◆ SpookStack

thank oa ee Say GE a erat a) Pee Cre ap. ke fuse aoe . THE DISAPPEARANCE OF CHRISTINE ma 136. One of the matters that has given rise to much public n uneasiness is Christine Keeler’s disappearance i in March, 1963, with the result t that she never appeared to give évidence at ihe trial ot John Edgecombe. She Was taken to Spain by Paul Mann. It is suggested that this was procured by people in high places, because they were afraid their names might come out in her evidence at the trial. If this be the case, then it would be, of course, a very serious matter, ~ = 137, The lew is this: If a witness, who is bound over by recog: to appear to give evidence, does not come forward at the trial, his Danity depends whether there is good excuse or not. If he or she has a good excuse, i as, for instance, is ill and cannot come, it is no breach of recognizance. But if he or she has no good excuse, then the recognizance is liable to. be forfeited. In this case Christine Keeler was bound over in the sum of £40 \ and she forfeited that sum. But there is this further law: It is a criminal offence for two or more persons to conspire together to obstruct the course of justice by getting a witness to disappear, see Rex vy. Steventon (1802) 2 East 362. And in seeing whether persons have been guilty of a conspiracy, it was said by Lord Campbell when Lord Chief Justice of England, “ If the necessary effect of the agreement was to defeat the ends of justice, that must be taken to be the object ”, see Regina v. Hamp and others (1852) 6 Cox Criminal Cases at p. 172 [If think must should probably be read as 138. Such being the law 1 have looked to see whether there is any evidence of any such ‘conspiracy. © “ a Ros sod _ : ai) The Solicitor is afraid she will be Se * Spiritea” out of the Country | "139. Before considering Christine Keeler’s disappearance in March, 1 I must refer to what happened early in February, 1963, when the John Edgecombe case was expected to come on shortly. Stephen Ward’s solicitor told me that he was scared that Christine Keeler would disappear : “ The ars mean Heat (Th slanting Wraslan 2 wentaeian! widen fa Ue thing I Was afraid of Was lla Christine EAVOIVA, G ILE LIE witness in the Edgecombe trial, would be spirited out of the country”. I asked him, ‘‘ Why did you fear that?” His answer was: “ Simply because of various things Ward had said to me”. The solicitor gave Stephen Ward this firm and wise advice, “On no account must any of us be a party to that thing”. 140, About that very time too, early in February, 1963, Pag Mann (on his own admission to me) made this suggestion to Stephen Wily (i have already quoted it, but it is so important that at this pola “T said I did not know what she was going to do, but I salg: only too willing to take her away after the trial and to keep tijk: from her. I remember saying, too, that I certainly could not do it all on my own funds but I was quite prepared to make a holiday for myseif”. 44