R v Jain 3 May 2017.docx

1
IN HARROW CROWN COURT
Case No: T20150456
Courtroom No. 3
Hailsham Drive
off Headstone Drive
Harrow
HA1 4TU
2.14pm – 3.59pm
Wednesday, 3rd
May 2017
Before:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BOURNE QC
R E G I N A
v
SUNIL JAIN
--------
MR J ROBERTSON appeared on behalf of the PROSECUTION
MS K ARDEN appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
--------
WHOLE HEARING
--------
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part, other than in accordance
with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the
case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the
applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the
internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for
making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is
liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what
information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.

2
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Court sits at 2.14pm.
MS ARDEN: Sorry, Your Honour, that we weren’t here-
JUDGE BOURNE: Do not worry; no, I was dealing with the other case, no-
MR ROBERTSON: I’m sorry to have detained Your Honour. Sorry, to have detained-
JUDGE BOURNE: Do not worry, at all. You have not. I have been dealing with the jury in the
other case. Just to warn you, we have a jury out so, there may be some interruption but there
is a letter I want you both to consider.
MS ARDEN: Does Your Honour know what it is relation to?
JUDGE BOURNE: No, there are some people in the public gallery who were good enough to show
the letter to the court clerk who has handed it to me and I thought, since this was a matter that
touched on the trial and that both of you should consider it because I do not, myself,
understand to what it relates.
MS ARDEN: No. I don't either.
MR ROBERTSON: I don’t either, understand to what it relates.
JUDGE BOURNE: There is no objection to persons taking notes in the proceedings, so long as they
do it discretely and don’t interrupt the proceedings but it may be that you are both slightly
concerned, especially since witnesses will be coming and going, as they say, in and out of the
court. I do not know who the writer is or whether he features in this case or whether he has
got anything to do with the company at the centre of the allegations.
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, they’re not – none of the names, including the chambers that it emanates
from are familiar to me.
MR ROBERTSON: No, they’re not familiar to me either. The letter, itself, is from Gray’s Inn Tax
Chambers.
MS ARDEN: Yes, what is the date of it?
MR ROBERTSON: It is dated 2 May, so, yesterday. It does not-
JUDGE BOURNE: I think we ought to sort this out now.
MS ARDEN: Yes-
JUDGE BOURNE: Rather than me sit here and you discuss it, I am just going to rise and go outside
the court door and you can either speak directly to the notetaker concerned or ask the police
to do so and I will come back in once you have had an opportunity to consider the position,
all right? So-
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, there is a matter; I don't know if it is your jury in the other case or in
this case but there is a matter that we have to raise in relation to our case after this matter has

3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
been-
JUDGE BOURNE: All right, well, let us deal with this matter-
MS ARDEN: Indeed-
JUDGE BOURNE: And then, you can raise the other matter.
MS ARDEN: Yes, thank you. It’s just, I heard about the jury; I don't know which jury it is.
JUDGE BOURNE: It is your jury.
MS ARDEN: It is my jury, okay.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes. All right, well, they can stay where they are for the moment. Thank you.
Please let the court staff know when you are ready.
Court rises at 2.19pm.
Court resumes at 2.38pm.
JUDGE BOURNE: Thank you. Yes. Sit down, please.
MR ROBERTSON: We both thought Your Honour had seen both sets of people because the
gentleman at the front is also nothing to do with this but it is another, if I could call it,
interested party about which we have slight concerns. But my learned friend, outlines – I
don't know if I can add anything because we have spoken to both sets of people.
MR ROBERTSON: What it comes to is this; so, as far as Gillian Mansbridge and
Benjamin Mansbridge are seated in the second – the middle row there; they have told us and
we convey it to Your Honour that they are instructed by a firm called Adrian C Mansbridge
Accountants; I think Gillian Mansbridge is a bookkeeper there and has been for a long time.
They are instructed by – to be here by Nikhil Mehta, as the letter suggests. Nikhil Mehta has
a client in India and neither of the Mansbridges here know the name of that client. Of course,
we have a number of participants in this trial who have, at some stage, come from – or, indeed,
one of them is in India. What we are told by the Mansbridges is that as far as Nikhil Mehta
has told them, that person in India is not a witness in this case; that is what we have been told.
What we have also been told is that that person in India, the client of Nikhil Mehta, suspects
that Mr Jain has been involved in some way obtaining incorrectly – I will simply put it in
those terms, company information about his company in India which Mr Jain would not be
entitled to obtain and for that reason, they are here to make on a general basis – on a daily
basis – and to report back. So, that’s – that is the – that is the information that we have been
given. Obviously, if it was thought that the client in India was a witness in this case or,
perhaps, was closely linked – I mean, very closely linked, then there may be a concern but
that might be dealt with by way of direction from Your Honour.

