In the exercise of its powers under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (the "Act") the Criminal Cases Review Commission (the "Commission") has considered the application of Mr. Koupparis for review of his conviction as set out below.

They stated that whilst the threats looked plausible on initial examination, there were difficulties and inconsistencies which would make implementation of such a project beyond the resources of a small organisation. They also stated that the feasibility of producing the two chemical agents in the way described seemed highly improbable.

Count I - Blackmail

1.5. On 2 April, a man alleging to be Colonel Digsby of M.I.6, British Military Intelligence telephoned the Cypriot authorities. The Prosecution case was that this was Mr. Koupparis, who was attempting to add credence to Commander Nemo's ransom demand. In his persona as Colonel Digsby, Mr Koupparis stated that he had intelligence on Commander Nemo and Force Majeure and that the blackmail threat should be taken seriously as it was genuine and advised them to pay the demand.

1.6. On the 7 April 1987 a copy of the letter of 23 March 1987 was delivered to the Cyprus High Commissioner in London (Mr Panayides) by motorcycle courier.

1.7. After 7 April 1987 when the demand was sent to Mr. Panayides in England, the British Police were able to monitor the blackmail demand more closely than had been possible in Cyprus. This second demand was within the jurisdiction of the British Courts.

Count 2 - Attempt obtaining money by deception

1.9. Mr. Cambanellos offered to locate and disarm the PIG devices in Cyprus. The High Commission agreed that Mr. Cambanellos would receive £25,000 for expenses and would travel to Cyprus on a new passport issued at the High Commission once he had produced a photograph of himself.

1.10. The Prosecution alleged that this was a last attempt by Mr. Koupparis to achieve some financial reward from the blackmail scheme and this formed the basis of Count 2, attempt to obtain money by deception.

1.11. On 14 May 1987 Mr. Koupparis, masquerading as Mr. Cambanellos, attended the Cyprus High Commission. He gave a passport photograph of himself (which he had had taken on the way) to Mr. Panayides, as had been agreed, so that the passport could be issued. In return he received an envelope which appeared to contain £25,000. As Mr Koupparis was leaving the Cyprus High Commission he was arrested.

1.12. Other members of Mr Koupparis' family were questioned in connection with these matters and Mr. Koupparis was charged together with his wife Kyriacoulla and his two brothers Jason and Andrew. The charges against Mr Koupparis' brothers were dropped at an early stage due to the lack of evidence against them. When the first trial collapsed the Prosecution decided to drop the charges against his wife Kyriacoulla and Mr. Koupparis was retried alone.

Defence Case

1.14. As Mr Koupparis did not really dispute that he had carried out the actions forming the basis of the charges one of the main issues for the jury at the trial was Mr. Koupparis' mental state when he committed these acts. The offences require specific intent to be proved. There was some medical evidence put forward on behalf of the Prosecution (Drs Carne and D' Orban) that Mr. Koupparis was suffering from a psychiatric illness called hypomania. This is an elated state of mind producing grandiose delusions and the sufferer often believes that they can achieve anything. However, in the view of the Prosecution experts, Mr Koupparis was capable of knowing what he was doing. They also pointed out Mr Koupparis' capacity to carry out the impersonations.

1.15. Professor West for the Defence gave evidence comparable to that of the Prosecution experts. The main aspect of the Defence case was that

Mr. Koupparis had been suffering from hypomania at the time induced by the large quantity of psychotrophic drugs he had been prescribed. Dr Ashton gave evidence for the Defence that Mr Koupparis' actions could have resulted from the drugs that he told her he had taken. The Prosecution sought to adduce evidence to show that the condition Mr Koupparis was suffering from was a defect of the mind and was not drug-induced, and, if that were the case, the Defence of automatism would not be available. But in either event he was able to form the necessary intent. Mr Koupparis himself said that his letters were a hoax which no one could take seriously but were his test of the efficiency of the Cyprus government whilst he was affected by drugs.

