Back at the Old Bailey today for day 3 of the PC Harper trial. Brian Altman QC for the prosecution wrapped up the opening yesterday and so today we are on to the first witnesses. 
Mr Justice Edis QC addresses the jury explaining that they are about to begin hearing the evidence of the case. Explaining that someone the witnesses that will be heard this morning will be in the form of witness statements.
Brian Altman QC for the prosecution asks the jury to turn to their bundle before beginning to read out the first witness statements
Altman QC begins with the witness statement of Thomas Gunter, who was at the Bull Inn on the date of the incident. He says he was sat outside the front of the pub with his friends. He says he was sat facing the pub whilst his friends were facing the pub.
He says he recalls a SEAT driving past three times “enough to be unusual”. He says it was a bright day. He was there in the afternoon but can’t recall if they ate, only the one drink. He says the first time he became aware of the car was when his friends reacted to it.
Thomas Gunter’s statement continues. He says he didn’t see the car the first time, only that his friends were confused “the occupants of the car had been looking at them and had given them a weird look”.
“There it goes again” his friends are said to have said when the car passed the second time. On the third time it passed his friends said the occupants of the car kept looking at them.
Thomas Gunter says the car was playing very loud music and driving very quickly. He can’t estimate how fast it was driving though or the type of music that it was playing. He says the car “appeared full”.
Altman QC now turns the jury’s attention to a map of Standford Dingley and begins to read the statement of Ann Edmonds. She told the police about a “suspicious car” she saw. She was walking in the village along the main road that goes through the village.
Mrs Edmonds says she was walking along Cock Lane, walking past Bucklebury Road when she noticed the car. The car was stationary. She said she hesitated to see what it was doing. She hadn’t seen the car before and “it seemed out of place”.
She adds there was definitely 3 maybe 4 males in the car. She says she was watched while she walked past the car.
“Looked a bit dirty and rough” Mrs Edmonds describes the occupants of the car.
She says she didn’t see any face masks or balaclavas. She says the car looked like an older car, smaller style, the rear passenger - she says she would recognise again. She says she saw him through the car window and was staring at her. The “car was strange, out of place”.
Altman QC now reads out the statement of Rebecca Brooke. Ms Brooke is a resident of the village. She says the car was parked near her house on the day of the incident. She was about to pull out onto the main road when she saw a white Transit van emerging from another address.
She says once the van had gone, she looked right down Cock Lane to St Denys Church, she then saw the car. She described it as “very unusual” because it had tape covering the number plate.
Ms Brooke says the tape was taped right around the whole length of the car. The car was in a “tatty” condition. She said it was driving quite slowly up the hill. She says the slower even more and drove past very slowly, enabling her to see the occupants - at least 3 people.
As the car got closer Ms Brooke says the passenger was staring at her. As it was closer she could see in more detail the tape cover the plates, it was mostly blue, “like the police tape you see”. She says she saw the driver very briefly.
Ms Brooke says the driver appeared to be in his late twenties. When the car passed she says she saw the same blue and white tape wrapped around the rear bumper covering the number plate and the bumper.
Altman QC now begins to read the witness statement of Yvonne Millam. She says she had just finished work and was on her way home driving along Cock Lane towards Stanford Bingley. At slow speed you can get two cars past down the narrow road.
Ms Millam says she slowed on the bend and says she noticed a small car that was positioned across the lane just after bend. She says her initials thoughts were it had been involved in an accident because of the dent in the rear passenger side.
She says she started to lower her window to ask if they were okay. The car started to drive towards her. It was then she noticed the front number plate had royal blue paint all over it. She says she “thought they were up to no good” because the plates were covered.
She says they stopped next to her car and noticed the occupants were all wearing balaclavas and describes how the driver was staring directly at her. She was “intimidated and scared”.
Ms Millam says she felt so intimated and scared that she drove off and continued home. She checked to see if they were going to turn around and that’s when she saw the rear number plate was covered in the same royal blue tape.
