Fools' Justice

Background
Koupparis is a British citizen who had been living with his family in Cyprus from June 1983 until 26 March 1987 when he returned to London to seek specialist medical advice. His wife and young daughter joined him two weeks later.
        He returned in a highly disturbed mental state. He had been under the care of two Cypriot psychiatrists for some time. He was experiencing paranoid delusions and multiple identities while his behaviour was described by many witnesses as bizarre and outrageous.
        On 17 April 87 the family visited St Ives where there was an incident at a take-away restaurant which was reported to the Police. Witnesses say that Koupparis was threatening several large, drunken rugby players with a vicious, two pronged, 12" Kitchen Devil knife, trying to drive his car through the restaurant's window and trying to run people down in the street. He was arrested a few hours later for failing to provide a breath sample. The Police assumed that he was drunk.

Custody
He was taken to Camborne Police station and given two intoxicometer tests which proved negative. He was arrested for the incident at the take-away and charged with possessing an offensive weapon, criminal damage and dangerous driving.
        The Custody Record shows that he asked the Police to contact the President of Cyprus, Mr Spiros Kyprianou, and the Cypriot High Commissioner, Mr Tassos Panayides, to inform them of his arrest.

Prosecution
The next day, 14 May 1987, Koupparis, his two brothers, wife and a chauffeur, were arrested by the anti-terrorist squad in London while his sister-in-law was arrested in Cyprus. The driver was released but the rest were charged with an offence allegedly committed in Cyprus on 23 March 1987, namely, blackmailing the Government of Cyprus for $15 million. This was before he and his wife had arrived in England.
        The case against the sister-in-law was thrown out by a Cypriot Judge on the grounds that her statements to the Police were taken in contravention of legal procedures.
        The rest spent several weeks or months in custody. The charge was eventually dropped against everyone except Koupparis and his wife. She was granted bail after nine weeks while he was transferred to the infamous F Wing psychiatric facility at HMP Brixton Prison. Koupparis and his wife were jointly represented by Mr Joseph Aaron of Wm. Stockler and Co. The firm withdrew their services from Koupparis because of his state of mind and a conflict of interests. They continued to represent Koupparis's wife. Frank Campion of Campions was retained and he instructed Anthony Wilcken to represent Koupparis at the committal. Wilcken received his brief on the first day of the hearing which was 24 November 1987.
        The couple were committed for trial, on the original charge, on 25 November 1987. On 7 April 1988 new indictments were issued on two different counts; Blackmailing the High Commissioner for Cyprus for $15 million and Attempting to obtain property by deception. The wife was indicted on the first count only. The original charge was dropped and no attempt was ever made to extradite them back to Cyprus. The two new offences were alleged to have been committed shortly before and after the Camborne incident within English jurisdiction. After the committal Michael Kalisher QC led the defence for Koupparis.
        A work-to-rule by Prison Officers resulted in Koupparis being held at various Police stations throughout the south-east until December 1987 when he was sent to HMP Pentonville. He was placed on normal location and never received any form of psychiatric treatment or medication throughout the remaining years he was to spend in prison.

Medical
Koupparis instructed Campions to obtain the expert services of Dr C H Ashton, a pharmacologist at Newcastle University. Campions made an initial enquiry but then retained Dr Paul Bowden, a psychiatrist, instead. In August 1988 he declared Koupparis to be insane and reported an extensive history of manic depressive illness spanning several years. He recommended that Koupparis be sectioned to a secure mental unit and claimed that he was unfit to plead. Dr Ashley Robin produced a report for the prosecution which they refused to serve at the time. Meanwhile Koupparis had sat an RSA stage 3 English language examination at Pentonville and had obtained a pass only days before Dr Bowden's unfit to plead diagnosis. Dr Bowden, Campion and Counsel were unaware of this banana skin in their path.