1.16. On 3rd July 1989 Mr Koupparis was convicted of both offences and sentenced to a total of 5 years imprisonment.

2. Previous Appeal History

3. Application to the Commission

Halcion and Xanax in excessive quantities. This information was never given to Dr Ashton. Also Professor Ian Oswald has reported in April 1991 "I advise that additional evidence, not available at the time of his trial, confirms that his bizarre conduct in early 1987 should be regarded as attributable to the drug Halcion that he was taking on prescription..I am entirely satisfied that ....Halcion would, in the dosage used and for the periods of time used, have been likely to cause the mental disorder and hostility manifest in the behaviour of Mr Koupparis in 1987 ".

• Suppression of evidence - Mr. Koupparis has submitted two documents which he states support his defence which were not used at the trial

• Murder of Defence witness prior to trial (Mr. Koupparis states that a Marilyn Monroe look-alike friend of his was murdered because of her connection with this case)

• Evidence of poisoning of Mr. Koupparis by one or more of his codefendants (Mr. Koupparis has accused his ex-wife on a number of occasions of trying to poison him with the cocktail of drugs he was prescribed at the time of the offences and shortly before. According to Mr. Koupparis this was because divorce was not really an option for Cypriots. He had made allegations to the police in this regard on a number of occasions)

• New material witnesses and evidence not available at the trial.

• He and Simon Charalambos are the same person so he is entitled to use that name.

• Mr. Koupparis' mental condition at the time of the commission of the offences. The offences he was charged with were crimes of specific intent. Dr. Ashton trimmed her report at the behest of Counsel without Mr. Koupparis' consent and in such a way as to close off the most logical and available defence "drug induced psychosis".

• Incompetence of counsel and failure to follow Mr. Koupparis' expressed wishes. Failure to discuss tactics in context of rewriting reports and failure by counsel to follow line of defence of drug induced psychosis which he would appear to have withdrawn from the jury with the support of the judge.

• Compellability of Doctors from overseas. The Defence had to rely on the evidence of Debbie Postgate, his trial solicitor. The quality of her evidence and what she could say about the case was strictly limited. Arguably the evidence of Dr. Sophocleous or Dr Evthokas was not available at the trial, as there was only the evidence of Debbie Postgate's meetings with them. The medication regime that Mr. Koupparis was subjected to whilst in Cyprus was critical in terms of evidence for the Defence. This evidence was given second hand and in an unsatisfactory form. Evidence was tainted and/or inaccurate and subsequent medical assessments were based on faulty or incorrect information.

4. Summary of the Commission's Investigation

5. Disclosure by the Commission

6. Material Considerations

6.1. The Commission's powers to make a reference under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 are set out in full in the Annex to this Statement of Reasons.

6.2. In this case the Commission may refer the conviction if the following conditions are met:

6.2.1. there is a real possibility that the conviction would be quashed if it were referred, and

6.2.2. this real possibility arises from evidence or argument which was not put forward either at trial or in the appeal, or

6.2.3. there are exceptional circumstances which justify the making of a reference even though there is no new evidence or argument.

6.3. The Commission has considered Mr. Koupparis' application and the large quantities of material that he has submitted in support of his application to the Commission. The Commission considers that there is one main issue in this case which is relevant to the safety of the conviction and that is Mr. Koupparis' state of mind when he committed these offences. It has to be borne in mind that Mr. Koupparis accepted that he carried out the acts which form the basis of these charges.

6.4. New medical evidence

6.6. Dr Ashton's report. Mr Koupparis' mental condition at the time of the commission of these offences and the cause of that condition were of crucial importance at the trial and they were consequently considered at some length.

6.6.1. Dr. Ashton gave evidence on behalf of the Defence at the trial. Her expertise is in the field of the effect of certain drugs and combinations of drugs on a person's state of mind. Dr. Ashton's evidence explained the effects of the drugs which Mr Koupparis stated he had been prescribed and consumed. What she was unable to do was state if he had actually consumed these drugs in these quantities. There was little or no direct corroborative evidence of this issue at the trial.