She says this incident lasted no more than two or three minutes. She says the driver and the car were within touching distancing because of how narrow the lane is.
Altman QC now reads the witness statement of tenant farmer Richard Plank. He says he was driving along Cock Lane and stopped outside St Denys Church.
Mr Plank was speaking with his sister when another vehicle stopped behind that of his sister’s. He says the vehicle behind her was a small white/cream vehicle. He says there was nothing unusual about this vehicle, it drove slowly past him, he saw the driver.
Mr Plank adds that the vehicle moved slowly past him, enabling him to see the driver for a number of seconds. The driver did not acknowledge Mr Plank. He says this person “is not local and had the appearance of a traveller”.
Altman QC now reads the statement of Rebecca James. She was out for a bike ride with her son and pet dog in the vicinity of the cross roads of St Denys church. Her dog was let loose when her son notified her of a car coming towards them.
She says the vehicle didn’t seem to slow down, just carried on with her on one side of the road and her dog on the other. Ms James says she remembered thinking the car didn’t look to be a new model. She says it wasn’t travelling at excessive speed.
She says the car “seemed full”. She remembers the front seat passenger was wearing “either a hat or a hooded top with the hood up and a bandana around his face”.
Altman QC now begins to read the statement of Christine and Geoffrey Warner. Christine’s statement first. She says on the day she had been to family mass in the village. She says they were driving out around 7.45pm, her husband was driving, she was sat in the back.
Christine says she became aware of a car speeding along the road her husband was trying to pull into. She says she wasn’t sure of the direction the speeding car was travelling in.
She says the car then mounted the green and the occupants of the car got out of the car and greeted a number of people who were sat at a table along the road. She says her and husband then drove off. “It all happened so quickly”.
Altman QC now begins to read out the statement of her husband, Geoffrey Warner - who was driving at the time. He says he was exiting the church car park “when a car which I think had 4 lads in it” screeched to a halt in front of us before turning into the shops car park.
He says there was nothing distinctive about the car, only the screech of the brakes as it was stopping. He says the driver was probably doing high revs in a low gear.
Altman QC concludes the written statement. Court breaks for 10 minutes.
Jury returns from their break.
Altman QC introduces the first witness Mr Peter Wallis, the property owner from which the quad bike was stolen. He confirms he has lived at that address since June 2018.
Mr Wallis confirms he was carrying out extensive refurbishments of the property at the time of the incident and confirms he was living their alone at the time.
Altman QC asks Mr Wallis about the layout of the front of his property, there was a green tent out front, a storage area behind the garage, a cement mixer at the back with other building materials. Next to the lean-to there was a trailer, attached to which was the quad bike
In front of this was a skip and further down the drive was Mr Wallis’s car. Altman QC now draws the jury’s attention to a series of photographs of Mr Wallis’s property. These were taken the day after the incident. Mr Wallis confirms he has seen these images before.
Mr Wallis explains the trailer was linked to the quad bike by a clasp. A ball-hitch clasp, which can be levered you release the trailer.
Mr Wallis describes a locking device for the brake of the quad bike, to make it less easy to move around. This yellow device was locked on the handlebars. This was found on the ground afterwards.
Mr Wallis confirms the quad bike cost around £10,000 and says he was going to use it because of its low pressure tyres as the land was very wet. He didn’t want to ruin the land.
Altman QC now asks about the two incidents that happened on the 15th Aug. The first incident, Mr Wallis says he believes the first incident was just before or just after 5pm. At the time he says he was in the tent. He says he was wood working.
Mr Wallis says he lives on a bend on a hill and often you can hear the car come round the corner and go away again but he heard the movement of some stones and so knew a vehicle had pulled up on his drive. He came out of his tent.
Mr Wallis says he first noticed how the car was parked, explaining he didn’t recognise the vehicle. He says two doors then opened and two men running.
Mr Wallis says the passengers door and the one directly behind the passengers door opened. The two individuals ran straight ahead in a sprint, head down, into the property. Altman QC breaks down what Mr Wallis has just explained.