First Trial
The first trial started before The Common Sergeant of London, Judge Thomas Pigot, in September 1988 and lasted one day. Koupparis was forced to sack his lawyers, on Frank Campion's advice, when it became apparent that Wilcken was asking for a disposal under the Mental Health Act. Judge Pigot ordered another prosecution psychiatric report and committed Koupparis to an unfit to plead hearing in November 1988 but that was abandoned before it took place. He ordered a further psychiatric report before agreeing to transfer his legal-aid certificate to a new solicitor, Miss Deborah Postgate of Hallmark Atkinson, Wynter. Dr Michael a'Brook, a Harley Street psychiatrist, examined Koupparis for the defence but Postgate persuaded him not to write his medical report.
        The prosecution's experts, Dr Paul D'Orban and Dr Robin agreed with Dr Bowden that Koupparis had been mentally ill but disputed his diagnosis of unfit to plead. Dr Bowden had requested the full UK medical records from Campions but had then completed his report without seeing them after a conference with Counsel.
        Those records were disclosed to Dr Robin who was the first prosecution psychiatrist to examine Koupparis and they became incorporated into the Prison Medical File. Dr Robin and Dr D'Orban made no mentioned of Koupparis's full UK medical records which revealed that he had never suffered from any mental or other illness, in fact, quite the opposite. He had been extensively evaluated and found to have been perfectly sane and healthy. Dr D'Orban claimed that the Prison Medical File was at another prison during his examination. The prosecution and their doctors were suppressing material evidence from an early stage.
        In early 1989 Postgate went to Cyprus to interview the two doctors who had been treating Koupparis. She discovered that one of them, Dr P Sophocleous, had been a bogus, mentally ill charlatan who had been struck off shortly after Koupparis was arrested. He altered his medical records in her presence and was caught lying about the treatments he claimed to have given him. Dr T Evthokas, the last to treat him, confirmed that was suffering from "pseudo- schizophrenia," a drug-induced condition, at the time of the alleged offences.

Expert Opinions
Postgate retained the services of Dr Ashton who analysed the full medical records and came to the conclusion that Koupparis had never been mentally ill but had experienced a psychosis caused by prescription drugs administered in "grossly inappropriate and excessive dosages."
        Two of those drugs were XANAX and HALCION which had been noted by Dr Philpott at Camborne. The dosages and treatment periods he recorded were gross overdoses known to cause psychoses. Dr Ashton was not shown Dr Philpott's evidence. She arrived at her conclusions from the Cypriot doctors' statements and the UK medical records.
        If the Police at Camborne had taken Dr Philpott's advice Koupparis would never have been arrested by the anti-terrorist squad and his multi-million pound trials would have been avoided. The lawyers subsequently involved in the case decided to suppress the evidence proving his innocence and proceed with a politically motivated trial which has become a classic example of an injustice!

Defence
Under British law it is sufficient for the defence to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant was the victim of an involuntary, drug-induced psychosis. This establishes an irrefutable defence to any charge, including murder.

Second Trial
The second trial started before Judge Brian Smedley at the Old Bailey in April 1989. Anthony Arlidge QC and Stephen Mejzner were briefed for the defence. The trial was a shambles, disclosure had not been made, expert reports were not ready, defence witnesses had not been subpoenaed, the prosecution knowingly opened their case with false evidence and refused to tender most of the served witnesses. Arlidge failed to challenge their case properly or at all in some instances. Koupparis interrupted the trial on several occasions with direct applications to the Judge. Most of these were granted and led to adjournments while he was brought to Court to examine unused material and listen to prosecution tapes.
        A confrontation developed when Arlidge re-wrote Dr Ashton's report, in the presence of Koupparis, removing all the evidence in support of the drug-induced psychosis defence! He also flatly refused to call Dr Philpott and the Cypriot doctors as defence witnesses. He asked for a signed endorsement of his actions which Koupparis refused to give. Arlidge then withdrew along with his Junior and the instructing solicitors. He was not sacked, he simply chose to quit.
        Koupparis was left unrepresented. He declined to represent himself but the Judge refused to allow him to retain new Counsel, cancelled his legal-aid certificate and insisted that the trial proceed. Koupparis agreed, under the circumstances, to assist the court by cross-examining prosecution witnesses. Many inconsistencies were found in their evidence. One Cypriot Policeman apologised to the Judge when his testimony collapsed. However, the strains were beginning to show on all sides and after two weeks Koupparis fell asleep in the dock due to fatigue, hunger and lack of sleep. He was still a prisoner spending each night at Brixton and making the gruelling six to eight hour journey to and from the Court in handcuffs.
        Mejzner had provided him with a hand-written version of counsels' brief which explained the defence of involuntary intoxication along with copies of the associated legal precedents. At one point Koupparis handed the Judge a copy of the Camborne Police Custody Record along with Dr Philpott's statements and requested that the witnesses be called on his behalf.
        The Judge became increasingly concerned with the conduct of the proceedings which had devolved into a circus, for example, when he ruled against Koupparis on the admissibility of certain evidence the jury sent him a note asking to see it!
        Nicholas Hamblin, a barrister, made an application before the Judge to represent Koupparis. The Judge reversed his earlier decision and allowed new Counsel, led by Michael Beckman QC, to take over the case. After a few days of legal arguments the trial was abandoned but not before the Judge directed the jury to acquit Koupparis's wife against whom the prosecution had not managed to present a case.
        The retrial was set to start in one month with no possibility of a further adjournment. Beckman appeared before Judge Smedley in mid- May urging him to grant an adjournment because Koupparis had raised important unresolved issues. The Judge refused the application. Beckman then stated that he would be forced to present Arlidge's brief rather than his own. An application to allow a second Junior barrister, Christopher Peri, to join the defence team was successful.

