The Charge The Prosecutors: Real Crime and Punishment

In 2014 there were over half a million criminal

prosecutions in England and Wales.

Each one was prosecuted, not by the police,

but by the lawyers of the Crown Prosecution Service.

My job is about applying the law to other people's lives,

and hopefully for the public good.

The defendant is found locked inside the house

with his mother dead downstairs.

In every serious criminal case, the Crown Prosecution Service

must decide who to charge and what to charge them with.

I think that this will come down to, I suppose, is he bad or is he mad?

Sometimes the difficult decisions are unpopular decisions,

but they are the right decisions.

It's their job to build the case and battle to secure a conviction.

All the defence have to do is just pick at things.

They just go like that,

and say "Well, you're not right about that."

Now, for the very first time, the Crown Prosecution Service has let

cameras in to film this unseen world between the police and the courts.

These are real people. They're real people's lives

and real emotions involved.

We may have our suspicions, but if the evidence isn't there,

the evidence isn't there.

For them it's evidence.

It's my life.

This programme contains some strong language.

This programme contains some scenes which some viewers may find upsetting

Cheshire, the Alderley Edge Bypass.

September the 16th 2013, 8.15am.

A mother taking her children to school

is involved in a collision that leads to a road traffic fatality.

Mr Maan, the driver of a red Porsche, is arrested and bailed.

In February 2014, after a six month investigation, the police file

reaches the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mersey Cheshire is one of 13 areas of the CPS.

A staff of 220 are responsible for prosecuting

over 56,000 cases every year.

For you, Helen.

Thank you.

The Maan case lands on the desk of Gary Simpson.

He must review the evidence

and decide whether Mr Maan should be prosecuted.

Mr Maan was driving his Porsche motor vehicle, and he left his lane,

travelled into the opposite carriageway,

where he came into collision with a Ford Focus vehicle.

In effect, Mr Maan has travelled in this direction,

and rather than continue around the bend,

has travelled into the path of Mrs Morrissey and her Ford Focus.

You'll see the impact is clearly head on.

The rear seat passenger was her son, Flynn Morrissey.

He sustained fatal injuries and subsequently died.

A young life taken away on the way to school.

Part of the evidence is the video interview the police conducted

with Flynn Morrissey's mother, Nicky,

ten days after her 11-year-old son's death.

I can't imagine how I'm going to go on...

..with life...

..but I realise I do have a responsibility still.

I can't just go off and kill myself...

which I thought I would do.

Cos I just want to be with Flynn.

All driving fatality cases must be

overseen by a Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor.

In the Mersey Cheshire region that is Alison Mutch.

I think that the road traffic cases are probably the

most difficult cases we deal with.

They're always quite emotive,

and sometimes they're so finely balanced.

They are ones that you have to spend a lot of time thinking about

and just weighing up all of the evidence.

Mr Maan explained in a lengthy interview that he was

familiar with the use of the car.

He was travelling to work at the time.

He talked about the road surface being wet

and there being heavy rain.

He says that as he was travelling along the road,

he approached the bend,

and for no apparent reason, as far as he could see,

his vehicle lost control and he travelled into the carriageway.

Mr Maan had various electronic devices in his car.

They were all examined by the police

and there is no evidence to show that he was using his phone or any

other electronic device at the time he was travelling along the road.

Clearly for some reason he has lost control of his vehicle

when nobody else on that stretch of road did.

We've got lots of different charges we can consider.

Death by dangerous driving

and death by careless driving are particularly relevant in this case.

Now, for death by dangerous we have to show that the driving fell

far below the standard of an ordinary driver.

For death by careless we have to show it fell below.

So it's that word "far" that's the difference between the two.

Sometimes it's very easy - there's alcohol involved,

somebody is on their mobile telephone,

they're driving at very high speeds,

and it clearly is dangerous.

But other cases,

whilst the consequences of the driving are absolutely catastrophic,

the actual piece of driving falls below, but doesn't fall far below,

and that's quite a significant change,

because the maximum sentence is different.

But also, if we get it wrong we're not doing the right thing

for the family of the deceased.

Right, shoes are in the kitchen. Go on.

Claire Lindley has been a barrister in the CPS for over 25 years.

Bye-bye, darling. Have a good day.

She is now the Chief Crown Prosecutor of Mersey Cheshire.

I don't mind the commute because it's quite good thinking time.

Apart from the traffic, which is horrendous some days,

and of course I have to kind of land at work

looking like I'm in control,

when actually I just sometimes think

I feel like swearing cos I've been stuck on the M6 for half an hour.

There's a lot of decisions to take in every single case.

There's the decision whether to charge, you've to decide what

to charge them with, which sounds straightforward and isn't.

And actually, making decisions is quite a stressful thing,

because the decisions you are making...

..they affect people's lives.

They might make a difference as to

whether somebody goes to prison or not,

whether someone is convicted or acquitted,

whether a victim feels that justice has been done.

And that, I think, is quite stressful.

You've to be really resilient.

You can get so emotionally involved in cases that some cases

are kind of indelibly marked on your heart, to be honest.

Gary is currently responsible for 90 different ongoing cases.

Before he comes to a charging decision in the Maan case,

he will have to review the transcript of Mr Maan's

police interview, as well as the statements of over 20 witnesses

and the report of the police collision expert.

In a driving fatality case, the decision is expected to take

about eight working hours,

but some charging decisions take much longer.

Maria Corr is a lawyer in the Complex Casework Unit.

She's been involved in an ongoing police case for the last six months.

It concerns an organized criminal gang who

specialise in blowing up cash machines.

This is a DVD compilation concerning the different attacks on the banks.

It shows just what they do

and it shows their level of prof...

Well, their level of organization.

That's Barclays in Loughborough.

You can see just exactly how he's dressed,

that you just wouldn't get any identification here.

And what we'll see then is the second offender coming across here.

Now see, he's coming there.

And what he's got in there are the oxyacetylene gas canisters

and that gas has to be pumped into the ATM machine.

You then need to detonate the gas, the gas build up.

The alarm will be going now. They know they've got minutes to

get in to the bank to get the money.

Now see the rest of the gang coming?

They are armed with, you can see, big crow bars, angle grinders,

and they need to get into the bank.

Now, this is within seconds.

See those cassettes? They're the cash inside the machine.

But on different events, we've got different levels of CCTV.

What we say on all the 28 attacks, this is what they attempted to do.

Not successful, probably, in half of them.

But the half they got away with,

we're talking probably over half a million pounds worth of cash.

But the difficulty in this case is, you can see,

although we have 28 sets of CCTV,

there is no way to identify anybody on that CCTV footage.

What they'll say is, "It wasn't me who did that."

Then we'll have to show is, "Yes, it was you."

In the Maan case, Gary has made his decision.

Sometimes I think members of the public think that we just

make decisions off the top of our head.

Well, it's actually a lot more structured than that.

So what we have is the code, which sets out a test

and the test has two limbs to it.

And what we must do is firstly decide

if there is enough evidence to prosecute somebody.

It's not the same test that the jury then goes on to use

because the jury has got to decide beyond reasonable doubt

that the defendant is guilty.

So we are trying to work out whether it's realistically possible

that a jury will decide beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

And if so, we must decide whether it's in the public interest

to prosecute, and if so, what shall we charge him with?

Gary plans to charge Mr Maan

with the lesser offence of causing death by careless driving.

The complexity of driving fatality cases means such decisions

have to be approved by at least the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor.

Alison is meeting Geoff Fryar, head of the Crown Court Unit,

to finalise Gary's decision.

This is on that bypass,

and it's single carriageway in either direction.

The suspect is in car.

No suggestion of going in excess speed.

It's not a great day weather-wise.

Very wet, etc, but nobody else seems to be having problems with

the road conditions as such.

And the road comes to this bend, he's just carried on

and hit oncoming car.

No mechanical failure?

No mechanical failure.

He's not on his phone,

there's no evidence of alcohol.

It's just quite strange.

I mean, he says in interview the car gave way

and he doesn't know what happened and he's sorry.

But there's nothing to suggest anything evidential.

I mean, Gary thinks it's death by careless,

and I think that's probably the right charge.

Yeah. I think that's right. That was going through my mind,

it was careless rather than dangerous

if he's just left the road for a short period,

albeit tragic consequences.

But we would struggle to prove the driving was far below.

You have to look at the type of driving.

And it's really important that we look at the evidence.

But we can't charge death by dangerous

if there isn't enough evidence to charge it,

because that would just be wrong.

Mr Maan will now be charged.

The prosecution evidence will be sent to his defence team

and they will be given time to perform their own investigations.

The trial is unlikely to take place for at least another nine months.

To think about what happened all day, every day, would just be hell.

Flynn was 11.

It's a big difference to my commitment.

One day, you're on the school run and then everything changes.

And I found while I was looking into how you make typewriters work

and what you do to clean them,

I wasn't dwelling on feelings that I didn't want.

And it's a good, you know, distraction.

There's all numbers that are just appearing as I'm cleaning.

All coming back to life.

That's Flynn's trophy that he won.

He had the cool role of playing Mr Toad of Toad Hall.

He came home and put that soldier guy in it.

So I haven't got the heart to take it out

and the school have said that I can keep the trophy.

I was so proud.

Ah, such a good day.

The ATM burglaries have generated thousands of pieces of evidence.

The most crucial come from burglary number 28

at the Barclays in Warrington.

This one is interesting in once they do blow it up, they're in and out.

I don't even know if it's under a minute or two.

Here we go.

Crrr!

And then what they don't know is, in one of the cassette in the money

is this little tracker device that Barclays Bank have put in.

20 minutes after leaving the bank, the tracker came to a halt

in Huyton, Liverpool, at the Lodge Sandy Meadow.

Home to Kurt Beddoes.

The property had its own security cameras

and Maria now has a copy of that footage.

Here we go, car driving in.

