The Suffolk Hyde Affair - Doc 84 Ipswich Freemasons

SubO X Case Conference 14.30 30th March 1999
Thompsons Solicitors Congress House
London

Present:
SubO. Tony Wigglesworth.
Firefighter. Mick Hyde.
Firefighter. Bill Rampling.
Solicitor. Craig Jones.
Barrister. Gary Morton.

In preparation for the SubO X discipline prosecution hearing arranged to take place at County Hall, Ipswich 12 & 13th April 1999 a defence case conference took place on or around 30th March 1999.

SubO X arranged to collect Firefighter Mick Hyde at his home address at approximately 09.30 hrs. Then to travel to Ipswich to park up and meet with Firefighter Bill Rampling at Princes Street Fire Station before travelling on to London by train. The 11.30 hrs train was taken.

The reasoning for Firefighter Hyde’s attendance was on account of the role of FBU secretary at Lowestoft Fire station and his preceding involvement in SubO X’s case.

As to why Bill Rampling had tagged on the case conference cannot be recalled? Indeed, in hindsight it cannot be reasoned.

Following introduction of those present Craig Jones with the help of Gary Morton went through the chronology, background and specific issues central to SubO X’s prosecution. Questions were asked and clarifications made of specific points of contention. All those present contributed to the discussion. Consideration was also given to each witness and the value of their evidence. The 3 not guilty pleas of SubO X were also confirmed.

Having gone through the case detail the discussion then went on to consider the limitations of the 2-day hearing set for 12th & 13th April 1999. Craig Jones and Gary Morton advised that 2 days would be insufficient to present all the material witnesses and evidence in supportof SubO X’s defence. Both Craig Jones and Gary Morton were particularly keen to restrict the cost of the hearing to 2-days.

Furthermore Craig Jones and Gary Morton suggested any extension through adjournment could cause a backlash by the panel of elected members (Councillors Peter Monk, Selwyn Pryor and Belham Roger) against SubO X.

Bill Rampling also thought the same way. This led on to the suggestion that SubO X should plead guilty to 1 of the 3 charges!

Again Bill Rampling thought that that would be a good idea as the elected members were in his opinion ‘a bit thick.’ In particular, he referred to Selwyn Pryor as being a pissed head and perpetually in a state of drunkeness. They were incapable of keeping in touch with a long hearing and didn’t know how the fire service operated. Bill Rampling also said that pleading guilty would enable SubO X to show he was a reasonable person to the elected members.

On these suggestions SubO X and Mick Hyde looked at each other in a state of disbelief.

In essence it was suggested SubO X plead guilty to a charge purely to ensure the hearing could be completed in 2-days. Also to show he was reasonable.

Mick Hyde was of the opinion that pleading guilty was not a course of action he would recommend. SubO X was also cool to the suggestion.

When asked which charge they thought should be admitted, Craig Jones and Gary Morton suggested that as the "absence from duty" was the most complex and involved the most witnesses they would like to se that one pleaded guilty to. That would then allow the prosecution hearing to be completed within 2 days. In reply SubO X and Mick Hyde said that that charge was the easiest to defend and clearly dubious, as the leave concerned had been taken by way of normal custom and practice. It was also accounted for out of SubO X’s statutory leave. Both Craig Jones and Gary Morton agreed that there was no substantive offence, however expediency should be applied.

SubO X said he would give the matter some thought when the conference finished at approximately 16.30 hrs.
On the return rail journey the not guilty/guilty issue was discussed further between SubO X, Mick Hyde and Bill Rampling. Again while Bill Rampling was in favour Mick Hyde remained unconvinced of the merit of such action.