Martin Mullaney, Councillor for Moseley & Kings Heath, Birmingham

Aston and Bordesley Green Vote Fraud Trial

Monday 14th March 2005

1 Monday, 14th March 2005
2 (10.30 am)
3 Housekeeping
4 THE COMMISSIONER: A bit of housekeeping first, I think.
5 The first thing is this, Mr Coppel, the other day I
6 asked you about the document that was prepared at a very
7 early stage in these proceedings with the comparison of
8 the postal votes since voting on demand had been issued.
9 And you very kindly pointed me to the exhibits 49, 50,
10 and 51, which are the three separate sheets showing
11 that, but I recall at an early stage there was a single
12 tabulated sheet produced by Mr Owen's team, showing them
13 on a year by year basis.
14 MR COPPEL: That was produced, I think sir, in the
15 Bordesley Green --
16 THE COMMISSIONER: It was, yes. Not enormously urgent.
17 Could that be got out by the end of the day?
18 MR COPPEL: Certainly.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: As I indicated on Friday, I shall not
20 start the consideration of the people who may possibly
21 be named under section 160 until I have concluded the
22 evidence in this case. Therefore it is not going to be
23 before 12 and it may not be before 2. So anybody here
24 for that can go away and come back at 12 o'clock.
25 MR BRODIE: May I make a suggestion on that. Several copies
1

1 of the evidence in relation to each respondent to that
2 requirement to show cause will be brought by Miss Patwa
3 to court at about 12 o'clock. My suspicion is that
4 those who appear for those respondents might not
5 necessarily have a particularly clear understanding of
6 what is alleged against their clients. It may be worth
7 everybody's time if I just go off and explain to them
8 the contents of the evidence against each one of them.
9 THE COMMISSIONER: As I made clear last week, I have set
10 aside not only the rest of today but also tomorrow if
11 anybody wishes to make representations this week. I am
12 here today and tomorrow to deal with that. So not
13 before 12, but if Miss Patwa is able to help the people
14 on the list at 12 o'clock I am happy to say not before
15 2. Do you think not before 2 is better?
16 MR BRODIE: I think it probably is.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: I will say not before 2 on that and if
18 we have a slightly earlier morning that will be better
19 for everyone.
20 MR HAYES: May I nail my colours to the mast regarding
21 Mr Ahmad, who is part of the Bordesley Green name and
22 shame list, who is the agent. I would be seeking an
23 adjournment, not for a long period of time, just so
24 I can see the case against him.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: You are obviously doing two things at
2

1 once?
2 MR HAYES: Yes. I have no problem with doing two things at
3 once.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: And chewing gum?
5 MR HAYES: My difficulty is I have a murder to deal with on
6 Wednesday in the Court of Appeal which I really have to
7 be there for.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: I am not sitting Wednesday, Thursday and
9 Friday on any matter. That will leave you free to do
10 your murder.
11 MR HAYES: So Monday and Tuesday will be for the
12 submissions, I imagine, for Aston.
13 THE COMMISSIONER: Of this week?
14 MR HAYES: Next week.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. What I am going to do is when
16 I have finished the evidence I am going to require you
17 all to put in written submissions. And I will hear
18 brief oral submissions at the beginning of next week.
19 Whether Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, we can discuss
20 later. But I think I have already required written
21 submissions in Bordesley Green and indeed have already
22 received them from Mr Brodie in Bordesley Green and will
23 be receiving them in due course from Mr Coppel. But
24 I will require written skeleton submissions from you all
25 in this. I will then hear brief oral submissions.
3

1 MR HAYES: What is the timescale on that?
2 THE COMMISSIONER: We will discuss that later today. I do
3 not think, unlike Bordesley Green, this is one
4 necessarily where sequential is necessary. I would be
5 minded to say close of business Friday. I might just
6 conceivably be talked into close of business Monday, but
7 certainly Tuesday is the very latest I would wish to
8 start oral submissions. Can I put that shot across your
9 bows now and leave you to decide whether or not it is
10 wholly below the water line.
11 MR HAYES: I am just sinking slightly, sir.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: I am sure your buoyancy tanks will come
13 to your aid.
14 While you are on your feet, Mr Hayes, can I simply
15 say this, and I do not require any response at all at
16 the moment, but considering the warehouse, at one stage
17 you said to me you will be hearing from everybody in the
18 warehouse.
19 MR HAYES: It appears we did not.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: All I wish to point out is that it is
21 conceivable that one or other of the other parties
22 in the case might wish to draw that to my attention and
23 invite me to draw inferences from it. I mention it now
24 because were you to rethink the matter, it is not
25 irretrievable.
4

1 MR HAYES: It is not something in my hands.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: That I follow. But clearly, it would
3 have occurred to you and indeed to Mr De Mello for the
4 respondents, that were I to come to the conclusion,
5 notwithstanding your submissions, that what was going on
6 in the warehouse was what should not have been going on
7 at the warehouse, it would seem to follow that that
8 gentleman would be as a much a party to it as everybody
9 else present and therefore it is just conceivable that
10 he might not wish me to make that comment without his
11 having had an opportunity at least to explain his point
12 of view.
13 But I simply leave that. You are not representing
14 him, nor is Mr De Mello. I simply throw that out. I do
15 not know whether the gentleman is present but I throw
16 that out to be considered.
17 MR HAYES: Advice has been given. Whether it is taken or
18 not is another matter.
19 MR COPPEL: Sir, on that last point, plainly this is not
20 a matter that greatly concerns the Returning Officer,
21 save that the Returning Officer is anxious that the
22 process that is carried out is carried out with all due
23 fairness in order that the whole proceedings not be
24 tainted. Even though Mr Sukul has indicated he does not
25 wish any person to be listed, it would be my suggestion
5

1 that if you are so minded to name other people, those
2 people be notified immediately.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: Of those who accept that they were
4 present in the warehouse, five of the six have given
5 evidence and I will have to evaluate their evidence.
6 They have had a chance to be heard.
7 If the sixth person does not given evidence, he may
8 say at some future date "I have not had a chance to be
9 heard". But it would seem to me, if I came to the
10 conclusion that what was going on in the warehouse was
11 wrong -- I put that again very, very neutrally --
12 it would be impossible not to name those present as
13 being present even if only in my judgment and not
14 necessarily in my report to the High Court.
15 I considered this over the weekend, and Mr Hayes
16 having closed his case, and indeed Mr De Mello having
17 closed his case, that that was a problem that might have
18 to be faced.
19 MR COPPEL: The only point I make is that if they are to be
20 named in the report or if there is a possibility that
21 they be named in the report it seems to me the most
22 expeditious course, so that we comply with section 160,
23 is for a notification to be sent to them because the
24 notification that was used in the Bordesley Green matter
25 did not say: you will be named. Just: you might be
6

1 named.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr De Mello, Mr Hayes, if you and your
3 solicitors might simply think about that and let me know
4 later in the morning what the position is.
5 MR DE MELLO: Following from what Mr Coppel has said, my
6 concern is that whilst you might draw inferences, what
7 I am concerned with is the inferences might lead on to
8 a finding that particular individuals were acting as
9 agents of this respondent and that concerns me.
10 THE COMMISSIONER: In that the gentleman concerned has been
11 described as the agent or an agent, using the word in
12 its political rather than legal sense --
13 MR HAYES: I do not think that is entirely right.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: He has been so described. Whether he is
15 of course is a matter for me.
16 MR HAYES: The person who was so described was a man called
17 Amjad. The person you are thinking of is Zulfikar who
18 is not an agent.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: He is certainly described as such in one
20 of the statements.
21 MR DE MELLO: That is my only worry. I am sorry to press
22 this point.
23 THE COMMISSIONER: If I may say so, it is a worry for you.
24 It is not for Mr Hayes. Because if what was going on
25 in the warehouse is wrong, his clients admit they were
7

1 there. But you obviously have to face the prospect that
2 what is going on is wrong, it is being participated in
3 by the six people there on the hypothesis that you
4 address me that Mr Afzal was not one of the six, then
5 the question is: are they doing it as his agents or not?
6 That is obviously something about which you will
7 have to address me.
8 MR DE MELLO: I will, yes.
9 THE COMMISSIONER: Obviously one of the factors that I would
10 have to take into account in any event, with regard to
11 the warehouse, is whether and to what extent I accept
12 the evidence of the petitioners' witnesses in preference
13 to that of Councillor Afzal as to what was happening in
14 Witton Road immediately prior to the warehouse incident.
15 MR DE MELLO: Of course.
16 THE COMMISSIONER: All these have to be taken into account.
17 I take your point on agency but given that the sixth
18 man, if I may so term him, is there by common consent of
19 the other five, they agree he was there, they agree that
20 what was going on, he was participating in it, I have
21 really to raise that because if I wish to say what is
22 going on is wrong and they are all six in it up to the
23 hilt, then he may come along and say, "I did not have
24 a chance to say otherwise".
25 MR DE MELLO: I accept all that you say, but what concerns
8

1 me, because of the number of permutations by which
2 Mr Afzal, if he was not there, could be linked to
3 various persons who might be acting as agents or
4 non-agents, and I agree with what my learned friend
5 Mr Coppel said, that if the notification is issued
6 quickly before the conclusion of the case, as it were,
7 today, maybe even at most by tomorrow, at least should
8 he desire to come I will know where Mr Afzal stands
9 in relation to cross-examining him. That is my concern.
10 THE COMMISSIONER: That is why, all things being equal,
11 it would be more satisfactory, from the respondents'
12 point of view, if this gentleman were a witness rather
13 than if he was simply here on a notice under
14 section 160, because I would have some reservations on
15 the 160 notice as to whether he would be open to
16 cross-examination other than questioning by me.
17 That is why, as it were, I flick the fly over your
18 noses this morning, because now is the time to rise to
19 it. But once the evidence has finished and we all go
20 away for submissions, the only thing I can do in respect
21 to that gentleman is notify him and give him a chance to
22 come, in which case I may question him and nobody else
23 may. I am using that not as a shall, but as
24 a possibility.
25 MR DE MELLO: May I together with Mr Hayes return to the
9

1 point at some stage?
2 THE COMMISSIONER: That is what I was hoping you would do.
3 The next exercise it seems to me is to go through
4 the reports, first of all the reports that were
5 commissioned by the petitioners, requested by the
6 petitioners, and then the report that was requested by
7 Mr Hayes.
8 Does that seem a good idea?
9 MR HAYES: Mine is going to be quite easy to do. My learned
10 friend's is going to be more difficult.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: The reports will need to be looked at and
12 I am not suggesting for a moment that we go through
13 every document referred to in the report, but in order
14 to get a flavour of it I am going to need to have a look
15 at some of the documents as we go through the reports.
16 MR HAYES: And some should be read on to the record, in my
17 respectful submission.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: Particularly bearing in mind that I have
19 to take into account Mr Islam's evidence and the
20 evidence of the witnesses that were put in on Mr Islam's
21 behalf in respect of the mystery B.
22 Mr Sukul, which is the first report of Mr Cosslett?
23 Reading of Handwriting Expert's Reports by MR SUKUL
24 MR SUKUL: Volume 3. Will you want to start with Mystery A,
25 or perhaps Mr Islam?
10

1 THE COMMISSIONER: I will go through them in the order in
2 which we have them. The first report we have, Mr Sukul,
3 at least the first report --
4 MR SUKUL: Page 600.
5 THE COMMISSIONER: I think if you could read the report of
6 Mr Cosslett, starting at page 601. I think it is right
7 that other reports have the qualifications and
8 statements of expertise and so on in them. Obviously
9 we will not need to repeat them every time, but we
10 certainly need to have them read into the record once.
11 MR SUKUL: Over the weekend, to help myself, what I did was
12 a kind of a summary, summarising in effect the findings
13 of Mr Cosslett which have not been called into question,
14 indeed are not in dispute.
15 I am hoping, subject to your guidance, to read the
16 report and to simply add the mini summary I have done.
17 For example, he begins with a report with the reference
18 SE --
19 MR HAYES: With great respect to my learned friend, I have
20 read his summary. In my respectful submission it is not
21 a summary at all, it is a very good attempt at well
22 poisoning, which of course he is entitled to do in his
23 submissions but not now when we are dealing with raw
24 evidence.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: I think I would be more assisted by being
11