Mr Wallis says he later noticed the occupants of the car had masks and gloves on and that the rear lights and plates were taped up - yellow and black stripes.
Mr Wallis says the two men who ran into his property were masked. They were running directly in the direction of the skip.
He added that there was a driver and a fourth person behind the driver. He says just two emerged from the car.
Mr Wallis says he asked “can I help you gentleman?” He says he had already seen they were masked and gloved. He says both were head down sprinting and when he approached them were surprised and headed back to the car.
Before they got into the car, Mr Wallis says the men gestured and a noise. A short term of eyeballing accompanied with a “yeah” and gestured. “Intimidating”. Mr Wallis says they were “testing” - their response and that gesture. “It was a question, wasn’t it? Their ‘yeah?’”.
Altman QC reads of some of Mr Wallis’s statement taken at the time. Mr Wallis says the man responded in an aggressive way.
Mr Wallis says the man who responded to him was the driver of the vehicle. He clarifies that he posed his “can I help you gentlemen?” to the group of people - the driver was still in the car at this time.
The first time Mr Wallis asked the question the two men got back in the car, the second time he asked it the occupants of the car started the “eye-balling” and then the driver responded. He is sure he windows were down on the car and the doors were closed Mx
Mr Wallis says the driver was masked and that there were four people in the car. They were all masked, he says.
Mr Wallis says the men left but “it was the lingering which led to me repeating the phrase”. Mr Wallis estimates they were on the drive around 30 seconds in total before moving the car and then pausing again. He says he got the sense that they hadn’t decided what they were doing
Mr Wallis says he watched them leave. Mr Wallis says he did not call the police after this incident, he was contemplating it but his phone wasn’t to hand “I was pondering it and 10/15 minutes after it a police car had gone down the hill anyway”. That was around 5pm.
Mr Wallis says he was working in the tent the rest of the day, he says it wouldn’t have been obvious that someone was there if they’d driven past - they wouldn’t have seen him in the tent.
Altman QC turns to events later that evening, turning the jury’s (and Mr Wallis’s) attention to some photos. Mr Wallis says there aren’t any close neighbours. Around 11pm Mr Wallis says he was on the ground floor, his bed being under a boarded window.
The board is there for privacy - he says he made bag room his home whilst refurbishing the property. Mr Wallis confirms he was in bed around 11pm, he wasn’t asleep. He says “that board is there because there are no blind and curtains and the hill is opposite the window”.
He says headlights will shine in there, onto the window and the wall. He adds that you hear he noise associated with the headlights, it will turn the corner and then carries on down the hill and the headlights disappear. He adds there is a bump at the top of the hill.
He says without fail the headlights will flash when the car goes over the bump and you will hear the car grind over it. He says he was quite nervous and that “something didn’t feel right” about what happened earlier in the day.
He says he heard a car go over the bump and the headlights went out immediately. He says that has never happened before. This made him kneel up on his bed and peer out the window. He saw nothing for a movement and then the moon light made visible a metal object
He says he then saw the front of a car coming down his driveway. Mr Wallis says he moved away from his window, grabbed his phone and was looking out the window having already dialled 999.
Mr Wallis says he switched on the exterior lights while he was ringing 999. He adds that the lights are not security lights, they are open clear glass lights. He turned them on full. He says they throw a “fair amount” of light.
Mr Wallis says there was now more light shining on the car. He describes seeing the first few feet of the car, it was coasting down in darkness. He says when he got back to the window the car was more in view and the doors were opening slowly and quietly with figures eeking out.
Altman QC now asks for the 999 call from Mr Wallis to be played.
Mr Wallis can be heard saying there are 4 masked men outside his house with weapons. They are all masked and that they had been at his house earlier in the day.
“Hand held things, I don’t know whether they’re coming to break in. Please send someone. They’re going to break into something, my garage or something”.
“I saw them before at 5pm they have come back in a different car I presume. Hand held piece of wood or something, I think they’re breaking into my garage to nick my stuff. I presume they know im in here”.
