The website of the judges, magistrates and tribunal members in England and Wales

Inspector Garry Weddell – Summary of Bail Hearings

3 July 2007 - Luton Crown Court – His Honour Judge Bevan QC

1. Prosecution counsel outlined the case, confirming that the investigation was continuing and that the defendant was a police officer of good character. The objections to bail which had been argued at the magistrates’ court were put again. These were that the defendant, if granted bail would:
   
   
1. Fail to surrender to the court, given the inevitable sentence, should the defendant be convicted.
2. Interfere with witnesses. The police had wished to interview the defendant’s children. Since the magistrates’ court hearing the police had interviewed the oldest child and no longer intended to interview the others. In answer to the judge’s question, “does that [decision] mean that what was the second ground of interference with witnesses now no longer applies?” prosecution counsel replied “It essentially no longer applies to those children”. When asked “Interference with witnesses would only potentially apply to the children presumably?” she responded, “yes … there are a number of witnesses, obviously. There are relatives and friends, and they have all made statements in connection with this inquiry. So, their evidence is committed to paper.”
3. It was argued that the defendant should be remanded in custody for his own protection. He had been interviewed at another police station before being taken to Luton police station. On arrival there, an aerial cable which he had removed from a television in the interview room at the first police station was found in his sock. When asked why he had it, he replied “I just wanted to go to sleep.” It was the Crown’s case that the defendant had led a comfortable life, which was threatened when his wife decided to leave him. He faced losing his children and became so desperate that he decided to kill his wife in order to retain control. Having been charged with murder, his future was now even bleaker. The fact that he had hidden the cable demonstrated how desperate he had become and that the fears for his safety and that of his children were well-founded.
   
2. The judge’s initial reaction was that as the prosecution had effectively conceded that the second ground no longer applied, he was not concerned about witness interference. He was concerned about the attendance risk and even more so about the concerns for the defendant’s welfare, in the absence of a psychiatric assessment: “There will be [a psychiatric assessment prepared] automatically because this is a case of murder. But, until then, whatever you [defence counsel] tell me – and I am not shutting the door on you, of course, but you have got to look at it from my point of view – I have got a man who appears to have stolen a cable from an interview room and concealed it round his ankle – a man in a position, without going into it, for whom a charge of this kind would be a nightmare scenario. That is your difficulty.” The judge was aware that a surety of £200,000 was available but did not feel that that addressed his principle concern. He indicated that the position might be different if there were a report from a respected psychiatrist stating that the cable incident should be ignored but until then, he did not know what to make of the reply “I just wanted to go to sleep”, continuing, “being brutally realistic about it, as long as there is a prospect that if I were to grant him bail he might do something to himself, then where would we be? I mean, the question only needs to be asked at this stage in the light of, ‘what on earth was the judge doing, absent a psychiatric report, granting this man bail where he appears to have taken steps to try to end his life?’”
3. Defence counsel made submissions regarding the defendant’s background, character and standing in the community. He understood that the defendant denied having said that he wanted to go to sleep. He confirmed that given the defendant’s position as a police inspector, being in custody was “a nightmare”.
4. Defence counsel addressed the judge on various aspects of the prosecution evidence, including the injuries sustained by the defendant and his wife, the language of the apparent suicide note left by his wife, the use of the family computer on the day on which it was believed she had died, and the delay of nearly five months between the death and the decision to interview and charge the defendant. Counsel suggested that all these points indicated that the prosecution case was originally not as strong as was now asserted.
5. The judge refused bail: “I regard the first ground of objection to bail as a potential ground. The second ground falls away. But, at present, and without pre-judging any future bail application I am convinced that there are substantial grounds to believe that it would be wrong to grant bail in relation to his own protection. I am not so concerned about the children, but in the case of him there is a comment, which is denied, in relation to this cable secreted around his ankle, which gives me genuine cause for concern about his own welfare. That may, or may not, be resolved in the light of the psychiatric report. … I am certainly not saying that if there is a favourable psychiatric report, he will get bail. But at the moment that I regard as an insuperable hurdle.”