4
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, my concern, of course, is that we know that there is a witness in India; in
Mumbai-
MR ROBERTSON: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: - who is due to give evidence via the video link on Friday morning at 11.00.
MR ROBERTSON: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: And I need to be really sure that none of the persons who are taking a note have
anything to do with that witness because I do not want it to be suggested by anybody that
someone has spoken to Mr Shroff, although I do not think there is very much that he could
learn so far in these proceedings-
MR ROBERTSON: No.
JUDGE BOURNE: There must be no suggestion that anybody has spoken to a witness who is giving
evidence or about to give evidence in these proceedings.
MR ROBERTSON: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: So, although I accept that people are entitled to take notes of proceedings, in a
public court, because that is what this is – it is a public hearing – there must be no doubt but
that anything that they hear in this courtroom must not be communicated to anybody who
might subsequently be giving evidence in this case. That is, obviously, very important
because if that situation were to occur, then almost certainly, this trial would have to come to
an end and proceedings may flow from any such breach of the – of the order that there must
be no communication with anybody who is due to give evidence.
MR ROBERTSON: May I say, the next step would be for – I would hope, the court – to contact the
author of that letter and to seek reassurance of the terms which Your Honour has described.
JUDGE BOURNE: Let me just have a word with the court clerk for a moment, please.
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, could I just-
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, of course.
MS ARDEN: If you wouldn't mind, Your Honour; out concerns – and, in fact, we both have the
same concerns as Your Honour asking questions but my additional concerns – it’s not just a
question of a witness in this case, as Your Honour has seen already; there are a number of
people connected with this case who will not necessarily be giving evidence. There is also a
very close connection between some people who are connected with this case and possibly
the person whose identity we don't know and I just feel it somewhat surprising and
Your Honour may feel – consider it surprising as well – that persons from the firm of
accountants – are totally unaware of-

5
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
JUDGE BOURNE: Of who the person is?
MS ARDEN: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, I am concerned about that.
MS ARDEN: It really does concern me because there are a lot of connections; as you can see, that
list of names that was read out and it brings me onto the second thing – just separate from the
people there – the young gentleman who is sitting in the front; I don't know whether Your
Honour has been told, is a trainee solicitor from Fladgates. Now, Fladgates are the solicitors
to First International Group; the company in this case. The young man doesn’t know whether
they are also the solicitors to Mr Rupin Vadera and possibly his wife. He doesn’t have that
information. My understanding is that they may well be and to illustrate the connection, if
you like, that exists, that one of the partners of Fladgates, I am aware, is a friend of some 30-
odd years; a very close friend of Mr Rupin Vadera.
So, I am somewhat concerned as to – and he has been instructed to give, basically, a daily
report of proceedings back to his firm which is a little – and I don't mean to sound dramatic
in any way – but a little, potentially, like having a spy in relation to the evidence that will be
given.
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, I agree; that raises all sorts of concerns because the whole point about
witnesses being out of court is that they are not aware of what evidence is being presented to
the jury and if witnesses who are due to give evidence are close to – and obviously, they are
– to the company in question, there is potential for-
MS ARDEN: Yes-
JUDGE BOURNE: - for them to learn things-
MS ARDEN: - indeed.
JUDGE BOURNE: - before they give evidence.
MS ARDEN: And, for example, one of the witness, Mr Rajeev Sheth, who is a witness for the
prosecution, has a short statement but he is a witness, nonetheless; it is his father who is the
partner in Fladgates. And, in addition to that-
JUDGE BOURNE: What is the name of the firm, Flad?
MS ARDEN: Fladgates and, in addition to that, Your Honour, not only are they the solicitors to First
International Group and possibly, also, Mr Rupin Vadera, himself, and possibly his wife as
well, we learned only – Your Honour will recall that I told Your Honour that the day before
yesterday, the bank holiday Monday, I had an email from my learned friend forwarding an
email that had been sent after close of business on Friday, which included a notice of further