Third Trial
The final trail was heard before Justice Macpherson in Court 1 of the Old Bailey. Beckman and Neil Sampson of the new solicitors, Sampson and Co., ensured that the third trial was not a repeat performance of its predecessor. Koupparis was tried under the duress of a Special Verdict! This facilitated the total suppression of the same crucial medical evidence! Koupparis was told that a psychiatrist had observed him during the previous trial and was prepared to say that he was still mentally ill. Dr Bowden's report had already been served on the Court therefore it was a mere formality to invoke an unfit to plead verdict, especially if the fiasco of the previous trial was blamed on his state of mind. He was in an impossible position. Any attempt to complain would have sealed his fate.

Suppression of Evidence
Koupparis was denied the right to present his defence! It can now be shown that much of the evidence presented against him was false, fabricated or perjured. Charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice could be formulated against many of those involved in the trial.
        Dr Ashton's oral evidence did not correspond with that of her report although she now says that she still supports her original diagnosis of drug-induced psychosis. She has admitted that Arlidge rewrote her report but has not given a satisfactory explanation for the change in her evidence. The Court's archive department claims that no medical reports were served at the trial despite the existence of transcripts documenting the trial Judge actually referring to them.
        Dr Ashton's diagnosis was "hypo-mania" at the trial. The Judge told the jury on several occasions that this was not a defence. She also said that Koupparis had been a victim of a "drug-induced psychosis." Despite the glaring inconsistency Beckman carried on regardless, he and the Judge never once mentioned it.
        None of the medical experts who gave evidence at the trial had seen Dr Philpott's evidence. The prosecution did not disclose it to their own experts and actually denied that the incident had ever taken place during their summing-up.
        Beckman refused to call Dr Philpott, the two Cypriot doctors or a Cypriot pharmacist as defence witnesses. He also refused to present the actual defence. The prosecution claimed that there was no evidence that Koupparis had taken any drugs or that he had experienced a psychosis. They claimed that he was simply an odd and eccentric criminal with endogenous hypo-mania who knew exactly what he was doing. They did not actually challenge that he had taken the drugs he claimed to have taken.
        Evidence supporting involuntarily induced psychosis was completely suppressed. Documents now available show quite clearly that Victor Temple, prosecuting Counsel, knowingly presented a case that was false and supported it with forged and fabricated evidence. Even the statement of the Cypriot Policeman who had lied at the earlier trial and the statements which had been thrown out by the Cypriot Court were used. Mr Bland's expert report, also suppressed, shows that the Police tape exhibits used at the trial had been tampered with.
        The actual defence, prepared in writing by Mejzner, was that the presence of an intent caused by an involuntarily induced psychosis did not amount to a culpable intent. This is a well established defence in British Law. Professor West mentions it in his report. Koupparis was forced to presented it himself from the witness stand but it was completely ignored by his own Counsel and the Judge who failed to direct the jury in respect of its legal implications.
        Dr D'Orban gave evidence that psychoses induced by HALCION, or other drugs, were unknown to medical science. He had testified at another trial a few weeks earlier that a man accused of an attempted murder had been the victim of a "rare psychosis caused by a cocktail of prescription drugs." The cocktail had been very similar to the one Koupparis had taken. Justice French stopped that trial and directed the jury to acquit Steven Haines at Reading Crown Court on 15 December 1988.
        To compound the deception Beckman called Professor West for the defence. Koupparis had been told that he was a expert in the technical aspects of the blackmail case. However, he was a retired criminologist who gave an opinion that Koupparis may have suffered from hypo-mania but was capable of having formed an intent. His written report supports the findings of Dr Ashton's original report.
        Justice Macpherson directed the jury to find Koupparis guilty if they thought that he could have formed an intent. Not only a specific criminal intent but any intent. He told them that drunkenness was not a defence! The prosecution's medical experts told the jury that he had formed an intent. The significance of the Camborne Custody Record is that Koupparis could have shown that he had not formed a criminal intent!

