EDITED TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL OF MR. KOUPARRIS

EDITED TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL OF MR. KOUPARRIS
BETWEEN THE 3RD APRIL 1989 AND 27TH APRIL 1989

[Edited Transcript by Nicholas H. Hamblin in May 1989.]

Before Judge Brian Smedley QC at the Old Bailey
Mr. Victor Temple and Mrs. P. Jessel for the Prosecution
Mr. Anthony Arlidge QC and Mr. Stephen Mejzner for the Defence

3rd April 1989

On this particular day it appears that Mr. Kouparris had a number of
grievances concerning the disclosure of evidence such as tapes, etc., which
had only just been served by the Crown upon the Defence. There was also
a consideration as to whether the Counsel acting for Mr. Kouparris were
going to be in a position where they had to withdraw or not due to the
difficulties in obtaining instructions. In addition a number observation
logs had not been supplied to the Defence. In effect Mr. Kouparris was
asking for the matter for his trial to be adjourned until such time as he
had been able to examine the documents and other evidence which had
just become available. The application for an adjournment was opposed by
Counsel on behalf of Mrs. Kouparris who pointed out that the trial had
been fixed on four previous occasions and that the matter was by this time
nearly two years old. The Crown were ready to proceed on this occasion
and equally opposed the application to adjourn. It appears from the
transcript which I have before me that the Prosecution stated in Court
that they believed that the Defendant had accepted certain summaries of
telephone calls and made certain admissions. These, however, were not
forthcoming and the Crown stated that they felt that Mr. Kouparris had
changed his mind about them. The result was that the transcripts of the
tapes, etc. were not available. The net result was that the Judge allowed
an adjournment for one

week until the 10th April 1989. He stated, however, that he would be
unlikely to grant a further adjournment.

7th April 1989

On this day a further application was made to the Judge. The matters
raised concerned surveillance logs, tapes and medical reports. In addition
the question of 'phone taps was raised. It appears from the notes before me
that it was put forward that Mr. Kouparris was psychotic at the time of
the offences, which had been caused by drugs administered to him in
Cyprus. The question of a Defence expert was raised in open Court and the
Crown were put on notice as to the existence of this type of evidence. A
further application was made regarding the tapes of conversations made
by Mr. Kouparris and various other persons, Prosecution witnesses. It was
stated that the Defence would object to the admissability of the tapes and
asked the Prosecution to open their case without mentioning the tapes.
Mr. Kouparris requires to hear all of the tapes at some stage. The issues
with regards 'phone taps was important to the Defence due to the fact that
it was believed that a number of hair-brained schemes had been discussed
on the telephone. For example, gold from sea water. It was also indicated
that the Defence would be saying that the matter should have been tried
in Cyprus and not in England.

The Prosecution refused to admit or deny whether 'phone taps had been
used in this case. They relied upon Section 9 of the Intersection of
Telecommunications Act, 1985. The Defence sought

access to any such information on the basis that it might contain
information that would be helpful to the Defence. The Crown denied that
the Defence had a right to any such information or evidence if it existed.
The Learned Judge refused to make an order that the Prosecution should
disclose whether there had been a tap on the telephones.

10th April 1989

At the beginning of this day the Judge gave his judgment regarding his
decision to refuse to order that the details regarding telephone taps be
made to the Defence. There then followed an application on behalf of Mr.
Kouparris for a further adjournment of the trial and an application under
Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

A number of difficulties had still arisen in the Defence, namely that floppy
discs from the computer were being examined, transcripts of the tapes had
not yet been typed up, and the medical evidence was still being revised.
The Defendant required to see the final report from the medical expert,
Dr. Ashton, before his case commenced. Therefore, an application was
made for a further adjournment.

This was opposed by Counsel for the Crown and Mrs. Kouparris. The
Judge refused to grant an adjournment.

The Defence then submitted that the offence alleged against the

High Commission in London was really an offence committed in Cyprus. It
was submitted that the Defendant should be extradited to Cyprus and
tried there. This was opposed by the Crown who stated that a demand had
been made in the United Kingdom and, therefore, this Court had criminal
jurisdiction over the matter. The Judge reserved his judgment until the
following day.

11th April 1989

In giving his judgment the Learned Judge stated that the Crown had put
their case that the documents supplied in London were a repeated threat
and/or demand and accordingly the offence, if any, was triable in the
United Kingdom. He stated that the approach of Mr. Arlidge appeared
somewhat naive on the facts of the case. He continued by saying that it
was not his view that it would be unfair to admit the Cyprus evidence.
Indeed, he continued the mental factor may well be the most important in
this case. He concluded that the case should be heard in England. The
Cyprus evidence is both relevant and admissable.

Then followed a general discussion by the Defence Counsel with the Judge
concerning the question as to whether they would withdraw from the case
or not. This arose due to the fact that Mr. Kouparris did not feel that he
had adequate time to prepare his Defence. When Mr. Kouparris was asked
by the Judge as to whether this was the correct situation he stated that he
was doing it out of frustration because he had been in custody for over two
years. In addition, he stated that he had not received

all of the information that he had demanded be made available to him
from Cyprus.

The Learned Judge refused to grant an adjournment in the matter, but
put the matter back for some few moments so that Mr. Kouparris could re-
consider the position. Mr. Kouparris continued by making reference to the
taps upon his 'phone at his mother's address. The Learned Judge indicated
that he had already reached his ruling on this matter. After approximately
half an hour it was indicated by the Defence that Mr. Kouparris had
decided to keep his Counsel.

The trial then commenced. Both Defendants pleading not guilty.

During the opening for the Crown the following observations inter alia
were made.

1. That Mr. Kouparris had previously been employed in the security
and/or espionage business and had been concerned with bugging
equipment, etc..

2. That Mrs. Kouparris worked for the British High Commission at
Nicosia.

3. That Mr. Kouparris was clearly an eccentric and that the jury would
have to consider his state of mind.

4. That Mr. Kouparris was highly intelligent, clever and

capable of manipulating situations.

