Appeal judges misled over true story behind £10,000 payout for evidence

A SENIOR West Yorkshire Police officer “misled” the Court of Appeal and claimed he had “no idea” how a £10,000 supergrass reward was organised despite helping to arrange the payment.

The issue of the reward and what Karl Chapman was expecting when he gave evidence at the trial of Paul Maxwell and Danny Mansell for the murder of Wakefield pensioner Joe Smales was at the heart of the brothers’ first, unsuccessful appeal in 1999.

Det Supt John Holt, who has since become a consultant training senior police officers, told judges the reward was solely confined to evidence Chapman gave in the murder investigation and that the supergrass had no expectation of a reward at the subsequent murder trial.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But the North Yorkshire Police investigation found Det Supt Holt knew Chapman expected a “substantial payout” from the start of the murder investigation.

Operation Douglas also found evidence Chapman had expected money for evidence he gave against criminal accomplices, particularly Gary Ford, in earlier cases despite Det Supt Holt telling the Court of Appeal no discussion of a reward had taken place.

Asked at the 1999 Court of Appeal hearing whether the £10,000 reward related to the murder case or any other cases, Det Supt Holt said: “As far as I am aware it was confined to the evidence related to the murder case, but it was subsequent upon the conviction. No discussion had taken place before that time.”

But the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) report detailing the findings of Operation Douglas, which included an interview under caution with the officer, said: “The evidence now available from Det Supt Holt shows that he was aware at the outset of the murder investigation that Mr Chapman held an expectation of a ‘substantial payout’ on his release from prison and that this expectation subsisted at the time that Mr Chapman gave evidence at the trial of Mr Maxwell and Mr Mansell.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Det Supt Holt maintained to Operation Douglas that he continued to associate the £10,000 reward with the murder inquiry only. But the CCRC noted Det Supt Holt’s understanding of the payment “appears to have varied over time”. In 2000, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) requested further clarification.

The CPS special caseworker kept a file note of a conversation with Dept Supt Holt which said the officer told him: “KC (Chapman) paid for (Gary) Ford but only got £250 for M&M (Maxwell and Mansell).” Det Supt Holt told Operation Douglas he could not remember the conversation.

Det Supt Holt also told the Court of Appeal hearing that he had “... no idea at all” when the decision to pay Chapman’s reward had been reached and told judges “... once the matter had been processed to conviction I had no further involvement with Mr Chapman or his payment as an informant.”

But the CCRC noted that after the conviction Det Supt Holt had been consulted and supported the application for payment.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He was also involved in quantifying the amount with the report referring to a meeting in January 1999 at which Det Supt Holt and another senior officer were “... in agreement that we should be offering a settlement figure of £10,000.”

The November 1999 Court of Appeal judgement on the payment referred to evidence from police officers, including “one of very senior rank” (Det Supt Holt), and said: “We are satisfied from what we have read and heard, that when Chapman came to give evidence in the trial against Maxwell and Mansell he had no expectation of reward. Consequently his evidence was not tainted in that regard.”

The CCRC said the Court of Appeal had been led to an “erroneous conclusion that Mr Chapman had no expectation of reward...” and “... the failure to reveal Mr Chapman’s expectation meant that both the trial and appeal courts were misled.”