6
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
evidence. There were two emails and, also, 130 pages of disclosure and if my learned friend
had not sent that to me, we would not have known about it until yesterday morning. That’s
what-
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, this is a slightly different point, is it not?
MS ARDEN: Well, no, it’s just that we realise now, as a result of the notice of further evidence, for
a witness to be called by the Crown, which had not been noticed either before that notice, is
a former partner of Fladgates until a few months ago.
JUDGE BOURNE: And his name is?
MS ARDEN: Is Mr Rajani[?]. Your Honour will see why we have-
JUDGE BOURNE: Is Mr Rajani one of those witnesses whose names was read to the jury yesterday?
MR ROBERTSON: Yes.
MS ARDEN: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: All right, now, these are – thank you very much – these are prosecution
witnesses, Mr Robertson, and the court is always very concerned to ensure that prosecution
witnesses or, indeed, for that matter, defence witnesses do not learn about what is going on
in court through any source whatsoever at all and, indeed, all witnesses are told by the Judge,
they must not discuss their evidence with anybody else.
MR ROBERTSON: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: Now, what do the Crown say about there being a representative of a firm of
solicitors present in court who is taking a verbatim note, which is being provided to the
solicitors for the company at the centre of this case and also, potentially, the solicitors to two
of the important prosecution witnesses in the case?
MR ROBERTSON: Well, I do have concerns about that because the witnesses are all told – for
reasons that Your Honour has set out – the witnesses are told that they are not to discuss their
evidence. May I mention, just in passing, Mrs Vadera is here. I have seen her and that is, of
course, one of the things which I have told her so, that is integral – it is to protect the integrity
of the trial.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes.
MR ROBERTSON: So, on that basis, I do have concerns in case anything is reported back and the
reason for the rule, of course, is that it protects all parties.
JUDGE BOURNE: Of course-
MR ROBERTSON: Not just-
JUDGE BOURNE: - and the integrity of the trial as you rightly identified. There must be no

7
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
suggestion hereafter that the trial has, in any way, been compromised or the integrity of the
trial has been compromised because of persons in court taking a note. These are proceedings
in a court of record; everything that is being said, either by counsel or the Judge or the
witnesses is all being recorded and so, it is available, hereafter, should persons need to look
at the proceedings in any detail. Just give me a moment, please, Mr Robertson.
Pause.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, Mr Robertson. I am sorry; I was just dealing with the other case because,
as you know, I have a jury out deliberating in relation to an entirely different matter.
MR ROBERTSON: Yes, yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: So, what is the way forwards in terms of protecting the integrity of the trial?
Certainly, the court can write to Mr Mehta and ask for details of his clients and, of course, is
satisfied that there is no potential problem with a note being kept-
MR ROBERTSON: Sorry to cut across, but may I add to that – and reassurance given that that client
is not a witness in this case.
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, precisely, or linked to the case.
MR ROBERTSON: Or linked.
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, I think, in the circumstances, there should be disclosure of the name of
the client because I remind Your Honour – I don't mean to repeat myself – but a lot of people
whose names were read out are people who are concerned in this case but will not be giving
evidence. For example, the-
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, Mr Mehta, in his letter which you have both seen, dated 2 May, says, ‘As
I requested before the start of the above trial, I would like permission’ – now, we have no
record of anybody seeking permission from the court. There is no record. He does not refer
to who he has spoken or to who he may have been in correspondence and so, this does need
to be resolved.
MS ARDEN: Yes. Can I say, I am really very concerned-
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, I understand the position; I do understand.
MS ARDEN: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: So, for the moment, I am not going to permit any recordings – any notes to be
taken on behalf of any party until this matter has been properly investigated and the police
may be concerned in this because the police liaise with the prosecution witnesses and the
police must be satisfied that there is nothing untoward going on in relation to this application
or request for permission to record these proceedings.

