◆ SpookStack

‘The law on the matter is laid down in Section’ 31 (2) of the Larceny: Act. 1916, which says that “every person who, with intent fo extort any valjable thing from any person directly Of indirectly proposes to abstain Sei offers to prevent, the publishing of any matter or thing touching sry wile person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour ”. I have italicised the iepegpamt words for present purposes. The words “any matter or thing” show (Rat, whatever the matter about to be published, that is to say, whether it be libel or no libel (see Regina v. Coghlan (1865) 4 Foster and Finlayson 3)6 at page 321 by Bramwell B): true or untrue (see Rex v. Wyatt (1921) 16 Criminal Appeal Reports 57), nevertheless it is an offence to propose to abstain from the publishing of it, if it is done with intent to extort money. There need not be an express request for money. It can be implied. Even to say “ If you make it worth my while, nothing will appear in the Press™ will suffice, provided always there is an intention to extort money. (See Regina v. Menage 3 Foster and Finlayson 310.) Truth is a0 answer to the charge. The greater the truth the greater the weapon in the hand of the blackmailer. The gist of the offence is the intention to extort. Such is the law if done by one alone, If the attempt to extort is done by two or more in combination—by threatening exposure even of the truth—it is indictable as a conspiracy at common law (sce Rex y. Hollingberry (1825) 4 Barnewell and Cresswell 329). a {v) Critica] Conversations 100. Now for the negotiations themselves. There is some controversy as to what took place which I feel I cannot resolve. So I set down the versions on either side of the critical conversations. The name of Paul Maan comes again into the story at this point. During these critical days of early February, 1963, Stephen Ward and Christine Keeler had quarrelled, but Pavi Mann still remained friendly with both and acted as intermediary between them. On Saturday evening, 2nd February, 1963, Stephen Ward took Paul Mann to see Stephen Ward’s counsel in his private house and counsel saw him alone. According to counsel’s note made shortly afterwards Paul Mann said: “I think that Christine should be made to deny everything and talk propositionwise as to what it is worth for her to be quiet. 1 think she is open to a higher bid. She is not satisfied with £1,000. I told her she ought to have obtained a good deal more.” According to Paul Mann himself, he said, “I was myself quite concerned with people’s reputations and one thing and another and the possible scandal that the papers could make of the whole thing. I said I did not know what she was going to do, but I said I would be only too willing to take her away after the trial and to keep the Press away from her. I remember saying too, that I certainly could not do it all on my own funds, but I was quite prepared to make it.a holiday for myself. There were no sums mentioned.” Both agreed that counsel broke off the conversation and said he could not discuss the proposition, and told Paul Mann that he should get Christine Keeler to go and ste a solicitor. . 101. On Monday afternoon, 4th February, 1963, at about 4.3. Paul Mann accompanied Christine Keeler to the solicitor whose milirts been mentioned by Stephen Ward’s counsel (paragraph 96). She weet ii to. see the solicitor whilst Paul Mann sat outside next to the switchboarth She brought with her the telephone number of Mr. Profumo’s solicitor: and after taking her instructions, the solicitor telephoned Mr. Profumo's solicitor. 33