This is Ellis, I can tell that straightaway. See his hairline?

Very distinctive headline there and little pointy features.

And there's Bushell.

You see? He's slightly chubbier than the others.

What they don't realise is that the police are on their way.

Then I think the police then should arrive at about 6:01.

When the police arrive,

they all make good their escape from the back.

This house then backs out onto like a forest type area.

So when they run away, it's pitch-black.

The officers had no chance, I think, once they left the house,

to catch them.

From the address, the police recovered £97,000.

They also found the recordings from the home security cameras.

Within two weeks,

they had rounded up six people they believed to be part of the gang.

We now have brilliant CCTV footage of the gang and what they do.

So, for example, one day we have Mr Beddoes going out

and coming back with the big piping, the white piping,

a roll of fuse wire going into the house,

lovely four-bed paying cash £1,500 a month, beautiful Audi vehicles.

They are clearly living the lifestyle funded by this

criminality and unfortunately, they have been very successful up

until they have been thankfully now caught.

The challenge for Maria is to decide upon an existing charge

that can fit this brand-new crime.

What you're trying to do is get a charge that matches

the offending, which gives the court the right powers of sentence,

which isn't over the top, as in unfair for the defendant,

but which reflects the gravity for the victim.

There's all sorts of offences on the statute book.

Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and this is where the law books then

come in, because we need to research...

particularly things like explosives we're not particularly au fait with

because fortunately, we don't have many of.

So the type of charge and the level of charge can be quite tricky.

I notice that in the Attorney General's report

that this offending had only really taken place

in Europe before now.

So this is actually the first case of its type, is it?

It was seen on the Continent beforehand, this specific MO

-and, er...

-So what have you charged them with, though?

What I've picked is the Explosive Substances Act

of 1883, I think it is.

Erm, and that, to me, fits the bill.

It's the causing of an explosion by any means. That, for example,

is gunpowder or whatever, but this, for me, is

the combination of the oxyacetylene and causing that explosion.

Burglary commercial premises, ten years statutory maximum.

My view is that that just didn't reflect the criminality here.

I think the danger to the public, the causing the explosions,

the level of professionalism,

they should be looking at more than ten years, in my humble view.

They are carrying the canisters in the vehicle.

They're travelling at 190mph.

They are involved in police chases.

The risk to life and limb just to steal money,

from my point of view, puts them at a level with armed robbery.

You know, double-figure sentences.

If there is a conviction, the trial judge will only be able to

sentence within guidelines set according to the charge.

Alison's attending a scrutiny panel at CPS headquarters,

where volunteer community members share their views

on completed cases.

It's hosted by the Director of Public Prosecutions,

Alison Saunders.

I mean, I'm clear - as is everybody, which is why we're here -

that religiously aggravated crime is something that is, you know,

completely insidious.

Any hate crime is bad so we want to make sure we've got our policies

right, that we are implementing them and playing our part in this.

The case today related to postings on a Russian-based website,

but it is about rightwing extremism.

Various postings were made by the person believed to be the suspect

and he was arrested under Section 19 of the Public Order Act.

So for an incitement to hatred offence.

He said that he didn't see that there was anything wrong with

what he'd posted on the website

because it was a site for like-minded people.

We got the papers,

had a look at them and the reviewing lawyer concluded that

the offence of incitement wasn't made out.

And the offence he was charged with was

Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

He pleaded guilty and received a fine of £65,

uplifted by £20 for the aggravating element.

I thought the sentence for this was really...

I thought it was offensive.

To fine someone £65

and to uplift it by £20, I thought was really offensive.

It was clearly violent language

but it's been charged right at the lowest end of the scale.

The reading of the comments as not containing incitement or

threats is just incomprehensible.

And the fact that it was put on a forum of ostensibly like-minded

people actually increases the likelihood of incitement, right?

Because this is the kind of forum where people of an extremist

mind-set wind each other up to do this kind of thing.

"Kick them right back into the sea.

"I don't want no effing n***** living next door to me."

So it's just encouraging people.

How is that is not explained that it's threatening is beyond me.

One of the things we need to do is explain how we

make our decisions, why we make our decisions, the sort of factors

we take into account , which may not always be apparent.

And it's really important that people understand -

we don't just make them in a vacuum.

We balance all sorts of different things,

so you do have the human rights issues, you do have right to free

speech, and we've got to balance all of those up, as well as making sure

the evidence is there in the first place, which is the fundamental bit.

Is there evidence or not?

The particular issue

and the particular difficulty was round what his intent was.

And whether he intended to stir up religious hatred.

I think that it's the lack of immediacy that will have

played upon her thinking when she was writing this advice.

He wasn't saying, "Let's all go and meet up at the park and go

"and beat people up, etc, in the next half an hour."

These were comments being made.

There was no timeframe placed upon them.

That is very important in these types of cases

because we are governed by the policies and procedures

and the case law which we have to function under.

I've just been bunny shopping.

It's, erm, been a bit too quiet around here

so this is great excitement.

