Reed v Blundell & Anor

This appeal is founded upon the desire of the claimants, Mr Thomas Reed and his son Michael, essentially Mr Thomas Reed, who has suffered grievous injury falling off a roof which he was repairing for the defendants, Mr and Mrs Blundell, to call as new evidence the evidence of a Mr Pointon, essentially to the effect that Mr Blundell had bribed a defence witness at the trial, a Mr Terry Facer, leading to a further inference as is alleged that Mr Blundell had also suborned a would-be witness, a Mr Townsend, to withdraw his evidence, at any rate as given in his witness statement, at the very last moment. The reasons for granting permission to appeal on this basis are contained in my judgment with which Maurice Kay LJ agreed at the time of the permission to appeal hearing, a hearing which was heard on notice to the respondents.

This court made the order at that time that Mr Pointon should attend the hearing of the appeal for cross-examination. This day has of course been well signposted. This morning Mr Andrew Urquart, on behalf of the appellant, Mr Reed, has had to tell the court that they lacked Mr Pointon in person and therefore needed an adjournment. We adjourned temporarily this morning for just over an hour to give to the appellant and his solicitors a chance further to investigate the position. What has emerged, as Mr Urquart has told us, is not, as was at one time feared, some illness or crisis affecting Mr Pointon or his partner but rather an unwillingness, at any rate for the purposes of today, to come to give the evidence for which he was due to come and to be cross-examined upon it.

The catalyst for that unwillingness at the last moment, as Mr Urquart has explained to us, appears to have arisen out of a telephone call yesterday afternoon by Mr Tom Reed, the appellant, to Mr Pointon, whereby, possibly because of some misunderstanding on Mr Pointon’s behalf, Mr Pointon felt in some way under pressure; and as I at any rate have noted, possibly as a gloss, Mr Urquart describe his instructions, at that point Mr Pointon backed off.

The fact of the matter is that much effort has gone overnight and this morning into seeking to contact Mr Pointon and upon the information that we have been provided with this morning it is plain that, despite the absence of some medical or other emergency, Mr Pointon had, as it were, gone to ground, despite promising to phone back, which he never did, overnight.

In my judgment this is a most unpromising stage from which to seek the court’s indulgence by way of a general adjournment. It is true that Mr Urquart assures the court that Mr Pointon, having recovered, as it were, his sangfroid, assures Mr Reed’s solicitors that he stands by his statement and is prepared to confirm it orally in court under cross-examination, provided at any rate he is protected by the order of the court from any contact with either Mr Tom Reed or his son, direct or indirect, save through the channel of Mr Reed’s solicitor. So there is this outstanding albeit really unexplained and difficult to articulate and difficult to understand concern of Mr Pointon about some pressure or point of stress which he fears for himself coming from the Reeds, even though the evidence which he wishes to give is entirely in favour of Mr Tom Reed and is the point upon which Mr Reed’s appeal depends. Therefore, speaking at any rate for myself, it is hard to understand Mr Pointon’s concern. It is not the possibly more usual case, although absolutely unusual in the civil courts at any rate, of a witness’s concern deriving from quarters which are opposed to the evidence that that witness might be prepared to give.

It does seem to me that if an adjournment was given today we would be very likely to be back in the position that we are in today with a professedly willing witness in fact proving to be reluctant when it comes to the point of delivery. This is in my judgment particularly important in an appeal which entirely hangs upon the new evidence which the appellant wishes to tender and where the perhaps essential -- possibly the only -- point depends upon the credibility of that evidence. I see no prospect at all in my present understanding of the circumstances, which I have sought to set out briefly, of Mr Pointon’s evidence, even if there did come a time when he came to court to give it, being likely to be regarded against this background as having any credibility.

On the other side this appeal must be a matter for anxiety for the defendants, Mr Blundell and his wife. Mr Blundell is himself a sick man who has recently, or perhaps any day, is to undergo a very serious operation for a very serious medical condition. It seems to me that, against the matters which I have outlined, it would be extremely unfair and oppressive to adjourn this appeal which would continue to hang over him. After all it is the essence of the new evidence that the appellant wishes to tender to the court that Mr Blundell is guilty of a very serious matter of bribing and suborning witnesses.

For those reasons, briefly given, I would refuse this application for an adjournment. If my Lords agree with me then it is accepted by Mr Urquart that the appeal could not proceed and would have to be withdrawn, and it would follow on that basis that this appeal must be dismissed.

I agree.

I also agree.