5. That the Defence may well put forward that this matter was all a joke
or simply committed during a period when Mr. Kouparris was researching
a book.

6. That indeed Mr. Kouparris may well be saying that his mind was
befuddled due to the fact that he was taking a numerous quantity of drugs
and, therefore, was unable to appreciate his actions.

The Crown then went through their chronology which we have already
been supplied with. During the opening the Crown made reference to a
number of interviews which Mr. Kouparris had with Police Officers. They
mentioned that there were four such interviews. They also mentioned that
he chose not to answer questions for the main part.

The witnesses were then called the first being Florence Ellen Moore.

11th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF FLORENCE ELLEN MOORE

She stated that she was a Director of Moore Print Craft and that in late
March of 1987 two persons came into the shop, they wanted 11 photocopies.
She gave a description of both men.

Man number 1: Was 35 to 38 years of age, 5ft 8in, Cypriot looking. Dark
hair and medium build. Clean shaven, ear length hair. He wore a black
Gaberdine coat and was carrying a brief case which was black.

Man number 2: Was aged 35'ish, 5ft Gin. Mousey hair, a bit thicker set
than man number 1 but clean shaven. He wore a beige coloured jacket which
was casual in style.

It was the second man that made the request for photocopying. He gave the
witness 11 sheets to photocopy. They were turned in the opposite
direction so she could not see them. The first three copies did not
appear to copy correctly and were taken by one of the men.

When the noise of someone coming along the corridor became apparently
man number 2 seemed to panic.

Cross Examination

I made a statement to the Police on the 13th April 1987. I was sitting down
in the shop when the Police came in. They came to see me at first and then
later came back to take a statement. Possibly seven days later. It was the
second man that did most of the talking. I have not attended an
identification parade. I was not asked to go upon an identification parade.

11th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF TINA HOLMES

The second witness is called Tina Holmes. She worked for the family
business. On the 6th April 1987 she started work at 8.00am. in the morning.
She recalled two men who asked her to do some typing. This was between 9.30
and 10.00am. She gives a description of the two men.

Man number 1: She describes as 35-40, medium build, 5ft 6in/5ft Bin. Dark
brown hair, thinning on top. Italian or Greek appearance. Clean shaven. He
spoke good English and wore a casual jacket. He had dark eyes and wore
sunglasses.

Man number 2: Was 21, approximately 5ft Bin tall. Fair hair. He didn't speak
uch but was English.

It was man number 1 who wanted the photocopying and general conversation
took place with him. He wanted to photocopy a number of items including a
computer magazine. A print out which he concealed from the witness and a
piece of paper with a black letter heading.

The witness was shown Exhibit 55 to which she replied it was a similar logo,
but she could not say whether it was the same.

Man number 1 wanted some typing done so I gave him the name of someone who
would do it for him. He bought some envelopes and some erasers costing £3.00
or £4.00. He paid in cash. At about 4 o' clock the man returned and said he
could not get anybody to do the typing. I agreed to do it and for him to
return to see me the next day.

On the 7th April 1987 he arrived at the shop but I was too busy. I later saw
man number 1 using my typewriter. He typed with one finger on each hand
using the logo headed paper that I had seen the day before. He had his
glasses and hat on and he could have been wearing a mac. I know of Catford
Couriers. We laughed about the one fingered typist, but he did not say
anything to us. The man said that he wanted a Courier and then bought some
paper thimbles.

This witness then stated that she had attended at Scotland Yard to look at
some photographs. She did not see anybody who looked like the man,
especially man number 1. This witness did, indeed, help her step-father to
make out a photo-fit of the man.

[At this stage of the proceedings it was admitted on behalf of Mr. Kouparris
that he was man number 1.]

An application was then made to show the statement of this witness to her.
This was permitted. However, after refreshing her memory this witness was
still unable to say what it was that had been said by the first man after
the remark had been made to

him about one fingered typing.

Cross Examination

He was photocopying an article in a computer magazine, but I do not know
what it was. I did not see that it was an April Fool's Joke article dated
the 1st April. If I had done the typing I would have remembered what it was
that I had typed, especially if it had been unusual. My step-father told the
man to use the typewriter in the small office with the two desks. He was a
slow typist. He asked me where Catford Hill was and then I mentioned the
existence of the Couriers. He was in the shop for 45 minutes or thereabouts.
He appeared to buy two or three paper thimbles on the spur of the moment. I
can recall the document that was being typed. I could see the man from where
I was, but I wasn't really interested. He did not appear to be somebody who
was used to using a keyboard, either on a typewriter or a computer. There
would have been plenty of time for me to recognise this man if I had seen
him again.

11th April 1989

FURTHER EVIDENCE OF MRS. FLORENCE ELLEN MOORE

The next witness was Mr. Florence Ellen Moore who was recalled to give
evidence. She was further cross-examined and said that she had seen two men
on a Thursday, but she could not say that it was definitely the 26th March
1987.

12th April 1989

The first witness called on this day was Daniel Sean Tuffin.

EVIDENCE OF DANIEL SEAN TUFFIN

He stated that he helped to run Catford Couriers in Catford Hill. Moore
Printcraft was a regular customer.

A man asked him to deliver a parcel. He was not sure of the exact address
and said that he would meet the rider. This was on the 7th April 1987. The
man wanted a package delivered to the West End. He stated that he was
staying with friends in Peckham. I told him that it would take a couple of
hours to get there to pick up the package. He replied that he would come to
the office and give it to us. Later that day he came to the office. He was
5ft 8in/5ft9in with dark glasses, wide brimmed hat. He wore baseball boots
and handed me an A4 envelope. I think he wore gloves and told the person to
deliver to the West End. Delivery was to be to the addressee only.