It's now over 11 months

since the death of the youngest of Nicky's three sons, Flynn.

Despite Mr Maan being charged with causing death by careless driving,

no trial date has yet been set.

So Nick has two children and I have my three boys and our families

came together last year and, yeah, it was a pretty lovely life.

You can see their little ears, Dyl. Can you manage them?

Yeah.

'But on that day something happened and it changed my life forever,

'my family's life forever'

and it took Flynn's life.

And I want to know why.

We're going to put them in the greenhouse, Dyl.

'When all the bodies meet to decide when the trial is,

'it will be 14 months after the accident.'

That is when they're going to set a day.

Not the trial, just talk about a day.

So the trial may be set for the following year.

I don't understand why we can't have closure before.

To try and speed up the case, Gary is entering it

into an early guilty plea scheme.

We've had no indication from the defendant in interview or

through his solicitor that he intends to plead guilty.

But the evidence would clearly suggest that the manner

of his driving was careless.

The idea with an early guilty plea, quite simply, is to put

the defence on the spot.

If the defendant doesn't want to plead guilty, he doesn't have to,

he can bring the case out of the scheme.

But the maximum credit comes by pleading guilty at the first

opportunity.

If the defendant pleads guilty now, saving the need for a trial,

and for any witnesses to give evidence,

he'll be rewarded with a discount to his sentence of a third.

What we're trying to do is make sure that those cases

that are going to be guilty pleas are in and out of the system

very quickly because they're much easier to deal with.

It means that the punishment can be also much more

proximate to the offending, which has more impact.

But what we can't control, of course,

is what the defence want to do.

So if they want to put us to proof about everything,

we have to answer that. And that means that the timescale's extend.

Mr Maan will be given two weeks to decide

whether he wants to make an early guilty plea.

So 15 discs will be in relation to 15 scenes of the CSI

photos at this stage.

And each disc, each scene will have its own disc.

In an attempt to avoid a complicated and expensive trial,

Maria has also offered the defendants in the ATM case

early guilty pleas.

We tried to put this into the early guilty plea scheme.

Er, no-one was having it.

And none of the defence would agree to that happening.

Unable to prove the identity of the perpetrators through the banks'

CCTV, Maria is going to try to prove to a jury that the defendants were

at the scenes of the crimes through using their mobile phone data.

The data itself when plotted, pretty much tells the story already.

So can you just talk me through this document, then?

This is for the cell site for Beddoes going down to,

erm, Coventry.

As a visual for the jury, it's relatively simple, isn't it?

Because what you can say is, when you use a phone, it leaves

a trace and this shows here that I start from Merseyside

and I make my way all the way down to Oxfordshire and that's very good.

The alarm goes off at 2.26 and heigh-ho,

your phone is hitting there.

So that's... that's very good evidence.

Maria now has 3,000 pieces of evidence from which

to try and build a case.

This is Unit 18 in Huyton,

and one of our defendants was seen

acting a bit suspiciously round here.

The officers then decide to do a search warrant at this lock up

and it was just amazing.

When they open it up we've got this stolen Audi vehicle.

But you can see here how they've taken the glove box off

and put in the oxyacetylene canisters.

We've then got these plastic bags and inside were the robbers' kits.

So Whittingham, he was caught outside, his DNA is on the glove.

Now we have this printer that can print numberplates.

So we can put that on the stolen vehicle.

Putting every little piece of the jigsaw together,

it becomes, builds, in my view an overwhelming case,

really, against Beddoes and Cartwright.

The CPS has just heard that Mr Maan also intends to reject

his early guilty plea.

The case will go to trial.

I can't see what his defence is.

No, no. I can't either.

Maybe it's psychological, I don't know.

It's the unwillingness to admit that you are responsible

for the death of somebody else.

Postponing the evil day. I don't know.

Who knows what goes through the minds of defendants?

It could be a whole variety of things, really.

Nobody sets out in their car to kill somebody, do they?

No, and I mean, it's the one offence that could lead to

a law-abiding citizen ending up

appearing before the Crown Court facing a prison sentence.

Nicky has received an e-mail from her family liaison officer.

I've had a request from the CPS asking if I would

like a meeting with them regard...

I need me glasses on!

I've only just started wearing them. Oh, that's better.

Erm...

..with them regarding the progress of the case

from their point of view.

It's completely up to me.

The bottom line is that the Crown Prosecutor

is prosecuting on behalf of the state, not on behalf of the victim.

But of course there's no other party in that courtroom

who's representing the victim,

so in a way, we feel as if we are.

I think that's changed probably over the 20-odd years

I've been prosecuting.

We didn't really used to meet victims when I first started.

And even if they were giving evidence in court, there was a very

much a hands-off and a nervousness of even speaking to a victim.

But now the direction of travel is to be more

and more involved with the victims of crime.

Almost a year after her son died,

Nicky will have her first meeting with the CPS.

Before we start can we offer our sincere condolences for

the loss of your son?

We appreciate it's a very difficult time for you.

-We thoroughly understand that.

-Thank you.