1 taken through the reports. They are crucial in this
2 case and I want to be sure they are on the record.
3 MR SUKUL: You mentioned the preliminaries are not required
4 to be read into the record.
5 THE COMMISSIONER: What I said was the preliminaries are
6 required to be read onto the record but only once.
7 MR SUKUL: The preliminaries begin at page 601. Do you have
8 that?
9 THE COMMISSIONER: I have.
10 MR SUKUL: The reference of this report is 24/05, and the
11 expert's qualification is this. The report is compiled
12 by Mr S Cosslett. He has a Bachelor of Science degree
13 and another qualification called RFP.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: It is explained on page 601.
15 MR SUKUL: "I am a Bachelor of Science. I am a registered
16 forensic practitioner with the Council for the
17 Registration of Forensic Practitioners in the speciality
18 of questioned documents. The CRFP is the regulatory
19 body for forensic practitioners and I am aware of and
20 adhere to the code of conduct of the CRFP.
21 "I am a forensic document examiner. This has been
22 my sole occupation for the past 20 years. During the
23 course of my work I have examined thousands of cases
24 involving documents and handwriting of unknown or
25 disputed origin and have given expert evidence in court
12

1 on many occasions. I have also been trained as a single
2 joint expert.
3 "Until 1992 I was employed by the Home Office
4 Forensic Science Service in their specialist document
5 laboratory in Birmingham. Since then, I have been
6 working together with a number of my former Home Office
7 colleagues in private practice as Document Evidence
8 Limited. This company is equipped with electrostatic
9 detection apparatus, infra red video equipment, and all
10 the normal facilities of a forensic document laboratory.
11 "Scope of expertise: specialists in questioned
12 documents all have an understanding of issues relating
13 to handwriting and signatures and other aspects of
14 document examination that routinely arise in their
15 field. These include methods of examining documents to
16 show their authenticity or to determine alterations to
17 them, the examination and comparison of handwritings and
18 signatures and general examinations such as for indented
19 impressions. Beyond this knowledge, practitioners must
20 be aware of their own limitations and have an awareness
21 of the most specialised examination methods other
22 practitioners may be able to offer.
23 "Specialists in handwriting and signatures examine
24 examples of handwriting, usually to determine
25 authorship. In addition to the general capabilities all
13

1 examiners in this specialism must have, their expertise
2 includes the objective interpretation of observations,
3 taking into account many influences such as taught
4 styles, natural variation, age and disguise, and
5 offering an opinion of authorship, which takes into
6 account any constraints in the evidence.
7 "Specialists in the other non-handwriting aspects of
8 document examination examine all the other issues that
9 arise routinely in this field such as how documents are
10 produced, for example copying, printing, typing, the
11 material from which they are produced, for example
12 paper, ink and other writing media, and general aspects
13 such as impressions and folds in the paper.
14 "Such related aspects require expertise in highly
15 specialised fields such as security printing or the
16 detailed analysis of specialised inks or papers.
17 Experts in such areas may not necessarily have
18 a detailed knowledge of the other aspects of questioned
19 documents but will often work in partnership with other
20 document examiners to ensure that all aspects of the
21 task are correctly addressed.
22 "Instructions: this is the first of a series of
23 reports prepared on the joint instructions of Midlands
24 Solicitors, Steel & Shamash Solicitors, and CMS
25 Cameron McKenna in connection with case number M/307/04,
14

1 and deals only with the documents referred to in
2 appendix A1 of my letter of instruction of
3 10th January 2005. The purpose of my examination was to
4 compare the voters' signatures, witness signatures and
5 the witness names and addresses on the declaration of
6 identity, DOI, forms listed in appendix A1 of my letter
7 of instruction to determine whether they have been
8 written by the same person.
9 "Background: 1. Handwriting is a human skill
10 whereby a person generates character shapes with
11 a writing instrument as a visual representation of
12 language. Character shapes are held within the brain as
13 models and are translated into movements of the writing
14 tool by a complex physiological process. In most
15 practised writers this is done at speed with little or
16 no conscious effort.
17 "The basic character designs are usually learned as
18 a child by copies from given simplified forms. The
19 style taught often varies from one school or even one
20 class to another and as children grow up they develop
21 their own handwriting characteristics as their
22 handwritings depart further from the taught style.
23 It is a fundamental axiom of forensic document
24 examination that the normal writings of any two people
25 are distinguishable, given sufficient amounts.
15

1 "When handwriting of disputed authorship is
2 scientifically compared with a sample of handwrit5ing of
3 known authorship both similarities and differences are
4 found. Similarities will be present even between the
5 handwritings of different persons as character shapes
6 must conform to accepted designs to be recognisable.
7 "Some differences will be present between
8 handwritings produced by the same person because of
9 natural variations since the human body is not a machine
10 capable of reproducing a character in exactly the same
11 form every time it is written.
12 "Other differences may occur when the person
13 deliberately attempts to disguise his handwriting. Some
14 difference will be significant and indicative of
15 different authorship. If two handwritings are
16 sufficiently similar to one another in terms of personal
17 characteristics and there are no significant differences
18 between them, then this constitutes evidence of common
19 authorship. The strength of this evidence will depend
20 upon several procedures such as the distinctiveness of
21 the letter formations found, the amount of handwriting
22 in dispute, and the suitability of the handwriting of
23 known authorship.
24 "The document examiner uses his experience of having
25 examined many examples of handwriting to assess the
16

1 significance of similarities and differences found.
2 Although signatures usually contain only relatively
3 small amounts of handwriting, they are often written in
4 an individual stylised manner and the scientific
5 comparison with appropriate specimen signatures can be
6 useful evidence of ownership. A lack of legibility in
7 a signature is not a limitation provided that the writer
8 produces a signature in a consistent manner. In all
9 cases it is important that a representative is available
10 so that the range of natural variation can be assessed.
11 Attempts are often made to produce forged signatures by
12 copying the design of a person's genuine signature.
13 This may be done by freehand simulation/or by various
14 tracing techniques. It is usually possible to establish
15 that such signatures are not genuine since it is
16 extremely difficult to suppress one's own handwriting
17 features and incorporate those of another whilst
18 maintaining a fluent writing action. However, it is
19 rarely possible to identify the person responsible for
20 a forged signature as the natural handwriting
21 characteristics of the writer are necessarily masked,
22 although it may be to establish that a group of such
23 signatures were written by just one person.
24 "The authorship of signatures of the elderly or of
25 persons whose writing ability is impaired by factors
17

1 such as injury, medication or intoxication may be
2 difficult to establish because of the greater degree of
3 variation that can occur. In such cases an effective
4 comparison can best be made with specimen signatures
5 which have been written under similar conditions and
6 which are as near contemporary with the questioned
7 signatures as possible. Document examiners normally use
8 a number of levels of opinion to describe the strength
9 of their findings. Those used by myself and their
10 meanings are shown at the end of this report. In this
11 report, and where appropriate in other reports, I have
12 shown the strength of my findings in relation to the
13 various handwriting and signatures in an appendix to my
14 report by the use of the letters A, B and C, and which
15 are used to denote the following:
16 "A denotes conclusive evidence; B denotes strong
17 evidence; and C denotes limited evidence. Where no
18 character is shown in the appendix against an entry it
19 signifies that I am not able to provide any positive
20 evidence to link it to grouped handwriting and I am
21 offering no opinion as to the authorship of these
22 entries.
23 "The documents examined in this report are all
24 declarations of identities, DOIs, and the handwritten
25 entries on them comprise a voter's signature, a witness
18

1 signature, and the witness name and address. There is
2 a separate column for each of these entries on the
3 appendix. The appendix to this report is
4 appendix SC/A1."
5 THE COMMISSIONER: Stop there, Mr Sukul. I think it might
6 be sensible at this point, having read the
7 categorisation: conclusive evidence, strong evidence and
8 limited evidence, to read the section that appears at
9 pages 610 and 611, in which Mr Cosslett explains what
10 those terms mean under the heading "Range of Opinions".
11 MR SUKUL: "Because of the nature of handwriting
12 comparisons, it is not always possible for the expert to
13 reach a definite conclusion. Handwriting experts
14 normally use one of a number of phrases to express the
15 strength of their findings. These may vary from one
16 expert to another, and there will be occasions when
17 a different form of words is necessary, but those which
18 I normally use are as follows:
19 "A: in my opinion, there is conclusive evidence that
20 he or she was the writer. I can therefore consider that
21 the possibility of another person being responsible can
22 be excluded. This means that the expert has formed
23 a definite opinion that the questioned and specimen
24 handwritings were written by the same person."
25 THE COMMISSIONER: That is category A, conclusive.
19

1 MR SUKUL: That is conclusive evidence.
2 "B: in my opinion, there is strong but not
3 conclusive evidence that he or she was the writer.
4 I therefore consider it unlikely that another person was
5 responsible."
6 What it means is this:
7 "The expert cannot completely exclude the
8 possibility that some other person was responsible and
9 the reason for the limitations would normally be
10 explained in the body of the report. The expert's
11 opinion will, however, provide strong evidence to
12 support the view that the questioned and specimen
13 handwritings were made by the same person."
14 THE COMMISSIONER: So this is category B, strong evidence.
15 MR SUKUL: In category C, the words the expert uses are
16 these:
17 "In my opinion, there is some limited evidence that
18 he or she was the writer but it cannot be ruled out that
19 another person with a similar style of writing was
20 responsible, or in the case of signatures, in my
21 opinion, there is some limited evidence that the
22 signature is genuine but the possibility of simulation
23 cannot be ruled out."
24 Those words mean this:
25 "This phrase is used to indicate that the strength
20

1 of the evidence is weak. On the balance of
2 probabilities, the expert considers that the questioned
3 and specimen handwritings were written by the same
4 person or that the signature in question is genuine."
5 That is category C.
6 In category D, the words the expert uses are these:
7 "The evidence is inconclusive. I consider that
8 a reliable opinion as to whether he wrote it cannot be
9 expressed."
10 What those words mean is at the beginning of
11 page 611:
12 "The expert is unable to offer any reliable
13 indication as to whether or not the questioned and
14 specimen handwritings were written by the same person."
15 Then category E, the expert says this:
16 "In my opinion, there is some limited evidence that
17 he or she was not the writer but the possibility that he
18 or she did write it cannot be ruled out. Or in the case
19 of signatures, in my opinion there is some limited
20 evidence that the signature is a forgery but the
21 possibility that it is genuine cannot be ruled out."
22 Those words mean this:
23 "The phrase is used to indicate that the strength of
24 the evidence is weak. On the balance of probabilities
25 the expert considers that the questioned and specimen
21

1 handwritings were written by different persons or the
2 signature in question is forged."
3 In category F the words the expert may use are
4 these:
5 "In my opinion, there is strong but not conclusive
6 evidence that he or she was not the writer. I therefore
7 consider it unlikely that he or she was responsible."
8 "The expert cannot completely exclude the
9 possibility that the subject was responsible, and the
10 reasons for the limitations would normally be explained
11 in the body of the report. The expert's opinions will,
12 however, provide strong evidence to support the view
13 that the questioned and specimen handwritings were made
14 by different persons.
15 Finally, category G:
16 "In my opinion, there is conclusive evidence that he
17 or she was not the writer. I therefore consider that
18 the possibility of him or her being responsible can be
19 excluded."
20 This means that the expert has formed a definite
21 opinion that the questioned and specimen handwritings
22 were written by different persons.
23 THE COMMISSIONER: Drawing that together, it seems to me
24 there are in essence four categories: category A is
25 conclusive evidence, it is either conclusive evidence
22

1 that two documents were written by the same hand or
2 conclusive that they were not.
3 There is then category B: strong evidence which can
4 be either strong evidence that they were or strong
5 evidence that they were not written by the same hand.
6 Category C: limited evidence, which means on the
7 balance of probabilities it was either written by the
8 same hand or not, depending...
9 Then there is a fourth category, which is simply
10 inconclusive evidence, cannot say either way.
11 Could we go back please to page 604.
12 Appendix SC/A1 starts at page 612; is that right?
13 MR SUKUL: That is right.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: What we have there is a list of
15 declarations of identity, running to probably about
16 seven or eight pages. Something like that.
17 MR SUKUL: Yes, I think I counted 162. It finishes at 618.
18 The expert examined 16 DOIs from appendix A1.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: Let us see what the schedule actually
20 says. It gives a DOI number. It then says:
21 "Witness name, witness address."
22 So you have two names for the witness, it rather
23 looks as if under "Witness" is the first name of the
24 witness and "Name" is the second.
25 MR SUKUL: Yes.
23

