Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
TUESDAY 30 JUNE 1998
COUNCILLOR STEPHEN
MURPHY AND
MR DAVID
WILMOT
Chairman
1. Good morning, gentlemen, Mr Wilmot and Mr
Murphy. Thank you very much for coming. This is only a
very brief inquiry because our eye was caught by the fact that
what was obviously a very large settlement in the Kevin Taylor
case was made confidential. We were a little bit concerned about
that. As you know, we have conducted a fairly lengthy correspondence
with all the parties, including yourselves, to try and get to
the bottom of that. Mr Wilmot very helpfully conceded that the
initiative for the confidentiality came from the Greater Manchester
Police, so we thought we would invite Mr Wilmot and Mr Murphy
to come and discuss the matter with us a little further. Can I
open the batting, as it were, by just asking where we stand on
the amounts paid out, both in costs and the actual sum. Would
it be fair to say, Mr Wilmot, that this is the largest settlement
ever?
(Mr Wilmot)
By Greater Manchester Police?
2. To start with the Greater Manchester Police,
yes.
(Mr Wilmot) I do not know because I only joined the
force in 1987. It is probably the largest settlement since I have
been Chief Constable, yes.
3. Have you ever heard of a larger one anywhere?
(Mr Wilmot) I am not aware of the figures for any
case outside of Greater Manchester.
4. Now, I appreciate you cannot tell us precise
figures, but are we talking tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands,
millions?
(Mr Wilmot) If the Committee is minded to ask me the
direct question of what the settlement is, then of course I will
answer the Committee's question, but I would be in contempt of
the court agreement. But if you wish to ask that question then
I will give you the answer. If it is a direct question to me I
will answer that.
5. We would not wish to place you in contempt,
but I have to say that we are not quite clear that you would be
in contempt.
(Mr Wilmot) I have a court order that prohibits any
of the parties from disclosing the settlement. That was part of
the agreement. However, if this Committee says so, I do not want
to be in contempt of this Committee.
6. We are not going to push you. Let us stick
with the costs. Carry on.
(Mr Wilmot) The case itself was subject to an insurance
agreement, so even at the end of the day there has not been any
public cash expended on the settlement. It was purely from the
insurance which the force carried. There was some question during
the conduct of the trial as to what that insurance agreement actually
covered. So behind the scenes, so to speak, there was difference
of opinion and interpretation on the cover as to what liability
the insurance policy covered for the GMP; when, in fact, reaching
a certain level, we would then be looking towards the Police Authority
if the funds for the costs came beyond them. We are talking fairly
substantial figures. You have a firm of solicitors and some QCs
working for two or three years to defend a civil action. Then
there are hidden costs in any litigation, as you well know, because
I have to strike off police officers to do investigation on files
which are not costed as part of the agreement. There are defence
costs. You were talking about 72/90-odd witnesses on each side,
a considerable number. Even on the day when the civil action ceased
in court, it had been anticipated that had it carried on, there
would have been a further nine months of trial. It was estimated
that this would have costed in the region of £30,000 a day.
So we are talking about fairly considerable sums of money.
7. The £30,000 a day not being both sides
but just your side?
(Mr Wilmot) They would have been the costs. The position
that we were faced with, the plaintiff was legally aided. So even
had we pursued the case—and this is my understanding of
the insurers' position—for the whole of the nine months
at whatever the costs were, and won, we would not have been able
to recover any of our costs. So a commercial decision was made
to settle the case. I was not in the court when this was decided.
The advice I had from my solicitor, and just to be absolutely
precise to you I will read from the letter he wrote to me: "We
all believe that the `initiative' came from our side in the sense
that it was one of the proposed terms of the agreement. It has
not proved possible to attribute it to any individual as a specific
idea but we all believe that it emerged from various meetings
and discussions which took place with the interested parties during
the final weeks of the case." So our position is that it
was an agreement by all the parties concerned. I have conceded
to you because that is what my solicitor has advised me. It was
probably our initiative during that discussion with the plaintiff's
legal advisers and the insurers' legal advisers to arrive at a
confidentiality clause.
8. The costs, presumably, are not bound by this.
You are not obliged to be confidential about the costs?
(Mr Wilmot) The plaintiff could have rejected any
of the suggestions of the confidentiality clause at any time.
It was not conditional upon our agreement to settle.
9. But are you obliged not to disclose the costs
as well as the sum of the settlement by the terms of this court
agreement?
(Mr Wilmot) Yes.
10. It covers everything?
(Mr Wilmot) Yes.
Mr Winnick
11. You are quite certain about that? That the
court costs are also covered in this court agreement?
(Mr Wilmot) I will read out the relevant bit from
the court agreement.
Mr Winnick: Perhaps we could have a copy.
Chairman
12. Let Mr Wilmot read it out first.
(Mr Wilmot) "The terms of this agreement in respect
of quantum of damages and costs shall be and shall remain confidential."
Mr Malins
13. How can costs be confidential, given that
fees paid to barristers and solicitors are known by their clerks,
by their chambers, by their firm, by their book keepers, by the
tax authorities, by a whole variety of people? These figures would
be in the public domain. How can they therefore not be mentioned
ever?
(Mr Wilmot) I do not know. That is the agreement.
14. I ask you, it must be obvious, must it not?
They must be capable of mention if they are in the public domain.
There must be dozens of barristers' clerks and tax authorities
who know exactly what the figures are.
(Mr Wilmot) With the greatest respect, there were
two QCs, a whole bevy of other legal advisers, and a High Court
judge who signed that agreement. I am just merely a Chief Constable.
15. The High Court judge merely signs an agreement
put before him by the parties. If you are telling me that this
is contempt of court to mention here legal fees, and barristers'
fees, which are so obviously in the public domain, not least to
the tax payer—
(Mr Wilmot) What I have said is, if you ask me the
direct question I will tell you what the settlement was.
Mr Corbett
16. Chief Constable, you started off by saying
there was a court order on this agreement to keep all these details
confidential. You now read from the letter and you use the word
"agreement". There is a distinction, is there not, between
a court order and an agreement registered with the court?
(Mr Wilmot) This is the agreement registered with
the court.
17. But it is not a court order.
(Mr Wilmot) I am not a barrister.
18. I am not a lawyer.
(Mr Wilmot) My understanding is that this is a legal
document that ties all three parties, that is the plaintiff, the
defendants and the insurers and their legal advisers.
19. I think I am right in suggesting to you
that where there is agreement between all the parties involved
to settle they simply then go to the judge and say "this
is what we have agreed" and it is simply a matter of tidying
up the ends as far as the judge is concerned.
(Mr Wilmot) Yes.
| 