What we can't do is discuss the evidence with you.

You probably appreciate that because you will be a witness in due course.

I just don't understand how he can say he's not guilty of driving

carelessly when his car was on my side of the road.

It...

There's a growing feeling of...

..it's going towards anger

because if you can't say what happened,

isn't that careless by default?

-I don't understand.

-Well, I understand your...

I understand your... the statement you made

and your confusion over that.

-Yeah.

-I want to avoid discussion of the evidence.

We...We've got his plea there.

We'll have to see what happens in a couple of months' time.

Erm, we could speculate and sometimes that doesn't help.

The questions that I wanted answers to I couldn't be told

because I'm a witness and I have to go in court untarnished.

And that actually is quite isolating.

For them, it's evidence...

It's my life.

I want to know what other people saw.

I want answers to my questions

and I don't want them a year and a half down the line.

Having said that, when you're talking to the people face-to-face,

they can see your eyes, they can see what you're going through,

that you are not just that name on that form

or that it was just a schoolboy.

It's not just a schoolboy, it's my son.

At Liverpool Crown Court there's a plea and case management hearing

to set the trial date in the ATM case.

Three of the seven defendants have so far appeared.

A guilty plea at this stage would mean a 25% discount

in their sentence.

The good news is that Beddoes and Cartwright pleaded guilty.

The other person who was represented was Bushell, who indicated

a not guilty plea, which was surprising considering he was

caught on the CCTV coming back with the proceeds of the crime.

But, erm, apparently he was having a walk near McDonald's and they

drove past and collected him and he went for a McDonald's with them.

Hopefully the jury will laugh that out of court.

But it is a lot of extra work to make it a trial-ready file,

but so be it. Obviously, he's a right to plead not guilty

and we have to prove our case.

'It used to be the case that a defendant could just plead

'not guilty and say, "You prove the case against us."

'And we would go to trial'

and we would have to bring every

single piece of evidence before the court.

Actually, what we have now done is said, "Absolutely right - if you're

"pleading not guilty it's for the prosecution to prove the case

"but tell us which bits of the case are the ones that you're disputing."

Mr Maan's lawyer has just sent his defence statement to the CPS.

So what's he saying? Memory test. Save me reading it.

Effectively, that there was a... there was a sudden deluge of rain,

erm, heavy rain, which lasted approximately ten seconds -

this is a precis - which caused his car to aquaplane.

I think the phrase used at some stage in that -

he was a passenger in a sliding car, which he couldn't control,

through no fault of his own.

If it was this deluge, which we don't accept,

then you drive to the weather conditions.

I mean, it's like on the motorway the other day it was torrential.

I could barely see and I absolutely slowed down because your windows...

Or the alternative is, it's not a motorway, you could indicate

-and pull over and stop, if it was that bad.

-Yes.

Well, to put it crudely, if the weather is that bad,

-it's not all bets are off, legally, is it?

-No.

-And therefore you've no culpability...

-No.

..if you plough into somebody coming in the opposite direction.

When the defendant is spoken to at the scene,

what does he say, initially?

It's such a long time ago since I read the file.

I know. That's the problem. I mean, that's...

really the problem for the witnesses now, isn't it?

I mean, it's awful to know that a piece of driving has taken

the life of a child, but...it's just prolonging the agony, really.

Yes, it's Constable Roberts.

He stood near the Porsche, was on the pavement.

"I could see an Asian male who appeared to be in shock

"and he was visibly upset and shaking

"and he said, 'The car just gave way.

" 'I don't know what happened. I'm so sorry.'

"And I made a note of his comments in my pocket notebook."

It doesn't say... Interestingly, it doesn't say...

-"There's such a heavy downpour...

-"There's such a heavy downpour

"and the road was awash, I couldn't see what was happening."

The prosecution team now has to get the case ready for trial.

In the Crown Court, when the case is decided by the jury,

roughly 40% end with a not guilty verdict.

And the next case involved damage to a mosque

and a copy of the Koran had been thrown on to the floor

and ripped and there was also urine on the carpet.

Really unpleasant incident, actually.

The jury, erm, came back with a not guilty verdict.

It seems to me the key to this case was proving that the suspect

actually entered the mosque.

-Yeah.

-It was.

There doesn't seem to be any mention of fingerprints.

Someone's picked up a Koran, someone has pulled shelves off the wall.

This may just be my ignorance

but can you extract DNA from urine or not?

That's what I was going to say.

You should be... you see them in American shows.

There seems to be there is a lot of missed opportunities.

For me, there are significant failings on behalf

of the officers that investigated this crime from the moment

they actually arrived and then their inability to respond

promptly to the CPS request to complete the outstanding actions.

This whole case, you know, even if it had been non-racially aggravated,

is a complete disaster.

The fact it's religiously aggravated just makes it even worse

and I suppose that for me, listening to you, the lesson

we need to take away is, actually, any victim faced with this level

of service would end up losing faith in the criminal justice system,

wouldn't they?

An opening in the schedule at Chester Crown Court

means the Maan case is being brought forward four months.