6.6.2. Dr Ashton admitted in her evidence that she had not met or examined Mr Koupparis but had based her report and her evidence on information he had provided. She said that the only independent verification of the prescription drugs came from Debbie Postgate,

(Mr. Koupparis' solicitor) who had travelled to Cyprus to interview the doctors who had treated Mr Koupparis there and had prescribed the cocktail of drugs he was consuming at the time. (Page 11.24 of the transcript of Dr. Crystal Heather Ashton's transcript of evidence) "I had the pharmacist's records. I cannot honestly remember if that was - it had any dosage. I mean, yes, it was on it but the pharmacist didn't keep good records. He didn't count how may tablets and how long they lasted, so we do not have clear evidence."

6.6.3. Mr. Koupparis states that there is new medical evidence about his mental condition at the time he committed these offences and has submitted an undated report prepared by Dr Heather Ashton.

6.6.4. The Commission has considered this report which Mr. Koupparis appears to have submitted as new evidence and is satisfied that it does not contain any more or different evidence to that which she gave at trial. The Commission has also seen a copy of Dr Ashton's original signed and dated report (17/03/89) and notes that it is almost identical to the undated and unsigned report that Mr. Koupparis has submitted with his application.

6.6.5. It was a matter for the jury to assess whether Mr Koupparis acted whilst under the influence of these drugs. The Commission is not satisfied that there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would find Dr Ashton's report able to advance Mr Koupparis' case any further on this particular issue as there is nothing new which was not before the jury at the time of Mr. Koupparis' trial contained in this report. The Commission is not satisfied that there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal could consider that this evidence would afford any ground for allowing Mr. Koupparis' appeal.

6.7. On 17 April 1987 Mr Koupparis states that he was arrested for bizarre behaviour and that consideration given to sectioning him under the Mental Health Act. The police surgeon noted that he was taking Halcion and Xanax in excessive quantities. This information was never given to Dr Ashton. It is suggested that this incident is important in demonstrating Mr. Koupparis' state of mind during this period as this took place after Mr. Koupparis had sent the blackmail demand to the Cyprus High Commission in London but before he sought to obtain money by deception my masquerading as Symeon Chambanellos.

6.7.1. The Commission attempted to obtain the police records relating to Mr. Koupparis arrest at this time but unfortunately they have been destroyed in accordance with the police retention policy. The Commission has however seen a copy of the custody record and the statement of Dr Philpott who examined Mr. Koupparis on this occasion as copies of these documents were in the main police file.

6.7.2. On this occasion Mr. Koupparis was arrested at St Ives following a disturbance in a restaurant and taken to Camborne Police Station, he was charged with criminal damage and being in possession of an offensive weapon. In a statement dated 31 March 1989 Dr D S Philpott set out his examination and treatment of Mr. Koupparis on 18 April 1987. Dr Philpott reported that Mr. Koupparis had told him he was on Halcion and Xanax. "I am aware that the custody record on Mr. Koupparis says that the doctor was forming the opinion that the prisoner was hypomanic. This was not the case and greatly overstates my opinion at the time. Hypomania is a psychiatric diagnosis ...if I had thought Mr. Koupparis was hypomanic I would have asked a psychiatrist to see him and help decide whether he was fit for detention."

6.7.3. The Commission is not satisfied that there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would find Mr. Koupparis' conviction to be unsafe on this basis. The fact that Mr. Koupparis has been arrested on this occasion was raised at his trial by Mr. Koupparis himself and this is not therefore a new issue,

6.8. "Q. I believe also there was some - I do not think this is a conviction, there was some charge at St. Ives of some consequence but I do not believe anything happened about that. A. Immediately prior to my arrest for this I was arrested by the police in St. Ives. I was held in the police station overnight and released on police bail and a number of

charges arose out of that, but since I was arrested for this nothing has happened. I believe that was adjourned sine die." (page 7.9 transcript of Mr. Koupparis' examination in chief) Professor Ian Oswald reported in April 1991 "I advise that additional evidence, not available at the time of his trial, confirms that his bizarre conduct in early 1987 should be regarded as attributable to the drug Halcion that he was taking on prescription. I am entirely satisfied that ....Halcion would, in the dosage used and for the periods of time used, have been likely to cause the mental disorder and hostility manifest in the behaviour of Mr Koupparis in 1987".

