Ward Trial Begins On Five Charges

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30190, 23 July 1963, Page 15

Ward Trial Begins On Five Charges

(NZ. Press Association— Copyright) LONDON, July 22. Dr. Stephen Ward, a 50-year-old osteopath, went on trial today before a jury of 11 men and a woman on five vice charges, the Associated Press reported. Ward pleaded not guilty to the charges before Mr Justice Marshall in the Old Bailey. The prosecution had previously lodged seven charges against Ward, ranging from living off immoral earnings to procuring an abortion.

But at the start of the trial this morning, the Crown dropped two abortion counts, leaving Ward to face five charges primarily concerned with living on the earning of prostitutes. The public gallery was filled with spectators. Lined along the Court were more than 100 reporters, many from overseas, including the Commonwealth and the United States. In a corridor outside the Court sat Christine Keeler, dressed in a gold-coloured costume. Defence counsel. Mr James Burge, told the Judge that he had an application to make in connexion with the charges in the indictment. Mr Burge asked for a separate trial on one charge. The Judge (Mr Justice Marshall) refused Mr Burge’s application. The prosecutor, Mr Mervyn Griffith - Jones, Q.C., then made an application concerning the publication of witnesses’ names. The Judge said he felt rather concerned about the suppression of names. “I think I might tell you now, you will have to make a case for each witness for the suppression of a name,” the Judge said. The clerk then called Ward and said that he was charged on five counts. As the clerk put each charge. Ward replied in a clear and firm voice “Not guilty.” The five charges were that (1) Between June, 1961, and August 31, 1962. he knowingly lived wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution. (2) Between September 1. 1.962, and December 31. 1962, he knowingly lived wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution. (3) Between January 1. 1963, and June 8. 1963. he knowingly lived wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution. (4) Between May 1 and June 30, 1961, he incited Christine Keeler to procure a girl under the age of 21 to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a third person. (5) On January 3, 1963, he attempted to procure a girl under the age of 21 to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a third person. The jury comprises eleven men and one woman. They asked counsel how long the case might last. Mr Burge said it was difficult to give an estimate. He said there had been a notice of additional evidence served on the defence this morning. He thought it would last the remainder of the week. Medical Practice Mr Griffith-Jones, opening the case for the Crown, said Ward had carried on practice as an osteopath at on practice as an osteopath at a surgery in Devonshire street. During the period the j >r, would be dealing with he had lived for the first part, from June, 1961, to some time in December. 1962. in a mew? flat. 17 Wimpole Mews. For the latter part, from al out January this year until his arrest on June 8. he had had another mews flat at Bryanston mews. “He carried on business as an osteopath and he certainly had a practice. It has been impossible from the records we have found to ascertain what his actual income was.

“Not only are his accounts not perhaps complete, but also he was earning some money from his drawings because he appears to be a talented artist,” toe prosecutor said. “Whatever toe extent of his earnings for this period may have been, from the evidence Chat you will hear and indeed from what he himself has told the police, they were quite obviously not sufficient for what he was spending," the prosecutor said. “Indeed he told toe police, ‘I am a fool with money and live in a state of penury’.” Mr Griffith-Jones said the only difference between the first three counts was the