I've had an official letter

that has called me as a witness...

..which is...very weird.

"As a witness likely to give important evidence,

"you must attend." Underlined, bold.

"You must attend."

That is really scary.

That I must go and tell

a room of strangers

how my son died next to me.

"If you've not already done so,

"please consider making a victim personal statement...

"..which will outline to the court

"the impact that this crime has had on you."

I'm not a victim and I don't want to be referred to as one.

What I'm doing and what my family are doing, and Flynn's memory...

is...surviving and living.

The worst thing has happened.

Nothing can be as bad as that day.

With that as my benchmark,

I'm not concerned about going to the courtroom.

I'm scared.

I'm scar...

With the trial approaching, the CPS have hired an external

barrister, who will try and prove to the jury that

Mr Maan was guilty of causing the death of Flynn Morrissey

by careless driving.

Now, if he's driving properly and

attentively in the conditions in which he finds himself,

he shouldn't cross the central reservation

into the path of someone else.

That's the sort of starting point for this, isn't it?

But something has made that happen.

Gareth Roberts has just received a report from a road collision

investigator appointed by the defence.

He says the collision was due to aquaplaning.

He says, "It is my opinion the loss of control was

"caused by the vehicle aquaplaning, following what was described

"by the first police officer to arrive at the scene as significant

"surface water running across the carriageway from left to right."

Let's take it to an extreme.

If you're going down round a corner and the car loses control

and you don't do anything about it,

you keep rotating in that direction.

You would go round.

But he says he went to the left and then to the right.

But he says he didn't do anything about it.

Now, to go from the left to the right,

he's got to have done something about it.

The car will not do that on its own.

And for it to go from one way to the other, there has got to be grip.

And therefore he is not aquaplaning at that time.

If he aquaplaned, it happened at the very, very beginning and then

his overreaction to the aquaplaning took him down into impact.

Now, the calculation I've put...

I've used sliding friction cos I did skid tests at the scene.

So the total distance of perceive, react

-and slide to a stop of 72 metres...

-Yeah.

..takes into consideration sliding friction.

The conclusion you came to is that if he had been driving properly

he would have been able to stop.

Even if at any point during that

-whole scenario he hit the brakes...

-Yeah.

..it wouldn't have travelled the 90 metres.

It would still have stopped. It might have travelled the 90

-metres, but it wouldn't have been doing 30mph at the end.

-Yeah.

It doesn't seem to me as if he's done any braking.

So all he's done is try to correct, correct,

correct and then we've got the collision.

I think that's a devastating point, actually.

I think when a jury hear that

if this gentleman had hit his brakes properly,

when he found himself losing control of the car,

there's a very good chance

he would have stopped prior to the collision

and the collision might have been a prang

rather than the devastating collision which we have.

When I'm getting ready,

it's really weird because I can hear Flynn.

Cos when I used to get ready before and he'd come in

and go, "You look nice," and I can hear his voice.

So when I'm putting my make-up on,

it feels like the right thing to be doing.

Cos I think sometimes

you could become aware about what other people think.

So if you go out there and you've got your red lipstick on,

it doesn't really fit with the image of a mum

who's lost her little boy, really, so...

I don't know...

It shouldn't matter what people think.

But it does, you know?

But I'm looking forward to tonight.

It's always good fun.

And we do it for Flynn.

Be the mum that he would recognise and he would recognise me, you know.

Sometimes I cry and that's OK,

but I could just imagine him

watching me and just going, "What you doing?

"What you doing that for?"

So I get up and put my lippy on

and go and party.

# Sometimes I feel I've got to run away

# I've got to get away... #

Prosecuting somebody, hopefully it will get them justice but it

doesn't mean that everything's rosy at the end of the prosecution.

We're not there to mend things, cos we can't.

That awful thing has happened to them

and all we can do is prosecute.

The ATM case will soon be in court.

There are already 327 witness

statements and 2,500 pages of exhibits

and Maria is still adding to the evidence.

Now, Mr Bushell is someone who's actually seen

red-handed at the address. His DNA is recovered there.

Now, the further enquiries

since he's pleaded not guilty have been interesting.

On his phone, there's a jokey photograph of him

pointing to an open ATM and laughing.

I think that's really good. I think a jury will like that.

-Yeah.

-Colourful.

He then, in his defence case statement,

said he was in Spain for a lot of the time.

Well, his phone now, we're locating him back in England so he's...

So he wasn't in Spain.

So he's telling lies and juries don't like people who tell lies.

So we've got that. We then have Whittingham.

We finally managed to get into his phone and came out with this,

which was brilliant.

Photos on his phone?

Right, this kit was found in unit 18.

On Whittingham's phone, there's a picture. That's Whittingham.

-A picture of himself?

-That's such good evidence for us, though.

I think it's brilliant and I just said, if I'm sitting on a jury now,

I think you've partial DNA on that glove, you've got a photo

of yourself wearing that because you're a career criminal.

And you couldn't have chosen something more distinctive.

