Free The Great Train Robbery by Andrew Cook Page B

received £5 6,037 in money the property of the Postmaster-General knowing the same to have been stolen from and out of a mailbag and to have been sent by post.
    Contrary to Section 54 of the Post Office Act 1953

    7  And for that he:

    On a day unknown between the seventh and fifteenth days of August, 1963, received £ 79,120 in money the property of the Postmaster-General knowing the same to be stolen from and out of a mailbag and to have been sent by post.
    Contrary to Section 54 of the Post Office Act 1953

    8  And for that he:

    On a day unknown between the seventh and fifteenth days of August 1963 received £ 5,060 in money the property of the Postmaster-General knowing the same to be stolen from and out of a mailbag and to have been sent by post.
    Contrary to Section 54 of the Post Office Act 1953

    9  For that he: Brian Arthur Field

    On a day unknown between the seventh and seventeenth days of August, 1963, received £ 100,900 in money the property of the Postmaster-General knowing the same to have been stolen from and out of a mailbag and to have been sent by post.
    Contrary to Section 54 of the Post Office Act 1953

    10  For that he: John Denby Wheater

    Between the seventh day of August 1963 and the tenth day of September 1963 in the County of London well knowing that one Leonard Dennis Field had robbed Frank Dewhurst of 120 mailbags did comfort, harbour, assist and maintain the said Leonard Dennis Field.
    Against the Peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, Her Crown and Dignity 11

    The public gallery (with seats for sixty people) was full, with disappointed queues filing down the street outside the council building. The press benches were equally full to capacity with correspondents from all over the world sitting alongside some of Fleet Street’s most prominent reporters. An equally prestigious army of nearly forty counsel, including twelve QCs, and their juniors were positioned in the centre of the improvised court room. A full list of counsel can be found in Appendix 3.
    At 10.27 a.m. on the dot, the accused rose to answer the charges made against them. With the exception of Roger Cordrey all pleaded not guilty. Cordrey pleaded guilty to count one, in which he was charged with conspiracy to stop the mail, and counts three, four and five in which he was charged with receiving various large sums of money. He pleaded not guilty to count two in which he was charged with robbery with aggravation. The pleas by Cordrey were accepted by the prosecution and he was put back in custody to await sentence. 12
    Arthur James QC, leading the prosecution team, opened the case for the Crown, which took just over ten hours, beginning with a description of the hold-up and proceeding to the alleged role of each of the accused in the plot.
    On day three James produced the first of the prosecution’s parade of 206 witnesses who would appear over the next thirteen days. Jack Mills, the engine driver, looking tired and strained, was allowed to give his evidence from a chair. Unable to identify any of the robbers from among the men sitting in the dock, his evidence was perfunctory and at times almost inaudible.
    One of the most contentious parts of the prosecution case was that against Gordon Goody:

    On 28 January 1964 Detective Chief Inspector Peter Vibart was giving evidence regarding the questioning of Gordon Goody at Leicester when his Counsel, Mr Sebag Shaw QC told the Judge he had a submission to make which should be made in the absence of the jury. Justice Edmund Davies agreed and the jury retired. The submission was that at the time Detective Chief Inspector Vibart saw Goody at Leicester he was in custody and should have been cautioned under Rule 3 of Judges’ Rules before being questioned and that any statements attributed to him after that time were contrary to the rules and inadmissible in evidence. After arguments Justice Edmund Davies decided not to admit the evidence. This meant that the whole of the statements