McNaughton Rules
By asking the Police to contact the alleged victims while he was in custody he could not have had any criminal intent! The Camborne evidence illustrates a classic Judge's direction to help juries decide the McNaughton Question; "did he know what he was doing was wrong?" They are asked to consider the question; "would he have acted in the same way if a policeman had been standing next to him?" The case against Koupparis was that all his actions were criminally motivated but, clearly, he could not have had any intent to blackmail and deceive the alleged victims from inside a Police station! This was crucial evidence for the jury's consideration yet blatantly suppressed.

Conviction
Koupparis was convicted on both counts. The two counts were intended as alternatives! The prosecution's case was that he was either guilty of blackmail or a deception concerning the blackmail! A guilty verdict on one should have ruled out the other. He was sentenced to five and three years imprisonment to run concurrently.

Appeals
Beckman and Hamblin formulated Grounds for Appeal. These were completely spurious to the true defence argument because they had failed to present it at the trial. Their grounds were rejected by the Single Judge, Justice Mars-Jones, on 2 November 1989.
        Koupparis managed to obtain copies of the suppressed Camborne evidence in January 1990 while he was at HMP Wayland. Meanwhile the Court of Appeal had abandoned his appeal because the legal-aid Officer at HMP Norwich had failed to sign and date the correct appeal renewal form. The two original copies were discovered in his Prison Record folder many months later, they had not been given to him contrary to the official prison procedures.
        A new solicitor was retained on the green-form legal-aid scheme. He was only able to confirm that the appeal had been abandoned before the legal-aid expired.
        Nevertheless, Koupparis formally served the Camborne evidence on the Court by sending it to them through the Prison's legal-aid department. He also renewed his appeal before the Full Court. The Court lost this evidence and there followed months of confusion, denials, admissions and form filling, all to no avail. The Court still denies that it had ever received those papers although their acknowledgement of receipt is in the Prison Record folder.
        Another solicitor was retained, Adrian Goldring of Greenland Houchen, Watton. He sent the Camborne evidence to the Court of Appeal along with a letter pointing out that it contradicted the entire basis of the convictions. He requested the case papers from Hallmark Atkinson, Wynter and Sampson and Co. The former sent the original papers which Goldring took to the prison for Koupparis to examine. Several crucial defence and appeal exhibits were identified. These later disappeared when Nicholas Reeves of the firm's Norwich office took over the case.
        After his release Koupparis made a formal complaint about this to DC Pincher and DC Simpson of Bethel Street Police Station at Norwich. The Officers telephoned Reeves who confirmed that documents had disappeared without any reasonable explanation, however, the Police later refused to pursue the matter.
        Sampson and Co. refused to release the trial case papers and applied to the Law Society's Ethics Committee for a ruling that the papers were protected by professional privilege. The ruling went against them but they still refused to comply. When they were asked to produce the papers and exhibits recently the firm was unable to do so. Neil Sampson now claims that Hamblin destroyed the AD/1-18 tape exhibits and that copies of the case papers were sent to Greenland Houchen who deny that they have received anything from Sampson and Co.
        Enquiries are being made at the Document Exchange service by the Solicitors Complaints Bureau. The case papers, including three original prescriptions, have not been found. Some original case papers are purported to be at the Old Bailey's Taxing Office but Neil Sampson still refuses to give Koupparis a schedule of those papers or to authorise access to them.
        Greenland Houchen were granted legal-aid by the Court and engaged Roger Harrison to write an opinion on the fresh evidence. He dismissed it entirely and reiterated that "hypo-mania" had been fairly put to the jury. He reasoned that the Camborne evidence was available to trial Counsel therefore could not be raised at an appeal. The barristers' Old Boy network was operating at optimum efficiency.
        The firm also retained John Farmer to conduct a privately funded bail application. It arose because Koupparis had been offered release on parole but the Home Office cancelled the offer when he requested a written undertaking that his acceptance would not be regarded as an admission of guilt. Farmer appeared before Justice Phillips to say that Koupparis was entitled to bail on the grounds that he continued to suffer from an aberration of mind! Bail was refused.
        He spent a further six months in prison as a result. He was finally released on 12 September 1990 after having served a total of three years and four months Two years and two months were served as a remand prisoner awaiting trial.
        The appeal hearing was listed for 12 October 1990, a month after his release. A few days before the hearing the Court cancelled his legal-aid facility then Counsel withdrew from the hearing. Koupparis was left to represent himself again. He served the necessary forms and some of the relevant documents on the Court within time although he had still not secured the release of the trial case papers from his former solicitors, Sampson and Co.
        The Full Court, led by The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, dismissed the entire application. Their Lordships ignored his submissions and dealt only with the totally inappropriate grounds which Beckman and Hamblin had settled. These were rejected outright in a virtually empty court room.