The witness was shown exhibit number 1 and stated as follows:

The package looked like that. And it is certainly the address to which we
delivered. We did not promise to deliver it to the person, however, whose
name appeared on the envelope. I asked the man for a telephone number in
case of problems but he said

that he was flying out of Heathrow and there would be no contact number. I
handed the package to my rider whose name is TRAQUAIR.

Cross Examination

Our business is normally over the 'phone and this sticks in my mind because
the man came to the office. He was dressed oddly. I cannot remember how many
gloves he had on. His hat was very broad rimmed. He had a green top coat on
and was wearing bright orange baseball boots. He trousers were rolled up. I
do not remember if he held the envelope in a hand which did not have a
glove. I did not giggle at him and our office would not have laughed just
because he was dressed in an odd way. We may have laughed afterwards but I
do not recall. My brother and I were both seen by a solicitor acting on
behalf of the Defence and we did say it was like a spy spoof. It was a
couple years ago but he did look weird. I don't remember saying it was
bizarre and I do not remember anything about a Russian spy being said whilst
he was there. His command of English was good, his speech was clear, he was
easy to understand.

Two further witnesses were then read to the Court, the names being BARRY
TRAQUAIR, the second being CHRIS TUFFIN.

12th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF ROY MOORE

On the 7th April 1987 I was at the shop which I run as a Director called
Moore Printcraft Limited. My step-daughter Tina Holmes works for me. At
about 10.00am a man arrived at the shop. He was aged mid-30' s, clean
shaven, medium build wearing a wide brimmed hat black in colour, a pair of
very dark sunglasses and dark clothing. He said that Tina had said that she
would do some typing for him. He stated that he needed the work done
urgently and that he was unable to get the work done somewhere else. Tina
was busy so she could not do it. He asked me if he could borrow a
typewriter. I let him use the manual Adler typewriter. He took off his coat.
He also took off his hat and glasses. He had black hair, I think it was
straight, medium length. He asked me how you spell Cairo. He was there for
perhaps three-quarters of an hour. I did not see any of the details on the
paper. Later on the police came in and asked if they could take away the
typewriter.

Cross Examination

In cross examination he repeated the majority of his evidence that he gave
in chief. He stated that he did not notice how well the man typed, but he
was slow. The man did not speak very much. He could see his face, however,
and had a reasonable opportunity to see him. He did not remember if the man
had black gloves on. He did not see a woman with him.

12th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF ANIA ALEXANDRIA MAJSZCSYK

She stated that in 1987 she worked for a Company called Alcom Limited.
This was situated in the Edgware Road.

She said that she had met Kouparris in the latter of the 1970's. As far as
she knew he sold electronic and surveillance equipment and counter-
surveillance equipment. Kouparris disappeared from this Company in
1981 or 1982. I had a contact address for him and a name of a Company
under which he traded called Elscan Limited. I believe he had a Cyprus
Company called Campenella.

On the 7th April 1987 I had a telephone call from Mr. Kouparris. He tried
to change his voice by using a frequency shifter. He must have been using
a device to disguise his voice. He eventually reverted to using his normal
voice. He came to the office in the evening and we talked about computers.
He asked me out to dinner at the Intercontinental Hotel. He telephoned
the Intercontinental and booked a table in the name of Miller. I asked him
why this was he replied that Kouparris was dead and had been dead for
some time. That he had nine passports and several difference
identifications. He also mentioned he was working for the Cyprus
Government. He stated that his baby brother was acting as his body guard
for him. He did not give me a satisfactory answer as to why he needed a
body guard.

Over the next couple of days I received two or three telephone

calls from Mr. Kouparris. On the 10th April 1987 he telephoned me again
and said that he had an important business meeting that evening and
would I accompany him to the meeting. I agreed to go. I went with him
together with my secretary, Vanessa Jarrett. He said it was a deal of a
lifetime if it came off. I think he was driving a silver Granada on that
occasion. We eventually went to an Indian restaurant somewhere in the
East End, I do not know exactly where it was. We met three other men.
During the course of the meal the four men spoke in Greek.

The next time that we heard from Kouparris was on the 29th April when
he wanted to bring some people to the office to demonstrate some of the
equipment. He did not say who these people were but he arrived at about
6.45 bringing his wife with him and his youngest brother. He made a
telephone call and then went to meet some people at a hotel called The
Metropol. He returned at 7.45 with two Mediterranean looking men aged
about 25.

During the demonstration that Kouparris gave, he gave the wrong
descriptions of some of the items of equipment. These descriptions were
inaccurate as to what the equipment did, they were exaggerated and
erroneous. He had in fact told me not to say a word during the
demonstration. They all left the office at 9 o'clock and I haven't seen
Kouparris since.

Cross Examination

I knew Kouparris for two-three years. He would have been

familiar with our products. He did buy some of our equipment. He did
refer to Campenella, a family in Cyprus I believe, but I cannot really recall
much about it. He was known as Pan. I did not know his middle name. He
used a company name of Campenella, he didn't use the name Miller. His
consultancy ceased in 1982 and I didn't hear from him until 1987. I believe
he tried to use a voice box as a joke as I hadn't heard his voice for such a
long time. I did hear him book a table at the Intercontinental Hotel at
Hyde Park in the name of Miller. I do not know if anyone called him Miller
at the Hotel. Kouparris said he was keeping a low profile because he was
working for the Cypriot Government. The deal of a life-time that he
mentioned I assumed was to be with these men that he brought to the
office for the demonstration. I got very fed up at this meeting. As he
showed the men this equipment he said that it did things that it did not.
He described many of the functions incorrectly and spoke English at the
demonstration with a few Greek words thrown in. He did behave oddly
which he didn't during the earlier period that I had known him. I do not
know about him working for the Government. I did know of a man called
Johnny Johnstone. He did work for the Nigerian Government. Our
Company did deal with the Ministry of Defence. I have not heard of a piece
of equipment called a Magnom-metre. Alcom dealt mainly with recording
and surveillance equipment. Mr. Mardas was the boss. He may have gone
to Cairo, but it will be on our records and I could get details if required. I
recall that he was due to go to Cairo at that time.

