitude at the time.

The solicitor, Mr. Dean, had been called for the following day and, when the defence had come to an end of its witnesses, at twenty to four, the defence lawyers asked either for an adjournment until the following morning, or that Mr. Dean would be able to be called during the prosecution's summing up. At first the judge was merely reluctant to grant this and asked the prosecution what they thought.

The prosecution, quite naturally, thought it was not a good idea and made objections. The judge then asked the defence to say what it was all about and the lawyer intimated that it would refer to the police mishandling of the original statements in Hounslow. This would throw serious doubt on the police evidence.

The prosecution quickly jumped up and argued that he thought this kind of evidence would be inadmissible. Without actually knowing what the solicitor might say, the judge agreed with the prosecution. In effect, he told the defence that the solicitor would not be heard. This was naturally a very serious blow to the defence and they argued their case strenuously. To no avail. He demanded that the jury to be brought back in.

On that simple ruling, the defence case fell to pieces. There was no one to give the defendant's side of the story or to make the accusation that the police had verballed the accused. In this ruling the judge made it very plain to both sides that if the accused had gone into the witness box, it would have been a very different matter.

If they had complaints against the police, they would have been able to state them, and be cross examined on them. He made it very clear, without actually saying so, that the accused only had themselves to blame if the jury was not in possession of the full story. Ford and the brothers' fate were sealed, there and then, for this subsequently came through clearly in the judges lengthy summing up.

Judge Palmer gave a meticulous account of the whole trial, repeating at very great length the entire police evidence and read out to the jury again all of the contemporaneous notes upon which the prosecution had exclusively based its case. He directed the jury not to take much notice about the fact that the accused were denied access to a solicitor, which is the almost divine right of any arrested person. "If the police do not allow a solicitor to see the arrested person, it is often because he might tip off others involved who the police are still looking for," he explained.

"This," he emphasised, "was a very serious crime. Very serious indeed." He did mention that the notes were contemporaneous, but did not remark that this was an unusual procedure. As the accused had decided not to make any kind of statement on the matter, then the jury must make up its own mind. He then read out the sentences in which the accused had said things like: "Obviously, I knew they were bent, but honestly, Guv, I didn't have nothing to do with the robbery."

"If you believe," said the judge, "that the accused said this, then you have no alternative but to find them guilty." There were, in the verballed version, a dozen or so carefully planted side remarks which clearly indicated that the accused knew the paintings were stolen.

The summing up, which lasted nearly three days and which covers 93 closely typed sheets of paper, was extremely clever, because it was biased only on omissions. There is not a single word which was actually misplaced enough for there to be any grounds for appeal. He constantly repeated that it was entirely a matter for the accused to opt not to give evidence, but that because of this, there was virtually no defence. Only he knew, because of the submission, that there might have been evidence that the statements may well have been questioned.

This had never been stated, not by him or anyone else. He clearly let it be known that as the notes had not been questioned, then they should be taken on merit. The jury, he said quite rightly, must only consider the facts before it. As such they soon brought back a unanimous verdict of guilty on all counts.

Condon

During his incarceration at Hounslow the police had taken his keys from him and subsequently searched all his different premises, including his office. There they had taken all his files, documents, receipts and bookwork. Some of this related to the pictures and if they had been introduced as evidence would have shown beyond doubt that transactions had taken place which indicated that they were in Ford's hands quite legitimately. There was an affidavit concerning original ownership. Letters and receipts all concerning the "stolen" pictures.

In order to secure a conviction it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the pictures had been stolen in the first place and that Ford and Co. knew they had been stolen. These documents proved the opposite. However they had come onto the market, Ford had the paperwork to show that he was fully entitled to believe that they were legitimate.

The prosecution very early on had given the court the assumption that they had been stolen, without introducing the evidence to prove it. The defence lawyers did not pick this up, but had it of been, it would have been a foolproof defence. In order to find means for an appeal and pardon, it was vital for Ford to get his documents back.

They had first been seized while Ford was still in Hounslow. They were not introduced into the custody book, nor introduced to court. While Ford was in prison he successfully arranged for them to be returned in the presence of his solicitor. In early 1987 he was given a one-day parole to receive them.

The policeman despatched to return them was a Det. Supt. Banks and they all met at the solicitor's office. While there Ford took the opportunity to illustrate to Banks the irrefutable evidence contained in the files and to make heavy complaints against the police conduct of the case.

Banks appeared surprised and angry at the allegations and asked if he could retain the documents so that he could make inquiries. He maintained that there would be a full investigation into a potential miscarriage and he needed the documents to prove his case. Ford obtained a proper receipt listing every item in the file and reluctantly allowed them out of his hands again.

They were handled under the Police Investigation Act. This had significance because they had been held previously under the Police Property Act, which compels police to keep all evidence for up to six years. The new act has no time limits. By pretending there was an ongoing police investigation (which has no time limit) they skilfully allowed the six-year limitation to pass and then claimed the documents had been lost or destroyed.

In effect, the police had held the documents under false pretences and then conveniently "disappeared" them.

When Ford in 1995 was beginning to really worry the police, their answer was to harass him further. They obtained a warrant to search his premises and took away several million pounds worth of bearer bonds. After months of fruitless investigation they let Ford know they were not going to prosecute. I.e. the bonds had not been stolen. But they only offered to return half of them.

Ford then issued proceedings against Sir Paul Condon and others, purely for the return of his bonds and vital documents. Despite receiving a subpoena to appear, however, Condon simply ignored it and is still in contempt of court. Another updated subpoena is on its way.

He and the others all know that, had they stood in the witness box, the full truth about his heinous scandal would come out at last.

Visit Dave Ford's website at http://www.scandals.org/daveford/ for the latest developments in this case.