“Their faces are covered... they’re stealing my quad bike, I’m going out there now. Please send someone, I’m going out there.” The call handler asks him not to go out there because he’ll get hurt. “They’re not taking my damned bike. F*** me, they’ve already taken it”.
“Oh no, they’re tried to take it, they can’t. I don’t know what they’re doing. They’re backing into the property now, they’re going to try and come in here.”
“I don’t know? They tried to lift the bike... They don’t know what to do... that’s not going to end well for me. They’re getting back out the car.”
“They’re pondering what to do. Nothings happened they’re going to try... no, they’re going back, they don’t know what they’re doing. I can see any of them, they’re all out the car. I may have spooked them.”
“They’ve changed their mind. They’ve got a tow ... out. They’re dragging the bike up the road, they’re dragging the f****er. They’re dragging it up the drive...”
“They’re towing with a tow rope my quad bike with the handle around it. They’re going towards Bradfield. F***, I should have gone out there.”
“They’ve gone up the hill. They’ve gone up the hill, go towards Bradfield. That’s the village up the road.”
“I think they just targeted it, I guess. I presume they just wanted the quad bike, I couldn’t quite see... police car came down the road not that long after it” - when asked about whether they were there earlier. He explains they came in a car with the plates taped.
“They’re going towards the A4 no doubt... they know which way they’re going.” The handler keeps Mr Wallis on the phone, he confirms the quad bike is registered.
Mr Wallis says there is a tracker on the quad bike too, he can be heard trying to find the details. He says he has never been targeted like this before.
“I suppose, I say weapons they could have intended it as a pull to get the bike off”, Mr Wallis can be heard to say.
The call handler explains there are police officers out there looking for the quad bike. She then proceeds to give him the crime reference number.
Mr Wallis confirms that the very first thing he said was that he has four masked men outside his house and they have weapons - “handheld things”.
Mr Wallis says “definitely one maybe two” of the men who got out the car had weapons. He says he could see them being used as weapons at the time, but in hindsight they could be used to break in or mean someone harm.
Mr Wallis says the “weapons” were two foot maybe a bit bigger. He says he saw it in a hand and it was as long as an arm. He says he saw one of that length and perhaps someone else with something else in their hands.
He says some of them were wearing very oversized gloves. Altman QC asks Mr Wallis to hold these objects in his minds eye. Mr Wallis recognised the object as wood with nothing on the end of it. He says it was hanging.
Mr Wallis says he moved from the front to the side window of his room when they moved towards the quad bike. He says he could see the top of the trailer that was meant to be attached to the quad. He knew the location of the quad - it was behind the skip.
Mr Justice Edis QC now breaks the court for lunch, due to begin again at 1415.
The jury have returned from lunch in the PC Harper case. A reminder, three men stand charged with the police officer’s murder, 18 year old Henry Long and two 17 year olds who cannot be named for legal reasons.
We return to the witness testimony of Mr Peter Wallis, the property owner from which the quad bike was stolen. Before lunch the jury was played the 999 call Mr Wallis made on the night of the 15th Aug.
Mr Wallis says the trailer was attached to the quad bike when he left it. Altman QC asks Mr Wallis about the number of men he saw that night, Mr Wallis says there were 4. He explains he said 3/4 at the time because they weren’t all in the same place at the same time
Mr Wallis says one of them was a “spotter”. He says he was looking out for cars in the road.
Mr Wallis says all of them were masked and all were wearing gloves. He confirms he switched the lights on but says this had no effect on the men.
Mr Wallis says he had put his shoes on while on the phone to 999 and describes shuffling along his floor with his boots, thinking that maybe that noise might have spooked the four men.
Mr Wallis says he thinks that noise made them run back to the car, he thought they were leaving. Altman QC is trying to track the movements of each of the four men after this.
Mr Wallis says he saw the men lifting the quad bike trying to get it over the car and the skip. Altman QC turns Mr Wallis’s attention to a series of photos showing the gap between the car and skip. Mr Wallis says the men didn’t lift the quad over both items at that point.