That's what I mean. What an idiot. So, erm,

that's only come in today so I'm really pleased with that.

That's really good.

They should be pleading and that makes me so cross when they don't.

With the Maan trial imminent, Nicky and her mother are going to

meet the prosecution barrister before he questions Nicky in court.

These cases are very, very tricky in that the degree of his bad

driving is quite subtle, if I can put it that way.

It's not...

Are you able to clarify what

-your ideas are about that careless driving?

-Yep.

-Cos I know what I saw.

-Yep.

I'm a little bit wary of talking to you too much about it

because I don't want to colour your evidence, you know?

I take my case from you, not the other way, if you see what

I mean. Oh, thank you. I appreciate that.

What I saw gave me the impression...

..that there was a certain manoeuvre going to be...

Yeah, you thought he was thinking about overtaking, didn't you?

Bearing in mind that I'm a driver with all those years

experience, that is exactly what it looked like to me.

In that way, your evidence is significant.

You're not coming just as a mother to sort of...

to add some colour to the life which was lost.

-Absolutely not.

-You're also coming

as a witness of fact to tell the jury what it is you saw.

And then after that, Mr Dawson will ask you some questions.

But what I know he will not do is bully you or shout at you.

It's not that kind of case.

He can bring it on. I know what I saw.

Yeah, I can see that.

I can see you're pretty robust

and you'd handle yourself absolutely fantastically.

I'll be honest with you, I'm not expecting a conviction.

But at the same time, if I didn't think there was any chance

-I'd have told the CPS a long time ago...

-Yeah.

..and that's not the case here, but it is tricky.

It is a very challenging case.

Part of my frustration is

over the months you embark on a journey

and as we're beginning to walk again after, you know,

just being bulldozed over by this terrible thing,

all of a sudden we've got to go back to that day,

remember exactly who we were, how it made us feel, what was

the weather like and it feels...

Well, I said to you, it feels cruel.

I think it's a mistake to get any sort of attachment

to any sort of outcome.

Provided what happens is fair and right,

then I think that's all anybody can ask for.

Nicky is the first of 13 witnesses for the prosecution.

She is cross-examined by the defence barrister for 24 minutes.

She was fantastic as a witness, actually,

because she was forceful

and clearly telling the truth.

She stood up very strongly to the cross-examination of her,

which was hard.

But she was... At no point, was she in any way hysterical

or excessively emotional, or anything like that,

which - without sounding, sort of, cold -

is quite important in a witness.

It was just like being at the top of a bungee,

just that...

moment before you go...

Just so...

..scary,

but it needs to be

examined properly for Flynn -

to know what the truth is.

In Liverpool,

after five weeks of the trial,

the ATM case is drawing to a close.

Anya did a really, really excellent closing.

I'll give you an example.

Thomas Whittingham, month of August.

Anya goes through, laboriously,

each day in August,

you go to sleep in Widnes, you wake in Widnes.

And really interestingly,

the three days he didn't do that

-were the three dates of the ATM attacks.

-Funny that.

It was such an own goal.

It was brilliant.

I feel a lot more confident.

That's really good.

I think it's come together really well.

Today, the jury is expected to deliver their verdict.

It's quite an odd feeling, to be honest.

As a prosecutor, what you're meant to do is strive for justice

but if you think somebody is guilty

and you've worked on the case for a long time,

you do want a conviction.

And for someone like Maria,

where it's been her life's work for practically a year,

she'll certainly be quite nervous now sitting in court, I suspect.

And we're just sitting, waiting from afar.

Right, OK.

What's happened? Right, brilliant. OK.

Can you come back to us, Jack?

Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.

What's happened?

Guilty for Bushell, Guilty for Whittingham.

There are now two guilty verdicts

to add to the earlier three guilty pleas.

There is also one hung jury decision and one acquittal.

We've got an acquittal.

So be it.

Move on.

You have to be quite dispassionate really.

Our job is to put the case before the court,

but then we've to just allow justice to run its course.

We always try and say in the press

that we respect the decision of the jury

because we have to and we do.

There is a feeling though, when you've done a lot of work

and you think there should have been convictions obviously.

There is that.

But I mean, this is a good result.

We've got at least four offenders found guilty, or pleaded guilty,

so that's a result in itself.

At Chester Crown Court, it's the third day of proceedings.

Mr Maan is due to give his version of events.

The defendant is cross-examined for 29 minutes.

I thought his explanation was all right.

He gave it, and he...

But at the same time, there were a number of inconsistencies

and there were a number of times

I thought he was wriggling a little bit.

But I'm not surprised about that

because he's in a difficult position.

But he was properly upset

by what had happened.

Someone who a jury will think,

"If I want to err on his side, I will do so cos I don't dislike him,

"I don't hate him."

Which is important in all cases really,

especially when you're defending.

Tomorrow, the defence expert will testify,

then the two sides will present their closing arguments.

In the ATM case, there'll be a final hearing

for the judge to decide the defendants' sentences.

This is actually the bundle that has been put together

just for the sentencing hearing.