8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
MS ARDEN: I can give an example; one of the-
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, I have said what I have said so, we are where we are. So, the position is,
the court is not giving permission, at this stage, for the proceedings to be recorded until it is
satisfied that there is no potential breach of the usual rules as applied to the proceedings not
being communicated or what has been said in the proceedings, not being communicated to
witnesses who are being called before the jury.
MS ARDEN: May I inquire as to the effect of that on the presence in court of those persons and I-
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, they are entitled to sit in court but they will not be allowed to record the
proceedings and they – all of them – all of the people in court at the moment are listening to
what I am saying. None of them must be in any doubt at all as to the consequences of persons
who are potential witnesses being told what is going on in the courtroom before those
witnesses give evidence because if that were to occur then, that would be a very serious breach
of the rules and, as I have already indicated, consequences will flow from that.
I am very keen to ensure this trial proceeds and that the integrity of the trial is protected until
these matters have been properly considered by the police – by the prosecution and by the
court. All right. So, does that deal with that matter for the time-being?
MS ARDEN: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: Are we in a position to get the jury into court-
MR ROBERTSON: May I – sorry, before we move on, is Your Honour, therefore, asking that the
court write to the firm of Nikhil Mehta-
JUDGE BOURNE: The court is going to write to the firm in relation to what they have said within
the letter, asking for the writer of this letter, Nikhil Mehta, to identify who he has spoken to
or communicated with, seeking permission, because that has not been passed to me, and for
him to identify who he is seeking – who his client is; who he is going to be communicating
with in relation to the recording of these proceedings. And the whereabouts of the person
who is the client in relation to this application.
MR ROBERTSON: May I add to that, confirmation that that person is not a witness in the case?
JUDGE BOURNE: Not a witness in the case or connected to a witness in the case either for the
prosecution or for the defence.
MR ROBERTSON: By the case, obviously, that means these proceedings-
JUDGE BOURNE: These proceedings-
MR ROBERTSON: - at Harrow Crown Court-
JUDGE BOURNE: These criminal proceedings before the Harrow Crown Court concerned with

9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
allegations of theft and fraud by false representation alleged against the defendant in these
proceedings, Sunil Kumar Jain.
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, may I respectfully say that – not connected with a witness in this case
or with the company.
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, all the company – First International Group – because First International
Group is a company and officers of the company are giving evidence in these proceedings.
MS ARDEN: Yes. And can I just inquire as to what Your Honour’s view is, in relation to Fladgates?
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, the same applies to Fladgates because they are solicitors, it is said, acting
on behalf of First International Group Plc and, potentially, acting on behalf of one or both of
the officers of that company, Mr and Mrs Vadera, who are due to give evidence in this case.
Therefore, it would be improper if a note were to be kept and provided to Fladgates which
was then seen by either of those two witnesses or by anybody connected directly to them,
who may communicate to them what is being said or what has been said in their evidence
before the jury.
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, can I raise a point that I said I had to raise, if you have finished with
this point?
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes.
MS ARDEN: Have we finished with this point?
JUDGE BOURNE: We have. I am just going to hand the letter to the court clerk.
Discussion sotto voce.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, Mrs Arden?
MS ARDEN: Ms Arden.
JUDGE BOURNE: Ms Arden, forgive me.
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, the other point is this; as Your Honour know, we received the notice of
further evidence and the 130 pages of disclosure in the way that I have described earlier. I
said yesterday that – and I am sure Your Honour may have seen it on the court file – it has
been a very difficult process in obtaining disclosure in this case and it has lasted for, more or
less – I am not exaggerating – almost three years, trying to obtain disclosure, right until
something in the nature of about three or four weeks ago when His Honour Judge Berkeley
made a-
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, no, I have seen the history of the case.
MS ARDEN: You have seen the history of the case. Now, the defence representatives attended at
the police station without the defendant – from an early stage, what has been asked for by the