Mr Wallis says the men had to remove the trailer from the quad bike then they attempted to move the quad bike up and over the car bonnet and around the skip but then they were spooked. They tried once more after this and succeed.
230/40kg is how much the quad bike weighs, estimates Mr Wallis. He says only when all four lifted it did they succeed.
Mr Wallis says the tow rope was already fixed and ready to go, he describes it as “sturdy”.
He says he didn’t hear any noises outside while this was happening. Altman QC clarifies by asking, if there was noise outside would you hear it from your room in the quiet of the night? Mr Wallis says yes.
There was a small scratch of Mr Wallis’s car as a result of the group lifting the quad bike over it, Mr Wallis confirms.
As they left Mr Wallis says he wasn’t able to see inside the car with the lights shining in the dark. He says he couldn’t see what was going on inside the car.
Mr Wallis confirms the exterior lights remained on for the whole time. He says he would have had to leave the room he was in to turn them off as the button to switch off the lights is three feet away from the room he was in.
Mr Wallis says the driver was “significantly larger than the other three who were there... he was a large man.” He says he couldn’t say that the man he had seen at the 5pm incident was the same man, “that difficult to say”.
Rossano Scamardella QC the defence for Henry Long ask Mr Wallis is he has the transcript of the 999 call he made in front of him. He points towards the start of the call, he suggests “they’ve got weapons” is something he said in the heat of the moment?
Mr Wallis agrees about “they”. He adds that it was a perception of the situation at the time. He agrees he did say that. He agrees with Scamardella QC that ONE man was carrying something.
Mr Wallis explains to Scamardella QC that he did see the men wearing oversized gloves. He says he had a very good look at the man in the road, he was wearing gloves hat reminded him of goalie gloves.
Scamardella QC is suggesting to Mr Wallis that there was only 3 men at the evening incident. Mr Wallis says no, he says there were 4. He believes there were 4 men there that evening.
Timothy Raggatt QC for the defence says that Mr Wallis at one point thought there might have only been 3 people there. He asks why that was. Mr Wallis says this was because the spotter the other side, he says there was running back and forth to the car.
Timothy Raggatt QC for the defence asks how soon after the start of the event did he call the police. How long after seeing the lights did he call 999? Mr Wallis says he saw the flash of the lights, more than a minute...
Mr Wallis says very little had happened by the time he called the police. Timothy Raggatt QC now turns to the transcript pointing out the timings.
Raggatt QC says Mr Wallis’s describing took all of 5 minutes - up to here, Mr Wallis is told police units are on their way and Mr Wallis explains the quad bike is being dragged.
7min 23sec Raggatt QC points out just before that the Mr Wallis says the men have gone up the hill. Raggatt QC suggests the incident is over by this time. Mr Wallis agrees. Raggatt QC suggests the whole incident lasted 7/8 minutes.
Returning to the first incident - in the afternoon - Raggatt QC for the defence asks Mr Wallis about his first statement where he describes coming out of the tent on the driveway. Mr Wallis confirms the two people didn’t get far up his drive and after that they left.
Patrick Upward QC for the defence asks Mr Wallis about the first event, when two people got out of the car. Mr Wallis says the two people got out from the passenger side of the car. Not just the two people in the back of the car.
Mr Wallis says he they headed for the quad bike but swiftly turned around and got back in the car once they were aware he was there. Upward QC turns back to Mr Wallis’s transcript and points towards where he said he should have gone out there.
The jury are now being played the 999 call earlier again. Upward QC suggesting Mr Wallis said “they bloody ran earlier”. Mr Wallis initially denied saying “bloody ran” he maintains he wouldn’t have said it like that. He maintains that is not what he said.
Mr Wallis explains he has terrible hearing so he did not hear that. Upward QC says whatever was said in that conversation, your view is that they ran away? Mr Wallis said yes, they ran to the car and back from the car.