The statement of MR. JOHN MARDAS was then read to the Court.

12th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF SOPHY THOMPSON

She was working in a model agency in Covent Garden and lives in that area.
In April of 1987 she was with a person called Cripps Clennell and Kindersley
walking along Charring Cross Road. They saw a man looking at computers. One
of the boys made a joke about this. The man replied and eventually asked us
for a drink at his Hotel. I believe the Hotel was the White House. We got
there by car. We had a few drinks there, I fell asleep and so did Jake. We
did have breakfast at the Hotel. The man said to call him Nemo. He said that
this was nickname. It was Captain or Commander, I am not quite sure.

He said he wanted to have an island, a man made paradise. We saw him a lot
of times after this initial meeting. Perhaps three to four times a week for
about two months. We met him as a group. We went to a number clubs, one of
which was called Browns. We also went to Heaven once and also a Chinese
restaurant in Knightsbridge.

They went to a number of difference restaurants, all of which were fairly
expensive. On one occasion when they were at Heaven, the nightclub, the
Defendant, Kouparris, said that he had some pills to keep them all awake and
showed them some white pills. This witness said that she probably took one
of them. On one occasion he gave them £100.00 after he decided to leave
early. He discussed with them the idea of making them into a pop group

and introduced them to a person known as Jimmy Sparkle.

At some stage someone called him (Kouparris) Pan. He said this was another
of his nicknames.

This witness plus her three friends went to a sound test at a particular
place, but they were not serious when they did the sound test. It was
terrible.

I think I met the Defendant's wife at the Intercontinental Hotel on one
occasion. We called him Nemo in front of his wife, but I did not look at her
to see what her reaction would be. He kept the idea of us being a pop group
alive. On one occasion we went to the Churchill Hotel to meet a number of
important people, so Mr. Nemo told us. We met these people. They spoke in a
foreign language, possibly Greek. I don't know the man's name. We had a few
drinks and then went in a Rolls Royce Cornice to St. John's Wood. Nemo
followed in his car. We stayed there for an hour or two. On one occasion
when we met Nemo he didn't have very much money and we ended up going to a
McDonalds. We met Jimmy Sparkle's girlfriend and also Nemo's mother at some
stage.

Cross Examination

I thought we were on to a good thing. The others mentioned a dog, I do not
remember this point, I wasn't really interested. I do not remember a voice
box of somebody barking. Somebody did mention 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea,
I don't remember why. I do

know that this was written by Jules Vern. It is science fiction I think. He
wore a trilby - black in colour -, sunglasses at night, black clothes,
mainly suits. I did not notice any gloves, I am not very perceptive. I don't
know him as Miller or as a chauffeur. I don't recall him saying he had
diplomatic privilege. I never saw any orange baseball boots.

We went to the White House Hotel on one occasion, I don't know where it is,
it was posh, he took us to some expensive places. At the time that we met
Mr. Kouparris in the Charring Cross Road I was probably dressed rather
scruffy. Nemo never stopped talking about some of his plans. Some of them
were hare-brained. He did not give the island that mentioned a name and I do
not know if he wanted people to be there or not. He may have talked of
philosophy, but I don't listen. I remember that he talked about self-
cleaning beaches, I am not sure.

I was fifteen at the time with no musical experience and terrible voice, we
were all very bad. After the voice test we made it clear that we thought the
whole thing was laughable. We met a designer who called herself Maria
Callas. The test that we had at Sparkle's house was terrible. However, we
still met some backers who were introduced to us by Nemo after this terrible
test. I met a number of men including the people we met at St. John's Wood.
He was to be one of the backers and we met at the Churchill Hotel in
Portland Square. I did go to the Intercontinental Hotel, but I wasn't there
when a Limousine was used. I had probably had a drink before and at the
Churchill

Hotel. I went with him to his flat with the other three and this was the
first time I hadn't been in a public place with him. Nothing happened, but I
felt uneasy. One of the other parents objected to this but I continued to
see him, although my mother didn't know about it.

I don't remember if he was called Nemo at Browns. I don't remember any
discussion about Aids Anonymous. I have got a bad memory. He did say that he
would make money out of Aid Anonymous. I don't remember anything being said
about gold out of sea water. Nemo mentioned so many schemes, but they were
boring so I didn't listen. When we were in the clubs he took photographs of
us all. We always called him Commander Nemo. I can't remember if anyone else
called him that. It must have been after the terrible sound test that we met
the backers.

12th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF TASSOS PANAYIDES (High Commissioner of Cyprus in London)

I have been the Cyprus Commissioner in London since 1970 at Park
Street, London, W1. On the 4th April 1987 I was told of a blackmail threat
to the Cyprus Government. I have read my statement to refresh my
memory. On the 7th April I received a telephone call on the telephone
number 499 2810. These calls usually come through my secretary. It was a
male calling himself Wilkins from the Ministry of Defence. He stated that
he was sending an envelope to the President of Cyprus by way of (this
could be one of two options) either courier or Cairo. The witness said that
he expected it and would forward it as soon as possible. The telephone call
was in English.

The witness was then shown Exhibits pages 1-13 and identified them as
being part of an envelope that was delivered to the High Commission that
same day, the 7th April 1987. This was about 3.OOpm. The witness
received a second telephone call from Wilkins at about 4.20pm enquiring
as to whether he had received the package. He also asked how long it
would take to reach the President. The witness told him that it would be
with the President the next day.

On the 13th May 1987 I was informed by the Chief of Police from Cyprus
to expect a call the next day from a Simon Campenella. The witness was
instructed to give him a passport and £25,000.00

in cash. A Metropolitan Police Officer called and a dummy package was
prepared for him. At 10.00am on the same day he received a telephone call
in Greek from Mr. Campenella. He told the High Commissioner to have
the passport and money ready and received the reply that he would expect
him. The witness then arranged for further telephone conversations to be
tape recorded. This was done by Mr. Hancock of the Metropolitan Police.
The first telephone call from Campenella was at 10.00am in the morning
on the 14th. He asked me if I had a message to which I replied "Yes, to
issue a passport and money".