It's apparent as you read through these things,

that just sentencing somebody isn't that straightforward.

They don't stick a finger in the air and make up a sentence.

The interesting thing here is,

because the offending is quite unusual,

there aren't any sentencing guidelines to help us.

The maximum sentence here for the explosives offence

is life imprisonment.

For the burglary aspect to it,

it's ten years' imprisonment.

You've then got the previous convictions of all the defendants.

For example, one of the defendants here

has got 60 previous convictions

and he's only 20.

And the judge will take this into account when sentencing.

So, the more previous convictions you've got,

the more likely you are to get a more significant sentence

the next time round.

But ballpark figure is, sort of, double figures.

Early double figures.

I might well be completely wrong now.

I shall look a fool if I am.

The judge declares that this was,

"Undoubtedly serious organized crime on a significant scale,"

that these were "uncontrolled explosions,"

and, "although they may not have been intended to cause death

"or serious injury,

"nonetheless they were very fortunate

"no-one was hurt or killed."

I'll go and tell Claire what happened,

so you can go to the pub if you want.

More than my guess of 12?

Yes, and that was my guess as well.

-Oh, was it?

-Yes.

-Right.

The two who were leading roles

each got 17 years...

Oh, goodness. Yeah, OK. Oh, wow.

..with eight years concurrent for the conspiracy to burgle.

Quite a significant sentence,

bearing in mind, he'd given them 25% credit for their guilty pleas.

Gosh, that's huge, isn't it? Really well done.

And as Maria was saying,

it just shows that we picked the right charges.

And that's what we said right at the beginning of the case

is we wanted to make sure that this doesn't pay.

-Didn't we?

-Yes, that's right.

That was the whole kind of thought when we first started to look at it.

-This is a new series of attacks.

-Yes. Yes.

-So, yeah, it's a really good result.

-Yeah.

At Chester Crown Court,

the jury is now deciding

whether they think the prosecution has proved

that Mr Maan is guilty

of causing death by careless driving.

It's not a jury I'd want to be on

because the issues are quite complicated in a way.

No-one has been able to say,

"This is the exact reason why he lost control of his car."

So, you're saying to a jury,

"I want you to be sure that he lost control due to carelessness."

Even I don't know why it happened

and that feels a little bit odd.

It's a case which, if I was on the other side, defending it,

I'd have thought, straight away, "I'll win this."

Because you think all you have to do is, without sounding arrogant -

but you'll think all you have to do

is put enough doubt into the minds of the jury

and then they should acquit.

But saying that, as the week has gone on,

I think the jury got enough of what I was trying to convey.

I hope so, but who knows?

It's the fairest way to find...

the closest thing we can to the truth.

Whatever the outcome is...

I trust that outcome.

I've been there every day and...

..it's fair and it's just.

After two-and-a-half hours, the jury returns.

They find Mr Maan guilty.

It didn't take the jury that long.

I would have thought they might have been out for longer,

which means that, at the end of the day, they were fairly sure.

They were very sure.

Mr Maan does not receive a custodial sentence.

The judge decides to give him a 12 month community order

of 150 hours of unpaid work.

He's also disqualified from driving for 12 months

with no re-test required

and ordered to pay £4,200 in costs.

The judge very rightly said, at the end of his sentencing,

when he was giving his sentencing remarks,

that, of course, the penalty in no way

reflects the deep suffering

which has been felt by the Clifford family -

and that's got to be right because it doesn't, but no penalty could.

I can't believe

that it's behind me now.

It has been so long.

It's been...

..16 months, or something like that.

But the point, for me,

happened yesterday before the verdict was announced.

And I realised that...

I knew the truth.

It was a momentary lapse of concentration

on the part of the other driver -

and before the verdict was read out,

I asked if the other driver

would like to meet with me.

She went and spoke to the defendant, didn't she?

So I understand, yeah.

She apparently wanted to make sure

that he didn't continue to have the guilt that, clearly,

-he's been feeling since the accident happened.

-Yeah.

I think it shows great humanity really, doesn't it?

Absolutely.

You sort of wonder if you could be quite so magnanimous.

Well, yes. You'd like to think you would be but...

probably wouldn't.

No.

But...it's difficult, isn't it?

Because now the family know that...

Well, a court have found this wasn't an accident so...

..it didn't have to happen.

Baying for somebody's blood,

it doesn't solve anything, does it?

It really doesn't.

So...

I'm grateful to him for seeing me.

I mean...

it's helped me.

He's a good man who's made a mistake...

..and the consequences have been devastating...

..but they're devastating to him as well and...

I hope that, one day, he goes on to have his family.

He's just got married and I want him to be a good daddy.

I don't want this to ruin his life.

Flynn...

Flynn's presence in this world

should not ruin anybody's life...

..and...

..I'm going to make sure that happens.

If you're interested in finding out more about the justice system,

you can join in a simulated court case from The Open University

and reach your own verdict.

Go to bbc.co.uk/prosecutors

and follow the links to The Open University.