10
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
defence is emails from Mr Vadera and from Mrs Vadera to my client and emails from him to
them. And those were not disclosed. Those instructing me, the defence representatives,
attended eventually at – I think it was both the police station and, possibly, the offices, and
were allowed to look at various matters and my learned friend tells me that the emails that
were looked at come to about 30,000 emails in all and they spent considerable time.
The emails that we have instructions that are in existence in those emails and the categories
that I have given were not amongst them and it became, if you like, the defence conviction
that, on the assumption that those emails did exist, which would support-
JUDGE BOURNE: No, I understand all this, Ms Arden. What I am concerned about is, does this
need to be done before we get to the-
MS ARDEN: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: - prosecution opening?
MS ARDEN: It does, Your Honour, because a decision has to be made as to how we progress but
what has happened is, in that disclosure that was sent to me, we discovered that there are
some emails in the category so, my client had thought that the emails had been destroyed,
probably hadn’t. We then looked to see, at the disclosure, and it is clear that they came from
separate disclosures that the previous officer in the case – not the young lady who is sitting
in court – viewed and says that there were 427 emails that had been looked at from Mr Vadera
to my client; 368 emails from Mrs Vadera and the documents which have been produced the
day before yesterday say they come from, specifically, those items – the collection. And then,
there are also, the officer in the previous case said there were 200 emails from my client to
Mr Vadera and 200 to Mrs Vadera.
JUDGE BOURNE: What is your application?
MS ARDEN: My application is that those be disclosed. We were all here very early this morning,
and that they be put onto a memory stick and supplied to us. My client says that he’s quite
happy to look at-
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, let us see if Mr Robertson is resisting this. I mean, if the material is
available and is relevant – Mr Robertson?
MR ROBERTSON: May I just detain Your Honour for a moment and take Your Honour to the
relevant statement; if not, perhaps, read from it. It’s the statement of – there’s been a change
of officer in the case. The outgoing officer in the case was here yesterday – and, indeed, he’s
some distance away and I understand he’s not for personal reasons – not able to be here today
or tomorrow-

11
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
JUDGE BOURNE: I understand-
MR ROBERTSON: I’m not sure about Friday but we are in contact with him so, we are seeking
clarification but if I can take Your Honour to a statement of Detective Jackson, which is at
page 24. What it comes to is this; that-
JUDGE BOURNE: I am afraid my statements only go up to – well, less than 24.
MR ROBERTSON: Well, in which case; I had notices of additional from – I think it’s 38 onwards
but I will endeavour to provide Your Honour with a complete set. I am not able to do that
this afternoon.
JUDGE BOURNE: No, well, I just need to know what the point is; I have got pages 39 and onwards,
which is the recent-
MR ROBERTSON: What it comes to is; that officer says in that statement and he was the disclosure
officer at that time, that he received the defence statement. He has then requested the
defendant’s First International Group Outlook email account. He identified a number of – at
least, the numbers Ms Arden was referring to a moment ago – a number of emails between
the defendant and Rupin Vadera – Mr Vadera, that is – Madhavi Vadera is Mrs Vadera and
Gary Davies who was the – who oversaw the payroll. And, having looked at all of those, he
came to a number of conclusions which did not support the contention in the defence
statement and, in fact, he says, ‘I found no evidence indicating that First International Group
management oversaw every banking transaction or payroll correspondence; nor that it would
have been clear to them, without reviewing every bank transaction if staff were being paid
large amounts of money beyond their approved’, salary and he’s referred in his statement to
the test of – that needs to be applied, whether it undermines or assists. So, a decision was
made.
However, then, there were a number of rounds of appearances in court. It resulted in – I think
February or, perhaps, March – I think maybe in February, a visit by the defence solicitor and
a forensic accountant on behalf of the defendant to go to the police station in Peckham and
this, the officer who sits behind me, DC Schutalo[?], was there. That took place over a day
and a half and access was given not just to those emails but to 30,000-odd emails or more.
So, access has been given. More recently, just to bring Your Honour up to date, hard copies
and, I think, on Friday – my learned friend saw them on Monday – hard copies of some of
those emails and there’s a lot of repetition in these emails and some are actually appearing in
the case as exhibits but hard copies were given to the defence and I understand it’s from that
that the defence now wish to see more emails.