1 THE COMMISSIONER: We then have the witness address.
2 MR SUKUL: We do.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: We then have these As and Bs and Cs,
4 which will become apparent when we look at the body of
5 the report, is that right?
6 MR SUKUL: That is correct, sir, yes.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: Let us go back to the body of the report
8 and to page 604.
9 MR SUKUL: At paragraph 6 of his report, Mr Cosslett says
10 under the heading of "Findings":
11 "The witness names and addresses on the DOI forms
12 are in a large number of different names."
13 Sir, that is evident from those pages you were
14 looking at:
15 "However, with the exception of DOI 1295 and 2939
16 they correspond closely from one document to another
17 and, in my opinion, there is conclusive evidence that
18 they have been written by one person. These entries are
19 shown by a letter A in appendix SC/A1."
20 That conclusion he has come to is really conclusive.
21 It does not mention 162 but I have counted them to be
22 162.
23 THE COMMISSIONER: So it will be 162, because two of them he
24 says are not.
25 MR SUKUL: In straight parlance he says 106 of the DOIs.
24

1 The witness names and address, that is important, just
2 the witness name and address were written in the same
3 hand. It is set out with all the As you can see in the
4 appendix.
5 It carries on, it says this as paragraph 7:
6 "The witness signatures on each of the DOIs contain
7 a smaller amount of handwriting and are not always
8 directly comparable to the witness name and address on
9 that document."
10 Sir, he has now gone one stage further. He is
11 looking now to make a comparison between the witness
12 name and address and he is looking to see what he can do
13 by comparing the name and address to the signature,
14 which perhaps is much more important as far as this case
15 is concerned.
16 "For example, the witness signature on DOI 2948 is
17 written in a lower case cursive style."
18 Would it be a good idea to look at 2948?
19 THE COMMISSIONER: This is Mystery A?
20 MR SUKUL: Everything here is Mystery A.
21 THE COMMISSIONER: These are in numerical order?
22 MR SUKUL: Indeed they are.
23 Sir, the expert makes the point just distinguishing
24 2948. He says this:
25 "The witness signature on 2948 is written, that is
25

1 the signature, in a lower case cursive style", joined up
2 handwriting, "whereas the name and address is in block
3 lettering. When examining witness signatures I have
4 compared them to the group handwriting referred to in
5 section 6."
6 Section 6 was the 162 that he had examined. He has
7 grouped the 160 handwritings, so to speak. That is for
8 the bulk of the witness statement names and addresses,
9 which is the point.
10 He is simply saying that the cursive style, which is
11 set out in 2948, is distinguished from the rest of the
12 comparison he made.
13 Then he says this in paragraph 8:
14 "Whilst it is necessary to consider each witness
15 signature separately, I have noted that many witness
16 signatures have common surnames and have therefore
17 additionally considered the witness signatures with some
18 common surnames all together."
19 He is focusing on the common surnames but on the
20 witness signature, which is quite important.
21 "I have found significant similarities between the
22 following witness signatures and the handwriting grouped
23 in the original 160 and in my opinion there is
24 conclusive evidence that they have all been written by
25 the same person."
26

1 THE COMMISSIONER: He then sets out a list of 34 people.
2 MR SUKUL: 34 witness signatures and, sir, I keep mentioning
3 witness signatures because that is where the deal really
4 is, for the want of better words, because it is the
5 signatures that import the allegations of forgery.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: Indeed, indeed. There are 34 different
7 witness signatures apparently by the same hand.
8 MR SUKUL: That is what I have counted.
9 THE COMMISSIONER: And it appears that whoever has been
10 responsible for using these 34 different names has been
11 quite happy to use the names both of men and of women.
12 MR SUKUL: I have noticed that and I took guidance about the
13 names from Mr Ayoub Khan.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: I obviously assume that all the names
15 that are Begum are ladies' names. Would I be right in
16 thinking that on 606 the three Khatun names are ladies'
17 names?
18 MR SUKUL: Khatun, Nessa --
19 THE COMMISSIONER: There are three Khatuns and three Nessas.
20 And Farhana Sultana I would take to be a lady's name.
21 So what we have really is someone, we do not know who he
22 or she is, but who was quite prepared to adopt 34
23 different identities.
24 MR SUKUL: Indeed, sir, and the evidence here is conclusive.
25 We begin by saying conclusive evidence of 34 witness
27

1 signatures written by the same hand. That is the upshot
2 of all that.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: If you go to 606:
4 "There are also a number of witness signatures..."
5 MR SUKUL: Yes. I take it that would be in addition to
6 those we have just looked at.
7 "... here there is either strong or limited evidence
8 that they have also been written by the same person and
9 are shown by the characters B and C respectively",
10 in the same appendix we looked at.
11 "Many of the witness signatures are scribbled and
12 therefore I have not examined them all in detail."
13 THE COMMISSIONER: If we look at page 613, there are three
14 columns towards the right of the page: voters sig,
15 witness sig, witness name, address. So what we need
16 here is witness signature, so we have Bs and Cs as well
17 as the As. The As are all listed and we have gone
18 through those.
19 MR SUKUL: I have separated the Bs, and the expert found
20 strong evidence probative of the fact that Mystery A
21 wrote the name and address and made the signatures on 40
22 DOIs. He has B on 40 DOIs, forgetting the ones that
23 we have just talked about.
24 THE COMMISSIONER: Let me make a note of that, Mr Sukul.
25 I will just make a note to say that Bs, there are 40Bs.
28

1 MR SUKUL: That is in the category -- in addition to that,
2 these 40Bs carry a total of 36 individual names. So the
3 Nessas and the Sultanas and so on have gone by
4 the wayside now. We have 36 additional names in the
5 category B of evidence. That is under the heading of
6 "Strong Evidence". I am adding these 36 names to the 34
7 names we have found before.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: That is 70.
9 MR SUKUL: That is in the category of strong evidence.
10 THE COMMISSIONER: So that is conceivably two people using
11 70 identities between them.
12 MR SUKUL: Quite possibly so, but really at this stage --
13 THE COMMISSIONER: The only comment one can make is that
14 whatever else you may say of electoral fraud, it does
15 involve a certain amount of hard work, no doubt
16 considered by those who are doing it in a good cause.
17 MR SUKUL: There is even harder work to come.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but you are paid to work hard.
19 MR SUKUL: Paragraph 10:
20 "Further to the above, I have considered again
21 witness signatures where they have a common surname but
22 have a large number of first names. For example, the
23 witness signatures in the name Ali are in 16 different
24 names, but all show similarities from one to the other,
25 and to the grouped handwriting in section 6", which
29

1 of course is the original comparison that he did. He
2 has picked out all the Alis from all those 160 that he
3 looked at:
4 "... and would not in my opinion have been signed by
5 such a large number of different persons."
6 He is really saying that in effect you would expect
7 all the Alis to be signed by the same person Ali, but
8 not a large number of different persons.
9 "Similarly the signatures in the names Begum are in
10 21 different names and again could not in my opinion
11 have been signed by such a large number of writers."
12 Before I come to the Ali and the Begum, the note
13 that I have made is that the category of limited
14 evidence -- sir, bearing in mind what he says about
15 limited evidence you might not be too interested in what
16 the handwriting expert found.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: Let us go on to the next sections.
18 MR SUKUL: With respect to the voter's signatures [this is
19 the very first time that we are coming into the real
20 serious stuff, which is the voters' signatures], the
21 following show significant similarities to the group
22 handwriting in section 6, and in my opinion there is
23 conclusive evidence that they have been written by
24 the same person.
25 At paragraph 11 he is just saying these DOIs, this
30

1 is in the name of (inaudible), these are voter
2 signatures. One person has written Salema Begum, Assad
3 Miah, Hafizur Rahman, Ahmed Ali and Sangida Sultana.
4 One person has made those signatures. He is not saying
5 they have made them, he is saying there is conclusive
6 evidence that one person has made those five signatures;
7 in other words just those five have simply been forged.
8 Then he has taken another five and says there is
9 strong evidence -- and again these are voters'
10 signatures so we have another five which is forgery of
11 five more signatures. Then limited evidence, the expert
12 says, and there is a number of them: 18.
13 He says on a balance of probability the signatures
14 of --
15 THE COMMISSIONER: I think that is 16 people fact. We have
16 to bear in mind that limited evidence is nonetheless
17 evidence that Mr Cosslett considers is, on the balance
18 of probabilities, they are the same. That is his lowest
19 category.
20 MR SUKUL: Consistent with what we usually refer to as the
21 civil standard.
22 He says in paragraph 12:
23 "Some of the other voters' signatures all show
24 similarities to the group handwriting but it is not
25 possible to assess the significance of these findings."
31

1 Sir, at paragraph 12 one gets the impression that
2 Mr Cosslett is being extremely cautious, and quite
3 rightly so, because the stakes are so high and these are
4 very serious proceedings but I am just attracted to the
5 phrase "shows similarities". One might think those
6 similarities are there for reasons which have been the
7 subject of this trial.
8 Sir, he summarises the report at paragraph 13. He
9 says this:
10 "In my opinion there is conclusive evidence that the
11 witness name and addresses, with the two exceptions, on
12 the DOI forms in Appendix A have been written by one
13 person."
14 That is 160 DOIs: one man, Mystery A, who apparently
15 becomes a lady from time to time, but he writes it
16 160 -- I am just thinking that when all of this was
17 happening, if it took a minute to do one, that is 160
18 minutes.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: It is very labour intensive, as I pointed
20 out.
21 MR SUKUL: I do not know what was flowing at that time.
22 MR HAYES: Interesting, fascinating as it always is to
23 listen to my learned friend, Mr Sukul, can we stick to
24 the evidence rather than commenting on it.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: We are both reproved. Paragraph 14.
32

1 MR SUKUL: "There is also some evidence that the majority of
2 the witness signatures have also been written by the
3 same person."
4 So I am even more attracted to this because this is
5 a dimension of the arena of forgery. In some instances
6 this evidence is conclusive but in others it is more
7 limited.
8 15 and 16 are of slightly less evidential strength
9 than what we talked about before but nonetheless
10 important from the point of view of the assessment of
11 the evidence as a whole.
12 "There is also some evidence of varying strengths
13 that the voter's signature on a number of the DOIs has
14 been written by the author of the witness entries."
15 He says varying strengths, and the varying strengths
16 are denoted by the letters A, B and C set out in his
17 appendix:
18 "Further to the above, I cannot accept that either
19 the voter's signature or the witness signature have been
20 written by the number of persons whose names appear on
21 these forms."
22 He is casting a kind of catch-all aspersion there.
23 THE COMMISSIONER: Pausing there, these documents examined
24 by Mr Cosslett for his first report are the documents
25 that we have in the bundle marked "Mystery A".
33

1 MR SUKUL: We do. Those are the documents.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: Is it right also to put on the record
3 that at the scrutiny which I conducted at an earlier
4 stage of these proceedings we ascertained that the votes
5 in all the mystery categories, Mystery A, B and C and so
6 on, were cast for at least one Labour candidate?
7 MR SUKUL: Sir, yes.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: So that is Mystery A.
9 The next report I think is also dated 17th January,
10 which can be found at 612. I think we can go straight
11 to 616, which is the findings. Unless we need to look
12 at ... I think we had better have a look, please,
13 at the instruction on page 614 and then the findings on
14 616 onwards.
15 MR SUKUL: Just before I go to 614, you will remember the
16 phrase "varying strengths" that Mr Cosslett has used.
17 I think I may have served upon my friends, and I have
18 not given it to the DPP, but there is a schedule I did
19 and I am hoping to have admitted for the purposes of
20 your own contemplation at a later stage. This is
21 a spreadsheet situation where Mr Cosslett has gone A, C,
22 B or C, A, B, and I have made a little comment as to
23 what each of those letters mean and I have put on the
24 appropriate DOI number for the purposes of your own
25 convenience if you want to look at the DOI to see
34

1 exactly what he saw and made him come to that
2 conclusion. That is a matter I will come to in due
3 course but I have it here with me for service today.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: What we are concerned with here is
5 Mystery B, about which Mr Islam gave evidence. So
6 we will take this absolutely straight without comment, I
7 think.
8 MR SUKUL: Page 614:
9 "This report is one of a series of reports prepared
10 on the joint instructions of Midlands Solicitors, Steel
11 & Shamash Solicitors and CMS Cameron McKenna in
12 connection with case number M/307/04 and deals with the
13 document referred to in appendix B1 and B2, attached to
14 my letter of instructions.
15 "The scope of this report was to intercompare the
16 handwriting and signatures on various declaration of
17 identity forms together with the signature in the name
18 Mohammed Nazrul Islam on a copy of a Notice of Acting
19 dated 8th July 2004 as per my letter of instructions.
20 "The opinions I have expressed have been made on the
21 same basis as in my earlier reports and explained in
22 detail in my report, refer 24/05/A."
23 THE COMMISSIONER: Pausing there, what the expert is asked
24 to look at is a series of documents relating to the
25 election, declarations of identity, and what is taken as
35

1 being a known and genuine signature of Mr Islam.
2 MR SUKUL: Yes, sir, that is on the Notice of Acting.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: We assume the signature on the Notice of
4 Acting is a genuine signature of Mr Islam.
5 MR SUKUL: Indeed.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: And therefore unlike Mystery A we have
7 what might be termed a test sample.
8 MR SUKUL: We have indeed.
9 THE COMMISSIONER: Findings.
10 MR SUKUL: At paragraph 1 of Mr Cosslett's findings he says
11 this:
12 "I have found significant similarities between the
13 witness names and addresses on all the DOI forms, other
14 than DOI 2970, and in my opinion there is conclusive
15 evidence that these entries have been written by one
16 person. These entries are shown on the accompanying
17 appendix SC/B1."
18 THE COMMISSIONER: We have those at 625 through to 628. Can
19 you assist me, have you done a count of these?
20 MR SUKUL: 122, sir.
21 THE COMMISSIONER: Let us go back to paragraph 1 of the
22 findings.
23 MR SUKUL: 2. "I have also found that many of the witness
24 signatures also show significant similarities from one
25 to the other and to the handwriting referred to in
36

1 section 1."
2 Sir, he uses section 1 occasionally for the rest of
3 the report and 121 DOIs that he looked at in the first
4 instance, and of course he is now saying that witness
5 name and addresses are the same in those 122, save one,
6 and then he gets a bit critical when he talks about the
7 witness signatures.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: Right, paragraph 3.
9 MR SUKUL: "There are a number of DOI forms where the
10 witness is Nazrul Islam or MN Islam, N Islam et cetera,
11 of 16 Little Oaks Road. These signatures are in a mix
12 of block and cursive styles and within the cursive
13 signatures they have a mix of a simple vertical I or
14 a more stylised form. Taken together, in my opinion
15 there is conclusive evidence that the bulk of these
16 signatures are also by the same person, and this being
17 the person who wrote the name and address entries."
18 Possibly pause there?
19 THE COMMISSIONER: No, read on.
20 MR SUKUL: "The exception to this are the DOIs 1153 and 1450
21 where the signature is not quite as fluent and
22 a definite opinion is not possible. I do, however,
23 consider it unlikely that some other person was
24 responsible. I have indicated these signatures where
25 there is conclusive evidence with the letter A, those
37

1 with strong evidence with the letter B on Appendix SC/B1
2 under the heading 'Witness Signatures'.
3 "There are other witness signatures in the name
4 M Islam with the address of 22 Jardine Road. These
5 signatures correspond closely with those referred to in
6 section 3 and in my opinion there is again conclusive
7 evidence they have been written by the same person and
8 are shown with the letter A in Appendix SC/B1.
9 "My findings in relation to other witness signatures
10 are as follows:
11 "MH Ali of 9 Albert Road."
12 Mr Cosslett says this:
13 "This signature is short and written in a relatively
14 simple style. It is, however, similar to the name and
15 address entry on this form and the other grouped
16 handwriting and, in my opinion, there is some limited
17 evidence that it was also written by the same person.
18 Because of the small amount of handwriting, the
19 possibility that by chance some other person was
20 responsible cannot be excluded. The limited evidence is
21 denoted by the letter C on the appendix SC/B1."
22 Then Mr Cosslett looks at another witness, Mr Anwar
23 Ali of 72 Selton Road. That name occurs in five DOIs,
24 766 --
25 THE COMMISSIONER: We do not need the numbers, they are set
38

1 out.
2 MR SUKUL: "These are written in a stylised manner and are
3 not comparable with the handwriting on these forms.
4 These signatures are referred to in detail in my report
5 and referenced in my instruction in relation to appendix
6 C1 and C2."
7 Then he looks at MD Ashab. He gives the address and
8 the DOI numbers. There are seven DOIs.
9 "These signatures fall into two groups on the basis
10 of their character designs and fluency."
11 There is a group of four then there is a group of
12 three. The group of four he calls (i):
13 "The signatures in (i) above correspond closely to
14 the handwritten names and addresses grouped in
15 section 1", which is the original many DOIs that he
16 looked at "and there is in my opinion conclusive
17 evidence that they have been written by the same
18 person."
19 Sir, just to mention that the conclusive evidence is
20 this, that DOI 2019, 2297, 2298 and 3421 are written by
21 the same person who wrote on all those 122 DOIs. These
22 are signatures we are talking about here and then the
23 signatures in category 2 --
24 THE COMMISSIONER: Witness signatures?
25 MR SUKUL: These are witness signatures, indeed. But I am
39

1 focusing on the word "signatures" as opposed to just
2 bare entries. Mr Cosslett says in the category that he
3 has called (ii) that there is a poor fluency:
4 "They have either been written by some other person
5 or by the author of group (i) using a disguised style."
6 THE COMMISSIONER: Just read on I think. Keep comment on
7 this to a minimum because this is something about which
8 we have direct evidence from Mr Islam.
9 MR SUKUL: "I would add that the signatures in groups (i)
10 and (ii) together cannot all be accepted as having been
11 naturally written by one person."
12 Another witness, S Bibi of that address, and the DOI
13 number is given:
14 "This signature is short and of extremely poor
15 fluency. I cannot offer any opinion as to its
16 authorship."
17 THE COMMISSIONER: Would I be right in thinking that S Bibi
18 is a lady? I see Mr Khan nodding.
19 MR SUKUL: Then A Hamid, address given:
20 "It is not possible to make a fully effective
21 comparison between this signature and the handwriting
22 referred to in section 1 and the signatures linked to
23 this group. I have, however, found no obvious evidence
24 to link it to this group of writing."
25 There is another witness, MS Islam:
40

1 "These signatures are similar from one to the other
2 [and there are two signatures]. They differ in some
3 respects to those in the name Nazrul Islam referred to
4 in section 3 and 4 above. Whilst I cannot exclude the
5 possibility that they may have also been written by the
6 same person, I have I found no clear evidence of this."
7 Then the witness Kala Miah, many DOIs:
8 "These signatures fall into two groups on the basis
9 of their general character design and fluency. (i), two
10 DOIs. The signatures in group (i) are fluently written
11 and correspond to the grouped handwriting referred to
12 above and in my opinion there is conclusive evidence
13 that they have also been written by the same person and
14 have again been denoted by an A on Appendix SC/B1.
15 "The signatures in group (ii) above are of much
16 poorer fluency and differ from this grouped handwriting,
17 and the signatures in group (i) [slight mistake there
18 perhaps]. They have either been written by some other
19 person or by the author of group (i) using a disguised
20 style but I cannot determine which. I would add that
21 the signatures in group (i) and group of (ii) together
22 cannot all be accepted as having been naturally written
23 by one person.
24 "I have not considered the DOIs 2072 and 2073 in
25 detail as they are overwritten."
41

1 THE COMMISSIONER: Pausing there, making sense of that last
2 bit, the DOIs in group 1 are in Mr Cosslett's opinion
3 conclusively written by the same person as the bulk of
4 the documents, in other words by Mystery A?
5 MR SUKUL: Mystery B.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: I am sorry. Though the larger number in
7 (ii), he says they do not on the face of it appear to be
8 written by the same person, so they are either written
9 by the same person using a disguised hand or by
10 a different person.
11 MR SUKUL: But he cannot determine which.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: Assuming Mystery B is the author of (i),
13 then we have one of two scenarios, that the (ii) are
14 written by the same person attempting to disguise his
15 handwriting, or alternatively there are two people
16 signing in the name of Kala Miah of 25 Sutton Street.
17 MR SUKUL: Quite right.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.
19 MR SUKUL: Rafique Miah:
20 "These signatures are all similar from one to the
21 other. They differ from the grouped handwriting and
22 signatures and I have found no evidence to indicate they
23 were written by the author of this group although such
24 a possibility cannot be excluded."
25 Then MS Miah:
42

1 "This signature is written in a highly stylised
2 manner and cannot effectively be compared with the other
3 entries on the DOIs in this submission. No opinion as
4 to its authorship is possible."
5 Then Boshir Miah:
6 "The signature is short and written in a simple
7 style. No opinion as to its authorship is possible."
8 Shamsun Newar:
9 "These signatures are written in a relatively simple
10 style and are similar from one to the other. No opinion
11 as to whether they have been written by the author of
12 the grouped handwriting can be expressed."
13 Then Abdul Rahim:
14 "These signatures fall into two groups [a group of
15 three and a group of four]. The signatures in group (i)
16 are fluently written and correspond to the grouped
17 handwriting referred to above and, in my opinion, there
18 is conclusive evidence that they have been written by
19 the same person. These signatures are denoted by an A
20 in the appendix.
21 "The signatures in group (ii) above are of much
22 poorer fluency and differ from this handwriting and the
23 signatures in group (i). They have either been written
24 by some other person or by the author of group 1 using
25 a disguised style but I cannot determine which. I would
43

1 add that the signatures in groups (i) and (ii) together
2 cannot all be accepted as having been naturally written
3 by one person."
4 Then there is MD Shomin:
5 "These signatures are similar from one to the other.
6 They differ in their fluency from the grouped
7 handwriting and I have found no obvious evidence to
8 indicate they have been written by the same person but
9 such a possibility cannot be completely excluded."
10 He deals now with voters' signatures:
11 "The voters' signatures on the DOIs are extremely
12 variable. Many of them are of poor fluency or
13 illegible. Some of these signatures show a few
14 similarities to the grouped handwriting but the
15 significance of this cannot be assessed. The evidence
16 as to whether any of them have been written by the
17 author of the entries denoted by an A on Appendix SC/B1
18 is inconclusive.
19 "In addition to the DOIs, I have also examined
20 a copy of the Notice of Acting of Mohammed Nazrul Islam
21 dated 8th July 2004. I have assumed this signature to
22 be a genuine signature of Mohammed Nazrul Islam. This
23 signature corresponds closely with the witness signature
24 on DOI 1215. Such a similarity cannot have occurred by
25 coincidence and either Mohammed Nazrul Islam signed DOI
44

1 1215 or a deliberate attempt has been made by some other
2 person to copy his signature. On the basis of a single
3 copy specimen a definite opinion is not possible, but
4 there is in my opinion limited evidence these signatures
5 were written by the same person."
6 Then, sir, Mr Cosslett gives his summary and says
7 this:
8 "In my opinion, there is conclusive evidence that
9 the witness signature, name and address entries denoted
10 by the letter A on Appendix SC/B1 have been written by
11 one person."
12 In paragraph 9 he says this:
13 "The witness signatures in each of the names MD
14 Ashab, Kala Miah and Abdul Rahim fall into two groups.
15 In each case these signatures cannot be accepted as the
16 natural signature of one person. The evidence as to
17 whether any of the voters' signatures were written by
18 the author of the witness entries is inconclusive and
19 there is limited evidence that the signature on the
20 Notice of Acting has been written by the same person as
21 the witness on DOI 1215."
22 THE COMMISSIONER: That is Mystery B.
23 MR SUKUL: That takes care of Mystery B, sir.
24 THE COMMISSIONER: The next report we have is also
25 17th January, starting at 629. This is going to be
45

1 Mystery C, is it?
2 MR SUKUL: Indeed.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: 631, instructions.
4 MR SUKUL: It says this:
5 "This report is one of a series of reports prepared
6 on the joint instructions of Midlands Solicitors, Steel
7 & Shamash Solicitors and CMS Cameron McKenna in
8 connection with case number M/307/04 and deals with the
9 document referred to in appendix C1 and C2 attached to
10 my letter of instructions. The purpose of my
11 examination was to determine whether any of the entries
12 on these items share common authorship as per my letter
13 of instruction. The opinions I have expressed are made
14 on the same basis as my early report, reference
15 24/05/A."
16 THE COMMISSIONER: 632, I think, at the bottom.
17 MR SUKUL: Mr Cosslett starts his findings in paragraph 1:
18 "The documents examined are all declaration of
19 identity documents and bear a voter signature, a witness
20 signature, and a witness name and address. I have found
21 significant similarities in the character design,
22 proportions and fluency of the witness names and
23 addresses on a number of these declaration of identity
24 forms and, in my opinion, there is conclusive evidence
25 that they have all been written by one person. The
46

1 specific forms that this opinion refers to are shown in
2 appendix SC/C1 where the use of the letter A denotes the
3 forms to which this opinion applies.
4 "A number of documents in appendix C1 and C2 are
5 signed in the name of Mohammed Anwar Ali."
6 THE COMMISSIONER: Let us have a look, please, at the
7 schedule at 641.
8 641, we have two sheets of -- can you tell me how
9 many there are?
10 MR SUKUL: This is one I did not calculate.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps we can at some stage. At a rough
12 guess we are probably talking about 50.
13 MR SUKUL: 32 and 18. About 50.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: And six of them are blank and the rest
15 are in the A category.
16 MR SUKUL: I see the blanks.
17 THE COMMISSIONER: So that what he is saying is that bar
18 those six the witness name and address has been written
19 by the same person.
20 MR SUKUL: He says that in 2, then in 3 he simply says:
21 "A number of the documents are in the name of
22 Mohammed Anwar Ali. These signatures are all in lower
23 case connected, cursive, style and so cannot effectively
24 be compared with the name and address entries referred
25 to in section 2 above, which are all in block letters."
47

1 Then in paragraph 4 he says this:
2 "I have found significant similarities between the
3 signatures in the name Md Anwar Ali on the following DOI
4 forms, and in my opinion there is conclusive evidence
5 that they have all been written by one person."
6 Then he lists all the DOIs halfway down page 634.
7 THE COMMISSIONER: Let us have a look at this. Let us take
8 some at random. The first numbers on 641 are various
9 combinations of Mohammed and Anwar and Ali, and down to
10 950 all give the same address of Ettington Road.
11 951, so over the page. I have not checked every one
12 on the list but the majority of the signatures that
13 we have there correspond with the address in Ettington
14 Road.
15 MR SUKUL: Yes.
16 THE COMMISSIONER: Not totally in the sense that there are
17 some Ettington Roads that are not on the list, but I
18 think there is nothing on the list which is not
19 Ettington Road, if you see what I mean. Paragraph 5.
20 MR SUKUL: The signature on the DOI numbered 3048 is similar
21 in a number of respects to those referred to above, but
22 there are a few differences, and it is not as fluent in
23 places. It has either been written by the author of
24 those referred to in section 4 or is a deliberate
25 attempt to copy such a signature. I have been unable to
48

1 determine which is more likely.
2 "The signatures on DOI numbers 998 and 999 are in
3 a more abbreviated form written as A Ali. I cannot
4 offer any reliable opinion as to whether they were
5 written by the author of the signatures in section 4.
6 "The DOI numbers [and there are four numbers given
7 there] are witnessed in the name Newar Ali. The witness
8 signature on 4549 is written as Newar Ali in full.
9 There is no break between these names. Part of this
10 signature, the 'war Ali', can be compared with that on
11 the 'Md Anwar Ali' signatures in section 4.
12 "I have found a number of similarities between the
13 Newar Ali signature on the DOI number 4549 and the
14 signatures in section 4. In my opinion there is some
15 limited evidence it was also written by the same person.
16 "The Newar Ali signatures on the DOI numbers [given]
17 are written with a break between the two names. These
18 signatures also show a few similarities to those
19 referred to in section 4, but the evidence as to whether
20 they were written by the same person is inconclusive.
21 "It is not possible to offer any opinion as to
22 whether the witness signatures on the remaining DOIs,
23 those numbered [given] have been written by the same
24 person as any of the other entries grouped above."
25 Then paragraph 11:
49

1 "The voter signatures on the DOI each contain only
2 a small amount of handwriting, which in many cases is
3 either illegible or of a poor fluency. Whilst I could
4 not exclude the possibility that the author of the
5 witness names and addresses referred to in section 2
6 (and Appendix SC/C1) wrote some of them, I have found no
7 clear evidence of this.
8 "The witness names and addresses on the DOIs
9 numbered 2740 and 2750 differ from the handwriting
10 grouped in Appendix SC/C1 and have been written by other
11 persons. The witness name and address entries on the
12 DOI numbered 766, 998, 999, 1042, 3048 are dealt with in
13 my report in relation to the documents in appendix B1."
14 And the short summary, two paragraphs:
15 "In my opinion, there is conclusive evidence that
16 the witness name and address entries shown by the letter
17 A in Appendix SC/C1 have been written by one person.
18 "In my opinion, there is conclusive evidence that
19 the Anwar Ali signatures in section 4 have all been
20 written by one person. There is also some limited
21 evidence that this person wrote the Newar Ali signature
22 on the DOI numbered 4549."
23 THE COMMISSIONER: Let us go back to paragraph 12:
24 "The witness name and address on the declarations of
25 identity [and there follow five numbers] are dealt with
50

1 in my report in relation to documents in appendix B1."
2 So if we go back and look at appendix B1, if we look
3 at 766 on page 625, 766 gives the witness name as Anwar
4 Ali of Ettington Road. This is a category A, as to the
5 name and address having been written by the same person
6 as all the others.
7 MR SUKUL: I see it, sir.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: 998, we find is Anwar Ali, this time at
9 Selston Road -- 72 Selston Road is one of the appendix
10 C. I think it is Newar Ali on occasions in appendix C.
11 If we look at that, Mystery B has written on that, in
12 Mr Cosslett's opinion, both the name and address of
13 Anwar Ali and the signature. 998, they are both
14 category A in those two columns. So far so good.
15 999 is another Anwar Ali at Selston Road, it is
16 category A for the witness name and address but nothing
17 for the signature.
18 Over the page, 1042, Anwar Ali of Ettington Road,
19 which is an A for the name and address but not the
20 signature. And 3048.
21 MR SUKUL: The bottom of 627.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: That is another category A. If -- I say
23 if because this is one of the issues I have to try -- if
24 Mystery B is Mr Islam, then Mystery B has, according to
25 Mr Cosslett, written the name and two addresses of
51

1 Mr Anwar Ali in the B documents and has on one occasion
2 signed it.
3 MR SUKUL: Just on the one occasion.
4 THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Mr Sukul, this is all very dry
5 stuff, obviously, and I think the mid-morning break is
6 upon us. I make it five to 12.
7 (11.55 am)
8 (A short break)
9 (12.10 pm)
10 THE COMMISSIONER: The next report is Mystery D, I think.
11 MR SUKUL: I do not have a Mystery D. 643, sir.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: You are quite right, 643 is Mystery E,
13 perhaps there is not a D. There is a Mystery F
14 somewhere else. Did D turn out not to be a mystery
15 after all? Do not worry, I am merely disconcerting you.
16 Page 645, the instructions.
17 MR SUKUL: "This report has been prepared on the joint
18 instructions of Midlands Solicitors, Steel & Shamash and
19 CMS Cameron McKenna in connection with case number
20 M/307/04 and deals only with the documents referred to
21 in appendix E1 and E2 of my letter of instructions,
22 dated 10th January 2005.
23 "My examinations in this report relate to the
24 handwritings and signatures on the DOI forms in appendix
25 E1 and the applications to vote by post in appendix E2."
52

1 THE COMMISSIONER: The findings start on 646.
2 MR SUKUL: In paragraph 1 of the findings:
3 "I have found significant similarities between the
4 witness name and address entries on all the DOIs (other
5 than the witness name on DOI 1613) and the witness name
6 and address --
7 THE COMMISSIONER: That has been changed on mine.
8 MR SUKUL: "Voter's name and address entries in section 1 of
9 the applications to vote. In my opinion, there is
10 conclusive evidence that they have all been written by
11 one person."
12 THE COMMISSIONER: Pausing there, what we are doing here,
13 Mr Sukul, is a slightly different exercise from the last
14 one. We are comparing not only declarations of identity
15 but with applications for a postal vote. I do not think
16 there is a schedule attached to this one, but perhaps
17 there is.
18 MR SUKUL: No, sir, we have looked. He did not provide
19 a schedule.
20 THE COMMISSIONER: Be that as it may, I have E in the bundle
21 of documents.
22 MR SUKUL: He says this:
23 "The witness signatures on the DOIs in the name of
24 Ahmed..."
25 He set out the numbers there, 21, I think.
53

1 THE COMMISSIONER: I make it 18, but it does not matter.
2 MR SUKUL: "... are written in a stylised manner and cannot
3 be compared with the handwriting above. The Ahmed
4 witness signatures on the following DOIs are fluently
5 written and similar one to the other. In my opinion,
6 there is conclusion of evidence that they have been
7 written by one person."
8 Sir, there are the DOIs that he talks about, he has
9 listed them.
10 Then he says this:
11 "The Ahmed witness signature on DOI 1065 is more
12 scribbled than those referred to in section 3. Whilst
13 it may also be written by the same person, a reliable
14 opinion of its authorship is not possible.
15 "The Ahmed witness signatures on the following DOIs
16 have been written with a failing pen [three of them].
17 Because of this, no definite opinion is possible, but
18 there is in my opinion strong evidence that at least
19 those on DOIs 5039 and 5040 have also been written by
20 the author of the signatures in section 3 above.
21 "The witness name and signature on DOI 1613 are
22 in the name of J Singh. Both these entries are written
23 in a lower case style and there is strong evidence they
24 have been written by one person. It has not been
25 possible to effectively compare these entries with the
54

1 witness name and address entries grouped in section 1
2 or the Ahmed signatures as they do not contain the same
3 characters. No opinion as to whether they were written
4 by the author of the grouped handwriting or the Ahmed
5 signatures can be expressed."
6 Paragraph 7:
7 "The Mohan witness signature on DOI 1612 is written
8 with a failing pen and not all of its detail can be
9 determined. It shows a few similarities to the grouped
10 handwriting in section 1. Whilst it is not possible to
11 offer any definite opinion, there is limited evidence it
12 was also written by the same person.
13 "The voter signature on DOI 1065 shows a number of
14 significant similarities to the Ahmed witness signatures
15 in section 3. Whilst no definite opinion is possible,
16 there is in my opinion some limited evidence it was also
17 written by the same person.
18 "A number of the other voter signatures on the DOIs
19 show similarities to the handwriting grouped in
20 section 1 above, particularly the following."
21 And there are five DOIs set out there:
22 "In each case there are features that cannot be
23 matched or cannot be compared to the grouped
24 handwriting. No opinion as to the authorship of any of
25 the voters' signatures on the DOIs can be expressed
55

1 (other than 1065 referred to in section 8 above).
2 "With respect to the application to vote forms, the
3 handwritings in sections 1 of these forms have been
4 referred to in section 1 of my report above.
5 The signatures on each of these five forms show
6 similarities to the handwriting grouped in section 1.
7 Each of these signatures (and particularly that in the
8 name of M Bi) contains only a small amount of
9 handwriting and there are features of each signature
10 which cannot be matched in the grouped handwriting.
11 It is not possible with any confidence to link any of
12 these signatures on the individual basis with the
13 grouped handwriting, and the evidence as to their
14 authorship is consequently inconclusive.
15 "However, considering all the five signatures
16 together, I would not expect the signatures from five
17 separate individuals to show such similarities by
18 coincidence, and I consider it unlikely these five
19 signatures can all be written by different persons.
20 "Because of the nature of my findings in this case
21 I have not attempted to put my findings in a appendix."
22 Then in the summary he says this:
23 "In my opinion, there is conclusive evidence that
24 the name and address entries on the DOIs in appendix E1
25 (other than the name on 16130 and the entries in
56

1 sections 1 of the applications to vote in appendix E2
2 have all been written by one person. There is
3 conclusive evidence that the Ahmed signatures referred
4 to in section 3 have been written by one person. There
5 is strong evidence that those on DOIs 39 and 40 have
6 also been written by this person. There is limited
7 evidence that the voter's signature on 1065 has been
8 written by the author of the Ahmed signatures."
9 He says this:
10 "The five signatures on the applications to vote
11 show similarities from one to the other and to the
12 handwriting on the bodies of these forms and the witness
13 entries on the DOIs. In my opinion, it is unlikely that
14 five other persons would sign in such similar style both
15 to each other and to the grouped handwriting by
16 coincidence."
17 THE COMMISSIONER: Let us just take an example. Let us look
18 at section E of the B, C, D, E file.
19 They are not quite in order, in my copy at least,
20 because the first document is 1613 and the second
21 document is 1612. Let us look at 1612. 1612 is the
22 signature of the voter is a Mr Sarkari -- I think it is
23 a Mr. The application to vote in that name is the next
24 document.
25 MR SUKUL: It is.
57

1 THE COMMISSIONER: So what Mr Cosslett is saying is that the
2 name and address of witness on the DOI and the name and
3 address of voter on the application are by the same
4 hand.
5 MR SUKUL: He says that.
6 THE COMMISSIONER: What he also says is if we look at the
7 signatures on the applications to vote by post, his view
8 is that there are similarities between them which go
9 beyond the coincidental and he does not think they were
10 all written by different people.
11 MR SUKUL: That is what he says.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: Tell me, if we look at the application to
13 vote by post in the name of Sarkari Batsuf, Norris Road,
14 the ballot paper -- the application to vote originally
15 said:
16 "Send it to my address where I am registered to
17 vote."
18 That has been scrubbed out and the ballot paper is
19 to be sent to 289 Witton Road. 289 Witton Road is? Do
20 we know anything about 289 Witton Road?
21 MR SUKUL: The campaign office.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: It is not the campaign office, is it?
23 It is a shop, is it?
24 MR SUKUL: That is what I am told, sir.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: Anyway, this gentleman has had his voting
58

1 form sent to another address. It is perhaps not without
2 interest that the person who has allegedly witnessed it
3 would appear to live next door in 291 Witton Road.
4 Well, well.
5 We then look at the next one up, which is 1060.
6 A similar pattern is displayed on all these. We have an
7 application to vote in the same handwriting as the name
8 and address of the DOI, though most of the applications
9 to vote, apart from the one I have just referred to,
10 seem to require the ballot paper to be sent to the
11 address of the voter.
12 A quick glance would show, I think, that all the
13 applications to vote are dated 6th May. Is that right?
14 MR SUKUL: Yes.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: So that part of all those documents are
16 written in the same hand and --
17 MR SUKUL: They are all dated the same date.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Let us turn to document F. Do
19 I have documents F, Mr Sukul? They are obviously not in
20 the B, C, D, E file.
21 MR SUKUL: You should have a file that says F, H, I and J.
22 Sir, you can have this one.
23 THE COMMISSIONER: I am fairly confident that I have not had
24 F, H, I and J, so I had better hang on to this one.
25 MR SUKUL: I will just do the second paragraph of
59

1 instructions:
2 "The purpose of my examinations in this case was to
3 intercompare the handwriting and the signatures on the
4 DOI forms in appendix F1 and the signature on the
5 application to vote relating to Sujon Miah of 56 Little
6 Oaks Road, as in Appendix F2."
7 Then the finding, Mr Cosslett says this:
8 "I have found significant similarities between the
9 witness names and addresses on the DOI forms [and the
10 number is set out there]. In my opinion, there is
11 conclusive evidence they have all been written by one
12 person."
13 THE COMMISSIONER: This is a very long list. It looks to me
14 like ...
15 MR SUKUL: 43.
16 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
17 MR SUKUL: 44, sir.
18 THE COMMISSIONER: Right.
19 MR SUKUL: 44 DOIs.
20 "In my opinion, there is conclusive evidence that
21 they have all been written by one person. The witness
22 signatures on the DOI forms referred to in section 1 are
23 also similar from one to the other and again have, in my
24 opinion, also been written by one person. The degree of
25 comparison between these witness signatures and the
60

1 names and addresses is somewhat limited but the
2 signatures show a number of similarities to the names
3 and addresses, and I have not found obvious evidence to
4 suggest they were written by a different person. There
5 is, in my opinion, strong evidence that the witness
6 signatures, names and addresses have all been written by
7 the same person.
8 "The initial S of the signature on the application
9 to vote has been written using a badly inking pen and
10 has in part been overwritten. This signature on the
11 application to vote differs significantly in its
12 character design, proportions and fluency to the
13 signatures and names on the DOI forms in sections 1 and
14 2. I have found no evidence to suggest that the
15 application to vote was signed by the same person as the
16 DOI forms and, indeed, in my opinion, there is
17 conclusive evidence that they were written by different
18 persons.
19 "The voter's signature on DOI 1093 is in the name of
20 S Miah. This signature appears similar in a number of
21 respects to the witness signatures on the DOIs in
22 section 2, but there are also differences. It is not
23 possible to assess the significance of these features
24 and, consequently, no opinion as to whether it was
25 written by same person can be expressed.
61

1 "The remaining voters' signatures on the DOI forms
2 are in a range of different names and some of them are
3 scribbled to the point of illegibility. It has not been
4 possible to make effective comparisons between any of
5 these signatures and the handwriting grouped in
6 section 1. The evidence as to whether any of them were
7 written by the same person is inconclusive."
8 He sets out findings in a summary:
9 "In my opinion there is conclusive evidence that the
10 witness names and addresses on the DOI forms referred to
11 in Appendix F1 were written by one person, and strong
12 evidence that the person who wrote these entries also
13 wrote the witness signatures on these forms.
14 "The signature in the name of Sujon Miah on the
15 application to vote referred to in appendix F2 differs
16 significantly from those on the DOI forms, and in my
17 opinion there is conclusive evidence it was written by
18 some other person.
19 "It is not possible to determine whether any of the
20 voters' signatures on the DOI forms were written by the
21 same person as the witness entries."
22 THE COMMISSIONER: So what is being said here is that
23 if we take the application to vote of Sujon Miah as
24 being a genuine document then all the DOIs purportedly
25 signed by Sujon Miah are fake. The alternative is
62

1 of course vice versa, that Sujon Miah has signed a large
2 number of declarations of identity but somebody has
3 forged his application to vote, which is a theoretical
4 possibility, but no doubt everyone will address me on
5 the relative likelihood of the one and the other.
6 That is Mystery F. Now, mystery Y.
7 MR SUKUL: 661 and beyond.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: Do I have a Y bundle? It is quite
9 a short report of 17th January.
10 MR SUKUL: Yes. Sir, I am told by Mr Ayoub Khan that not
11 a great deal turns on the findings.
12 THE COMMISSIONER: Let us see what the report says. Read
13 the instructions and then the findings.
14 MR SUKUL: "My instructions in that appendix, appendix Y,
15 were to make the following specific comparisons: compare
16 the signature of voter on DOI 1997 and 4648 to determine
17 whether they have been written by the same person.
18 Secondly, compare the signatures of voter on DOI 1998
19 and 4649 to determine whether they have been written by
20 the same person."
21 Sir, there are four DOIs there and I will tell you
22 what he says in his findings:
23 "The voter's signatures on the DOI 1997 and 4648 are
24 highly complex, the first name in particular consisting
25 of a large number of overlapping pen movements. I have
63

1 not, however, been able to follow the direction of all
2 these pen strokes in either case.
3 "There is a strong pictorial similarity between the
4 voter's signatures on the DOI numbers 1997 and 4648,
5 but also a number of differences or areas of these
6 signatures where I cannot follow the directions and
7 sequence of pen movements.
8 "The voters' signatures on DOI 1998 and 4639 also
9 show a number of similarities from one to the other, but
10 again there are differences.
11 "I have considered a number of options to explain
12 the findings above. (i) In each case the pair of
13 signatures have been written by one person. (ii) In
14 each case the pair of signatures have been written by
15 two different persons who write in a somewhat different
16 style. (iii) In each pair, one signature has been
17 written as an attempt to copy a genuine signature as
18 found on the other document, (or both signatures are
19 attempts to forge an individual's signature).
20 "In the absence of further signatures, it is not
21 possible in either case to be certain which of these
22 alternatives apply, but in both cases I consider the
23 alternative at (i) the most likely."
24 (i), in each case a pair of signatures has been
25 written by one person.
64

1 THE COMMISSIONER: We then have the report of 20th January
2 at page 668. There is a chart here. The charts are set
3 out, are they not? The chart appears at page 676.
4 Let us have a look at the instructions.
5 MR SUKUL: "This report has been prepared on the joint
6 instructions of Midlands Solicitors, Steel and Shamash
7 and CMS Cameron McKenna. It deals with some of the
8 documents which appear in chart A1. I have in this
9 instance considered the application to vote forms which
10 appear in this chart, where the corresponding DOI
11 document is listed in appendix A1."
12 I do not know if we will be flicking backwards and
13 forwards here.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: I expect so.
15 MR SUKUL: "The purpose of my comparisons in this case was
16 to determine whether the voter's signature on the
17 application to vote could have been written by the same
18 person as the corresponding voter's signature and the
19 DOI."
20 That is what he was asked to do.
21 This is what he found:
22 "The signatures in the names of Alifyan Bibi of 60
23 Ettington Road and Konori Bibi of 8 Emscote Road on the
24 application to vote forms are shown by a cross. On the
25 corresponding DOI forms (numbers 2977 and 4241), there
65

1 is also a cross and the name written in full against the
2 voter signature. Whilst each pair of crosses may have
3 been written by the same person, clearly the name
4 written in full cannot be considered as having been made
5 by the same person."
6 That is what he found, comparing 2977 and 4241.
7 "2. With respect to the other pairs of signatures.
8 (i.e. the signature on the application to vote and the
9 corresponding voter's signature on the DOI form) I have
10 considered whether it is acceptable that they could have
11 been written by the same person taking into account the
12 various factors detailed above. I have found a number
13 of pairs of signatures where there is some degree of
14 correspondence. The degree of correspondence varies
15 from one pair of signatures to another, some correspond
16 very closely whereas others do show wider variation, but
17 where it is feasible, given the factors outlined above,
18 that they may have been written by the same person.
19 These pairs of signatures are shown in the appendix
20 SC/CHART A1/1/1.
21 "The remaining pairs of signatures show far wider
22 variation and the proposition that they share common
23 authorship is not acceptable. In many instances the
24 voter's signature on the DOI forms are far more
25 skilfully written than the corresponding signatures on
66

1 the application form. If the signatures on the
2 application forms are typical of the writing ability of
3 the individual they would not possess the skill to have
4 signed the DOI. These pairs of signatures are shown on
5 the chart 2."
6 THE COMMISSIONER: 678 is the page reference.
7 MR SUKUL: Did you want to look at that?
8 THE COMMISSIONER: I have looked at it.
9 MR SUKUL: "I would add that where signatures are listed in
10 this appendix I cannot say that the two signatures in
11 any one pair could not possibly have been written by the
12 same person, but the degree of similarity found is
13 outside the normal range of variation to be expected and
14 I have found no evidence to suggest they share common
15 authorship. In my opinion, the majority of these
16 signatures and the DOIs have not been written by the
17 author of those on the applications to vote.
18 "In my report in relation to appendix A1, I state
19 that many of the voters' signatures on the DOI forms are
20 similar to the witness entries grouped in that
21 statement, and there is at least some evidence that they
22 have been written by the author of the witness entries.
23 It follows that for all the pairs of signatures on the
24 applications to vote and DOI forms that have been
25 written by one person, it would mean that many of the
67

1 authors of the application to vote signatures would have
2 a style of signature which, by coincidence, is similar
3 to the writing of the grouped witness entries.
4 "I have noted that the signatures on the
5 applications to vote in the names of Aklima Bibi, Fatima
6 Bibi and Salema Bibi, all of [such and such] Grove show
7 significant similarities from one to the other and the
8 degree of correspondence is far greater than I would
9 expect from the signatures of three different
10 individuals. In my opinion, there is some limited
11 evidence that these three signatures have been signed by
12 the same person."
13 Then, sir, in summary he says this:
14 "It is not possible to express definite opinions of
15 authorship of the pairs of signatures on the
16 applications to vote and DOI forms on a signature by
17 signature basis on the documents available. However,
18 when the findings in relation to all the signatures are
19 examined and considered together, there is in my opinion
20 conclusive evidence that the majority of the application
21 to vote forms have not been signed by the same person
22 that signed the corresponding DOIs.
23 "There is some limited evidence that the signatures
24 in the names of Aklima Bibi, Fatima Bibi and Salema Bibi
25 have been written by one person rather than three
68

1 different persons."
2 The charts are there.
3 THE COMMISSIONER: There is another report of 25th January,
4 which we will find at page 681.
5 The instructions are at 682.
6 MR SUKUL: It deals with some of the documents which appear
7 in chart A1:
8 "I have in this instance considered the application
9 to vote forms which appear in this chart where the
10 corresponding DOI document is listed in appendices B1,
11 C1, E1 and F1. There are a few exclusions where the
12 Election Office has been unable to supply me with the
13 application to vote forms, and these are not referred to
14 in my report.
15 "Findings. I will list my findings separately for
16 the documents where the DOI forms appear in appendices
17 B1, C1, E1 and F1."
18 Then the reference is to the B1 documents.
19 "The applications to vote in the names of Shanaz
20 Begum and Ratna Begum are signed. The corresponding DOI
21 forms, numbered 1272 and 3377, have a cross as the
22 voter's signatures. I cannot accept that individuals
23 who signed their names as skilfully as those on the
24 application forms would use crosses on other occasions."
25 THE COMMISSIONER: These are back to Mystery B, are they
69

1 not?
2 MR SUKUL: They are referrable to the B1 documents, quite
3 right:
4 "With respect to the applications to vote for 32
5 Gordon Avenue, that in the name Shohibur Rahman is
6 signed R Khatun, and that in the name Rehana Khatun is
7 signed S Rahman. I have compared the R Khatan signature
8 with that on DOI 1837, and the S Rahman signature with
9 that on DOI 1838.
10 "With respect to the forms for Bromfield Road,
11 I have noted that the signature on DOI 2023, whilst
12 scribbled, may read S Khanom rather than J Khanom, and
13 it may be the case again that the DOIs have been
14 transposed and Shilpe Khanom (who on A1 is also listed
15 for this address under 2024 which I have not examined)
16 rather than Johura Khanom may possibly have signed it,
17 or it at least has been signed in her name. I have not
18 examined this document further.
19 "I have, as per my report, reference 24/05/chart
20 A1/1 considered whether it is acceptable that the
21 voter's signatures on the application to vote and
22 corresponding DOI have been signed by the same person.
23 "I have found a number of pairs of signatures where
24 there is some degree of correspondence. The degree of
25 correspondence varies from one pair of signatures to
70

1 another. Some correspond very chiefly whereas others do
2 show wider variation but where it is feasible, given the
3 factors outlined in my earlier report, they may have
4 been written by the same person. These pairs of
5 signatures are shown in chart B1.
6 "The remaining pairs of signatures show far wider
7 variation, and the proposition that they share common
8 authorship is not acceptable. These pairs of signatures
9 are shown in appendix SC/CHART/A1/2/B2. Where
10 signatures are listed in this appendix, I cannot say
11 that the two signatures in any one pair could not
12 possibly have been written by same person, but the
13 degree of dissimilarity found is outside the normal
14 range of variation to be expected and I have found no
15 evidence to suggest that they share common authorship."
16 Then with reference --
17 THE COMMISSIONER: The charts are set out in 690 and 691 and
18 they show that 12 of the DOI applications to vote
19 comparisons show acceptable signatures but 27 do not.
20 MR SUKUL: I see that, sir.
21 THE COMMISSIONER: Right. C1 documents.
22 MR SUKUL: "The signature in the name M Nurul Islam on the
23 application to vote for 66 Selston Road corresponds
24 closely with the handwriting on the body of this form
25 and with the handwriting of the witness names and
71

1 addresses denoted by an 'A' on appendix SC/C1 to report
2 reference 24/05/C (in relation to the DOIs in relation
3 to appendix C1 of my instructions). In my opinion,
4 there is strong evidence it was written by this person."
5 Then:
6 "The witness signature on DOI 788 differs from that
7 on the corresponding application to vote referred to in
8 section 8 above, the differences being such that I could
9 not accept them as being caused by natural variation.
10 "The voter signature on the application to vote
11 in relation to Sazia Begum in Tintern Road differs from
12 that on the corresponding DOI 4498, the differences are
13 such that I could not accept them as being caused by
14 natural variation.
15 "The remaining pairs of signatures on the
16 application to vote and DOI forms examined in this
17 section [those in relation to the DOIs are given] show
18 some similarities, the extent of which varies from one
19 pair to another. It is feasible that each pair may have
20 been written by one person. These pairs of signatures
21 are shown in appendix SC/CHART A1/2/C1."
22 Then reference to appendix E1 documents:
23 "The signature on the application to vote for Sabia
24 Akram is similar to the handwriting on the body of this
25 form and to the witness names and addresses of the
72

1 documents on the DOIs in Appendix E1 of my instructions,
2 and grouped in my report reference 24/05/E. In my
3 opinion there is some limited evidence that this
4 signature was also written by the same person who
5 completed this form and the witness entries on these
6 DOIs. The signature on the corresponding DOI 1102 also
7 shows some similarities to these entries, but the
8 evidence as to whether it is also written by the same
9 person is inconclusive.
10 "I have noted that the names of the voter's
11 signatures on the following pairs of documents are
12 transposed."
13 The voter's name and address is given and the
14 corresponding DOI is also given. Seven of them there:
15 "For example, on the application in the name of Asif
16 Iqbal the signature is written as I Asif whereas on the
17 corresponding DOI is written as A Iqbal. I would not
18 normally expect an individual to write their own
19 signature in such contrasting manners on such different
20 occasions, although I would add that as far as can be
21 seen the pairs of signatures are similar in fluency and
22 proportion and may be written by one person.
23 "However, as per my report reference 24/05/E,
24 there is some limited evidence that the voter's
25 signatures on DOI 1065 was written by the author of the
73

1 witness signatures on these forms. The remaining
2 signatures on the applications and DOIs referred to in
3 section 13 also show similarities to the witness entries
4 on appendix E1 DOIs but in those instances a reliable
5 opinion as to whether they were written about the same
6 person is not possible.
7 "The voter's signatures on DOIs 1066, 1103 and 1180,
8 1182 are also similar to the corresponding signatures on
9 the applications to vote, and each pair is acceptable as
10 having been written by one person. The signatures on
11 the following pairs of documents differ from one
12 another."
13 And the names Begum, Turner and Abid are set out
14 there with the DOIs.
15 "With respect to each pair, the proposition that
16 they share common authorship is not acceptable.
17 "Appendix F1 documents. DOI number 618 is signed
18 in the name of A Hamid. The corresponding application
19 to vote on A1 is in the name of Rushana Begum. I have
20 not examined these forms in detail.
21 "I have found a number of pairs of signatures where
22 there is some degree of correspondence, the degree of
23 correspondence varies from one pair of signatures to
24 another, but it is feasible that given the factors
25 outlined in my earlier report each pair of signatures
74

1 may have been written by the same person. These pairs
2 of signatures are shown in appendix chart F1.
3 "The remaining pairs of signatures show far wider
4 variation, and the proposition that they share common
5 authorship [I put in the word 'authorship' there]."
6 I will start again:
7 "The remaining pairs of signatures show far wider
8 variation, and the proposition that they share
9 common" --
10 THE COMMISSIONER: It must be "authorship".
11 MR SUKUL: "-- is not acceptable. These pairs of signatures
12 are shown in appendix F2. Where signatures are listed
13 in this appendix, I cannot say that the two signatures
14 in any one pair could not possibly have been written by
15 the same person, but the degree of dissimilarity found
16 is outside the normal range of variation to be expected
17 and I have found no evidence to suggest they share
18 common authorship.
19 "Summary. It is not possible to express definite
20 opinions of authorship of the pairs of signatures on the
21 applications to vote and DOI forms on a signature by
22 signature basis on the documents available. However,
23 when the findings in relation to all the signatures are
24 examined and considered together there is, in my
25 opinion, conclusive evidence that the majority of the
75

1 applications to vote have not been signed by the same
2 person as the corresponding declaration of identity
3 forms.
4 "There is, in my opinion, limited evidence that the
5 signature in the name of M Nurul Islam on the
6 application to vote for 66 Selston Road has been written
7 by the author of the witness name and address entries
8 denoted by an 'A' on the appendix C1 in my report
9 in relation to the DOIs in appendix C1."
10 THE COMMISSIONER: That is the last of Mr Cosslett's
11 examinations of documents, essentially, as requested by
12 the petitioner.
13 MR SUKUL: Sir, yes.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: Then there is Mr Cosslett's report of
15 2nd March, which was in effect commissioned by those
16 instructing Mr Hayes. I am happy to admit that in
17 evidence and to look at its contents.
18 All I would say about this, though, and I think it
19 has to be put on the record, is that as far as I am
20 aware, no corresponding check has been carried out
21 between the documents examined by Mr Cosslett in this
22 report and the votes actually cast by the voters.
23 MR HAYES: That is correct.
24 THE COMMISSIONER: So we have no idea whether the votes cast
25 by those to whom the DOIs apparently relate in this
76

1 report were cast for any particular candidate.
2 Would you like to read Mr Cosslett's report?
3 Reading of Handwriting Expert's Report by MR HAYES
4 MR HAYES: "Further to my previous reports I have now been
5 instructed to examine a number of additional documents.
6 Whilst these instructions have come from the first,
7 second and third respondents, I have made my examination
8 in my position as a single joint expert representing all
9 parties in this matter.
10 "My findings in relation to these additional
11 instructions will be made in a number of additional
12 reports and my instructions will be appended to all the
13 reports for convenience.
14 "I have made my examination on the same basis as my
15 earlier reports, and the same comments apply. I would
16 also add these additional comments, which specifically
17 relate to these reports. These examinations might have
18 been supplied with photocopies rather than original
19 documents. Such copies do not show all the fine detail
20 of their originals and do not show the fluency with
21 which signatures are written. In some instances an
22 examination of photocopies can limit the effectiveness
23 of the examination and consequently limit the strengths
24 of opinions that can be expressed.
25 "In these particular examinations (as in my original
77

1 set of instructions), I have been asked to directly
2 compare only two signatures in the same name for
3 evidence as to whether they may or may not have been
4 written by the same person. In some cases these
5 signatures are written in different styles. In most
6 instances this is more of a limiting factor than the
7 documents being copies. However, in this and subsequent
8 reports, I will indicate any instances where I believe
9 my examination has been hindered by the lack of original
10 documents."
11 Then findings:
12 "Ayoub Khan."
13 Sir, you may recall that I put these matters to
14 Mr Khan in cross-examination.
15 THE COMMISSIONER: You did.
16 MR HAYES: He says this about Mr Ayoub Khan:
17 "I have compared the voter's signature on the
18 application to vote and the corresponding declaration
19 of identity referred to in section 1A and 1B of my
20 instructions.
21 "I have considered whether it is acceptable that
22 each pair of signatures would have been written by the
23 same person taking into account the various factors as
24 detailed in the background paragraphs of my previous
25 reports.
78

1 "I have found a number of pairs of signatures where
2 there is some degree of correspondence. The degree of
3 correspondence varies from one pair of signatures to
4 another. Some correspond very closely whereas others
5 do show wider variation, but where it is feasible, given
6 the factors previously referred to, they may have been
7 written by the same person. These forms were as
8 follows."
9 It starts off with a column of voters' names. Then
10 it follows with the voter address and then the DOI
11 number. The voter name is N Akhtar of --
12 THE COMMISSIONER: I do not think we need have the address.
13 We have them all set out there, and the DOI number.
14 MR HAYES: "I would add that in all the above cases, there
15 are differences between the signatures in each pair and
16 their inclusion above does not indicate that there is
17 necessarily any positive evidence to indicate the
18 signatures in each pair were actually written by the
19 same person, only that from the comparisons that can be
20 made that this possibility cannot be readily excluded.
21 "The remaining pairs of signatures, as detailed
22 below, show far wider variation and the proposition that
23 they share common authorship is not readily acceptable."
24 And again we have a list, which is on the record:
25 "I would add that with the signatures referred to
79

1 above, I cannot say that the two signatures in any one
2 pair could possibly have been written by the same
3 person, but the degree of similarity found is outside
4 the normal range of variation to be expected and I have
5 found no evidence to suggest that they share common
6 authorship. In my opinion, the majority of these
7 signatures on the DOIs have not been written by the
8 author of those on the corresponding ATV.
9 "In addition to the above, I have compared the
10 voter's signatures on the DOIs 1357, 1773, 1784, 1820
11 with the handwriting of Ayoub Khan, which I have taken
12 to be the witness entries on the DOIs referred to in
13 sections 3 and 4 above. It is not possible to make
14 fully effective comparisons as the specimens of Mr Khan
15 do not include his version of these signatures, nor all
16 the characters of them in the appropriate style.
17 Because of the limitations to these specimens no
18 reliable opinion as to whether Mr Khan wrote these
19 voters' signatures can be expressed.
20 "I have compared the voter's signature on the ATV
21 and DOI in relation to DOI 3097 with the specimens of
22 Ayoub Khan as defined above. Again, an effective
23 comparison is not possible as the specimens do not
24 include his version of the various letters of these
25 questioned signatures; they do not include the letters
80