6.8.1. The Commission has only seen this extract from Professor Oswald's report, which was included in a report entitled "Fools Justice - A Report for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice". The Commission has not been sent a copy of Dr Oswald's full report. Attempts to contact Mr. Koupparis and his representatives have been unsuccessful. The Commission is unable to deal with this issue on the basis of a short extract from a report.

6.9. Suppression of evidence- Mr. Koupparis has submitted two documents (see website) which he states support his defence but which were not used at the trial.

6.9.2. The first of these documents is a letter dated 4 May 1987 in which a Dr Nicholas Vites agrees to provide medical services for Mr. Koupparis and his family. Mr. Koupparis states that Dr Vites was potentially an important witness.

6.9.3. The second document that Mr. Koupparis relies on relates to the extraction of gold from seawater. This report was prepared by Dr J Borg Costanzi for Dr Vites. Mr. Koupparis contends that this

document supports his contentions that his condition caused him to have bizarre delusions.

6.9.4. These two items of evidence are tendered by Mr. Koupparis in order to support his Defence of prescription drug induced hypomania. Dr Vites letter by itself alone merely shows that he had agreed to act as Mr. Koupparis' doctor. He has not given any explanation of Mr. Koupparis' condition or made reference to his symptoms. Without further information on this issue the Commission does not consider that there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would consider that this evidence takes this matter further.

6.9.5. The report prepared by Dr Costanzi makes reference to the presence of gold in seawater. The jury were made aware of a large number of Mr Koupparis' grandiose delusions at the trial and the Commission is not satisfied that there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would consider that the admission of this piece of evidence would have significantly assisted Mr Koupparis' Defence.

6.9.6. The Commission notes Mr. Koupparis' explanation for the failure to call Dr Vites to be a witness. Mr Koupparis states that Dr Vites refused to co-operate with one firm of solicitors and that the other firm that Mr Koupparis used refused to use his evidence.

6.9.7. Both these documents existed at the time of and therefore could have been available at Mr. Koupparis' trial. The Commission notes Mr. Koupparis' comments that his legal advisors did not wish to include these documents but has been unable to investigate this issue further due to a lack of response from Mr. Koupparis and his representatives. The Commission is not satisfied that these documents are new evidence or that there was a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it at the trial. The Commission is further not satisfied that there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would consider this evidence affords grounds for allowing an appeal. The Commission is of the view that the Court of Appeal would be unlikely to receive this evidence in the light of the criteria at 6.5.1 and there is no real possibility that it would find Mr. Koupparis' conviction to be unsafe on the basis of these documents.

6.10. Murder of defence witness prior to trial (Mr. Koupparis states that a Marilyn Monroe look alike friend of his was murdered because of her connection with this case)

6.10.1. The Commission has previously noted that Mr. Koupparis did not contest at trial the fact that he had committed these offences, the main issue in the case being his state of mind when he committed those acts. The Commission therefore fails to see the relevance of this particular issue. Mr. Koupparis has not explained in any more detail why he believes this person was murdered in connection with this case. The Commission has made numerous attempts to contact him and his representatives but these have not been successful. Without further information on this point the Commission is unable to pursue this matter further.

6.11. Evidence of poisoning of the defendant by one or more co- defendants. (Mr. Koupparis has accused his ex-wife on a number of occasions of trying to poison him, with the cocktail of drugs he was prescribed at the time of the offences and shortly before. This was because divorce was not really an option. He made allegations to the police in this regard on a number of occasions)

6.12. New material witnesses and evidence not available at the trial

6.13. He and Simon Charalambos are the same person so he was entitled to use that name

Charalambos. He states that this being the case he should not have been found guilty of this offence.

6.13.2. The Commission is not satisfied that this new evidence would assist Mr. Koupparis. The Commission accepts that Mr Koupparis may have an entitlement to use the name Simon Charalambos, but also considers that, by using it, he intended to deceive as he was pretending to be someone other than himself.

6.13.3. The money that Mr. Koupparis received as Simon Charalambos was allegedly intended to assist Simon Charalambos to infiltrate Force Majeure, the organisation behind the blackmail, and deactivate the PIG's which were allegedly positioned all over the island of Cyprus.