13 July 2007 - Luton Crown Court – HHJ Bevan QC

6. An interim psychiatric report dated 13 July was served on the court and prosecution by defence counsel. The author was approved for the purposes of section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
7. The author had found the defendant to be co-operative and alert. There had been no evidence of any speech or language disorder. He had clearly been distressed and unhappy about his position but no more so than was to be expected. There was no evidence of depressed mood. The defendant had been adamant that he had no suicidal intent, speaking of his plans to go on holiday in the summer: “It is perfectly obvious that Mr Weddle (sic) loves his children very deeply; it is also perfectly obvious that Mr Weddle understands that if he were to kill himself, his children would be orphaned.” No “evidence of psychosis, paranoia or any other form of psychotic disorder” was found.
8. The author was aware of the judge’s concerns regarding the cable. The defendant had explained to him that he had intended to make a ball with the wire to occupy himself. He had shown the author a further similar ball to demonstrate.
9. The author concluded that:
1. no evidence was found of significant emotional or behavioural disorder in the defendant’s youth;
2. there was no evidence of delinquent traits or any mental disorder during the defendant’s adolescence;
3. the defendant had had a successful career in the police. He was “essentially an industrious, conscientious family man”;
4. no evidence was found to indicate that the defendant suffered from any personality disorder;
5. no evidence was found to indicate that the defendant suffered from any drug or alcohol abuse;
6. there was no evidence of previous contact with psychiatric services; there was no history of significant clinical depression;
7. there had been no evidence of clinical depression or suicidal intent while the defendant had been on remand;
8. the defendant appeared to have suffered “some form of neurological event” while on remand: further scans were required to ascertain the nature of the event: it was likely that it had been precipitated by stress;
9. no evidence was found of significant mental disorder beyond the expected reaction to the defendant’s current position;
10. “I consider that Mr Weddle does not pose a suicide risk”; and that
11. he was prepared to supervise the defendant.
    
    
10. The judge was concerned that neither the possibility that the new ball might have been a diversion to suggest harmlessness, nor the words “I just wanted to go to sleep”, used when the cable was originally found, had been addressed. Prosecution counsel felt that further explanation was required of the “neurological event” suffered and the purpose of the supervision offered by the author: it was not clear from the report why it should be needed. It was agreed that the report’s author should attend court to assist with these questions. The judge indicated that he did in principle wish to grant the defendant bail but that “while there is any risk of something going wrong, it is a risk that none of us should be prepared to take – least of all me.” Bail was refused.

