CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
CCA NO: 871626
OLD Bailey, London, EC4
Monday, 3rd April, 1989
B e f o r e :
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BRIAN SMEDLEY, Q.C.
R E G I N A
-v-
PANOS KOUPPARIS
KYRIACOULLA KOUPPARIS
MR. V TEMPLE [and MRS. P. JESSEL] appeared on behalf of the PROSECUTION
MR. A ARLIDGE Q.C. and MR. S. MEJZNER appeared as amicus curiae
[on] behalf of the DEFENDANT PANOS KOUPPARIS
(Instructed by Ms Deborah Postgate of Hallmark, Atkinson Wynter)
MISS D. ELLIS appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT KYRIACOULLA KOUPPARIS
(Instructed by Mr Joseph Aaron of Joseph Aaron & Co)
Transcript of the shorthand notes of Newgate Reporters Limited,
Official Shorthand Writers to the Central Criminal Court
[Transcribed by Ms Thelma Harris]
APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE TRIAL
Ref: A00-050196 Case No. 871626 Smedley
Volume I, Pages 1-43, Monday 3rd April, 1989
Monday, 3rd April, 1989
[In the absence of Mr. Arlidge]
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, Mrs. Jessel and I appear to prosecute in
this matter, and my learned friends Mr. Arlidge and Mr.
Mejzner appear on the part of the male defendant, and my
Learned friend Miss Ellis appears on Mrs. Koupparis' behalf.
My Lord, I understand from Mr. Arlidge he would
certainly wish to make an application before your Lordship
this morning.
My Lord, I do not know whether I can assist your
Lordship any further whilst I am on my feet at this very
early preliminary stage other than to assure your Lordship
that in the course of preparation in this case various
anticipated admissions have been prepared, there have also
been prepared schedules of various telephone calls, all of
which, it is hoped, will substantially reduce the time
necessary to place the relevant evidence before the jury.
But I am also sure that the court will appreciate the
difficulties which have arisen in this case, and the Crown
certainly take the view that it would be premature at this
stage to say anything further.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: My Lord, may I say something?
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: My Lord, as I understand it, I have
instructed my solicitor today that Mr. Mejzner and Mr.
Arlidge will be appearing as amicus curiae and that I will
be representing myself, sir. I haven't heard from them
whether they have received my message, but I think this is
something which I have mentioned before on numerous
occasions I have appeared before the court.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes, well I will wait and see if Mr. Arlidge is
going to be amicus curiae if he appears. [To the clerk] Has
he been called for?
CLERK OF THE COURT: Yes, my Lord.
[Mr. Arlidge entered court]
MR ARLIDGE: My Lord, I an sorry I was not here when this case
was called. The reason was I had gone downstairs to see Mr.
Koupparis, who had only recently arrived from Pentonville.
While I was waiting down there for him I am afraid the Dock
Officer sent him up here, so I have been sitting in the
interview room.
I would, if I might, like just a very short
adjournment to take instructions on one matter about
representation before we commence today. I do not think it
will take me very long. I can do it behind the door here,
if you will permit me to do that.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes, assuming that does not present any
great problems.
Are we in a position to carry on with the trial?
MR ARLIDGE: My current intention was to make an application
for an adjournment but I need to take some instructions
about that from my client first, if I might?
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Are the Crown prepared to go ahead?
MR. TEMPLE: Yes, my Lord, yes.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Very well, I will allow you to do what you want,
Mr. Arlidge.
MR. TEMPLE: May I just add one additional comment? Of course,
one of the difficulties which is going to arise is the
question of witness orders, and obviously the Crown have
tried to anticipate the best they can which witnesses will
be required, and to that end a provisional order has already
been prepared, but one of the problems which will arise --
not today, certainly, but certainly towards the end of the
week -- is the question of availability of witnesses,
particularly those from Cyprus.
MR ARLIDGE: I think one of the problems we have had is, for
various practical reasons, it has been very difficult to
arrange consultation at Pentonville, which is why I have not
been able to give a firm list to my learned friend, but,
again, without discussing it further I might just have one
-- the matter I wish to consult with him about can be done
quite shortly, I can promise your Lordship that.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Well, I am just debating, really, whether to
rise or whether to think about starting another trial which
is listed. If I start another trial of course it may take
several days, so I think I will rise.
[The court adjourned for a short while] [3a]
MR ARLIDGE: My Lord, I think your Lordship knows the
representations in the case. I, as you know, represent Mr.
Koupparis. The position is that when I came here today I
have had various problems in having sufficient consultation
with him at Pentonville prison, which I will not dwell upon,
and my first application was going to be for an adjournment
in order that I could have fuller time in order to consult
with him.
Secondly, there were various matters which we had
sought on disclosure, some of which eventually had been
disclosed, but some of them only yesterday, and which we had
not had time to consider. However, having spoken to Mr.
Koupparis today, he has indicated to me that he wishes to
make an application for an adjournment and for further
discovery. He wishes to make that himself and not through
me.
My initial reaction to that was that either I withdrew
from the case or I did not. In order, if I could, to
accommodate him and the court I was eventually prepared, if
your Lordship felt this was a proper course -- because your
Lordship, here or no, is finally a matter for you and not
for me -- to permit him to make the application that he
wishes himself this morning, and then to decide at the end
of that whether he wished me and my learned junior and
instructing solicitors to represent him or not. I put it in
that way; that is the way I put it to him.
I appreciate, of course, I cannot dictate how matters
are done. At the end of the day your Lordship is in charge
of the procedure in this court. That is my position. If
your Lordship does not feel it should be done in that way,
the only other alternative I have will be to withdraw.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Mr. Koupparis, I am sure you understand that
this is not an easy case, and it is a long case -- or maybe
a long case. There is quite a lot of detail in it. I am
sure you understand it, but I do want you to realise that
although it maybe thought, and often is thought, by people
that because they understand what the case is about, and
they understand the detail of it, that they can cross-
examine witnesses and deal with the case just as easily as a
skilled and practiced member of the Bar. Usually they find
that they cannot.
You have had the advantage of being represented
previously, and you now have the advantage of being
represented by solicitors and very experienced and very
skilled counsel. Normally, as I am sure you know, when you
are represented by somebody, it is his or her duty to make
any applications that have to be made, and to speak on your
behalf at all stages of the trial. I do want to urge you,
in your own interests, to think very carefully before you
take any step which means that Mr. Arlidge has to withdraw
from the trial. But, having said that, I am prepared to
hear what you have to say by way of any applications, at any
rate this morning.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Thank you very much, your Lordship,
and I agree entirely with you that Mr. Arlidge and Mr.
Mejzner are extremely experienced and very capable men. I
am not trying to say anything otherwise in making this
application myself today, your Lordship.
But I am extremely distressed by the way that the
prosecution have been covering up certain items of evidence
that appear to be extremely significant in this case, and I
have been held against two charges now for two years, and it
appears that throughout this entire period they have known
certain facts which materially change the entire outlook of
the whole case.
Now these disclosures were only made in the last few
days. They concern certain doctors who saw me at the time
of the arrest: we have one police surgeon, who reports that
I had taken sixty-four times the maximum recommended dosage
of one of the most powerful psychotomimetic drugs known to
medical science and yet this has gone completely undisclosed
until two or three days ago. I consider this to be an
outrage, your Lordship, the fact that I have gone without
the urgent medical treatment, for instance during the
several months that it took me to recover from that massive
dosage.
The prosecution also have made a number of interviews
with my doctors. Now, my solicitor went to Cyprus a couple
of months ago; she spoke to my doctors and they confirmed
indeed they had been interviewed by the police. The
prosecution refused to allow us to see those statements. I
find that unusual, your Lordship. I find that distressing
that I have been held for two years whilst they have this
information in their possession and refuse to disclose it.
There are a number of other things which concern the
evidence. I see you have a block of evidence (inaudible).
If I tell your Lordship there are many items in that that I
Have not seen. Even today as I stand here there are items
in that pile of evidence I have no idea what they are.
The prosecution have served eighteen tape recorded
tapes which comprise about seven hours in negotiation and
discussion between various people, including myself, with
the Government of Cyprus. I have in my possession here -- I
am quite prepared to show your Lordship -- I have three
different partial transcripts, one produced by one of the
prosecution witnesses, which is a summary, one produced by
my own solicitors, and two or three pages which were
dictated to a clerk of my solicitor and typed up afterwards.
