THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- McGivern
52. Ms McGivern’s Third Witness Statement does not contain any evidence relevant to the contempt application. F: The hearing of the contempt application 53. Three witnesses were called to give evidence for the Claimants: Ms Pressick, PC Shailes and David Manning. Although the Affidavit from Mr Manning had not been provided in accordance with the directions for service of evidence, in the end no objection was taken by Ms McGivern to his giving evidence. 54. As most of the relevant evidence provided by Ms Pressick was in the form of the CCTV footage that she produced, she was not cross-examined on any of the evidence as to Ms McGivern’s alleged breach of the Order. Mr Underwood QC asked her some limited questions about the email she had sent to PC Shailes. 55. When he gave evidence, PC Shailes confirmed the contents of his witness statement (see [47] above) and was then cross-examined by Mr Underwood QC. PC Shailes confirmed that he had not taken a note of the events on 27 April 2022. He had first been asked to recall them on 18 July 2022, when he was asked by his Detective Sergeant to provide any information he had regarding discussions with Ms McGivern. PC Shailes stated that he had told her what was contained in his statement. When asked about the additional piece of information, recorded in Paragraph 11(v) of Ms Pressick’s Ninth Affidavit (see [43] above), PC Shailes replied: “ I don’t know who wrote that, so I can’t comment on it ”. More generally, asked how good his recollection of the events of that day was, PC Shailes answered: “ I can recall the day. Of course, there’s going to be bits that I forget because it’s been several months since then. ” Mr Underwood QC asked how confident he was that he had correctly identified the name of the prosecutor. PC Shailes replied that the name of the prosecutor had been provided to him by the “ case team ” and that if the name was incorrect then he had been “ misinformed ”. The officer could not say whether he knew Ms Morrissey. He attended Cambridge Magistrates’ Court once every three to four months. 56. PC Shailes could not remember whether Ms McGivern and Ms Morrissey had arrived in the police room together and, as he had not been in Court, he could not confirm whether they arrived after the Court had adjourned for lunch at around 12.30. There followed this exchange (which I need to set out because of a point raised by Ms Bolton): Q: I’m going to suggest to you that by the point [Ms McGivern and Ms Morrissey arrived in the police room] the email hadn’t arrived from Ms Pressick. What do you say about that? A: Again, I’m not aware, I can’t recall the timings of exactly when the emails were sent or when people walked in. Q: But you can recall the sequence? A: I can’t, no. Q: And I’m going to suggest that when Ms McGivern and the prosecutor saw you in the room to discuss the matter with you, the email had not arrived. What do you say?
452
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator