PCA Report paragraph 227. Title from David and Goliath p69.

227. Mr Karam contends that knowledge of Cottle's information did not become available to the defence until close to the trial. In reality, Cottle's statement was part of the first disclosure documents provided by the Police. to Mr Guest prior to the preliminary hearing, about seven or eight months before trial. Mr Karam says it was included among piles of discovery documents. In fact it was with paper contained in a relatively small box. His claim that the information came "out of the blue" and was "an ace" could also be misleading. Mr Guest desired to have Cottle testify as to Laniet's disclosures but he could not be located when the trial was in progress and Mr Karam suggests that the Police made no serious effort to locate him. Mr Karam infers investigating officers were anxious that he not be available to give evidence. When Cottle eventually did appear evidence had been concluded and the Crown Prosecutor had completed his final address. Cottle was called before the trial Judge who questioned him in the absence of the jury to form an opinion on whether to allow him to give evidence. Cottle said that he would not have made an untrue statement to the Police but that he could not then remember the details of what Laniet Bain had said to him - a lack of memory that the Judge conceded may have been due to confusion over his then position. However the Judge decided that Cottle's evidence would not be reasonably safe or reliable and concluded that the dangers guarded against by the hearsay rule could not be put to one side. He directed that Cottle not give evidence, a decision subsequently upheld on appeal.