None of these transcripts agree between themselves what has
actually been said on those tapes.
I think you will agree, your Lordship, that a tape
recorded conversation represents a piece of absolute
evidence. It is inconceivable to me that three different
people can hear the same piece of evidence and produce three
transcripts that if one could listen to them one could
identify which piece they think has been missed out. I have
requested from the prosecution access to those tape
recordings so that the authenticated and verified transcript
can be made for use at the trial, your Lordship, and for use
in cross-examining the people who own the tapes.
There are also a number of floppy discs; These are
magnetic media where computer data is stored. These have
been held as prosecution evidence in this case, yet the
defence has had no access to these tapes, no technical
readout ----
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Tapes or discs?
DEFENDANT: Well, I call them tapes but they are discs, your
Lordship, they are magnetic tape material. I believe that
forensic analysis, and it is a very simple procedure simply
loading it into the computer and picking up the tapes, would
be extremely beneficial to the defence. I have been denied
that facility.
I also note, and it has been discovered by my
solicitor that a number of witnesses -- witnesses that I
have been asking to be informed on my behalf -- have, in
fact, been informed by the police but, again, these have not
been disclosed, and I have asked, your Lordship, six months
ago before Judge Thomas Pigot, I made the official request
that the prosecution disclose, within the terms and
conditions laid down by the Attorney General for disclosure.
And if I may remind your Lordship, I am sure your Lordship
is aware that Lord Denning has said that all credible
material witnesses should be disclosed. I find that this
has not been done. I am extremely disturbed, and am
spending a considerable part of my time in prison waiting
for the opportunity to prove my case and yet I am being
denied the normal legal facilities, legal entitlements, that
I should take.
I understand, your Lordship, that there are a number
of difficulties concerning these witnesses because some of
them are from Cyprus and they were made by police.
Nevertheless I may remind the court that it is the Cypriot
Government that claims to be the victim in this case. If
they do not co-operate in terms of my plight what right do
they have to pursue this matter in a British court?
There is also a case of my personal property. I live in
Cyprus, your Lordship, have lived there a number of years
and in my room I have business files and records going back
over a number of years. These things have disappeared. No-
one seems to be able to indicate where they are or who has
them and there are certain items within that information
which I need for my defence.
When my solicitor went to Cyprus she was only shown a
very small part of the exhibits. She was denied access to
the bulk of the exhibits, and I find that -- again I find
that -- prejudicial to my case.
I also understand, your Lordship, that a trial took
place in Cyprus and that sworn statements were given on my
behalf at that trial. Now, I have been asking for the
transcripts of that trial, and also the witness statements
that had been taken at that trial. Again, I have had no
response whatsoever in this respect.
I also understand, your Lordship, that Scotland Yard
under the auspices of Sir Brian Worth, O.B.E. gave a press
conference, in Cyprus, shortly after my arrest, and what
they have said at that press conference completely disputes
the case as it has been laid against me today. I believe I
have the right to see those press releases. It is also a
matter of public record that the Cypriot Government
spokesman has also made a number of comments in relation to
this case which are severely prejudicial to any opportunity [-]
in justice in respect of the Cypriot witnesses. Again, I
believe I have the right to see these documents.
Finally, your Lordship will -- I say finally, there
are one other problems; excuse me. I was arrested three weeks
before I was arrested for this: I was arrested in St.
Ives on a driving offence and a small matter of criminal
damage which involved the destruction of a Wimpy sign
outside a jacket potato restaurant, your Lordship. At that
time I was seen by a doctor who diagnosed me -- and it is an
indisputable fact that I was diagnosed at that time -- as
potentially suffering from a drug-induced psychosis, and
this is the very doctor who has reported in his statement
that I was taking sixty-four times the maximum dosage of
that drug I mentioned before.
The prosecution has failed to disclose this
information until two or three days ago, but there were a
number of statements taken at that police station, including
the interview with Detective Sergeant Fry where it is
absolutely apparent to anyone looking at this that I am
hallucinating that the poor man is trying to stab me, your
Lordship. This is fundamentally important to my case and
yet we have been denied access to it.
I believe the anti-terrorist squad were following me
around for something like nine days -- a full squad with
twelve experienced officers were following me around for
twelve days, your Lordship. Not one single log of that
surveillance has been entered or released at our request. I
also believe that the British security services placed a tap
on my mother's telephone which recorded all the
conversations that were going through at the time with a
number of people which would tend to show that I was
perfectly genuine in my beliefs, even though at the time
they may have been influenced by the drug-induced psychosis,
they certainly show that I had the intention to carry out
the actions which I am now being accused of not having
genuine intentions to carry out, your Lordship. Again, I
think this is genuine evidence and I feel the prosecution
should disclose these parts.
Finally, it is the matter of my Home Office medical
report. Again, I think I made the application before Judge
Pigot on the 3rd of February, your Lordship, and I asked at
that time, because the Home Office were refusing to release
my medical records. They have since made a very limited
disclosure and it is perfectly apparent why they have
refused to do so.
I am not sure if you are familiar with this case, your
Lordship, but the medical records produced at the time
showed quite clearly that the hospital doctors who were
looking after me had diagnosed to a very large extent
exactly what had happened to me, but, your Lordship, I find
myself a few months later appearing at the Old Bailey with a
completely fabricated and nonsensical psychiatric report
being made against me which totally disputes the entire
medical history, which totally disputed the records that the
prosecution, we can prove, had in their possession at the
time, your Lordship. Now I find this -- I would be in a
position to challenge the prosecution that this was not done
for any medical reasons but was done for political reasons,
to avoid the embarrassment of the trial, because I came
within a hair's breadth of being committed to Broadmoor on
-- if one were to believe Doctor Bowden he was saying that I
had a computer in my head, I was able to communicate with
satellites and I was able to control people with beams
emanating from my head. Before two weeks I had been seen by
two prison doctors and they confirmed I was perfectly sane
and rational.
You see, your Lordship, I have had an extremely tough
journey to get here today. I have had the forces of both
the Greek Cypriot and British powers that be, as it were,
aimed at thwarting my efforts to achieve a just solution to
this rather bizarre -- if you don't mind me saying so --
case which has been brought against me.
I think I am right in saying that I do have an
entitlement to see things, and I request that your Lordship
would recommend to the prosecution that they do release my
entire Home Office medical record and my custody records.
There were a number of significant things that took place
during the five months that I was in police custody, having
been diagnosed as suffering from psychosis and having been
taken out of the hospital.
Sorry to take up so much of your time, your Lordship,
but that is more or less the basis of what I wish to apply
before this court today. I am certainly not ready to go
ahead of a trial until I have had these disclosure and had
the opportunity to instruct barristers on my behalf as to
how the case will be handled.
There is also one small matter concerning my former
legal advisors. It appears that they have refused to
release the entire correspondence file, and my instruction
which I gave to them. These instructions concern the sub-
poenaing of certain British Government files at the
Department of Trade and Industry and at the Cyprus High
Commission -- I beg your pardon, the British High Commission
in Cyprus. -- concerning a Company that I was involved in at
the time and that is linked forensically to two items which
appear in those depositions. I am powerless to anything
about that, your Lordship, but if something can be done so
that the entire set of instructions, and so on, can be
passed to my present solicitor I would appreciate it, your
Lordship. Thank you very much.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Miss Ellis.
MISS ELLIS: My Lord, may I say on behalf of Mrs. Koupparis that
this application for an adjournment for any length of time
is strongly opposed.
My Lord, you have heard something of the history of
this matter, but what has not been stated in terms is that
both defendants were in fact arrested on the 14th of May of
1987. That is nearly twenty-three months ago, and since
that time there have been numerous occasions when there have
been delays.
There was initially a delay in the hearing of the
Section 61 committal, from October of 1987 to the 24th of
November. I do not have the full catalogue of dates
thereafter, but certainly I understand that this case was
initially fixed for February of last year, that there was
then to be an application to break that fixture and it was
heard in March. The new date was set for, I believe, the
6th of May. The fixture was then broken and reinstated for
the 12th of September, then broken in October and initially
was to have been fixed for earlier this year.
I may not be absolutely accurate on those dates, but
there has been a history of delay in this case in that
order, and the effect is that Mrs. Koupparis has remained on
bail for most of that time, but is a young woman with a
daughter, is of good character, her case is ready to proceed
today and could have proceeded a considerable time ago, and,
my Lord, it seems completely unjust that she should be in a
position of having to wait any longer before the matter is
resolved against her. These are serious allegations which
she has, at all times, strenuously denied.
My Lord, if one looks at the matters, which today are
being put before this court, as a basis for seeking further
time, it does not appear to me that they are indicating that
there have been any new features of significance that have
come to light.
It is quite apparent from reading the papers -- which
were clearly disclosed very many months ago -- that there
were tapes and there was the possibility of listening to
tapes, obtaining the tapes and the floppy discs at any time
because they had been seized and were in police custody and
were the subject of exhibit numbers. It is clear that the
facilities would have been available to anyone acting on
behalf of Mr. Koupparis, to obtain those tapes and discs,
and deal with them in the appropriate way. Certainly it is
not new information. It has always been apparent that the
Crown rely on information contained in the tapes, and that
they had in their possession the discs. And it, of course,
is open to the defence, having obtained those tapes, to make
their own transcript if there is any suggestion that there
might be inaccuracies, and that is something which
frequently happens in cases of this nature.
Similarly, in respect of the various medical reports,
it has been obvious from the reading of the papers that
there may well be recourse to the reports made by doctors,
and it is open for the defence to deal with that in the usual
manner if they so desire, and there no apparent reason that
I can see why this could not have been dealt with well in
advance of the date fixed for the trial today.
Again, Mr. Koupparis himself indicates that he was
arrested in St. Ives in May of 1987, hardly inadequate time
to research matters arising out of that particular arrest,
if it was seen to be significant.
Indeed the other matters that he refers to where he
indicates there has been difficulty in obtaining information
from the Crown, he is an intelligent man, he has been, as I
understand it, represented at all times since his arrest,
and there are clearly procedures whereby when it is
difficult to obtain information if the defence feels that it
is information they are properly entitled to, to come before
this court and make the appropriate applications, and that
would have allowed the information, if it is rightly to be
given to the defence, to have been obtained well in advance
of today's hearing.
One has to say that looking at the past delays, the
impression that is gained is that it is further delaying
tactics that are being sought in this case.
Certainly, whatever the position of Mr. Koupparis, it
is quite clear that Mrs. Koupparis' case is prepared and it
is wholly wrong to consider that there should be any further
delay as far as she is concerned, and I would strenuously
oppose any applications for any length of time, however
brief, in the case at this stage.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Thank you.
MR. TEMPLE: May I observe first of all that the Crown are
ready to proceed today.
Secondly, perhaps I could remind your Lordship, with
respect, that the allegation in this case is one of
blackmail, and it is very important to keep in mind what is
relevant and probative to both the Crown case and, so far as
the Crown can ascertain, the defence which Mr. Panos
Koupparis wishes to advance. And, with that in mind, may I
assure the court in no uncertain terms that the Crown have
always sought to fulfil their duty of disclosure under the
Attorney General guidelines with regard to the material in
in the Crown's possession is concerned, I can again assure your
Lordship there is in fact no material which the Crown would
wish to withhold.
Secondly, so far as the tapes are concerned, the
defence have in their possession copies of the taped
conversations, and if they wish to challenge the accuracy of
the translation that, of course, is their right which they
can do in the usual way. So far as ----
JUDGE SMEDLEY: You say they have copies. Do you mean they have
copies of the tapes?
MR. TEMPLE: Yes, they do, yes.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes.
MR. TEMPLE: And, my Lord, may I please, with your Lordship's
leave, call Mr. Pratt just to give your Lordship an
indication as to the attitude and the matters which have
arisen with regard to the handing over of exhibits by the
defence?
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes.
N PRATT, Detective Constable, sworn
Examined by Mr. TEMPLE
Q. Is it correct you are the exhibits officer attached to this
case?
A. I am, sir [13a].
Q. Taking matters shortly please, what has been the position as
regards the handling over and/or the giving to defence an
opportunity to see the relevant exhibits in this case?
A. At all times they have requested them they have been given
access to whatever they want.
Q. And does that apply in particular to the copy-tapes of the
telephone conversations?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. Can you just help me with one matter? Are you
familiar, do you know the fact that there has been
surveillance evidence in this case?
A. I am aware, sir.
Q. Is it also right that the witness statements have been based
on surveillance logs?
A. That is correct, my Lord.
Q. So far as the actual production of the surveillance logs are
concerned, the original of those, is that a matter which
lies in your authority or not?
A. It is not.
Q. Very well. (To the Judge) My Lord, if your Lordship wishes
to ask any further questions about those matters, perhaps I
can deal with it. Mr. Pratt, would you stay there.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Mr. Koupparis, do you want to ask Mr. Pratt any
questions about what he has just said?
DEFENDANT: MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, I would just like to
clarify one little point with Mr. Pratt.
Cross-examined by Defendant, Mr. Panos KOUPPARIS
Q. Would you confirm to us the dates upon which the tapes were
released.
A. I can't confirm the dates of all tapes. Certainly the bulk
of the tape conversation was, to the last legal
representatives of Mr. Koupparis, was in excess of a month
ago, I believe. There were some other copies of non-
relevant tapes which were given over to them, I would say in
a matter of a couple of weeks ago.
Q. Mr. Pratt, when you say non-relevant tapes, are you
referring to the AE1 tapes which were requested specifically
on the 3rd of February, or are you referring to cassette
tapes with music on them which were found at my mother's
house?
A. I am referring to taped conversations.
Q. That was carried out as part of the surveillance operation
in this case.
A. I don't know, my Lord, what you mean by surveillance
operation in regard to the tapes.
Q. Tapes which were recorded for the purpose of producing
evidence in this case. Not tapes that were found lying
around.
A. I have never once referred to any music tapes.
Q. Or computer tapes.
A. I don't know of any computer tapes.
Q. You don't have any computer tapes?
A. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean computer tapes or
disc?
Q. There are a number of Sinclair micro-cassette tapes which
contain computer data. I don't know if you would call them
cassettes but they are a tape which runs around a bobbin
inside the machine, although it is not immediately apparent,
they are not actually discs in the conventional sense of the
word.
A. I don't have them in my possession.
Q. You don't have them in your possession, and yet they do
appear in the exhibit list I can assure you.
A. You have the advantage of me them.
Q. I see. Did you not compile NP951 yourself?
A. Can you refresh my memory as to what that is?
Q. NP951 is the list of exhibits which you have produced in
this case.
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Are you aware that there is a tape on that list?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that the prosecution have written to my
solicitors? I have a letter here saying that there is no
tape in the evidence.
A. I haven't seen that letter, my Lord.
Q. You have not. Well I can assure you, and I have the letter
here -- I can produce it -- if the prosecution would dispute
that we have a letter from them saying the police say that
there is no video tape in this case, and now you are
confirming there is a video tape in this case.
A. The only time I have been asked about a video tape, I
confirmed directly that we had a video tape.
Q. You confirmed it. Yes, well, of course you have confirmed
because you have submitted them on NP951 along with the tape
that I have referred to, the micro-cassette, and a number of
other tapes that have been found. Can you say that all the
audio-cassette tapes have been released to my solicitors,
including the reel-to-reel tapes which are marked: "Record
Only" and produced by Inspector by Chief Superintendent Alec
Edwards?
A. The "Record Only" reel-to-reel tape is yet a further copy of
the cassette tapes which your defence have got.
Q. Is it an original?
A. No, it would not be an original, no.
Q. It wouldn't. Have original tapes been served in this case?
A. Original tapes are never served. Copies are served.
Q. Are the originals of these tapes within your jurisdiction?
A. Yes.
Q. They are.
A. Yes.
Q. Have you listened to the tapes yourself?
A. Not all of them.
Q. You haven't. Do you accept that they are, in some places,
extremely poor quality and contain a lot of background
interference, as they were actually taped at the
international or long-distant calls?
A. I remember one that did have some interference on it.
Q. Do you only remember one?
A. No I said I remember one that did have interference on it.
Q. So you are prepared to accept that quite a lot of them have
poor sound ----
A. No, I am not.
Q. ---- poor sound quality.
A. No, I am not.
Q. Are they good sound quality?
A. A number of them are.
Q. They are. Would you excuse me. I would like to read
something out to you. I have here a transcript I have been
given by my solicitors, and I am just taking one page at
random. The conversation goes something like this:
"dot dot dot My name is Cambanellos [sic]. Yes.
Do you know I dot dot dot I dot dot dot to dot dot dot
Yes. And dot dot dot to dot dot dot right away"
and it continues ad infinitum to that. Would you say that
that was a fair transcript of the quality of the tapes you
have heard in the light of what you have just said?
A. Well, (1) I haven't got the document in front of me, and (2)
I don't know which tape you are referring to.
Q. Well, neither do I, because they are not marked on here, but
apparently those are supposed to be transcripts made of the
tapes. I am merely trying to establish that the tapes are
extremely high quality in some places, and I have been given
transcripts that are virtually unintelligible.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: I don't have any further questions at
this stage, your Lordship.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pratt.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
[The Witness withdrew]
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, I do not feel I can assist your Lordship
any further.
The only other outstanding matter which has been
mentioned is that of the medical reports, and obviously the
Crown have been served with the medical reports from Dr.
Bowden during the course of the earlier proceedings in this
case, but other than obviously having access to them I do
not propose to comment further on their content.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Well, I have a series of medical reports which I
think Dr. d'Orban, Dr. Robin ----
MR. TEMPLE: Yes.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Dr. Bowden, dated the 15th of September. I have
also copies of letters from Messrs. Hallmark, Atkinson,
Winter [sic] and letters to them from the court in accordance with
the Common Serjeant's instructions making available to the
defendant the medical reports which they then prepared.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, all those instructions have been carried
out by the Crown.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Excuse me, your Lordship, it is not
those reports I am referring to. I have seen those reports
and I am in a position to show a 37-page report which has
been compiled by a university professor -- an expert in the
use of psychosomatic [sic] drugs -- and it is based on fully
documented evidence; not just opinion from a
psychiatrist made six years after the event but these have
been produced by looking at the original documents and these
are reproducable [sic]. I was given ----
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Just a moment. Let me enquire ----
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: It is ----
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Just a moment, Mr Koupparis. Mr Temple, have
you seen a 37-page medical report?
MR. TEMPLE: No, my Lord, I know nothing of it.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: No. Mr. Koupparis, nobody seems to know
anything about it, I know nothing of it, Mr Temple tells
me he knows nothing of it.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Yes sir, the fact that that report
exists shows that the crime was committed against me by two
Cypriot doctors. This is something I wish to pursue as soon
as I get my opportunity to do so and, therefore, I have
instructed my solicitors not to file this report with the
court simply because its conclusions can be derived from the
medical records the prosecution are withholding from us.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Do your solicitors have a copy of that report?
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Indeed they do.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes, well then they can use it as they see fit
during the course of the trial.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Well, perhaps we may use it during
the trial, but as far as I am concerned that report, as soon
as I get the opportunity, will become sub-judice in respect
of the prosecution that I will be taking from Cyprus, sir.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Well, so far as the medical reports that have
been prepared before February of this year, those that were
disclosed to you as a result of the Common Serjeant's order,
you have seen those.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, several other reports
were prepared which have bee[n] served. I am referring to
Dr. Bartlett, Dr. Johnson, Dr. Zeiger(?), and at least a
dozen other doctors. All of them dispute totally the
conclusions reached by the reports you have before you.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: But have you not seen the reports from the
doctors you just mentioned?
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, I saw the doctors
myself in person. I know they wrote the reports and the
prosecution refuse to issue them.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Have you seen those reports?
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: No sir.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Mr. Temple, do you know anything of those
reports?
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, on my instructions, the Crown do not have
possession of them.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: These are Home Office reports, your
Lordship.
MR. TEMPLE: Mr Koupparis is apparently referring to Home
Office medical reports which the Crown do not have access at
the present time. I certainly have not seen any of the
reports he makes mention of.
To make matters absolutely clear, I have in front of
me Dr. Robin's report, Dr. d'Orban's report, Dr. Bowden's
report, and a report from a Dr. Sophocleous [20a] from Cyprus.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, the prosecution have
served upon us Dr. Philpot's [sic] report -- surely they must have
Dr. Philpot's's [sic] report there.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: I am not in a position to order the Home Office
to produce reports that have been heard whilst you have been
in custody.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, I believe in February a
law was passed which, I am not sure exactly of the
interpretation, which means that I am now legally entitled
to request those reports and have copies of them released.
I don't see any justification for the Home Office to refuse
to release these reports which are material in this case.
And, let me mention, Dr. Philpot is a police surgeon,
and a report from him has been served upon us by the
prosecution. This is, in fact, not a report in the sense
that it is the same as the reports that you have there; it
is comments made on a custody record that was made at the
time by the police sergeant at St. Ives. In fact I have
somewhere in my papers a copy of it myself. The prosecution
cannot deny that they have known that they have had the
papers diagnosing a drug-induced psychosis three weeks
before I was arrested for this offence.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Let me turn to the transcripts of the tapes.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, may I just rise to deal with one matter
which has arisen with regard to the disclosure by the Home
Office of the medical report.
I think your Lordship should know that at one of the
prime hearings before His Honour Judge Pigot the learned
Judge on that occasion recommended -- made an observation,
could not order -- but he recommended the Home Office should
make available, or should make disclosure to Mr. Koupparis
of the relevant reports, and if the Home Office still
declined then a representative of the Home Office should
attend court.
I understand the position is that it was not until a
week or so ago -- a few weeks ago -- that it was realised by
the defence that perhaps full disclosure had still not been
made. I merely mention that so that your Lordship has the
full sequence of events, but obviously that again is a
matter wholly outside the prosecution's view.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes, I see.
Well now, let me move on to the transcripts because it
is obvious, from what Mr. Koupparis asked Mr. Pratt, that he
has in his possession a transcript, at any rate, of some of
the tapes. Am I right, Mr. temple, that all the tapes in
this case have been available to the defence to be heard in
the original form?
MR. TEMPLE: Yes, they have, my Lord. They always are. Your
Lordship will know that the first sequence is to take copies
and those have always been available, and if an expert wants
to have a look, or to hear the original, the necessary
arrangements can be made.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Might I add, your Lordship, I only
have a transcript, one tape out of eighteen. It's a
transcript that I dispute myself as not being in any way
commensurate with what is exactly on the tape.
You see, although the prosecution are now saying we
have had access to these, I have not seen or heard these
tapes, your Lordship. I have only heard one tape, and from
my own transcripts I can dispute both the summaries that
have been served by the prosecution and the transcript that
has actually been handed to me by my own legal advisors.
Perhaps they used someone to transcribe the Cypriot who was,
in fact, Greek and does not understand the language well.
But, for whatever reason, most of the transcript is actually
gobbledegook, your Lordship. I certainly can't consider
using that as part of my defence in the trial.
And I also believe that all the tapes have not been
released, according to what I have been told by my legal
advisors. I believe that Mr. Temple is only referring to
AD1 to 18, not referring to the micro-cassette --- RH1 I
believe it is --- that the prosecution have prepared
transcripts. They have not allowed us to have access to
that tape. There are a number of other tapes which were
recorded which have not been actually physically -- we
haven't been given copies of -- only AD1 to 18.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Mr. Koupparis, I am told that the tapes have
been available to be listened to by your instructing
solicitors and those you have instructed to defend you, and
if they have been available to be listened to, and you
dispute the transcript which has been made and the
translation of the conversation which have been provided to
you, then you can make arrangements to have your own
transcript made from those tapes. That presents no problem
at all. That should have been done long ago.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, I am sorry to keep
harping on this point but the prosecution themselves
admitted that if they were to make transcripts it would take
a matter of three months for the transcripts to be adduced,
Mr. Temple has admitted that these tapes were only available
a month ago. Notwithstanding the fact that only one of the
English tapes has actually been transcribed and translated,
I have not had the opportunity to listen to them myself
because I am in prison and the prison authorities have made
it extremely difficult for me to get these facilities;
therefore, I am being handed transcripts of tapes that I
haven't even heard.
I am simply not satisfied with this situation with
regard to these tapes. The tapes make up 99.9% of the case
against me, and I believe I have the right to have word for
word transcripts, and I challenge the prosecution to deny
that they do not have word for word transcripts in their
possession now, and that these have been disseminated wildly
throughout the security services and, in fact, from the
information that I have received, that these have been used
for training purposes because apparently a psychic report
was prepared on them which described them as being an
example of double-blind negotiations. This was prepared by
a university up in the north of England that specialises in
anti-terrorist studies. So the fact that the prosecution
say they do not have transcripts is something that I don't
accept. I think they have transcripts and they are refusing
to release them, your Lordship, but, unfortunately I cannot
prove that because I am in prison and my access is very
limited.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: What about the witness statements in the
statements of the trial which Mr. Koupparis says took place in
Cyprus, Mr. Temple? Do you have any information about that?
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, I have no instructions on that whatsoever.
MR. TEMPLE [sic]: Do you have any information about any press release
which might have been given in Cyprus, either by officers
from Scotland Yard or, indeed, by the spokesman for the
Cypriot Government?
MR. TEMPLE: No, my Lord, I do not.
My Lord, would you forgive me. I can certainly make a
further enquiry with regard to that. (Pause)
I think it might be more satisfactory if I recall Mr.
Edwards to tell your Lordship of these matters.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes.
Detective Inspector Alec EDWARDS, sworn
Examined by Mr. TEMPLE
Q. Mr Edwards, is the position that you are the senior officer
in overall day-to-day charge of this case?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Can I ask you please to deal quite shortly with the question
of press releases. First of all, did Mr. [Sir Brian] Worth
ever make a press release?
A. Yes, there was a release later into the enquiry after
arrests had been made. In fact it is an agreement that in
blackmail cases there is a de-notice served on the press
with an agreement that officers will give an interview
afterwards, the content of which I cannot help the court
with, my Lord.
Q. Can you assist the court any further with regard to any
other press releases which may have been made, either by the
authorities in this country or, indeed, by the Greek
authorities?
A. The Greek authorities did, in fact, make an arrest in
Cyprus, and that is the sister of the lady defendant. My
understanding is that they gave a press conference out in
Cyrpus [sic], the contents of which I cannot help you with.
MR. TEMPLE: Again, would you stay there please, Mr. Edwards.
Cross-examined by defendant, Mr Panos KOUPPARIS
Q. Mr Edwards, you have actually been to Cyprus yourself, have
you not?
A. Yes I have, my Lord, yes.
Q. Was that immediately after my arrest?
A. Yes, my Lord.
Q. Were you there for the trial in Cyprus that you mentioned a
moment ago?
A. I don't know what trial you are referring to.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: The sister-in-law's.
A. No, I don't think it reached a trial stage. I am not sure
what stage that reached. It was nothing to do with the
police in this country, my Lord.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: But there were a number of statements
made on my behalf by witnesses that were called.
A. I don't know anything about that case at all, my Lord [24a].
Q. You don't know. I have here a statement made by Mr.
Voskarides(?) who is a government spokesman in Cyprus. I
won't bother to read all of it, but this is an official
statement that was released to the press: "But there is a
case against Panos Koupparis. I am sure that he will be
punished as he will be found guilty." Is that what you were
talking about when you mentioned ----
A. No, it wasn't, my Lord. That was a police conference. I
know nothing of what he just said, and I can't comment on
the accuracy of it.
Q. My Lord, I have the actual Cypriot newspapers here --
although they are not translated into English. It is rather
difficult to present these in evidence. I have asked for
them to be produced in a way I can produce them, but I have
a whole mass of front-page headlines here and there are a
number of comments concerning this case which are equally as
prejudicial made by government spokesmen in Cyprus.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Well, they are unlikely to prejudice an English
jury if they are in Greek Cypriot language, which presumably
will not be understood by any of the jury.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, we have a case here
where we have a considerable number of Cypriot witnesses.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes, I appreciate that.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: And who have been subjected to
something like one year of continuous government-inspired
propaganda in this case against myself and my family. I
understand that the British authorities have acted perfectly
correctly in this matter and, indeed, as Mr. Edwards has
said, de-notice is the right thing to do.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Do you want to ask him any more questions?
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Yes. Mr Edwards, I am charged with
blackmail. Yes. Now, have you found any of these PIG
devices in Cyprus that apparently were part of the threat?
A. No, there are no devices found at all, my Lord.
Q. No ROT, no DAM [sic] and no PIGS.
A. Nothing at all, my Lord.
Q. Did you find any toxin?
A. here was nothing at all in that way found, no. The only
thing material found was, in fact, the blackmail demand
notes, and the boarding tickets and that sort of thing for
the flights.
Q. Mr. Edwards, at the press conference given in Cyprus, the
Scotland Yard said that this was entirely fictitious and it
could not be considered feasible, the actual threat. They
admitted at that time that this threat was not feasible,
could not be carried out because it is technologically
impossible.
A. Well, I didn't give a press conference in Cyprus on the
matter, but I don't agree with the second part of what you
are saying.
Q. But, Mr Edwards, you have seen the statement of Dr. Graham
Pearson, the expert from the chemical warfare establishment
at Porton Down, have you not?
A. Yes, I have my Lord, yes.
Q. And do you agree that he says that this is technologically
impossible?
A. On the chemicals involved, yes, he says that. But the
actual technicalities of being able to carry out that
threat, in some ways it is feasible.
Q. Do you read thriller novels, Mr Edwards?
JUDGE SMEDLEY: No, Mr. Koupparis. I think you are getting
really rather away from the ----
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Well I am trying to establish ----
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Just a moment, please. You are getting rather
away from the purpose for which Mr. Edwards was called,
which was to deal with whether or not there had been a press
release made in Cyprus by either the Scotland Yard officers
or by the Greek government, and he said he knows no
details about any press release or statement made by the
Greek government authorities.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, on the contrary, I
believe that he has agreed that there was a press conference
with them in Cyprus and that the Cypriot government has
indeed made a number of statements.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: But he has no detailed knowledge of what was
said.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Perhaps one wouldn't expect Mr.
Edwards to know. nevertheless, the prosecution, who are
preparing the case, would have access to those and so would
my solicitors. What I am wondering, your Lordship, is why,
after eighteen months of requests, I still find myself not
having a copy of these. There is very little I can do. I
can only ask my solicitor to make appropriate enquiries and
find the evidence.
There is no dispute that a press conference was given
in Cyprus but, as you understand your Lordship, it is almost
impossible for me to do anything and I rely totally on my
legal advisor, My former legal advisor has refused to pass
the entire correspondence file, including -- I should
mention, your Lordship, that I only received within the last
few days -- but I gave my former solicitor a complete file
and asked him to transcribe it so that he had it and he has
disappeared with this in his hand. My solicitors haven't
been able to produce it, which puts me in a very difficult
position not being able to prove what I am saying.
nevertheless, if the court wants to see in Greek language
the press releases I have them here available.
I can, to some extent, read a little of what has been
said, and it seems in the press conferences, your Lordship,
it was said that this demand was entirely fictitious, that
it only represented a piece of science fiction, and Mr.
Edwards has himself admitted in the depositions that the
demand -- that the essence of the blackmail -- was not
viable. It is not possible to pay a demand in a [two] hundred
dollar bills, your Lordship. What we are dealing with here
is a little piece of paper with some ink on it which seems
to describe a science fiction extravaganza and this has been
stretched out beyond the realms of absurdity, your Lordship,
by the distortion that the prosecution have introduced into
this case.
I merely wish to be in a position to show what
Scotland Yard was saying at that time in public to the
people of Cyprus, and what the government of Cyprus -- the
alleged victim in this case -- was actually saying. That is
something which I wish to present to the jury so that I can
balance the bias which has now been introduced by the
prosecution in relation to this case since they discovered
that they were unable to serve or dispose of this case by
the Mental health Act, your Lordship, which I am sure was a
deliberate -- I have a correspondence file which will show
that this is a deliberate attempt to deny me justice and to
shelve this case pending a medical report to prevent the
embarrassment that the Cypriot government would have to
undergo.
I have no further questions of this officer at this
stage, your Lordship.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
[The witness withdrew]
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Mr. Arlidge, do you know what the position is
about any documents in the possession of the solicitors who
formally acted for Mr. Koupparis?
MR ARLIDGE: The position is that the original brief that was
drawn up on Mr. Koupparis' instructions, they have not
released. We have part of the correspondence file but not
the whole part of it.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Do you know why that is?
MR ARLIDGE: My Lord, I do not.
My Lord, as your Lordship has asked me about factual
matters, I find myself in a difficult position as I am not
making the application, but it may be that I should say
these things as a matter of fact as I understand the case to
be.