At approximately 11.OOam, that is 20 minutes later, Campenella 'phoned
again. He stated that he would arrive in 50 minutes. He wanted to know if
he should take his glasses off for the passport photograph that he was
going to have taken of himself. At 11.30am Campenella arrived and he
was shown into the office. He was wearing a hat and an overcoat, on his
left hand was a glove. He was wearing dark glasses and appeared to be a
very smart gentleman behaving quite correctly.

During the second telephone conversation this witness had told
Campenella not to wear his sunglasses in the photographs and also not to
wear a hat. Campenella said that he was going to go to a photo-booth to
have his photograph taken.

After Campenella had arrived at the High Commission the discussion
began with details for the issuing of a passport and the spelling of the
name. Also the date of birth and the home

village were discussed. He had taken with him some photographs from a
booth and this witness chose a number of them to be suitable. The
conversations were in Greek and the man Campenella had a country
accent. I was asked whether I had the money and I showed him the
envelope.

He opened the envelope and took out two bundles of notes. He placed one
in his left pocket and one in his right pocket. The bundles were about
£2,500.00 each. He asked me if he could collect the passport at the end of
the day and I said that this would not be a problem.

Campenella said that he had had trouble with is rooms at the
Intercontinental Hotel, the witness said that he could use us in future
there. The witness said that he had a fair idea of what was going on. He
also stated that there had been a tape recorder in his draw which he had
switched on and off as the conversation began and finished. During the
end of the conversation Campenella had said "Can we do this again?" and
the witness had said "By all means". Soon after he left the office at the
High Commissioner he was surrounded by Police Officers.

Cross Examination

The first that this witness had heard about the blackmail attempt upon
the Cyprus Government was on the 4th February 1987. I had not seen any
documents by that time. My part in all of this was a very small one but it
is a matter of interpretation. I know

nothing about documents being delivered in Cyprus. The caller calling
himself Wilkins said to send the envelope to the President, Mr. Kiprianou.

Witness shown Exhibits pages 1 to 13. States as follows:

This was opened in front of my by a Metropolitan Police Officer. If I had
not been told not to open the envelope I would have done so. The reason I
would have opened it is because it had my name on it. This is Exhibit 1.
Inside the envelope was another envelope addressed to the President. This
was also opened by the Police Officer.

I would not ordinarily have opened the document shown at page 2 in the
Exhibit bundle. This would have been sent to the President. However, it
was opened by the Police Officer in my presence. The High Commissioner
or Ambassador is the representative of the Head of State in Cyprus.
Therefore, he would have authority to open anything to the Head of State.
I understand that we had been under threat for a month and I wanted to
know who was behind the plot. It was up to me and my discretion whether
I opened the letter or not. I did examine the contents of the envelope.

On this occasion I had orders to open the envelope and then transmit it in
the fastest way possible to the President. There are occasions when I
would open envelopes marked to the President and occasions when I
would not do so. I have a personal

discretion. I would not expect the ordinary citizen to know how we operate.

I see on page 5 of this Exhibit the words Nemo. This appears to come from
a Jules Vern book. I did read books of this nature when I was a student. In
Latin Nemo means nobody. It appears to be Commander nobody. I
understand what the words force measure mean - Act of God. Pages 6 and
7 do not mean much to me. I am not a scientist and these were technical
terms.

What I want you to understand is living under threat and duress. Whether
this was sane or insane or a scientist or not we did not analyse the
document. [This is completely untrue.]

It was for the Government to say whether it was feasible or not, that is to
say, to ask people who knew about the things like this. After two years I
don't consider it would be feasible. I did say on television on one occasion
that I felt great relief because of this matter being at an end. There was an
election in February of 1988.

On the occasion that I opened the envelope I had a glance at the
document, not thoroughly though. I did not ever have a copy of this
document until months later and it was only then that I was able to go
through it. The first telephone conversation with Wilkins was on the 7th
April. This witness did appear to know about Portland Down.

I did not know the Cypriot Government submitted documents to Portland
Down on the 1st April. Campenella wanted a passport and to get money. I
said "It's on the table." He said he needed the cash to buy a few things. He
opened the envelope, took out two bundles of notes and left the rest in the
envelope. I understand that the passport was to be used by him to go to
Cyprus. He never told me that he was using the money to assist the
Cyprus Government.

I am not an investigator, I am a diplomat. I never intended to issue a
passport to Campenella. I was playing my role to help the Government.
When he came in he came with empty hands meaning he had no glove on
the left hand. [This does not appear to be correct, it should say "glove on
the left hand".] I did not know that Campenella was called Panos
Kouparris. [This is untrue, reference to the transcript of one of the tape
recorded messages.]

Later on I realised that his father-in-law is a very good friend of mine. We
believe in the same ideology.

The next witness is called CHARLOTTE CRIPPS. There is no note of the
evidence that she gave on the 12th April although the new evidence starts on
the 13th April.

13th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF CHARLOTTE CRIPPS

I went on a holiday in Italy. On my return I saw Nemo at the White House
Hotel or Intercontinental, I cannot remember, in fact it could have been the
Churchill. We went there to meet a backer for our Group. All four of us went
and after a while three of us went in a Rolls Royce and Nemo went in one of
the hired cars that he had got hold of.

We went to a flat in St. John's Wood, I did not feel comfortable. I felt it
was a silly situation and we ought to leave. At some stage Nemo showed me
some passports.

I remember that one was a UK passport, one was Swiss, one was Cypriot and I
believe one other. One was in the name of Panos Kouparris. I didn't ask him
about this name and he gave no reason for it. Jimmy Sparkle tested our
voices on a machine at Nemo's suggestion. We couldn't sing at all and
Sparkle thought it was a pretty bad idea as well. The last time I saw Nemo
was when we went to a Kentucky Fried Chicken shop because he didn't have any
money.