Turning to the second visit Upward QC says Mr Wallis was familiar with the sounds the traffic makes going round the bend near his house. Mr Wallis says as he listened to what happened, his alert was visual, the lights going on.
He describes the usual process of the lights shining on his wall and how they flash when the cars go over the bump. He then describes how the lights went completely out, making him think something was afoot.
Mr Wallis explains that the security light on the front of his house is inoperative.
Upward QC suggests only two men were in the car and one was riding the quad bike. Mr Wallis disagrees.
Mr Wallis does not recall the men leaving anything where the quad bike had been. He says there were many people milling about and he had been requested not to go over there.
Brian Altman QC, returning for the prosecution, asks Mr Wallis about the two lights on the front of the house. Mr Wallow confirms that both those lights work and come on the same switch.
Altman QC points to the light on the garage, which is set off by movement. Mr Wallis confirms this light came on because of movement. He presumes that the exterior lights he turned on came on first. He describes the men as being “cat-like” and “sneaky”.
Turning back to the transcript Altman QC points to the part where it is suggest Mr Wallis said “they bloody ran earlier”. The jury hears this part once again.
Altman QC suggests Mr Wallis is saying “should’ve rang earlier”. Mr Wallis says his friends told him he should have rang earlier. Mr Wallis does not know what he said in that particular part of the recording.
Altman QC returns the coming and going of the men that Raggatt QC questioned Mr Wallis about. Mr Wallis says there wasn’t a great deal of it but it was around the time they were trying to lift the quad bike over the car.
Altman QC concludes his questioning of Mr Wallis. Mr Justice Edis QC thanks Mr Wallis for his time.
Saskia Pocock is the next witness. The jury retire for a short break.
Jury returns from short break to hear what is anticipated to be the last witness testimony of the day, Saskia Pocock.
Altman QC for the prosecution asks Saskia Pocock if she had been working that evening, she confirms she was, beginning her shift at 6, finishing at quarter last 11. Ms Pocock confirms she was with a friend. Ms Pocock was driving.
Ms Pocock confirms she was driving towards Bradfield when she says she came to a sharp bend in the road, Cock Lane.
Ms Pocock says she saw a car stopped outside a house on Cock Lane. Outside the gateway to the house. She says she could see the passenger side and the rear of the car, she says it car was parked in the direction of the A4.
She says she couldn’t remember he number plate nor the model of the car. She adds that the boot was slightly open, about 2-3 inches open. She says there were no lights on on the car. She says she dipped her headlights, out of respect.
Ms Pocock says to the right there was a house with building work going on (that of Mr Wallis’s). She says she knew the person who lives there to be called Pete.
She says her headlights lit up the car and the surrounding area. She says she saw 3/4 people wearing balaclavas with their heads towards the parked car outside the house. She remembers the driver door open and the rear passenger.
Ms Pocock says she didn’t see what happened to the other two people she initially spotted. She only know what those two did. She says she was about half a metre away from the car.
She confirms she was close to the car, she estimates she was going about 10-15mph as she approached the car. She says as she drove past she saw “this person watching me”. She says they were wearing balaclavas.
Ms Pocock says she remembers a third door slamming. She says her window was open, her driver’s window.
Altman QC asks when Ms Pocock saw them running to the car if she remembers them carrying anything, she does not remember them carrying anything. No.
Ms Pocock does not recall any other lighting, aside from her headlights. Altman QC concludes his questions.
Rossano Scamardella QC for the defence asks Ms Pocock about the speed she was travelling. Ms Pocock confirms she passed the car quite slowly. She estimates she saw the people for around 4 seconds.
Timothy Raggatt QC for the defence asks her to clarify how many she saw. Ms Pocock confirms she only saw two. But the third door slam makes her think there were more.
Altman QC returns for the prosecution, he reads out more of Ms Pocock’s statement taken at the time. And thanks Ms Pocock for coming, likewise does Mr Justice Edis QC.
And so concludes court for today. Jury return at 1015 tomorrow.
