Cop’s amazement when reporter’s driver changed his story
A police officer investigating Tulisa for allegedly arranging to supply cocaine to the ‘Fake Sheikh’ was ‘surprised’ when the reporter’s driver changed evidence suggesting she was anti-drugs, a court heard.
Mazher Mahmood, 53, allegedly urged 67-year-old Alan Smith, to change a witness statement that included the N-Dubz star talking about her cocaine-addicted relative in the back of his car.
Former X Factor judge Tulisa, 28, was targeted in December 2012 by the self-styled ‘king of the sting’, who posed as an influential film producer offering her a £3.5 million role in a blockbuster Bollywood film.
Mahmood took the aspiring actress on a no expense spared trip to Las Vegas, then wined and dined her in top London hotels before she allegedly offered him ‘white sweets’ – said to be a reference to cocaine.
The singer went on trial in July 2014 for allegedly being concerned in the supply of cocaine after half an ounce of the drug was sold to Mahmood for £800 at the Dorchester hotel by Michael Coombs, jurors have heard.
DS Andrew Nicklin told the Old Bailey how he took a witness statement from Smith in the run up to Tulisa’s trial after the explosive story was published in The Sun on Sunday newspaper.
He said he took notes during a 21-minute phone call with Smith before typing up a statement which he read back to him a line or two at a time over the telephone.
‘I remember him saying yes, yes, yes,’ the officer told jurors.
He explained how he converted the document to a PDF, which was emailed to Smith to be signed.
But the following day after, it is alleged, Smith had discussed the statement with Mahmood, DS Nicklin was told he wanted part of it changed.
The court heardthe passage in the statement referred to a conversation in the back of his car as he drove Tulisa and her associates home following a boozy meeting at London’s Metropolitan Hotel in the early ours of 11 May 2013.
It said: ‘I do remember though, at one stage, that there was talk of drugs.
‘Tulisa’s assistant was after drugs and Tulisa said something about someone in her family having a drug problem.
‘She was really negative about it and you could tell she didn’t approve of him being after drugs.’
The prosecutor asked DS Nicklin: ‘Where you expecting Mr Smith to tell you Tulisa appeared anti-drugs on the journey?’
The officer replied: ‘No, not at all.’
‘Did you appreciate the relevance to your particular investigation?’
DS Nicklin said: ‘Yes, absolutely.’
The prosecutor continued: ‘So, when you took down what he was saying at the time when you took it, did it occur to you that it was quite relevant?’
‘Yes,’ the officer responded.
Ms Forshaw asked: ‘When a day later he wanted it changed, what was your reaction?
‘I was quite surprised. There had been no doubt about that part of his statement and it was the most significant part of his statement.’
He said he quizzed Smith about the change, adding: ‘Because it was significant it had been removed and I was surprised.’
But the officer admitted he had himself made a change before signing his witness statement when the focus of the investigation shifted to Mahmood and Smith after Tulisa’s trial collapsed.
He had written Smith told him ‘I know it doesn’t help your case’ after recalling Tulisa’s alleged anti-drugs remark in the back of his car.
But the comment did not appear in his final statement, the court heard.
‘I was not happy I could recall it sufficiently to be accurate. I didn’t want it in the statement because I couldn’t be sure.’
Mahmood, of Brighton Road, Purley, Surrey, and Smith of Daffodil Way, Dereham, Norfolk, deny conspiring to pervert the course of justice and are on unconditional bail.
The trial, which is expected to last up to three weeks, continues.
mfl
ends