Cross Examination

The pop group idea was silly. He said he used the name Nemo on the spur of
the moment. He always wore one black glove, sometimes a hat and sunglasses.
He said he had diplomatic privileges. He did mention machine guns and I have
heard of a man called Prince. I don't recognise lyrics of anything that he
had said.

We went into the foyer of the Hotel and sat there. The others didn't see the
passports I don't think, nor the credit cards. It would have been 7.00pm or
thereabouts. He talked about all sorts of things and I felt he was a funny
peculiar man. He didn't talk about the true meaning of life or philosophy
but did mention Paradise Island. I didn't hear about the island first hand.
He said that he had some machinery to stop cars being clamped and a cure for
Aids. He used clinical and technical words that I did not understand. He
wanted us as a group to play at Wembley and arrive by helicopter. He talked
about super-gluing people to their seats.

His wife said to us that he used different disguises to confuse the Hotel
staff, this included going dressed as a chauffeur to the lobby of the hotel.
I do not know about his booking in as different people however. I did not
believe what he said to us. He talked about a Marilyn Munroe look-a-like but
I do not know what his plans were. He didn't mention baldness, gold from sea
water or target 2001.

Re-examination

I saw more than one passport. One was Swiss, one UK and one was Cypriot.

13th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF BARNABUS KINDERSLEY

This witness said as follows in examination in chief.

We got in a taxi and he said he was Commander Nemo. We went to the White
House Hotel, he was staying there. We went for a drive in a hired red
Sierra.

He called up Jake, a friend of mine, and asked us out. We went together to
the White House and asked for Mr. Edwards. We knew the name Commander Nemo
was a joke name. He was packing when we got to the Hotel because there had
been a dispute over some cocktail shakers he told us. We went to a number of
places to eat including Heaven and a restaurant in Knightsbridge. On one
occasion we went to Heaven Discotheque, he left as he was tire but gave us
three £50.00 notes to have a good time.

On another occasion we went to the Intercontinental Hotel. We met some
flashy looking geezer people who were going to back us as a pop group. We
called him Nemo and the others laughed, but they would not tell us his real
name.

We went on a week's holiday and then met Nemo again at the Intercontinental.
His wife was there. Nemo gave us some business cards. Shown Exhibit number
28. This is the card and Kouparris' name is upon it. We met two people who
were backers at the Churchill Hotel near St. John's Wood. We went to his
flat

which was near the zoo. It was a penthouse flat, he made a pass at Charlotte
who felt uneasy and we asked to leave.

We met a Jimmy Sparkle who helped us make a voice test in Peckham.

Cross Examination

We met Nemo five to ten times in the evenings. He was good fun to be with
and talked a lot. The ideas were silly at times. He appeared to have quite a
lot of money and talked of a cure for Aids. He said he had money in a Cyprus
Clinic. He did talk about a Company called Futura. He said this was
commodity futures. My father is a business man but he did not ask me to ask
my father to invest any money.

I don't recall any scheme to make cars escape wheel clamps but there was
talk of a Marilyn Munroe look-a-like which he mentioned that he might try
and use with us in the band. I don't remember any talk about baldness but he
did talk about a lot of things like that. I don't recall gold from sea
water.

I had a dream for a pop group, that would have been nice. He suggested an
entrance by helicopter. I could play a little bit of the bass guitar. Jake,
my friend, had played a couple of gigs on the drums and Charlotte was in the
school choir.

Re-examination

I do remember some discussion about £9 million. I assumed it was pounds but
I cannot tell you what it was about. I don't know if this was on more than
one occasion. I cannot remember.

13th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF PETER O'NEIL

I work as a chauffeur and I met Mr. Kouparris in 1980 while I was
working at Armalite Bullet Proofing Cars Limited. It was my
understanding that Mr. Kouparris was dealing in electronics. I left
Armalite in 1982 to set up my own business which I did in 1985. I did
meet Mr. Kouparris in 1987, I seem to remember that I did some
chauffeuring duties for him on the 3rd April 1987. However, he did ask me
to drive to Penzanze on the 12th May and I said I could not do it. I told
him to go by train.

On the 14th May 1987 he asked me to drive him to Beaconsfield or Milton
Keynes, after visiting the West End. He telephoned me to ask me to do
this. He gave me his mother's address. He did not give me any specific
instructions no the 'phone. I arrived at his house at 9.30 in the morning.
His brother let me in. I waited 20 minutes. We left between 10.00 or 10.30,
he had a briefcase with him which he kept looking at. He showed me some
photographs, one was of a Marilyn Monroe look-a-like, the other was of his
wife's sister. [This is Litsa.]

He got photographs of Victoria Station and then he wanted me to take him
to Park Street. He wanted the Cyprus High Commission as he wanted to
sort out his passport, so I understood. I saw Mr. Kouparris being held by
three men about 10 minutes later.

He was shown Exhibit 60. His answer was - that is the briefcase.

Cross Examination

We did pick up a Marilyn Monroe look-a-like in the King's Road on the
12th May. It could have been earlier though. Mr. Kouparris had asked to
be picked up at 12 noon from the Intercontinental. We picked the woman
up and a man and took them to a restaurant. Mr. Kouparris was
interested in promoting her. We went to a restaurant and then I took them
to Russell Square where there was an office. Mr. Kouparris paid me in the
office. I thought it was his office.

I worked for Armalite from 1979 to 1983 as I remember. In 1987 when I
saw Mr. Kouparris he wore a dark hat, suit, sunglasses and a glove on one
hand only. He certainly did not wear this in 1980 when I met him. When I
picked him up I do remember he had a chauffeur's hat. I thought he was
messing about. I have no idea why we were going to go to Milton Keynes
or Beaconsfield.