6.13.4. Mr. Koupparis knew when he took that money that Force Majeure did not exist and that the blackmail demands were hoaxes. He had put himself forward in the phone calls that he made to the Cyprus High Commission as an expert in medicine, chemistry, physics, electronics, computers, telephones and another 100 subjects (see page 11.61 of the transcript of Crystal Heather Ashton's evidence). Mr. Koupparis was not an expert on any of these topics and the Prosecution case was that he had made these representations in this guise in order to proceed in his scheme of blackmail.

6.13.5. The Commission is not satisfied that there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would find Mr. Koupparis' conviction to be unsafe on the basis that he was entitled to use the name Simon Charalambos. Moreover this is not new evidence as it was something that Mr Koupparis would have known about at the time of the trial, at which his use of the name was discussed, and there is no reasonable explanation for his failure to raise the document at that time.

6.14. Mr Koupparis' mental condition at the time of the commission of the offences. The offences he was charged with were crimes of specific intent. Dr. Ashton trimmed her report at the behest of Counsel without Mr. Koupparis' consent and in such a way as to close off the most logical and available defence, "drug induced psychosis".

"I think the drugs prescribed, which was Parstelin, a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (presumably to counteract the depression) was prescribed in excessive dosage, as I have already suggested, and flipped him over into a toxic hypomanic state which is a well known effect." (Page 11.37 of the transcript of Dr Crystal Heather Ashton's evidence)

6.14.2. The Commission therefore considers that there is no real possibility that the Court of Appeal would find Mr. Koupparis' conviction to be unsafe on this basis.

6.15. Incompetence of counsel and failure to follow expressed wishes. Failure to discuss tactics in context of rewriting reports and failure by counsel to follow line of defence of drug induced psychosis where he would appear to have withdrawn this from the jury with the support of the judge.

6.15.2. The Commission has made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact Mr Koupparis and his representatives in order to obtain further evidence on this issue. The Commission requires a signed Waiver of Legal privilege from Mr Koupparis before it can contact his former legal advisors and discuss aspects of the case and his representation with them. Without further information or responses from Mr Koupparis the Commission is unable to pursue this issue further.

6.15.3. In any event the Commission has read the summing up and is satisfied that the Defence issue of drug induced psychosis was left to the jury, the judge stated in relation to Dr Ashton's evidence,

"In cross-examination she admitted that her opinion was based on what she had been told and from the case papers. She had not heard the telephone tapes but she knew the case covered a period of six weeks. She repeated her assertion, which I am sure you will accept,

that if Mr. Koupparis took all those drugs in various combinations he would, for that reason, be likely to be hypomanic."

6.16. Counsel's conduct prior to trial. Meeting between leading Counsel and persons acting on behalf of Cypriot Government. It is not normal practice for Counsel for the Defence to meet witnesses or representatives of witnesses who are being called for the Prosecution.

6.17. Compellability of Doctors from overseas. Had to rely on evidence of Debbie Postgate. Quality of her evidence and what she could say about the case was strictly limited. Arguably the evidence of Dr. Sophocleous or Dr Evthokas was not available at the trial, as there was only the evidence of Debbie Postgate's meetings with them. The medication regime Mr. Koupparis was subjected to whilst in Cyprus was critical in terms of evidence for the Defence. This evidence was given second hand in an unsatisfactory form. Evidence was tainted and/or inaccurate and subsequent medical assessments were based on faulty or incorrect information.

6.17.2. The Commission is satisfied that the non-attendance of these witnesses at the trial is not new evidence as it was something which the jury were made aware of at the time. The Commission has received no suggestion that they would give direct evidence now.

6.18. Conduct of the trial and withholding of evidence and in certain cases impersonation of witnesses.

6.19. Incompetence of Counsel to prepare and represent Mr. Koupparis

6.20. Failure of Counsel to discuss tactics and pursue certain lines of defence which were not properly put before the client by way of a clear option or options

6.20.1. See paragraph 6.12.1 above.

6.21. Counsel did not follow Mr. Koupparis' expressed wishes and instructions

6.22. Failure to utilise available unused material particularly that relating to Dr Sophocleous.

6.22.2. For the reasons given above the Commission has not seen a copy of the Advice to Counsel. Attempts to contact Mr. Koupparis and his representatives for further information have been unsuccessful.