Perjury
The prosecution's chief witness was Mr Tassos Panayides. He was the High Commissioner for Cyprus throughout the entire period and the official referred to on the indictment. Beckman and Hamblin signed Grounds for Appeal describing his evidence as "inconsistent with the undisputed facts." Their trial notes identify specific areas of his untruthful testimony. Comparison of his evidence with that of Det Supt Alec Edwards, the arresting officer, and Police statements taken at the time of arrest reveal substantial inconsistencies. The prosecution was forced to make formal admissions at the end of the trial because his evidence contradicted their own case! Part of his testimony could be checked against Police tape recordings of the incident but these have never been disclosed. His dramatic and unjustified outburst from the witness box was the Judge's reasoning for the severity of the sentence. Koupparis made a complaint to Scotland Yard on 17 September 1990. Alec Edwards and DI Turner took a statement from him but they have refused to investigate the matter. Panayides was recalled to Cyprus.

Sudden Death
One of the main defence witness, Miss Kay Kent, died under mysterious circumstances during the trial only days after being interviewed by Edith Cohen of Sampson and Co. Two autopsies failed to establish a conclusive cause of death. The Police investigating her death were never told that she had been a anti-terrorist squad surveillance target or that she was due to give evidence at the Old Bailey! Her evidence would have supported the defence case. Attempts by Koupparis to reopen the investigation were met with threats of arrest.

Fresh Evidence
Professor Ian Oswald, an eminent psychiatrist and head of faculty at Edinburgh University, has written a fresh report which was based, in part, on the suppressed records of the Camborne Police, Dr Philpott's various and inconsistent statements and the results of recent medical research. This new report shows clearly that Koupparis was the victim of a serious mental disorder caused by prescription drugs.

"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 period of time used, have been likely to cause the mental disorder and hostility manifest in the behaviour of Mr Koupparis in 1987."

Professor Oswald, 27 April 1991.

Halcion
On 2 October 1991 the British Government banned the drug HALCION because it can induce the very symptoms Koupparis had claimed in his defence; delusions, hallucinations and paranoia. Dr Philpott had noted a dosage of four times the maximum UK recommended daily dose of 0.125 mg. According to the prescribing doctor's notes he had been taking as much as 1.5 mgs daily, twelve times the recommended level! Dr Philpott's record was confirmed by Police exhibit #17 (page 196) an original prescription which had been served at the committal and had been included in the jury's bundle of evidence. The exhibit has been identified by Mr Georgiades, the Cypriot pharmacist who dispensed it.

Attempted Murder
Given that large doses of HALCION can cause severe mental disorder and even death, there are serious inconsistencies on the face of certain witness statements which are of sufficient magnitude to constitute a prima facie case of attempted murder. Either Mrs Koupparis had been manipulating the doctor's prescription or Dr Evthokas has been lying about his treatments. Koupparis was denied the opportunity of putting these questions to either of them. His wife was prematurely acquitted and the doctor was not, and could not have been, subpoenaed. A report, entitled "Cause for Concern," was sent to Scotland Yard but they have refused to investigate. Koupparis received a formal notice that he would be arrested for wasting Police time. The officer assigned to deal with the matter was Alec Edwards.