12
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I have asked about the practicability of obtaining those emails to which DC Jackson refers;
it’s about 1500 in all but he can’t be contacted and, of course, he has already given his answer
in relation to the defence that his being set out in this case. So, that’s really where we’ve got
to. It may be that we need Your Honour’s assistance; it may take a little time but what we
really need to do is, so far as the Crown are concerned, is to establish whether or not those
emails that have been referred to – about 1500 it is – it may be a little less but it is-
MS ARDEN: I don’t think it is-
MR ROBERTSON: No, in which case, it will be fewer but, certainly, a thousand or more have been
placed in a separate folder. I am not sure where it will have been and the only person who
knows that is Detective Constable Jackson, who is detained elsewhere, at least at the moment.
So, that – so, I’m afraid that’s as far as – without speaking to him, I have only got what he
has set out in his statement to go on, namely that they have all been considered.
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, I do not see how I can resolve this because I am relying on the
representations that you are making and you cannot speak to the officer in charge of the case
for reasons you have indicated. You tell me he is not available today and probably not
available tomorrow; this is going to significantly delay this trial.
MR ROBERTSON: Well, it may do if it’s not resolved but the real test is whether or not – they’ve
already been considered for disclosure and a decision has been made that they are not to be
disclosed. Since then, disclosure has been given and the defence has been given an
opportunity to look at everything and taken away, may I say, a substantial amount of material.
JUDGE BOURNE: So, is it your submission, Mr Robertson, that the visit to Peckham in February
would have allowed the defence access to the complete record of emails?
MR ROBERTSON: In essence, yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: Including the 1,100 or thousands of ones that are being referred to now?
MR ROBERTSON: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: So, your submission is that the defence have already seen this?
MR ROBERTSON: Yes. That is really what it comes to and I have not seen anything – I’m sorry-
JUDGE BOURNE: If they have already seen them and they have now been highlighted because of
the recent service of material, why can they not see them again?
MR ROBERTSON: Well, they could but that would be a time-consuming exercise and aware of that
possibility, I have asked that the office be contacted to see whether or not these have been
separated into a separate-
JUDGE BOURNE: Is he being contacted now?

13
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
MR ROBERTSON: Various messages have been sent to him today; telephone messages and I think,
emails. Would Your Honour give me a moment?
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, Mr Robertson, I am going to give you more than a moment because I have
got the other trial in the wings and I have got a note from the jury that needs to be considered
with counsel who are now in court so, what I am going to do is, I am simply going to put this
back; I am sorry for that and the, we will return to it in due course but what about the jury, on
your case?
MR ROBERTSON: Well-
MS ARDEN: Well, Your Honour, I – when we come back, I would welcome the opportunity to
respond to my learned friend if it is not resolved-
JUDGE BOURNE: All right, if it is not resolved then, I will hear any submissions you have to make.
MS ARDEN: Because it would mean – well, I would just be making submissions now and
Your Honour has got other business to attend to but it seems to me that we can’t go ahead with
the jury this afternoon. I hope the whole of this afternoon is – but, can I stress, I-
JUDGE BOURNE: If we are not going to get to the jury this afternoon, in fairness to them, they
ought to be released sooner rather than later.
MS ARDEN: Forgive me, the only thing is, is that if we can locate these documents – these emails,
which, I’m sorry to say, actually, in the disclosure that was made the day before yesterday, it
specifically said, ‘Recovered from’ – the ones that are shown – ‘from the 368 emails and the
527’. So, they must – it can’t be referring to nothing so, it must be in existence and so,
consequently, what I suggested to my learned friend, so as to try and save time this morning
was that it be put on a memory stick and be supplied-
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, we are going around in circles. So that we understand the trial – your trial
at the moment, to see whether there is going to be any possibility of agreement and disclosure
before we decide the best way forward. So, I am going to release this now. Mr Jain, you can
leave the dock. I will call the case of [redacted] back on, please. Please do not wait.
Court resumes at 3.40pm.
Jury in at 3.43pm.
JUDGE BOURNE: Thank you very much for your patience and, at least, I am able to say I am so
glad I said, ‘Do not come before 2.00’, because, believe it or not, the parties and I have been
working hard trying to resolve some, what I am going to call, ‘teething problems’ that need
to be sorted out before we proceed. Now, we have been making some progress this afternoon