6.22.3. Dr Sophocleous did not give evidence at the trial but Miss Deborah Postgate visited Dr Sophocleous in Cyprus and took his statement. The Commission considers that a possible reason why the Defence did not take any steps to discredit Dr Sophocleous' evidence was because he was in fact a Defence witness. His evidence was used to support Mr Koupparis' defence that he had acted whilst in a state of prescription drug induced hypomania. Dr Sophocleous was the Doctor who had prescribed the drugs that Mr. Koupparis was taking. The Defence wished to establish that Mr. Koupparis had taken these drugs whilst being treated by Dr Sophocleous. Although the Defence could have argued that he had wrongly prescribed because not properly trained, the introduction of such evidence may have affected his credibility as a witness. In the opinion of the Commission the significant issues at the trial concerned whether Mr. Koupparis had in fact taken the drugs and, if so, whether they would have affected his mind to the extent that he did not have the necessary intent for the offences. The evidence as to the amounts prescribed was not disputed by the Prosecution.

6.22.4. The Commission notes that Mr. Koupparis objects to Dr Sophocleous' evidence as he allegedly diagnosed Mr. Koupparis as suffering from schizophrenia and manic depression and this "contaminated every subsequent medical opinion". The Commission has considered the transcripts of the medical evidence in this case, which was crucial to establishing. Mr Koupparis' defence. The Commission is satisfied that this issue was presented fairly to the jury and that the judge gave a suitable and adequate direction on this point.

6.22.5. "In the hands of Dr Sophocleous and Dr Evokas he says that he was subjected to a barrage of prescriptions. The solicitor, Miss Postgate's evidence of her survey of the doctors' notes bears this out. I carefully noted all the drugs to which she referred. They do not tally exactly with Mr. Koupparis' own list, but certainly in the latter days they seem to bear out what he has written down for you. I do not believe for a moment that a detailed analysis is necessary. It is for you to consider whether all the evidence supports his assertion that he took as many and in such a variety as he says." (pages 12.24 - 12.25 Summing up).

7. Provisional Decision

7.2. On the information currently available the Commission is not minded to refer this conviction. Mr Koupparis has been offered the opportunity to make further representations in response to this provisional decision.

8. Further Representations

8.2. Further representations were received from Mr. Koupparis by letter on 17th February 2003, 18th February 2003, 21st July 2003, 24th July 2003 and 10th September 2003; from The Citizen's Commission on Scandals in Justice on 25th July 2003 and 22nd August 2003; and from Reid Sinclair & Co on 24th April 2003, 23rd July 2003, 30th July 2003 and 8th September 2003.

Mr. Koupparis' further submissions

8.3. The lawyer who defended Mr. Koupparis' co-defendant in Cyprus was elected president of the Republic of Cyprus in February 2003. In view of this fact Mr. Koupparis stated that important new evidence can be obtained from Cyprus that was not previously available which would have assisted his Defence.

8.4. The Commission notes that Mr. Koupparis has not set out what this new evidence might be nor how it would have assisted his defence. The Commission notes that the thrust of Mr. Koupparis' defence at the trial was that he was not responsible for his actions as he was at the time suffering from an involuntary psychosis caused by taking prescribed medication. The Court of Appeal is not a forum for retrying a case on a different defence when the original line of defence has failed. Without knowing at least the nature of the possible new evidence the Commission cannot assess its value or the possibility, real or otherwise, that the Court of Appeal would find the conviction to be unsafe on this basis.

8.5. The effect of the possible prosecution of Dr Graham S Pearson, the former Director of Porton Down.

8.6. Dr Pearson's evidence at Mr. Koupparis' trial was limited to a statement about whether or not the threats made in the blackmail demand letter written by Mr. Koupparis could actually be carried out.

The Commission is unaware of any prosecution against Dr Pearson but in any event is not satisfied that the Court of Appeal would find Mr. Koupparis conviction to be unsafe on this basis.

Letter dated 18`h February 2003

8.7. With reference to paragraph 1.13 above Mr. Koupparis states that he did not accept that the summaries of the telephone calls were accurate and he has submitted an excerpt of the transcript of his evidence and an extract from a report of Mr. Henry Bland Consulting Forensic Scientist which he states make it clear that the summaries are disputed and the integrity of the underlying tapes is called into question.

8.8. The Commission notes that Mr. Koupparis' defence at trial was that he was suffering from a drug-induced psychosis and that he was therefore not responsible for his actions. The Commission notes the points that Mr. Koupparis makes about the tapes and summaries but in light of Mr. Koupparis' defence at trial the Commission is not satisfied that the Court of Appeal would find his conviction to be unsafe on this basis.

8.9. Mr. Koupparis further states that the Prosecution's claim that he, "attempted to obtain dishonestly ...£25,000," collapses when police tape exhibits RH/1, RH/2, RH/3, AD/5 and the police videotape are examined.

8.10. Mr. Koupparis states:

1. The police tape and supporting video demonstrates that Mr. Koupparis did not leave with £25,000 and the High Commissioner did not say that he had.

2. The Police tape demonstrates that the Cypriot police were told a) Simon Campanellos was a false name and b) spurious passport details had been given to the High Commissioner

3. The Police tape demonstrates that the name Koupparis was given to the High Commissioner's secretary who then gave it to the High Commissioner on the morning of 14th May 1987.

8.11. Mr. Koupparis contends that there was no deception regarding his name as he used his real name - Mr. Koupparis - when calling Mr. Panayides. He did not leave his office with £25,000 and he made no pretence or deception about Simon Campanellas

because he told the Cypriot police it was false and that he was going to give Mr. Panayides spurious passport details. The Prosecution accepts he gave genuine undisguised passport photographs of himself. Thus the prosecution claim that he "attempted to obtain dishonestly ...£25,000" collapses when the police tape and video are examined.

8.12. The Commission has made concerted efforts to obtain the tapes and the video but due to the age of the case it appears that these have now been destroyed. Mr. Koupparis has indicated that he has copies of these items but has declined to allow the Commission to view these or provide copies of the same.

8.13. The Commission is not satisfied that the Court of Appeal would find Mr. Koupparis conviction to be unsafe on the basis of any of the points raised in this letter.

Mr. Koupparis' letter dated 21st July 2003

8.14. In this letter Mr. Koupparis states that he has been unable to contact his solicitors for several weeks despite leaving messages for him and sending letters. Dr Ashton has prepared draft reports which are yet to be finalised because she requires clarification from the CCRC and also confirmation that her fees will be met by the Commission. Mr. Koupparis also informed the Commission that he had been attacked and suffered a broken nose.

8.15. Following a telephone call from Mr Koupparis, the Commission contacted Professor Ashton on September 23rd. 2003. The Commission has ascertained that there is no question of Professor Ashton declining to finalise any report on the basis that she had not been remunerated. Professor Ashton has expended many hours of her time in compiling two reports in April and May. She cannot, in the Commission's view, be in any way criticised for failing to represent Mr Koupparis' interests.

8.16. In the conversation of September 23rd, Professor Ashton stated that her lack of legal knowledge may have compromised her understanding of the defence of involuntary intoxication.

8.17. The defence of involuntary intoxication, however, can only serve to represent an argument of lack of intent. Lack of intent was the argument at the heart of the defence case. The effect of the drugs - as expertly explained to the jury by Professor Ashton - was, in turn, at

the heart of this argument. The prosecution's case, put simply, was that notwithstanding the drugs which Mr Koupparis may or may not have taken (and there was not direct evidence of the amount taken as opposed to the amount prescribed) the nature and complexity of Mr Koupparis' scheme showed a degree of sustained calculation which amounted to intent. The jury, as the arbiter of fact, rejected the defence case. Any attempt to re-argue essentially the central ground argued at trial is, in the Commission's view, doomed.

Mr. Koupparis' letter dated 24th July 2003

8.18. Mr. Koupparis submitted a medical report regarding his broken nose.

Mr. Koupparis' letter dated 10th September 2003

8.19. Mr. Koupparis wrote to inform us that his solicitors had ceased to act and request a further extension of time to obtain new solicitors.

Letters-from the Citizen's Commission on Scandals in British Justice

Letter dated 25th July 2003

8.20. In this letter they submitted a paper copy of a "recently rediscovered transcript of the Judge's summing up". In this copy all references to "Hypomania" are written as "Hypermania", this is contrary to the version of the summing up featured on their web site and they sought clarification of this issue and ask whether they ought to reformulate and resubmit their submissions on this basis.

Letter dated 22nd August 2003

8.21. In this letter they enclosed a further copy of the transcript of the summing up in which all the references are to Hypomania as opposed to Hypermania.

8.22. The Commission is proceeding on the basis that Mr. Koupparis was claiming to be suffering from 'hypomania'. Hypermania is a totally incapacitating condition. After seeking professional advice on the subject, the Commission's view is that for Mr. Koupparis to claim to be suffering from "Hypermania" would be lacking credibility, as this would have meant he was totally incapacitated.

Letters from Reid Sinclair solicitors

Letter dated 24th April 2003

8.23. Mr. Koupparis' solicitors submitted that they needed the advice of Leading Counsel or a QC in this case and consequently requested an extension of time to apply to the Legal Services Commission for an extension of their client's financial limit under the Advice and Assistance Scheme, to brief Counsel and to forward their perfected further submissions to us.

Letter dated 23rd July 2003

8.24. Mr. Koupparis' solicitors submitted that there has been a total breakdown in communication with Mr. Koupparis as he has been attacked and had his nose broken, a further extension of time was requested on that basis.

Letter dated 30th July 2003

8.25. Mr. Reid contended that the trial proceeded on the basis that Mr. Koupparis was hypermanic and requested clarification as to whether the term hypomanic or hypermanic was relied on at trial. Reference is made to the Camborne Police Station Record which says hypermania; however the Commission misquoted this as hypomania.

8.26. See paragraph 8.22 above.

Letter dated 8th September 2003

8.27. In their letter dated 8 September 2003 Reid Sinclair informed the Commission that they were no longer able to act for Mr. Koupparis and requested a further extension in order that he obtain new legal representation.

Letters from Simpson Lloyd Heald solicitors

Letter dated 24th September 2003

8.28. By a letter dated 24th September Simpson Lloyd Heald confirmed and that they were now acting for Mr. Koupparis.

8.29. On 23rd September 2003 Mr. Simpson of Simpson Lloyd Heald telephoned the Commission. The contents of this conversation were confirmed in their letter dated 24th September. In light of the

difficulties claimed by Mr. Koupparis in obtaining new medical reports, and the fact that he had recently instructed a new firm of solicitors the Commission granted a further extension of 10 weeks for the submission of further representations until 2nd December 2003.

8.30. On 27th November 2003 Simpson Lloyd Heald again wrote to the Commission seeking a further extension of time until 2nd February 2004 as the expert medical evidence was still not available.

8.31. In light of the length of extensions already granted in this case, in fairness to its other applicants and having assured Mr Koupparis' representatives that in the event of a re-application (accompanied by realistic, relevant and perfected grounds) his case will once again be eligible for review, the Commission is not minded to accede to a further request for an extension of time.

9. Final Decision

Signed:

D Jessel

Date: 2 XII 03

Under Sections 9 to 12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, where a person has been convicted on indictment or by a magistrates' court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the Commission may at any time refer the resulting conviction, verdict, finding or sentence to the Court of Appeal, Crown Court or County Court as appropriate.

By Section 13 of the Act, a reference shall not be made unless the Commission consider that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made.

By the same Section, this consideration must be reached because of argument, evidence or, in the case of a sentence, argument on a point of law or information, not raised in the proceedings which led to the conviction or on any appeal or application for leave to appeal.

A reference shall not be made unless an appeal has been determined or an application for leave to appeal has been refused.

In exceptional circumstances, the Commission may refer a case where there has been no previous appeal or application for leave to appeal.

In exceptional circumstances, the Commission may also refer a conviction, verdict or finding (but not a sentence) in the absence of any argument or evidence not previously raised.