Conspiracy
A number of vital defence exhibits have disappeared under extraordinary circumstances from different solicitors' offices and the Courts themselves. These exhibits expose a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Three original prescriptions brought back from Cyprus by Miss Postgate can be shown to have been forgeries. Eighteen Police tape cassette exhibits, AD/1-18, can be proven to have been falsified and fabricated in parts. Original defence and prosecution medical reports, according to Edwards, have disappeared from the Old Bailey's records department. The version of Dr Ashton's report used at the trial had been re-written by Arlidge. Justice Macpherson had a copy of it. He could not have summed-up in the way that he did if he had seen the original version. This too seems to have disappeared.

The Offence
The prosecution and Cypriot Government have always claimed that this was a serious matter and pursued the conviction with extraordinary vigour, however, the actual details of the offence and proper examination of the exhibits demonstrates beyond doubt that the whole affair was a ludicrous farce. The alleged blackmail was embodied in a 13 page letter addressed to the President of Cyprus. Dr Beard for the defence had said that it displayed "paranoid" qualities. The Judge ruled his evidence inadmissible. Dr Ashton, Dr Ashworth and Professor West agreed that it was unmistakably the work of someone mentally deranged. The Judge prevented Dr Ashworth from giving her evidence.
        The letter threatened the activation of satellite controlled, computerised PIG's all over Cyprus unless $15 million was sent to the Cyprus High Commission in London. One third of it had to be in 200 dollar bills which do not exist! It purported to be from "Commander Nemo" of Force Majeure. Some pages were dated April Fools' day, others referred to a computer program called "God" that would act as their "Judge." The "threat" was the release of Di-Tox B7 but this proved to be an impossible nonsense. It was firmly dismissed by Porton Down on the 1st of April 1987. A "telex" was produced as evidence. It was a photocopy of a "satellite" communication from "Colonel Digsby of MI6," with a Department of Trade and Industry logo attached, advising the Cypriots to use lots of bleaching powder!
        The exhibits reveal dozens of schemes and projects which are patently impossible, nuclear powered contact lenses, gold from sea-water, cures for AIDS, baldness and traffic congestion. There are disjointed references to magic mirrors, filofaxes, religions, movie stars, pop singers, charities, fictional detectives, science fiction and much more which does not make any sense within the prosecution's case but corresponds perfectly with a drug-induced psychosis.
        Eighteen tapes of intercepted telephone conversations were served. Several callers, including a Shirley Temple sound-a-like, rambled on about free condoms, AIDS, "rats, snakes and fleas", pop stars, Reagan and Gorbachev, sex with donkeys and so on. They included dog impersonations and lasted for as long as an hour at a time. Closer examination showed that they contained ominous erasures, gaps, strange clicks and noises. Mr Bland carried out a technical analysis of three of them. He concluded that they had been tampered with and possibly fabricated in parts. His evidence was suppressed and the defence copies of the tapes have vanished.
        The prosecution admitted that Koupparis had given the alleged victim his real name and genuine photographs of himself. Was this their evidence of deception? Neil Pratt, the Exhibits Officer, tried to "lose" the photograph exhibits. Would the Camborne Custody records show a criminal intent to deceive and blackmail? Can the overwhelming medical evidence continue to be ignored? All the witnesses describe his bizarre and irrational behaviour, the served Cypriot statements could be compiled into an award winning comedy. His doctors confirm a severe psychiatric syndrome caused by prescription drugs. This was known before the trials. Dr Philpott knew about it several weeks before the final arrest, it was certainly known within hours of it by Police surgeons Dr Neil Frazer and Dr Stuart Carne!
        This obvious and well supported defence has never been considered by a Court despite investigations by two Police Forces, a committal hearing, 3 trials, 2 appeals, the involvement of over 30 doctors, at least 12 barristers, 4 Queens Counsel, 10 firms of solicitors, 3 High Court Judges, 4 Appeal Court Judges and all those acting for the four co-defendants! Is this simply a case of Farce Majeure or is the entire British Legal Establishment on HALCION?