When we went to the High Commission he had a strip of three
photographs which he had taken in a booth with him. Possibly a filofax
and a passport, I do not remember. He left the briefcase in my car as far as
I remember. I did not take very much notice or think about it. The
photographs were in his pocket. I was parked 20 feet away and saw
movement. I saw three men surrounding Mr. Kouparris against the
railings. I was going to get out of my car when a police man took the keys
out of the ignition and told me not to move. I remember that the glove he

wore was black leather. I do not remember a chauffeur's full uniform but I
remember the hat. I thought it was a joke.

13th April 1989

At this stage the Prosecution re-called the witness BARNABUS KINDERSLEY. He
was asked further questions which went as follows:

FURTHER EVIDENCE OF BARNABUS KINDERSLEY

I did meet the wife and little girl of Mr. Kouparris. I think the wife did
call him Pan. I got a card and he showed us his passport and other
identification cards. My parents tried to stop me seeing him, but I met him
all the same. The passport that I saw was a British passport. I only saw
one. Yes, I was with my friends.

13th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF DET. SGT. RONALD KNOX

Between the 9th and 11th May 1987 I kept surveillance upon Mr.
Kouparris. On the 14th May I kept watch on the High Commission of
Cyprus. The logs were kept by other officers and kept in contact with me
by radio. There would not be a time gap as we would sign the log at the
end of each operation. This was done in this case. I produce the
surveillance log [this appears to be Exhibit number 146].

The witness then went through the log before the jury.

Target 1 was Mr. Kouparris, target 2 was another man.

On the 14th May we watched Strickland Court. At 10.29 we saw Mr.
Kouparris and a driver leave. At 11.35 I was in Park Street keeping
observation at number 93. I saw the blue Mercedes with Mr. O'Neil parked
outside. At 11.40 Mr. Kouparris walked to the car wearing a grey coat,
sunglasses and one glove on his hand. I saw Mr. Ayres and Mr. Madden go
to Mr. Kouparris whilst I and Mr. Martin went to Mr. O'Neil the driver of
the car. I took the case [Exhibit 60] and saw him being arrested. I handed
the case to Mr. Madden.

The observation logs are written in someone else's hand who would have
been at the end of the radio contact. They were written on my behalf and
the other officers as well. There would be no time

gap because what I said over the radio would be written down almost
immediately.

Cross Examination

It is not right to say that if my number is not on the log that I did not see
any of the observations. There were a number of officers involved and we
may have seen the same things but from a better position. If this is the
case the number of the officer giving the best observation goes onto the
record. I did make a statement on the 18th May 1987 by referring to the
log. [The witness was then shown his statement.] I saw this statement a
week ago when I was coming into Court. I have not see it today, however.
If there is something in the statement that must be right as it is now
nearly two years ago. This log contains all the relevant information
against this Defendant. There are no rules about giving the logs of
observations to the Defence. These logs were given to the Defence a week
ago. [Comment - It is not surprising that Mr. Kouparris feels aggrieved
about the way the Prosecution have presented their evidence.]

Any information passed on the radio would be noted down. The
surveillance took placed between the 9th May to the 14th May and I can
speak for no one else. It is about four miles between Peckham and Catford.
East Dulwich British Rail Station is not far from Peckham.

Mr. Kouparris did not wear sunglasses on the 11th, but he was

wearing a glove. He was similarly dressed on most occasions but the hat
that he wore stood out more than the glove. It was a distinctive trilby
which stood out from the crowd. It had a broad brim. We were able to spot
him because of this broad brimmed hat.

13th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF D. CON. G. MADDEN

On the 14th May 1987 I was at the Cyprus Embassy and observed Mr.
Kouparris and arrested him. I made a note at the Station one hour later at
the first opportunity that I was able to do so. My number on the
observation log was 1125.

I was at Park Street and at 11.30 a blue Mercedes and Mr. Kouparris got
out. He wore a black trilby, dark glasses, grey mac and a glove. He was
holding a magazine. I remained outside when Mr. Kouparris went inside.
The glove was on his left hand.

At 11.40am Mr. Kouparris came out of the Embassy, I approached him
and arrested him for demanding money with menaces. I cautioned him
and Mr. Kouparris said "Alright, alright, what's it all about". He was
handcuffed and taken to Paddington Green Police Station.

He was carrying a large envelope which had a bundle of money.

(This witness was then shown Exhibit 119.)

This is the envelope which had been opened. He had also had a filofax
(Exhibit number 8). I was handed a case (Exhibit 60) by Mr. Knox which I
took to the Police Station. The witness was referred to pages 63, 64, 65, 66
to 73 and in addition page 7495.

At the time that I approached him he had a large brown envelope in his
left hand. At the Police Station I asked Mr. Kouparris to empty his
pockets. Exhibit 117 was found in a right hand pocket. Also found was a
single £10.00 note, Exhibit 118, packaged to look like £2,500.00. We
opened the briefcase at the police station with Mr. Kouparris's co-
operation.

The witness then dealt with a minor matter on the 11th May 1989 when
he observed Mr. Kouparris coming out of Strickland Court and going to
some shops. [This does not appear to be particularly relevant.]

Cross Examination

My notes are signed by me and no one else. The notes were made with the
recollection of D.S. Ayres. We went through the day's events together. We
would discuss what each had observed and if one didn't notice certain
things he would not note it down. The notes were made separately. I didn't
have much of a difficulty recalling it.

On the 18th May 1989 [?] I made a statement about the surveillance of
Mr. Kouparris. It wasn't very much. It was not the only day that I carried
out an observation and it didn't appear to be very important. The
observations would include anyone that came to the house. I see Mrs.
Kouparris now but I don't recall her at the surveillance. I would note the

descriptions of any women that I did see. I can't say if I did see her at all. I
did not make a statement of all the logs of observations. I left the
investigation after the arrest of Mr. Kouparris and was not de-briefed on
that particular part. I did not know Mr. Kouparris's name at the time of
his arrest.

