‘Detective Inspector, before lunch I was asking you about Daniel Cleary’s criminal record,’ Ben began. ‘Do you now have a copy of his antecedents in front of you?’
‘I do, sir.’
Mr Justice Rainer seemed to have regained some of his colour and poise during the lunch break. He had apologised again to the whole court, and hinted at a stomach upset. Andrew had assured him of the entire court’s best wishes for a quick recovery, and had recalled DI Webb to the witness box.
‘Is he now a man of 39 years of age, and does he have a total of 12 convictions recorded against him?’
‘That would seem to be correct, sir.’
‘I’m not going to go through them all. In 1964, at this court, was he convicted after a trial of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and was he sentenced to imprisonment for four years?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘Being released after serving two-thirds of that sentence in 1967?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘In 1968, at Middlesex Quarter Sessions at the Guildhall, did he plead guilty to two offences of demanding money with menaces, and was he sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, being released in 1969?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘And last year, at the Inner London Sessions House, having pleaded guilty to one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one count of being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, namely heroin, was he sentenced to a total of nine months imprisonment?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘Thank you, Inspector. Lastly, I want to ask you a few questions about Susan Lang. You gave evidence earlier that you recovered her handbag from the scene at Harpur Mews.’
‘That’s correct.’
‘Did you examine the contents of the handbag?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘And among other items, did you find an address book?’
‘I did, sir.’
‘In that address book, was there a telephone number known to police to be associated with a man called Tommy McMahon?’
‘Yes, there was.’
‘And is Tommy McMahon a known associate of Daniel Cleary?’
‘Mr McMahon was convicted together with Mr Cleary of the two offences of demanding money with menaces at Middlesex Sessions in 1968, and I understand that they continue to associate together.’
‘Did you also find in Mrs Lang’s handbag a small plastic bag containing a white powder?’
‘Yes, I did.’
‘Was that powder sent for analysis?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘Please tell my Lord and the jury what the analysis showed.’
‘The analysis showed that the powder contained approximately 3.88 grams of cocaine, having a purity of just under 40 per cent.’
‘I see. Detective Inspector, during your many years as a police officer, have you had some experience of dealing with drugs, including cocaine?’
‘Considerable experience, sir.’
‘When we refer to the purity of a quantity of cocaine, what do we mean by that?’
‘By purity, we mean the extent to which the powder is actually composed of cocaine itself. When the drug is supplied from a source close to the top of the chain of command, it will be of a very high purity. But it won’t find its way on to the street in that condition. As it moves down the chain of command, each wholesaler and retailer will adulterate the powder, so as to reduce the purity. This is known as cutting the drug, and it is done by adding so-called cutting agents, which are hopefully otherwise harmless substances, such as baking soda.’
‘Presumably, that has to do with each wholesaler or retailer in turn trying to maximise his profits?’
‘Exactly. They then have a greater quantity of powder to offer for sale, but of course, it is less pure in terms of the percentage of cocaine.’
‘By the time the cocaine hits the street, what would the average purity be?’
‘I can’t answer that. It depends very much on the history of that particular batch, how many times it has been sold on, and so on.’
‘Would a purity of almost 40 per cent be usual or unusual at street level?’
‘It would not be unknown, but I would say it would be relatively unusual.’
‘Unusual because it is on the high side, or the low side?’
‘The high side.’
‘Thank you. Now, let me ask you about the quantity. When police seize a quantity of a drug such as cocaine, do they always consider whether it could be for the personal use of the person in possession of it, or whether it is more likely to be a commercial quantity, indicating that the person in possession might have intended to supply it to others?’
‘Yes, of course. That’s a basic consideration, before we can decide what to charge him with. It’s an offence to possess the drug in itself, but obviously if he is part of a chain of supply, it is a lot more serious, and the higher up the chain of supply he is, the more serious it becomes.’
‘In the case of the cocaine found in Mrs Lang’s handbag, you had a quantity of 3.88 grams with a purity of almost 40 per cent. What conclusions did you draw from that?’
Webb paused.
‘Well, it could possibly have been for personal use. When cocaine is sold on the street, it’s generally sold in quantities of about 0.2 of a gram, so she’s carrying a quantity with a fair street value, and your first thought is lower-level commercial supply. On the other hand, many dealers give a purchaser a discount for buying in bulk, as you commonly find in any business, legal or otherwise. So you can’t rule out the possibility of this quantity being for her personal use. But when you consider the purity, and when you consider her financial situation, being unemployed and separated from her husband, it becomes more likely that some element of supply was involved.’
‘In fairness,’ Ben said, ‘she wouldn’t have been anywhere near the top of the chain of supply, would she?’
Webb shook his head firmly.
‘No. Certainly not. I would say we are looking at two possibilities. One, she bought in bulk on behalf of some friends, or to share with friends, and intended to pass some of it on; not to make a profit necessarily, but to be reimbursed and perhaps make a few quid to fund her own habit. Two, she was running a low-level street business as a runner for someone higher in the chain, and was paid a commission for her services by that person.’
‘Someone like Daniel Cleary?’
‘Perhaps. But we haven’t investigated her activities in any detail, so anything beyond identifying those two possibilities would be no more than speculation.’
‘Thank you, Inspector. Lastly, when officers searched Mrs Lang’s car, did they find a cigarette butt which contained a mixture of cannabis and tobacco?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘And when they searched her flat, did they find a small quantity of herbal cannabis consistent with personal use?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘In the flat where she presumably would have lived with her two children if she had been granted custody by the High Court?’
‘Presumably, sir.’