Firstly, that so far as any surveillance log is
concerned, it is correct that Mr. Koupparis has asked for
those for some time, and I have advised that they might
contain matters relevant to his defence. they have very
recently been disclosed, but only over this week-end, and
certainly neither I nor Mr. Koupparis have had a chance to
see them.
It is also right that Mr. Koupparis has asked for full
disclosure of any reports or evidence relating to his mental
condition when he was first arrested and in custody, and so
far as we are able to ascertain there has not been, as yet,
full disclosure from the Home Office.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Do you mean when he was first arrested in
connection with this case, or when he was arrested in St.
Ives?
MR ARLIDGE: In connection with this case. I am told we still
have not got the surveillance logs, but I am told that we
may have them by the Crown.
So far as other matters are concerned, there have been
practical difficulties in the way of my instructing
solicitor: firstly, because she came into the matter only
in November, and, because of various other duties of Mr.
Pratt, the first time she had access to any of these matters
that had been asked for was in February.
And so far as discs were concerned there is a
practical problem about how and where they might be
transcribed because there are limited facilities, I can
understand, where that can be done.
I mention those merely as matters of fact, and I do
not think it is right for me to say anything about the
application.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Mr. Koupparis, have your present solicitors made
any application to the Home Office to disclose any medical
reports?
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, I believe an
application was made and very limited disclosure was given
to us. Perhaps my solicitor, if she has any knew [sic]
information, she would just tell me so that I can inform
you. (Pause)
Your Lordship, I am afraid I can't really help you in
respect of the question that you have asked me, but it does
appear that some files -- there are some files which appear
to have gone missing. Now, I am not in a position to give
you any more information on that.
But please refer to the two months or so immediately
after my arrest where I had to, as a matter of necessity, be
held in the infamous F-wing at Brixton prison, which I am
sure you know where that is: that is the psychiatric
hospital. I was in a very agitated and disturbed state, but
eventually I was actually taken out of that environment and
I spent five months in police custody.
I don't know what has happened to those records. I
believe that they were not part of the file that was
disclosed by the Home Office, but I think that these are
something that perhaps my solicitor would be in a position
to request directly from the Brixton doctors who were in
charge of looking after me at that time. It appears that
Dr Robin and dr. Bowden have not seen those, although they
may have spoken to the doctors. That is something about
which I can only speculate, your Lordship. I can't be more
accurate about it, I'm afraid.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Do you want to say any more?
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Well, I have made the application your
Lordship. With regard to what happens now, as far as I can
see I am not in a position to present a coherent defence
and, quite frankly, unless something materially changes in
my own particular circumstances I can see that this thing
will drag out for a considerable period of time because it
is extremely difficult to conduct what is a very complicated
case from the restrains of prison.
If I can give you one example of what I have to go
through. I have some papers here with me, for instance. I
had to go through four searches in order to get to this
court room today; I will have to go though another two
searches before I go back today; four hours in reception;
I will be allocated a prison sell at random on a computer
sometime at 8 or 9 o'clock this evening -- I could be in
Ashford, I could be in Brixton, I could be in Pentonville, I
have no idea where I am, or where I am going at any one
point in time; when I get there, your Lordship, I am
confronted with a small cubicle where there is simply a bed,
a wash basin and a plastic bucket. The facilities for even
having visits from my solicitors are so severely restricted
I sometimes have to go three or four weeks before I see a
solicitor, or before my solicitor is able to make an
appointment to see me. It has happened that I have a whole
stream of appointments made and then, for some reason, the
prison authorities decide to move me and, for that reason, I
am in a new environment, go back to the end of a list, and
so on, and so on.
It has been two years, but I would like to point out
that for ten months of those two years I was not in a
position to give coherent instructions because I was
recovering from the drug-induced psychosis that I had been
prescribing to over a long period of time in Cyprus.
I intend today, your Lordship, to make an application
which considers granting me bail. I would very much like to
present the 37-page report I have produced, but, because of
its implications, and because of the fact that it is linked
in with some of the disclosures the prosecution have made
only in the last two or three weeks -- which means I haven't
had a chance to consult with the expert who wrote this
report, and I haven't had a chance to absorb this thirty-
seven pages in technical language -- I am reticent to serve
it now on the court, but I am sure your Lordship, if I were
to serve upon you its conclusions as a separate entity, the
three or four page conclusion so that you could consider the
conclusion of the report in relation to an application for
bail -- if you were prepared to accept it in that form, your
Lordship, I would be happy to let you have it.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: I will read whatever you hand me to read.
(Handed) [31a]
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, one of the reasons I am
reticent is my medical records in Cyprus have not been made
available to us. My doctors in Cyprus have refused to co-
operate in that respect, and this is something which I wish
to pursue a little further. This is something which has
come to my attention in the last few days -- last couple of
weeks.
Attached to this report, your Lordship, are two
letters. (Handed) (Pause while the Judge read them).
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, if I may direct your
attention to the last page of that report.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Trizolon(?) [32a]: In 1979 it was
officially recognised as being a drug which induces a
psychotic reaction which is indistinguishable from
schizophrenia, your Lordship.
I also have here a report from Dr. Philpot which I
would like you to see in relation to that report. I think
it is very significant. (Handed)
The doctor reports that, as you see from that document
there, the maximum recommended dosage is a quarter of a
milligramme and seventeen to twenty-eight days, or something
like that, is a maximum duration of treatment.
Dr. Philpot reports three weeks before I was arrested
for this offence that I had been taking Trizolon(?) for six
months, your Lordship, at twice the maximum recommended
dosage in the United Kingdom. At that time he entered on
the custody record at the police station, he said in the
morning: "It should seriously be considered that further
medical advice should be sought, and this man to be
considered for sectioning under the Mental health Act."
Nevertheless, your Lordship, I was given police bail
first thing the next morning, and went on to be arrested for
this. but it is fairly conclusive evidence I had been
taking this drug -- yes, I have the report here, and this
standard prison form, which is filled in by the police when
someone is arrested. If I may just read it to you: "When
seen by police surgeon, the prisoner was diagnosed as being
hypermanic" -- this is a sort of psychotic condition. The
doctor instructed: "Should this continue to the extent ...
(words) ... too much in the morning, that serious
consideration be given to obtaining further medical advice
with a view to possibly sectioning under the Mental Health
Act."
Of course, in his actual statement, he confirms that I
am taking Halcion at half a milligramme and another drug
which is, if not equal in (inaudible), worse, called Xanax,
also at twice the maximum recommended dosage, also for a
period of four to six times in excess of the maximum
recommended duration of treatment, your Lordship.
I also -- I don't know if you will allow me, your
Lordship, just to make a few observations in respect of the
charges against me.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: No, I do not think it is appropriate at this
stage, Mr. Koupparis. I am concerned simply with your
application which is primarily for an adjournment in order
that material -- which you say has not been made available
to you, or has only been made available recently -- should
be made available and you should have adequate time to
consider it with those who are advising you on your defence.
That is the application subject to an application for bail.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: I beg you pardon, your Lordship. I had
gone into the application for bail before realising that
we had finalised the other matter.
I think from the evidence shown that there is some
material to postpone -- that the defence be given a
reasonable period to consider it, and to make any further
enquiries that that information may spring up.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, may I just rise to mention one other
matter?
The previous solicitors who represented Mr. Koupparis
were Campions, and may I just inform your Lordship that on
the 20th of September of 1988, following various discussions
between parties representing each other, that the solicitor
wrote to this effect that: "Admissions, which had been
drafted by the prosecution, were accepted and can be treated
as admissions accepted on behalf of the defendant, Panos
Koupparis; that a schedule of telephone calls was agreed,
and that summaries of telephone calls were agreed, but
counsel has requested that two of the tapes of the telephone
calls should be available to be played in court."
My Lord, I am asked to make it clear -- and I do so --
that this was a letter made by the previous solicitors, but
all I wish to invite your Lordship's consideration to is
that, of course, in preparation of a case such as this,
admissions and agreed schedules and summaries, of course, is
one of the first things one looks to, and those admissions
and acceptance of summaries having been made, the Crown, of
course, acted in pursuance of it. It now appears -- and
your Lordship again will appreciate the position -- it now
appears that there has been a wholesale change in the
attitude of this defendant to the acceptance of those
summaries and schedules.
My Lord, I am also asking to make it clear that those
who currently represent Mr. Koupparis have not actually seen
this particular letter [34a].