14
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
but I have been conscious of the fact that you have been sitting downstairs waiting to come
into court to get on with the opening and I made the decision, rather late, I am afraid, that in
fairness to you, I am not going to keep you hanging around any longer this afternoon and I
am going to release you now, until 10.30 in the morning – not 10.00; 10.30 tomorrow, all
right? Then, we will hear from Mr Robertson, who is in the middle of his opening; in other
words, telling you what this case is about and I hope we will make some proper progress
tomorrow, all right?
Thank you for your patience and we will see you tomorrow at 10.30.
Jury out at 3.45pm.
JUDGE BOURNE: So, Ms Arden, the position reached is that the Crown have reviewed the position
although Mr Robertson has not been able to speak to the officer who was formerly the officer
in the case and, at the moment, his position is that disclosure has taken place. You are at
liberty to make any further representations you want to-
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, yes. Your Honour, what I say is that, Your Honour knows the problems
that we have in relation to the containment of disclosure, I – my learned friend has said that
there were some 30,000 emails that were looked at. It’s right to say that I don't know and
I’ve spoken to my instructing solicitor – he doesn’t know whether these emails that are
referred to by Mr Jackson in his statement were amongst those. He, when reviewing a vast
amount of material-
JUDGE BOURNE: But he went down to Peckham police station?
MS ARDEN: He went down to Peckham police station and took away things which appeared to him
– because the material that – my instructions are – was not there; it’s right to say that my
client had formed the view that the only alternative was that he knew that they were – had
been in existence and that, in some way, they had been deleted or destroyed. It was only as
a result of the disclosure that was made a couple of days ago, there was an email that was
disclosed. My learned friend has said that Mr Jackson considered those emails and did not
consider that they were disclosable.
If I may respectfully say so to my learned friend, a lot of water has gone under the bridge in
relation to disclosure and what was considered to be disclosable because, at the start, the
Crown were actually disclosing very little and if that position changed – so, that view formed
by the officer, in my submission, can’t actually be relied up at this stage and the request which
I have had is very limited. It arises out of this witness statement of Mr Jackson and can I say
that, even if – and I put it at its worst – that even if it transpires that the defence representatives

15
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
missed them in the 30,000 emails that were looked at, that is not the fault of my client and, in
my submission, he should not suffer for that.
It is quite plain from what we have seen in this disclosure that was given, in effect, the day
before the trial, if you can count – my apologies, the day before the trial, that there is an email
coming into that category but all that we require is what Mr Jackson refers to in his witness
statement which is, I read, that ‘a search produced 200 emails to Rupin Vadera; 200 to
Madhavi Vadera’. There are 137 to Gary Davis which I am not pursuing at all and he says,
‘I carried out further searches showing 427 emails sent from Madhavi Vadera and there were’
– sorry, I’m – sir, forgive me. Let me just read that again.
‘The further searches showed 427 emails sent from the defendant to Rupin Vadera and 368
to Madhavi Vadera’.
JUDGE BOURNE: But it is not quantity we are after here, is it?
MS ARDEN: It’s those specific emails.
JUDGE BOURNE: It is quality you are after.
MS ARDEN: It is.
JUDGE BOURNE: A specific email that your submission – the submission you make to me this
afternoon is that you have not seen it and you do not think your instructing solicitor has seen
it and, in any event, Mr Jain hasn’t seen it-
MS ARDEN: No-
JUDGE BOURNE: And that is why you are pursuing this application for the disclosure?
MS ARDEN: Indeed.
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, Mr Robertson is being his usual helpful self and is trying to deal with this
as best he can but until the matter has been considered by him and Mr Jackson, I am not in a
position to rule one way or the other.
MS ARDEN: No, Your Honour, I can see that and I hope Your Honour can see why I am making
this application. It’s a limited amount and I really do not – my submission is that it should
not be my client who is penalised in this if it has been missed-
JUDGE BOURNE: No-
MS ARDEN: Because if, as I understand it, there was no objection to that point that Your Honour
rose with my learned friend right at the outset when I – after I made the decision, ‘Well, if
you’ve already given it, what’s the objection to it being seen now?’
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, I do not want to go around in circles-
MS ARDEN: No-

16
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
JUDGE BOURNE: - and Mr Robertson is not being obstructive at all.
MS ARDEN: No.
JUDGE BOURNE: He is trying to resolve this. He has certainly complied with his duties of
disclosure. I note the officer who was assisting him has now left the courtroom and I hope
that contact will be made with Mr Jackson so that we can proceed in the morn; certainly, we
can proceed with the remainder of the opening and I hope will be in a position to call
Mrs Vadera later tomorrow because, on Friday, we have the witness who is giving evidence
via the link, Mr Shroff, at 11.00.
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, I am going to need that material in order to cross-examine her. That’s
the problem and, Your Honour, I’m a little concerned, in fact; as I was speaking, Your Honour
probably saw me hesitating but, in fact, the – part of the documents that were disclosed –
well, the way that I’ve described it – talk about screen images recovered – item 81 and talks
about emails from Mrs Vadera – a review of 368 emails and I noticed that, in fact, in the
witness statement, although the actual disclosure talks about ‘from Mrs Vadera’, the witness
statement says 368 ‘to Mrs Vadera’.
So, we really do need to sort out what it is that this has been taken from-
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, no, I agree but I cannot really assist because I do not have the material-
MS ARDEN: No-
JUDGE BOURNE: - and I have not seen the material. You are both much more familiar with the
material than I am and I am concerned to ensure that anything that is material that you should
see, you should see it before you cross-examine Mrs Vadera but I am conscious of the fact
that we need to keep the trial moving because, otherwise, I can see us running out of time and
the jury losing patience with the court-
MS ARDEN: Yes-
JUDGE BOURNE: - and the trial having to be aborted.
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, what I do not want to do, if Your Honour would allow is, I don't want
to start cross-examination until I have had this material.
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, there we are, Mr Robertson. Ms Arden has made the position perfectly
plain. I am not going to give any ruling because I am not in a position to do so-
MR ROBERTSON: No. No.
JUDGE BOURNE: But I hope that progress can be made because I would very much like
Mrs Vadera to give evidence as soon as your opening is concluded.
MR ROBERTSON: Yes.

17
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
JUDGE BOURNE: And so, we will have to do our best to ensure that that is what happens.
MR ROBERTSON: It looks as though, Mr Shroff, if he is to give evidence on Friday morning at
11.00, will need to be interposed because I am confident – I am sure that Mrs Madhavi will
still be in the witness box-
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, I am sure that is right. Well, we will interpose Mr Shroff because we must
have his evidence presented to the jury and at a time when it is convenient to him and
convenient to the court and that time has been put at 11.00 on Friday.
MR ROBERTSON: It has, so far. I will make inquiries as to whether there is any flexibility-
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes.
MR ROBERTSON: - or not.
JUDGE BOURNE: All right, well, is there anything else I can do to assist this afternoon?
MR ROBERTSON: No, thank you.
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, can I just raise one matter in relation to the one that we left and the
persons in the public gallery?
JUDGE BOURNE: Can I just tell you what we are going to do?
MS ARDEN: Yes?
JUDGE BOURNE: We are going to set a letter to Mr Mehta and to, a separate letter to Fladgates
setting out the position and requesting further information, certainly, in relation to Mr Mehta
as to who is client is and whether his client has direct contact with or, indeed, is a prosecution
witness. We need that to be clarified and the position in relation to Fladgates is equally
important because there must be no suggestion that the recipient of the note, if one is to be
taken at Fladgates passes it on to any prosecution or defence witness in these proceedings.
MS ARDEN: Well, Your Honour, the reason, if I might add, is that if the information that we heard
from Mr Tobin, as I understand it, is that the report he made with his firm is to the father of a
prosecution witness.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, well, the position does not need to have to be spelt out because it is unlawful
for anybody to communicate with a witness in criminal proceedings, especially if that person
is receiving material of what other witnesses have said, before the witness comes to give
evidence and that amounts to a criminal offence.
MS ARDEN: So, can we review that again tomorrow?
JUDGE BOURNE: Certainly.
MS ARDEN: Thank you.
JUDGE BOURNE: I am going to keep the matter under review. If Mr Mehta responds and provides

18
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
the information that is requested, he will not be required to attend but if he does not, he will
have to come to court and explain the matter to the court himself.
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, I just alert Your Honour to the fact that my client is very concerned
because, of course, even if there are no notes made that it is easy for people to give an oral
account.
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, this is a perennial problem we have in the court. People are entitled to sit
in the public gallery. It is a public court.
MS ARDEN: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: But what people are not allowed to do is, to leave the courtroom and speak to
people who are due to come to court to evidence because if they do that then, they will find
themselves in the dock charged with those serious offences. So, the position is entirely clear.
All right, well, thank you both very much indeed. I am just going to have a word with the
court usher if I may, please.
Discussion sotto voce.
JUDGE BOURNE: So, I will be available from 10.00. I have asked the jury to be here at 10.30. I
have got to send my other jury out again at 10.00 but I hope, very much, you will be able to
get on with your opening at 10.30.
MR ROBERTSON: Yes, I hope so, thank you.

19
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Transcript from a recording by Ubiqus
291-299 Borough High Street, London SE1 1JG
Tel: 020 7269 0370
legal@ubiqus.com
Ubiqus hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings
or part thereof

R v Jain 3 May 2017.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to R v Jain 3 May 2017.docx

Similar to R v Jain 3 May 2017.docx (20)

More from Hindenburg Research

More from Hindenburg Research (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

R v Jain 3 May 2017.docx