dates—the period covered by each. Referring to the period between June. 1961, and August 31. 1962. he said that on the first count—during that period—Ward was living at Wimpole mews and there was also occupying a room there “the girl whose name you know. Christine Keeler." Hie second count also covered a period when Ward was still at Wimpole Mews and ran from the time when Christine Keeler left the flat and Miss Marilyn RiceDavies went to live there in her place. , No Girl At Flat The third count covered the last of the three periods after Ward had left Wimpole Mews and had gome to live at Bryanston Mews, where there was no girl actually living in the flat, but where it was alleged Ward got two women, certainly, to go for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with men who visited the flat. Emphasising the significance of the count involving sexual intercourse with a third person, Mr GriffithJones said: “If it was not tor that, any young man who tried to get a girl to go to bed with him would be committing a criminal offence, and quite obviously that would be absurd. That is not what is alleged in this case.” The allegation was that girls were procured on Ward's initiative for the purpose of getting them to go to bed with him, with others, and to commit acts of lewdness. Mr Griffith-Jones then turned to what he called the “facts of the story” which started with Christine Keeler. He said she was now just over 21. She had left home at 16, had come to London and got a job as an artist in a night club where she had met Ward in 1958. Met Rachman Ward had pursued her acquaintance and later he had introduced her to Peter Rachman, “of whom you have read in the newspapers.” Mr Griffith-Jones asked the jury to disregard what they had read, adding: “It has nothing to do with this case at all.” "But Peter Rachman was at that time living at the second of the two mews addresses, No. 1 Bryanston mews. Shortly after .he defendant had introduced her to Peter Rachman, Chmistine Keeler went in fact to live with that man at Bryanston mews,” he said. Miss Keeler had lived for some time with Rachman, then some time in 1959 she had gone to live with Ward at Orme court. “Remarkable though perhaps it appears in the context of this case, it does appear to be a fact that Christine Keeler and the defendant, although they have associated with one another on the closest terms and although they have lived together in this flat, in fact never had sexual intercourse one with the other. It was apparently as the girl has said, a brother and sister relationship,” the prosecutor said. Girls Share Flat Miss Keeler went back to work at the night club and she then met Miss RiceDavies. Some time in 1961, the two girls had taken a flat together where Ward had visited them frequently, bringing men with him on a number of occasions. The flat was in Comeragh road, London. Ward had paid for half the rent—on one occasion with a cheque he had received from Lord Astor.

“Let me say at once that it was a cheque paid not to the landlord of the flat, but to the defendant,” he said. “It may be for osteopathic services—there is no evidence to show as to why the cheque was paid to the defendant." Mr Griffith-Jones said what he desired to show was th a* Ward was paying for the girts' accommodation and bringing men to see them. He said Ward bad suggested marriage to Mias Rice-Davies. He told her he was not a man with a krt of money, but be bad plenty of friends who would help them if she married him. “The general tenor of toe

suggestion was that he would no* take it amiss if she went with men and thereby earned their keep. Miss RdceDavies refused that pax jxascl " Then the girls had left .be flat end Miss R ce-Davies went to live with Rachnrn. The prosecution alleged that from June, 1961, to August or September. 1962. Ohristme Keeler had been oompleCeJy dominated by Ward. Miss Keeler was “being used by him not only to make a little ca<sh from intercourse she wss heving from time to ime with men who visited the fl >t. but ateo to procure girls foe his own satisfaction." Mr Griffith-Jones said. Mr Griffith-Jones said Miss Keeler had taken up modelling The real object of ihs was to meat "pnetity young girls and bring them back Coi the defendant. ‘Five Or Six’ “In all, she seys. she brought five or six girls back tn the defendant and introduced them to him.” After he had seduced a girl he wculd discuss the mens rf the girl with Miss Kce’er. Miss Keeler had helped Ward meet and take to bed two girls, named as Sally Norte and “Mtas R.” the prosecutor seed. Mr Griffith-Jones said that while at the mews Miss Keeler “had sexual intercourse with a number of men, some of whom had already been mentioned in the newspapers, Mr Profumo, the Russian, Ivanov, another gentleman, someone whose name she had forgotten, who was called Charles. Certainly in the case of some of them she was paid mcncv and in one case paid some £2O a time. “She has said that over a period, roughly speaking, she must have paid to the defendant about half of what her earnings were from that particular exercise." Sometimes Ward would be hard up, short of cash, and he would tell the girl to telephone one of the gentlemen who was seeing her fairly regularly and who was paying her £2O a time. She had received what one might almost call “moral instructions.” ‘Not Prostitute’ Mr Griffith-Jones said Ward would tell her: “You are no prostitute." "Indeed she does not regard herself as a prostitute. She certainly was not a prostitute in the sense that she plied her trade on the streets or in the ordinary sense as a call girl,” the prosecution said.

Miss Keeler had left the flat in August or September last and Miss Rice-Davies, who for some reason had left Rachman, came and took the place of Miss Keeler at Wimpole mews, the prosecutor said.

When she arrived she had been introduced to an Indian doctor, who wanted to rent her room in order to bring girls there. Ward had already obtained money from the doctor and told her: “Why let outsiders in? Why don’t you be the person who goes to bed with him.”

Thereafter on a number of occasions the Indian doctor had visited Miss Rice-Davies, leaving between £l5 and £25 each time. ' out of which she said he paid Ward some £2 or £3 a time.