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, I have here the
correspondence files, carbon copies of the letters I have
been writing to my former solicitors. I have never agreed
the summaries personally. These were accepted on my behalf,
and, as you know, your Lordship, it is apparent that I had
to sack my former solicitors, and this is one of the many
reasons why I find myself having to dismiss them from their
responsibility [34b].
With regard to the admissions, I do realise that since
November 25th, 1987 the prosecution have been founding their
case against me based on these admissions. nevertheless,
your Lordship, within the last few days it has become
apparent that the prosecution was aware that I had been
diagnosed as suffering from a drug-induced psychosis within
a matter of hours of my arrest by one of the police surgeons
that was called, and that on the Form 618 [34c] when I was
actually produced in court on that day I was still diagnosed
as suffering from a drug-induced psychosis.
Now, my position is this, your Lordship: I am now in
a position to refute those admissions. Furthermore, I am in
a position to actually disprove them. I am in a position to
disprove them because they were not true, your Lordship. I
made them when I was in a state of psychosis, and by that
time I had been shown the depositions and the delusions that
were rampant in my mind at that time incorporated the
depositions to the point where I could believe almost
anything that went through my head. I am sure that if the
prosecution had asked me the same questions on a number of
different days in that state I should have given completely
different answers.
In any event I don't feel that I have any obligation
to accept admissions that were made during a period of time
when the prosecution know, on the medical evidence they have
in their possession, that I was suffering from psychosis. I
would just like the prosecution to be aware of that.
MR. TEMPLE: Lastly, my Lord, does the Court wish to consider
the provisions of Section 4 Subsection 1(2) of the Contempt
of Court Act? I merely mention it.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: I think in the light of what has been said
this morning, yes, I do, and I think I shall make such an
order. I do not want the trial to be prejudiced by anything
said in any of these applications by it being reported.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, is this an application
for the prosecution in respect of my admissions?
JUDGE SMEDLEY: No, the Crown has drawn to my attention that it
is open to me to order that there shall be no report of
anything that has been said in court this morning in order
that any trial which takes place thereafter shall not be
prejudiced, and I have made that order.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: I understand, your Lordship. This is
nothing to do with reporting restrictions of the case, is
it?
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Of this morning's application, yes.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: I'm curious to know why the order, or
the request for the order, is made at this precise moment in
time.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: There was no request for an order. I made it.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Thank you very much.
Your Lordship, may I object to the reporting
restrictions?
JUDGE SMEDLEY: No. No.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: In that case, I don't object your
Lordship. Thank you.
I have summarised now my application and I withdraw.
I have finished in respect to applying for the adjournment,
your Lordship, and when you are ready, if you are willing to
hear a bail application from me, your Lordship, I propose to
make one.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes, very well. Then I shall turn the court
into chambers.
{In chambers: Bail application by Defendant Panos Koupparis]
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Your Lordship, have you rules in
respect of the application for an adjournment?
JUDGE SMEDLEY: No. I am hearing an application for bail at the
moment.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Yes. But you will do that at the end
of the application.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: I shall deal with both together.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Thank you sir.
Your Lordship, as you are aware, I have spent two
years in prison. I have had isolation for the first ten
months; it was quite an horrific experience for me.
As a result of the condition that I was in at the
time, and the fact that the police perhaps did not want to
disclose to the doctors who were looking after me at the
time my previous history of pharmacology, and so on, and so
on, it meant that my recovery was delayed for a considerable
period of time. I did not receive the requisite antidotes
and the necessary treatment that I needed.
Nevertheless, I have fully recovered some eighteen
months since my arrest, and I have found it extremely
difficult, your Lordship, to conduct this case from prison.
Certainly I have given my solicitors a number of what I
considered to be reasonable instructions, and I have ended
up appearing in court with those instructions being
unfulfilled. I am referring especially to my former
solicitors. The fact that you have before you a number of
reports from Dr. Bowden, Dr. Robin, show how the recovery
was progressive and steady in one direction, and this has
been the situation as it is now.
With regard to the case against me, I tried to
indicate when I was speaking to Mr Edwards that the actual
charges refer to one set of documents which are nothing more
that a complete science fiction.
With regard to the deception against me, if I may take
that as an example, we have a count which accuses me of a
deception against the High Commission for Cyprus. the
prosecution do not have one single statement from any
witness to the effect that I was deceiving either the
Government of Cyprus -- throughout the whole evidence part
of it there is not one statement that exists to support that
charge against me.
At the committal, your Lordship, no deception was
found, no deception charge was read to the defendant. the
schedule 1 of the committal papers does not support an
indictment of deception.
But, most significant, your Lordship, I am charged
with trying to deceive with respect to my name. now, it is
a matter of fact that in this country ----
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Mr. Koupparis, I just want to remind you that
this, I thought, was an application for bail.
DEFENDANT MR. KOUPPARIS: Yes, you Lordship, I am just trying
to summarise the case as best I can with respect to the -- I
have used the word before, I am reticent to use it but there
are absurd aspects of the charges, and I am merely trying to
illustrate that the prosecution are fully aware that I am
authorised by the British Government, by way of an
application, to be registered in the name of Cambanellos [sic],
and that the lettering on the letterhead which was disclosed
to us by the police is that I am a manufacturer and
distributor of electronic security and surveillance
equipment, crime prevention and risk assessment consultancy,
your Lordship.
Now, I am charged with not having a genuine intention
of helping the Cypriot Government with crime prevention and
risk assessment. I have documented proof and an efficient
British licence to operate under the name of Cambanellos [sic] in
that country, your Lordship.
I have -- going on to my own personal circumstances --
I have a considerable number of my family here in the U.K.:
first cousins, aunts, uncles and of course my mother and my
two brothers. they all live in their own property, they are
all gainfully employed and of previously good character,
your Lordship. All of them have supported me. They have
all stood by me throughout this ordeal, and my mother and my
family are quite prepared to allow me to live at their home,
however long it takes for this action to be resolved.
I am able to offer a substantial surety, your
Lordship. I am also willing to accede to any of the
restrictions that the court will place upon me with respect
to the normal restrictions that one would have aright to
impose.
I don't wish to take up the court's time
unnecessarily, but I merely request that in view of the
circumstances your Lordship would consider the granting of
bail in my case so that I may have the opportunity to defend
myself without the hardships that are associated with being
in prison.
Thank you, your Lordship.
MISS ELLIS: Might I mention the question of bail at this stage
in respect of Mrs. Koupparis?
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes.
MISS ELLIS: She has been on bail, subject to three conditions:
condition of residence; that she provide two sureties in the
sum in total of £20,000; and that she surrenders her
passport.
My Lord, she has complied with those conditions now
for nearly two years. I would ask that the condition of a
surety be lifted. I understand that there will be no
objection. It is largely a matter of convenience at this
stage. her sureties have come to court today and are
willing to stand in future, but if there is to be any
further delay then clearly it creates problems of coming to
court all the time.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, may I confirm that the Crown, for their
part, would not ask that the court consider the question of
sureties any further. The Crown are quite content that
there should be a condition of residence and the surrender
of the passport.
R U L I N G S
JUDGE SMEDLEY: As far as Mrs. Koupparis is concerned, her bail
will be extended. There will be a condition of residence,
as before, the passport will be surrendered, as before. In
the light of what you have said, Miss Ellis, and what Mr.
Temple has said, I shall not make any requirement of the
sureties so they can be discharged.
MISS ELLIS: I am obliged.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: So far as the application for bail by Mr.
Koupparis is concerned, I recognise, of course, the
difficulties that are imposed on someone who has to give and
take instructions from prison. I am sure that the prison
officers will do all that they can to make opportunities
available for proper instructions to be taken, but in the
circumstances I do not think that it is appropriate to grant
bail. So the application for bail is refused.
The other matter I shall rule on at 2 o'clock.
[The court adjourned for lunch]
JUDGE SMEDLEY: This is an application by Mr. Koupparis for a
further adjournment of this trial.
The application is resisted by Miss Ellis, who appears
on behalf of his wife, Mrs. Koupparis, who was arrested as
long ago as the 14th of may 1987.
For various reasons there was a delay before the
committal proceedings were effected, and thereafter various
dates for trial in February, May and September of 1988 were
all broken, and here we are in April of 1989, almost two
years after the arrests. That is a deplorable situation
that anybody should be kept waiting for trial for two years.
The basis of the application for a further adjournment
is that information which Mr. Koupparis believes to be in
in the possession of the crown has not been made available to
his earlier solicitors or his present solicitors and those
advising him, nor indeed to himself.
The prime cause of concern seems to be the medical
position, and I will deal with that separately.
So far as the tape recordings are concerned, I am told
by the crown -- and I accept -- that all tape recordings
have been made available to be heard by the solicitors and
Mr Koupparis' legal advisors. If they feel that
transcripts are necessary of those taped conversations, them
they can be prepared.
So far as the second matter of complaint is concerned,
which deals with the situation in Cyprus, Mr. Koupparis
claims that his property in Cyprus, some of his papers in
Cyprus, have apparently disappeared and he has not had
access to them. there is absolutely nothing that I can do
about that.
So far as the trial in Cyprus is concerned which he
tells me took place, although it is doubted by Mr. Edwards,
certainly the arrest of his sister-in-law -- her statement
was prepared in the course of those investigations -- again,
there is nothing which I can do about those.
I am told that the third matter of complaint -- which
was the log of the surveillance carried out by the anti-
terrorist squad and had not been made available -- has now
been dealt with in the sense that Mr. Temple has now offered
those advising Mr. Koupparis sight of that log.
The next matter is the availability to the present
team of legal advisors of papers in the possession of the
former solicitors, Messrs. Campions. I simply express the
hope -- and I am sure they would want to comply with it --
that if they do have documents, which are relevant for the
preparation of Mr. Koupparis' defence, then they should be
made available to the present solicitors and counsel.
So far as the medical reports are concerned, there are
with the court papers some reports from psychiatrists
prepared largely on the basis of investigating the question
of ability to plead, or fitness to plead. Mr. Koupparis
say that whilst he has been in custody he has been
interviewed on several occasions by a whole series of
doctors, and when he was arrested in St. Ives in Cornwall,
on some relatively trivial matters, he was there apparently
also seen by a doctor and recommendations were made. The
reports of doctors prepared whilst Mr. Koupparis had been in
prison are in the custody formally of the Home Office. They
are not in the custody of the prosecution. I have no power
to order the Home Office to make those reports available.
I am told that when this matter was raised before the
learned Common Serjeant some time towards the end of last
year, he expressed the hope -- and I repeat the hope -- that
the Home Office could find it possible to make available any
report which exists for the benefit of those who appear now
for Mr. Koupparis, particularly since it appears that his
mental condition at the time of the act alleged may well be
a material consideration in the course of the trial, and I
would hope that the remarks I have just made will be
forwarded to whoever it is necessary to forward them to,
whether it be the Home Office or whether it be Brixton
prison or Pentonville prison, or wherever he is now, but
certainly I would hope that those doctors' records can be
made available, at any rate to the legal advisors.
In those circumstances, much though I regret it, I am
prepared to grant an adjournment for this trial. The trial
will begin next Monday, and it will start at half past ten.
There will be no further delay.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, may I raise one matter please with your
Lordship relative to the surveillance logs being released?
My Lord, the senior officer, Mr. Williamson, from New
Scotland Yard, is in your Lordship's court at the present
time and he would much prefer if your Lordship could simply
formally order the production of those surveillance logs to
be produced.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes, I do so.
MR. TEMPLE: Yes. The reasoning is that those who have conduct
of policy with regard to the release of such documents are
fearful that the policy should perhaps deteriorate into a
rule which may not be appropriate in every case.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes, I quite understand that, but in the present
case I do so order that those logs should be made available
for examination by those advising Mr. Koupparis.
MR. TEMPLE: Whilst I am on my feet, may I perhaps in open court
indicate, especially to Miss Ellis, that if she and/or her
instructing solicitors could let the Crown know the precise
position with regard to the Cyprus witnesses it would assist
the Crown very much with regard to making the necessary
arrangements.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Yes.
MISS ELLIS: My Lord, I undertake to deal with that.
In respect of the questions of logs, the order has now
been extended for Mr. Koupparis to see the logs; if that
could be extended to Mr. Koupparis and her legal
representatives
JUDGE SMEDLEY: No. I did not say Mr. Koupparis. I said his
advisors.
MISS ELLIS: My Lord, yes.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: That could be extended to Mrs. Koupparis'
advisors.
MISS ELLIS: My Lord, I am obliged.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: Mr Arlidge, is there anything further you wish
to say?
MR. ARLIDGE: The only practical problems I foresaw is that I
have not, until the close of this application, sought any
further indication from Mr. Koupparis whether he wishes
myself and my junior and my solicitors to represent him.
If he decides that he does not wish us to continue
representing him, obviously the order you have just made
might pose problems. It may be that you would want some
further application to be made, I know not, but I just see
it as a practical matter. Of course, it is entirely open to
him if he wishes to conduct his defence himself, bearing in
mind what your Lordship has just said to him. But obviously
If he wishes to conduct the matter himself I imagine he will
want access to those logs.
Perhaps it may be that that can be resolved if I can
just have a word with Mr. Temple.
JUDGE SMEDLEY: The order I made will stand at the moment. If
there is any change in his situation then I will reconsider
it.
MR. ARLIDGE: I am much obliged.
[The court closed]
NB: This file is in draft (05/01/96).
Notes:
- [3a] This 5 minute break was a clever manoeuvre to ensure that the rest of the hearing took place before an empty public gallery. Everyone, including the press, was ushered out only to find that they could not return because of the court's security arrangements. This explains why the judge and the lawyers on both sides appear so unconcerned about the serious allegations the defendant proceeds to raise.
- [13a] Mr Pratt has been nominated for the Nobel Prize (Physics), see Pratt Photos: Secret Revealed!.
- [20a] By the time of this hearing, it was common knowledge that 'Dr' Sophocleous was a bogusly qualified, ex-mental patient. On the 18th of April, 1989, the prosecution purported to Dr Colin Herridge that Sophocleous was a genuine psychiatrist and neurologist in order to obtain a new psychiatric report that was instrumental in securing Mr Koupparis' wrongful conviction. [link-0943] [link-9871]
- [24a] Mr Edwards had good reason to be vague. The sister-in-law Miss Litsa Hallouma had been tried in Nicosia almost two years earlier - (a telephone call would have confirmed this, but no one bothered). The case against her was thrown out by Judge Gallis when it became apparent that the Cyprus police had obtained her statements illegally. These same statements were read to the jury at the fourth and final trial. Mr Koupparis discovered Judge Gallis' ruling after his conviction and raised it as a grounds for appeal against the validity of the dozens of Cypriot statements used against him. The appeals were dismissed. The place marker for the sister-in-law's statement is missing from the transcript of the fourth trial and is the subject of correspondence with Newgate Reporters that has remained unanswered since 8th April, 1991 (Ref: NGR_001). [link-3321] [link-4366] [link-7751]
- [31a] Under English Crown Court procedures, documents handed to the judge are formally identified to the shorthand writer and annotated within the transcript. Those procedures were not followed at this hearing. Mr Temple continued to present his case on the basis that these documents did not exist and explicitly denied their existence in his closing speech to the final jury.
- [32a] Triazolam: a powerful hypnotic of the chloro-benzodiazepine family of drugs, marketed in Britain under the name Halcion until in was banned in 1991, the day before Sir Allan Green QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions responsible for prosecuting this case, resigned after being caught by the police soliciting prostitutes in a red-light district. Sir Allan's Swedish wife later took her life with an over-dose of sleeping tablets.
- [34a] This was supposed to be the first day of the trial, yet Mr Temple had not informed the defence that the prosecution intended to rely on admissions obtained from former defence counsel (Mr Michael Kalisher QC and Mr Anthony Wilcken - instructed by Mr Frank Campion of Campions). [link-0027]
- [34b] Under English law, Mr Koupparis could not withdraw from these unauthorised admissions. Mr Temple adduced them at the final trial, even though, by then, Professor Henry Bland had established that the tapes showed evidence of tampering and forgery. Professor Bland's report was suppressed. This may explain why Mr Koupparis has never been allowed to hear the tapes and why Nicholas N Hamblin has confirmed (in writing) that he had destroyed the defence copies even before the appeal was heard. [link-4334] [link-1132]
- [34c] Form 618 is a supplementary custody record used by the (London Metropolitan) police to categorise a 'special risk prisoner'. This material was suppressed by the prosecution. [link-3612]
General Index | Macpherson II Trial Index