27 July 2007 – Ipswich Crown Court – HHJ Bevan QC

11. The author of the psychiatric report was sworn. He explained that although he had not seen the defendant’s GP’s records, he had seen the prison medical records, which contained a note of the GP’s records. He gave more detailed evidence about the reasons the defendant had given him about the cable found in his possession. He clarified that when the cable was found in his sock, it was rolled into a ball. The defendant had said that he had made the ball to amuse himself, as he had the second: “I was satisfied that his account to me of the ball in the police station was cogent, and I was not concerned to consider it then to be a form of ligature inducing device.” The author confirmed that he had borne in mind the possibility that the second ball may have been a diversion to lend credibility to his story.
12. The author admitted that he had not dealt with the words “I just wanted to go to sleep” as he had attributed little weight to them. It was clarified that contrary to the earlier, incorrect indication by counsel, the defendant did not deny using the words, but only their sinister interpretation. The defendant had explained that he had been ill for two days prior to his arrest and had slept badly. He was in custody for two days and during the night, police procedures caused his sleep to be disturbed 13 times. When he had shown the wire ball to the custody sergeant on his arrival at Luton police station, he had simply said that he was exhausted and needed to sleep. The author commented that “It seems to me to be wrong to invest that remark with any sinister significance unless there is a clinical indication to do so” He said that he had been told by Mr Weddell that his father had suffered from a psychiatric illness but went on to say that he was unaware of any documentary evidence to support that claim. He said that he had been slightly surprised at the suggestion because he was also told that the father had worked normally as a teacher. He concluded, “Mr Weddell does not have schizophrenia. I can categorically assert that.”
13. The author explained that the term “neurological incident” indicated a broad category of neurological disorder with no firm diagnosis. He was awaiting the results of the computer tomography scan but suspected, given the absence of a report for immediate action, that it would show nothing. The defendant had reported a loss of sensation and strength on one side of his body but appeared to be improving and on the basis of his experience, the author believed that the symptoms would cease within a few months.
14. The supervision offered related solely to the neurological problem. “I didn’t have any concerns about his mental condition. He doesn’t need a psychiatrist examining him regularly. He’s stable as far as I am concerned. … I am satisfied your Honour that Mr Weddell does not create a suicide risk.” He confirmed that the defendant was under no special watch regime in prison.
15. Prosecution counsel made submissions opposing the bail application on three grounds: that there were grounds for believing that the defendant would offend again, would interfere with witnesses, specifically the oldest child, and would abscond, given the inevitable sentence should he be convicted.
16. Prosecution counsel summarised the evidence supporting the prosecution case, which was that the defendant had killed his wife rather than that she had committed suicide. There was no evidence that she had been suffering from depression. There was evidence that she had been making plans for the future. There was a linguistic expert’s opinion that the apparent suicide note had not been written by the deceased. The injuries caused by the cable-tie to strangle her were difficult to reconcile with self-inflicted injury. The defendant had arm and hand injuries which were consistent with having been involved in a struggle. Further, his conduct after his wife went missing were not as one would have expected: he had failed to search his garage even after it was suggested that he should: he had appeared to seek to have corroborating witnesses for everything he did on the day; and he had appeared to carry on with his life in an unconcerned manner after the death.
17. The oldest child was still to be a prosecution witness as to her mother’s demeanour on the day of her death. Although her evidence-in-chief had been recorded, she would still be required for live cross-examination: currently all contact between her and her father was monitored and the prosecution was very concerned that the defendant should be in no position to put pressure on her.
18. The judge indicated to defence counsel that he considered the prosecution evidence, once served, had the potential to amount to a reasonably strong circumstantial case.
19. Defence counsel made the following points: that the physical evidence on the body was less clear than the prosecution suggested, as no foul play had been suspected by the doctor carrying out the post mortem examination; that the wife’s boyfriend said that she had failed to respond to any of his calls or messages in the days before her death; and that there were inconsistencies in the neighbours’ testimony.
20. Regarding the objections to bail, defence counsel submitted that the defendant was very concerned for his children’s welfare, that he had other family members in the area and that the court could be confident that he would attend court but would not seek to corrupt the evidence of the oldest child. That child lived with the defendant’s mother-in-law. Counsel commented that “there does not really appear to be any suggestion that he is likely to commit any offence, and if so what.” He proposed that the defendant should live at his brother’s address in Surrey and the court was referred again to the surety offered by the defendant’s brother. A restraining order had been served on the defendant the previous day, preventing him from disposing of any of his assets. The defendant further offered to surrender his passport, abide by geographical constraints including being prohibited from entering Bedfordshire and be prohibited from contacting any witnesses.
21. The judge granted bail, saying: “I have wrestled with the problem with bail in this case, not only today in my mind, but on previous occasions. I do not find it by any means an easy decision, balancing the gravity of the case on the one hand with the fact that the defendant is undoubtedly a professional man with strong roots in relation to his children and financial position, and on the other hand trying to balance as well as all that, the fact that one has to look at a case, not even on paper at this stage, but I have treated it as a circumstantial case of reasonable strength. Nothing that I say is designed to belittle the strength of the Crown’s case, but having listened to [the psychiatrist] in relation to his psychiatric state and he tells me that he has no concerns in that regard about his metal condition, and having listened to and considered the overall picture, whilst I make no comment whatever on the strength or weakness of the case, I am just persuaded that this is a suitable case for bail provided the conditions are stringent enough.” The defendant was warned that “it is a very borderline decision that I have granted you bail at all, and you understand that if you breach any of those conditions, then you will be straight back into custody.”
22. Bail was granted on the following conditions:
    
