Page 249 - tmp

Q All right. Just to make Mr Cordell’s position plain, I accept you formed the
impression that he was working. But he told you he wasn’t. Yes?
A Yes. Ultimately over the course of that interaction he did dispute that, yes.

Q And when you say that at the outset of the conversation he told you he was working,
I suggest you’re being dishonest?
A No. I would reject that.

Q And the reason he was arrested and the van seized rather than a fixed penalty notice
— you say it’s because he was being unco-operative? Yes?
A In terms of the seizure?

Q In terms of why this wasn’t dealt with by way of a fixed penalty notice, why it was
dealt with in terms of him being arrested and then the van needing to be seized. A Yes.
He was being unco-operative.

Q Because you say he was being unco-operative. I suggest to you he was standing his
ground saying “I haven’t been working here” and was saying “Why are you lying to my
insurance company?”
A I don’t — I don’t recall him saying that I’d lied to the insurance company.

THE RECORDER: You certainly hadn’t told them the truth, had you, on the face of it?
A I certainly acknowledge there’s a discrepancy there, your Honour.

THE RECORDER: Yes.

MR KENNEDY: Thank you. Nothing further.

Re-examined by MR POTTINGER
Q Did you — you said he became unco-operative and at a later stage claimed that he
was looking for work rather than working? Is that right?
A Yes.

Q Had you mentioned the insurance before he — in terms of him saying that he was
actually looking for work rather than working, can you help us when that change
happened?
A As soon as — for me anyway, as soon as I’d asked — as soon as I’d asked for his
documents initially and he’d said “Oh, you know, I’m busy. I’m just going to go in
there and do some work” for me the — the suspicion was there, “Well, I need to make
sure on the insurance that it covers him for...” — “...for business” and then of

241
26