1 F, G or M. From the limited comparison that can be made
2 I have found a few differences between the questioned
3 signatures and the specimens of Mr Khan but cannot
4 assess their significance. The evidence is therefore
5 inconclusive.
6 "I have compared the voter's signature on the ATV re
7 DOI 3742 with the specimens of Ayoub Khan. This voter's
8 signature differs from the specimen of Mr Khan and there
9 is in my opinion some limited evidence he did not write
10 it.
11 "I have compared the witness signature, name and
12 address (which are in the name of T Hussain) on DOIs
13 1817 and 1886 with the specimens of Ayoub Khan. I have
14 found a number of similarities between the witness name
15 and address on DOIs 1817 and 1886 and the specimens.
16 In my opinion, there is strong evidence that he wrote
17 them. If the original documents were available in this
18 instance, a more definite opinion may be possible,
19 albeit the specimens are still somewhat limited. No
20 reliable opinion as to whether Mr Khan wrote the voter's
21 signature on these forms is possible."
22 Then we come to Tariq Hussain, the famous Tariq
23 Hussain:
24 "The voter's signature in the name of S Akhtar on
25 the ATV and DOI in respect of DOI 1947 differ from one
81

1 to the other; the differences are unlikely to be due to
2 natural variation.
3 "The voter's signature in the name Naseem Akhtar on
4 the ATV and DOI in relation to DOI 3710 differ from one
5 to the other. In this instance where the ATV is in
6 a block style and the DOI in a cursive style I cannot be
7 certain of the significance of these differences and no
8 opinion can be expressed.
9 "The copy of DOI 1948 is not particularly clear.
10 There are both similarities and differences between the
11 voter's signature on this document and that on the
12 corresponding ATV, but I cannot be certain of their
13 significance. In this case I do not believe that an
14 examination of the originals would assist.
15 "The following pairs of voter's signatures on the
16 ATV and DOI forms are similar from one to the other, and
17 allowing for the factors previously referred to, it is
18 feasible that each pair has been written by one person."
19 Then it gives the voter's name, address, and the
20 DOI.
21 Then we move to Mr Asif Iqbal. This was put to him,
22 but we could not put it to Mr Tariq Hussain because he
23 claimed he was being upset by men with balaclavas.
24 "I have noted that the ATV 2955 is in the name H
25 Ahmed whereas the DOI 2955 is in the name of B (Ahmed),
82

1 and the ATV 2954 is in the name B Ahmed whereas the DOI
2 2954 is in the name H (Ahmed). I have compared the B
3 Ahmed signature on ATV 2954 with the signature on DOI
4 2955, and the H Ahmed signature on ATV 2955 with the
5 signature on DOI 2954.
6 "The pairs of signatures referred to above, and the
7 voter's signatures on the ATV and DOIs numbered 2956 and
8 2957 differ from one to the other. The proposition that
9 both voters' signatures in any of these pairs were
10 written by the same person is not readily acceptable.
11 Whilst I cannot say that the two signatures in any one
12 pair could not possibly have been written by the same
13 person, the degree of similarity found is outside the
14 normal range of variation to be expected and I have
15 found no evidence to suggest they share common
16 authorship, and again there is evidence that the voters'
17 signatures on the DOIs have not been written by the
18 author of the voter signature on the corresponding DOI.
19 "I have noted that the voter's signature in the
20 names B Ahmed on ATV 2954 and I Ahmed ".
21 THE COMMISSIONER: I have feeling that at the end of 14
22 something has gone a bit funny. I think one of those
23 DOIs should be an ATV. It would make sense of the
24 sentence. The sense is obvious, but he has used
25 probably the wrong ...
83

1 MR HAYES: But at the end of the day, nothing turns on it.
2 He has just said that H Ahmed on ATV 2954 and R Ahmed
3 on the ATV 2957 are similar from one to the other:
4 "There is, in my opinion, some limited evidence that
5 each of these two pairs of signatures were written by
6 one person. I cannot determine whether both pairs were
7 written by the same person.
8 "The voter's signature on the ATV and DOI 2959 show
9 some similarities from one to the other, but also
10 differences. I cannot assess whether these differences
11 are due to natural variation. No reliable opinion as to
12 whether or not they were written by the same person can
13 be expressed."
14 THE COMMISSIONER: Then the usual. You have two more
15 reports of Mr Cosslett and I think sensibly those
16 reports had better be taken at 2 o'clock.
17 At 2 o'clock I would be grateful if you were able to
18 say whether anything may or may not be said by
19 Mr Zulfikar and, subject to that, when we have finished
20 Mr Cosslett's last report, we will finish the evidence
21 in the Aston petition.
22 MR BRODIE: Sir, there is one matter which I want to raise
23 in chambers with Mr Brook and Mr Coppel. Perhaps that
24 could be done at 2 o'clock as well.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, of course. 2 o'clock.
84

1 MR BRODIE: I am happy to do it now.
2 THE COMMISSIONER: I think 2 o'clock. There is a matter
3 which I would like to canvass with all counsel in
4 chambers. Perhaps we could say 2 o'clock for that.
5 MR BRODIE: When you say "all counsel", do you include
6 the counsel for the respondents to the notice
7 (inaudible) or simply --
8 THE COMMISSIONER: No, no. All counsel for the parties in
9 both cases, insofar as they are here. There is a matter
10 on which I would require your guidance. It is not
11 unrelated to the matters that were raised last week in
12 some correspondence which I showed to Mr Coppel.
13 (1.05 pm)
14 (The Short Adjournment)
15 (A matter was heard in chambers)
16 (2.55 pm)
17 MR COPPEL: Sir, before my learned friend resumes, you asked
18 a question relating to your powers in an election court.
19 In chapter and verse they are as follows: you sir, under
20 section 130, sub-section 5, has for the purposes of this
21 trial the same powers and privileges as a judge on the
22 trial of a Parliamentary election petition, and a judge
23 on the trial of a Parliamentary petition has the same
24 powers, jurisdiction and authority as a judge of the
25 High Court, and you find that in section 123,
85

1 sub-section 3, and through that I think you find the
2 route --
3 THE COMMISSIONER: I think that will provide the answer to
4 my question. I am very much obliged to you, Mr Coppel.
5 MR HAYES: Before continuing with the handwriting evidence,
6 may I say a word about Mr Zulfikar Khan. It has always
7 been my intention to call Mr Khan and I have a witness
8 statement from him, which is helpful for the two
9 respondents that I represent. It appears now, and
10 I have heard this five minutes ago, that Mr Khan has
11 been advised by a firm of solicitors who have no
12 relationship with the respondents not to come to court.
13 There is nothing, I am afraid, I can do.
14 THE COMMISSIONER: There is nothing you can do, nothing that
15 Mr De Mello can do.
16 MR DE MELLO: I must make it absolutely clear for the
17 purposes of the record that I did not intend to call
18 him.
19 THE COMMISSIONER: I can well see that Mr Hayes might have
20 wanted to call him, but his hands are tied.
21 MR HAYES: May I ask one question, I am sure it is
22 unnecessary, but just for the record. I am sure
23 you will not find adversely against my two clients as a
24 result of Mr Khan not giving evidence.
25 THE COMMISSIONER: I think you may take it that that is the
86

1 case. I will take it that you would have called him;
2 you had a witness statement from him and you would have
3 called him but he has declined to give evidence.
4 Given that he may find himself the subject of
5 adverse comment under section 160 the advice he has been
6 given may or may not be wise.
7 MR HAYES: I entirely agree with you, sir.
8 THE COMMISSIONER: I am very much obliged to you, Mr Hayes,
9 for the trouble you have gone to.
10 MR HAYES: Mr Abdul Aziz. This is on page 2 of the report.
11 THE COMMISSIONER: The second report? For the record, this
12 is the second report of Mr Cosslett of 2nd March.
13 MR HAYES: He starts off by saying:
14 "Further to my previous reports, this is the second
15 report concerning instructions received from the first,
16 second and third respondents that has been made on
17 behalf of all parties. The background and introductory
18 comments previously made also apply in respect of these
19 findings.
20 "Mr Abdul Aziz. The voter signature on ATV 4397 is
21 written in block lettering whereas that on DOI 4397 is
22 an illegible scribble, and there is no basis for any
23 meaningful comparison. Both appear reasonably fluent.
24 As it is not possible from the material available to
25 determine whether Mr Nore signs in both styles on
87

1 different occasions I cannot demonstrate whether these
2 signatures may have been written by the same person.
3 "The voter signature in DOI 4397 differs from the
4 witness signature on this document and I have found no
5 obvious evidence to indicate that they have been written
6 by the same person. However, as it is not possible to
7 effectively compare such scribbled signatures in
8 different names, a meaningful comparison is not
9 possible, and consequently no reliable opinion as to
10 whether they were written by the same person can be
11 expressed.
12 "I have found some degree of correspondence between
13 the voters' signatures on the following ATVs and DOIs.
14 The degree of correspondence varies from one pair to
15 another, but it is feasible, given the factors
16 previously referred to, they may have been written by
17 the same person."
18 Sir, there is a list of the voters' names, addresses
19 and DOI numbers and there are four of them.
20 Then the expert continues:
21 "The remaining pairs of signatures, as detailed
22 below, show far wider variation and the proposition that
23 they share common authorship is not readily acceptable."
24 Again, sir, voter's name, voter's address, DOI
25 number, two of them.
88

1 "I would again add that with the signatures referred
2 to above I cannot say that the two signatures in any one
3 pair could not possibly have been written by the same
4 person, but the degree of similarity found outside the
5 normal range of variation can be expected and I have
6 found no evidence to suggest that they share common
7 authorship.
8 "Omar Choudhry. The voter's signature on the ATV
9 1726 differs in a number of respects from that on the
10 corresponding DOI and, whilst I cannot exclude the
11 possibility that they have been written by the same
12 person, I have found no evidence to suggest they share
13 common authorship.
14 "There is no basis for any meaningful comparison
15 between the voter's signature on DOI 1726 and the
16 witness signature on this document. Consequently, no
17 opinion as to whether they were by the same person can
18 be expressed.
19 "I have found a number of pairs of subjects where
20 there is some degree of correspondence, the degree of
21 correspondence varies from one pair to another but given
22 the factors previous outlined they may have been written
23 by the same person."
24 Again, sir, voter's name, voter's address, DOI
25 number, eight of them.
89

1 "In each of the above instances there are
2 differences between the signatures in each pair,
3 particularly with respect to DOI 1931 and 2573, but
4 because of the limited amount of handwriting in
5 considering the factors that can affect an individual's
6 signature, it is possible that each pair may have been
7 written by one person. The remaining pairs of
8 signatures, as detailed below, vary considerably and the
9 proposition that they share common authorship is not
10 readily acceptable."
11 Again, voter's name, voter's address, DOI number and
12 four of them:
13 "I would add that with the specimens referred to
14 above, I cannot say that the two signatures in any one
15 pair could not possibly have been written by the same
16 person, but the degree of similarity found is outside
17 the normal range of variation to be expected and I have
18 found no evidence to suggest that they share common
19 authorship."
20 Then he makes the usual declaration.
21 Then there is another report, the final report.
22 THE COMMISSIONER: Again, 2nd March.
23 MR HAYES: "This is my third report relating to instructions
24 received from the first, second and third respondents.
25 I would apply the same comments in connection with the
90

1 terms of my instructions and the background of my
2 examinations as previously mentioned.
3 "Ayaz Iqbal. To assist in my examination, I have
4 obtained the originals of the ATV and DOI forms 2864,
5 3291, 3708, 3909, 4843, 4910, 4911, 5004 from the
6 Election Office.
7 "With respect to the ATV/DOI 4922, the signature on
8 the ATV is in a lower case style and that on the DOI is
9 in upper case. There is little to directly compare, but
10 both appear fluently written. I have, however, noted
11 that there are similarities between the name entry on
12 the ATV and the signature on the DOI, and consequently
13 it is possible that the signature on the DOI was written
14 by the person who completed the ATV.
15 "There are two sets of forms in the name of Yasmin
16 Akhtar. 4843, 38 Stoneleigh Road and 4910, 32 Markford
17 Walk. I have found the signature on