Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-11

MR DEHAL: An application then followed to obtain your entire statement, do you remember that?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes.

MR DEHAL: And do you recall what happened thereafter?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I'm not really sure what took place after that.

MR DEHAL: Well do you remember that arising from the application, the defence then obtained a single page of your statement, which is contained in this transcript I showed to you, volume 15, 1 page of your statement.  Do you see that?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes.

MR DEHAL: Is that a copy of a page of your statement, firstly?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: And is that the only page that was then handed to the defence as being the only page you read during the recess?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes, that's right.

MR DEHAL: Now as it correct that this was the only page you read during the recess?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: No, that's not correct.

MR DEHAL: Did you read more than - sorry, firstly, did you read many pages of your statement during the recess?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes, I did.

MR DEHAL: How did it come about that this one page was selected to be given to the defence?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: During the trial and while they were questioning me it was revealed that I had access to my statement and I admitted that and somehow defence had asked for this, access to this statement of mine.

MR DEHAL: Yes, I mean your statement had many pages.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes.

MR DEHAL: How did it come about that the decision was made for this single page, which we now have before us, a copy of which of course, was to be given to the defence as being the only page that you had read?  For you now say that's not true.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I'm not sure of the events in Court that day, but I think that they had asked me in Court "Have you been given your statement to read through?" and I said "Yes" and they referred to this certain page.

MR DEHAL: Okay.  Do you see in this statement there is a paragraph that says - firstly, is this your handwriting?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes, it is.

MR DEHAL: Okay.  I know that you've said that this was dictated to you and told to you by the police etc.  You see there's a paragraph here which says
"We told him we needed money and asked him if he could lend us guns to rob a bank and if he could we can help him.  Robert agreed."
Now when you say "We told him ..." the preceding paragraph makes it clear that you told Robert that you needed money and guns to rob a bank, do you remember that?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes, I remember that.

MR DEHAL: Now firstly, did this ever take place, namely did you ever ask Robert for money and guns to rob a bank?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: No, I did not.

MR DEHAL: How did that come to be in your statement?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: The place, Security Branch threatened me, put a noose around my neck, threatened to kill my family if I did not say things like this.  To me it seemed like they wanted to criminalise this whole event.

MR DEHAL: Now did you ever intend to rob a bank?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: No, I did not.

MR DEHAL: Did you ever discuss with Robert the need to rob a bank?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: No, I did not.

MR DEHAL: Your statement went into many, many pages you said.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: That's right.

MR DEHAL: Now this particular page which deals with the criminal element, how was this page selected, did you say that this is the page that you read during the recess, or did the prosecutors and the police, or the police alone decide that this is the page that must be given to the defence?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I'm not sure whether I said this is the page or whether the prosecutors said this is the page that I read during the recess.

MR DEHAL: Yes.  Now you talked about the noose briefly just now, in your earlier evidence you talked about how the noose was placed around your neck, or sorry, was shown to you.  Was the noose ever placed around your neck at any stage?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes, it was.

MR DEHAL: On one occasion, on many occasions?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: On more than one occasion.

MR DEHAL: By whom?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: By Security Branch police.

MR DEHAL: And did they make any threats when they placed the noose around your neck?  What did they ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think the mere placing of a noose around the neck, whether or not threats were made I mean, is in itself a threat.

MR DEHAL: I accept that.
	Did the policemen make it clear with you that your evidence, or did you understand that your evidence against Robert McBride would be the basis for him to obtain the death sentence if convicted?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes, they made that clear to me.

MR DEHAL: And when it became clear that your statement was read by you during the recess and you had agreed to this under cross-examination, if recall by Mr David Gordon, the senior counsel for the defence, did the prosecutors or the police ever become angry with you about that, about you revealing that you had the statement with you?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes, they were very angry and upset about it.  And it's one of the occasions when we adjourned when I was threatened again by the Security Branch police and also the prosecutors had told me that I must do what they have asked me to do and if I try and save Robert in any way, the noose is waiting for me.

MR DEHAL: Yes.  Now if I may just get away from the Why Not incident and your general evidence, the Klein incident is something that Mr Richard dealt with at length.  Firstly, Klein's house you were told - sorry, you were told that all the houses in Wentworth were the same, therefore you would have known ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well I said many of them were similar.

MR DEHAL: Sorry, most of the houses were similar and therefore you would have known which bedroom was where.  Now Klein you said was a Labour Party member, was his house in any way different at the time it was attacked?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes, it was very much different to the other houses in Wentworth.

MR DEHAL: Was it poorer, smaller, larger, bigger?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Actually if one looked at Mr Klein's house and you looked at the houses on either side of him, it seemed like his house doesn't belong there, it's supposed to be in a, I'd say, another suburb with better housing.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it better or worse than the other houses?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: It was much better than the other houses, that the normal houses.

MR DEHAL: And you say that despite the difference your intelligence told you which was Klein's bedroom.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: That's right.

MR DEHAL: Would you ever have attacked any empty houses?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: No, I don't see the purpose in attacking an empty house.

MR DEHAL: Do you recall an incident when Mr Klein was once shot and this matter featured in the press?  He was shot whilst allegedly on duty as a ..(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, is this re-examination because you're introducing new evidence ...(indistinct) to allow cross-examination again, Mr Dehal.

MR DEHAL: Perhaps I may just deal with this, I'm sorry, address you briefly on this.  Mr Richard had at great length talked about Mr Klein's police reservist duties and that he was not active etc., I had instructions from Mr Lecordier earlier about his active duties.   I did not put the statement because I didn't think it was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Then I'll have to give an opportunity for further questions because this is new in fact.

MR DEHAL: It is indeed.
	Do you recall instructing me that Mr Klein was once, whilst on duty, shot as a police reservist and that this featured in the press and this is how you also knew he was a police reservist?

MATTHEW LECORDIER: Yes, that's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know more-or-less when about that was, Mr Lecordier?  When I say more-or-less, which year.

MATTHEW LECORDIER: I think Mr Chairperson, it was 1982 or '83, I'm not too sure on the year.