    
1. residence at the defendant’s brother’s address in Woking;
2. the surrender of the defendant’s passport;
3. the defendant was not to apply for any travel documents;
4. his brother was to offer a surety of £200,000 to secure his attendance at trial;
5. the defendant was to report to Woking police station twice weekly;
6. the defendant was not to enter Bedfordshire save for court attendance and contact as set out below;
7. he was not to contact any of his children without their consent, any contact to be supervised by a third party to be agreed between his solicitors and those for his mother-in-law; such contact may take place in Bedfordshire provided that police are notified 48 hours in advance; and
8. written proof was to be provided to police, Luton Crown Court and the CPS of a standing order in favour of his brother, covering the unaccounted portion of his income.

2 November 2007 - Luton Crown Court – HHJ Bevan QC

23. The case was listed to fix a trial date. Prosecution counsel drew the judge’s attention to two apparent breaches of bail, in respect of which the defendant had been arrested that morning. It was not believed that the breaches had taken place on that day. Very little information was available to counsel and the breaches were not put to the defendant. The first apparent breach occurred when the defendant met his mother in a public house in Bedfordshire, near the Hertfordshire border. The second breach occurred when the defendant contacted the children’s guardian after a picture was removed from the family home. The picture appears to have been removed from the home at the request of one of the children. No further details were provided to the court and no action was taken.
24. It was left to the prosecution to decide whether it felt it appropriate to list the case for mention in relation to the breaches once the full facts had been ascertained.

2 November 2007 - North West Surrey (Woking) Magistrates’ Court - Justices

25. The defendant had been arrested at his bail address on 2 November 2007. He was taken before the NW Surrey Magistrates’ Court in relation to two alleged breaches of bail conditions. These were:
    
    
1. that on 27 October 2007 the defendant had had contact with a guardian of his children, a prosecution witness whom he was prohibited from contacting; and
2. that on 29 October 2007 he had entered Bedfordshire in breach of his bail prohibition.

26. A detective inspector gave evidence of the Luton proceedings.
27. In relation to the first allegation, the prosecution relied on two statements, one made by the guardian, with whom the children were living, and one by a member of staff at the contact centre at which the defendant was permitted to meet his children.
28. The guardian stated that he had been spoken to by the defendant when he had arrived at the contact centre to collect the defendant’s children after a supervised contact session. Both men had been in the same room. The content of the contact centre staff member’s statement is not recorded.
29. The defendant denied having had contact with the guardian. He said that during the course of a contact visit, he had been taken into a room in which the guardian had been sitting. The guardian had asked him how the visit was but he had not responded in order not to breach his bail condition. He agreed that he should have walked out of the room and said that he had not intended to breach any condition. The defendant explained the discrepancies between his version of events and that of the other witnesses by saying that the guardian was a liar who wanted him in prison and that the staff member was mistaken.
30. In relation to the second allegation, the defendant admitted that he had been at a pub in Bedfordshire. However, that pub was only approximately 60 metres from the boundary with Hertfordshire and he had not at the time been aware that he was in Bedfordshire. Police had been contacted by the landlady as she had been concerned about a man who was taking photographs of the pub. She took a number of photographs of the man, who had left before police arrived. The defendant was identified from the photographs. The defendant explained that he had arranged to meet his mother at the pub and that he had spoken to the landlady about the pub’s CCTV cameras on the suggestion of his solicitors, the CCTV systems on his route to work being relevant to the murder case. He said that he would not have gone to the pub had he been aware that it was in Bedfordshire.
31. The justices found only the second breach to have been proved. They further found that the defendant was likely to surrender to the custody of the court in future and that although there had been a technical breach of the condition not to enter Bedfordshire, it had been the result of inadvertence rather than any deliberate act. The breach being so minor, the justices “found no reason to overturn the detailed bail conditions imposed by the Crown Court sitting at Luton.” The justices “were also mindful” of the fact that there had been no other breaches of bail since the imposition of the conditions in July 2007.
32. The defendant was re-admitted to bail on the same conditions.

ENDS