I was on part of an observation when there were two targets. Target
number 1 was Mr. Kouparris, records would have been taken of what we
saw. Target 2 was another man. We would need to know if this man was
working with anyone else.

My name does appear on a surveillance log taking place at the Science
Museum. I do see that it does describe a woman at 1730hrs. I did got to
the Natural History Museum. I went to Gillingham, but I did not see him
there. I did see him try to hitch a lift, but I did not see him get it.

At the Science Museum I did not recognise Mrs. Kouparris. I do not recall
how, but I was approached to make a statement with reference to a
specific point.

I took Mr. Kouparris to the Police Station and searched him. I did not see
him when a doctor came to see him. I was with him when his property was
searched. He appeared to be very quite but was very surprised initially.
Other than that he was very cooperative. We would have been briefed
before the operation took place. We had been briefed as to what had
occurred and what we were looking for.

At the time of the arrest of Mr. Kouparris I said "We are Police Officers
and I am arresting you for demanding money with menaces." I then
cautioned him. After he spoke briefly to us Mr. Kouparris was handcuffed
with his hands behind him. He was certainly grabbed by us but he was not
pushed or held against any railings. It happened very, very quickly but
identification comes first. It is upper most. There were no uniformed
officers in sight.

Mr. Kouparris was not on the railings at any time. It is not right that he
wasn't told that we were Police Officers or that we were arresting him. He
had one glove on and had some magazines with him. I did not take them
from him, but they were taken from him at the Police Station. One was
folded in half and it appears there were other magazines as well. I could
not be sure what these magazines were. [The witness was then shown a
number of magazines.] I see these magazines, they are about Marilyn
Munroe, pop music, a Greek review and a catalogue from Milton Keynes.

I did not go into the Embassy, I had not dealings with Mr. Hancock.
Nothing else was put into the briefcase. I looked at the contents and saw
no photographs in the case. I don't say that the photographs for the
passport were in a filofax. The money was in pockets but carried out of the
brown envelope. I am absolutely positive on this and on the arrest. He
came out of the building with a brown bag carrying money. [The witness
was

then shown Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8.] He was also shown pages 42, 64, 72,
78, 80, 86 and 90.

Re-examination

There were two surveillance teams. The anti-terrorist squad has its own
surveillance team and was backed up by New Scotland Yard surveillance
teams as a demand was expected. I was asked, as is the usual way, to
make a statement on one point at the surveillance could go on for a
number of months.

13th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF D.SGT. KENNETH MACRAE

I have been a surveillance team leader for six and half years. I was at
Strickland Court on the 10th May 1987. I do have the original log of five
pages. We act independently of any other team. My Ken [no relation to Ken
Osman] and my number is 550.

At 8.50 I saw Mr. Kouparris in East Dulwich Road bearing a black trilby. He
was going towards Lordship Lane. The name on the side of the log relates to
the officer who transmitted the message. Surveillance was kept on Mr.
Kouparris until he returned at 11.13.

At 11.07 he walked to a roundabout at East Dulwich Road, Lordship Lane.

At 1348hrs Mr. Kouparris and his family came out of his flat and went to a
park at Peckham Rye. This was a normal walk. At 1449 they went to a premises
in East Dulwich Grove.

I did see him in Victoria Street though it is not in the log. It was before
1545hrs when he went into McDonalds.

Cross Examination

I only saw some of the things which are noted in this log. Strickland Court
is on the corner of Finwick and East Dulwich

Road.

Mr. Kouparris was oddly dressed with a large trilby hat. He had dark clothes
on, but white shoes. He did stop a few people in the street and talked to
them. I did not see him go to a telephone box. At one stage he did have a
poster which had upon it "Sex After AIDS". I don't know where he got this
from. A number of people that he approached in the street did not wish to
speak to him. I did not go to Gillingham. I saw him stopping people for
something like two hours. Some spoke to him, others did not. I understand he
stopped a number of motorists. I did not see all of these matters which are
recorded on the log.

13th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF D.CON. M. DILLON

I have a piece of paper relating to the £/$ relationship at April 1987. As
at the 15th April 1987 £1.00 was worth $1.62 from Barclays Bank. $15 million
would, therefore, equal £9.2 million.

14th April 1987

The first witness on this day was D.SGT AYRES.

EVIDENCE OF D.SGT. AYRES

I was present on the 14th May 1987. I witnessed the arrest of Mr.
Kouparris. My handwriting is on the notes. I made it at the time if I was
stationery. I see that at 10.05 I was at the Cyprus Embassy. I made my
notes at Paddington Green Police Station approximately 45 minutes after
the event. This was the first available opportunity. Mr. Kouparris was in
the vehicle at some stage. Then he got out from the passenger seat and
went to the Embassy. We were quite close to him. When he came out
myself and Madden went up to him and arrested and cautioned him. At
the time he was carrying a large envelope.

Cross Examination

Mr. Kouparris was arrested on the pavement. His arm was grabbed and
put behind his back. He was handcuffed in the street.

We waited to immobilise him. We may have put his arms straight behind
his back. D.C. Madden got the envelope, it certainly didn't drop to the
floor, I was busy with the handcuffs at the time. Mr. Kouparris did not do
much when we grabbed him. He did not know what hit him. We were so
fast. I can't remember him being pushed against any railings. There would
have been no need

for me to strike him in the kidneys in his back because he had the
handcuffs on by that time. The whole thing happened within 30 seconds.

I remember him carrying a large brown envelope. He was also carrying a
filofax and a bank book. He certainly had hold of the envelope. At no stage
did I see the money. I believe that there were other Police Officers inside
the building. Mr. Hancock was not outside at the time.

14th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF J. PREDERGAST

I am the Chief Security Officer at the Intercontinental Hotel in London. In
May of 1987 I was asked by the Police to search the Hotel records to find
out if a Mr. Panos Kouparris was staying, or had stayed, in the Hotel.

I am able to say that on the 11th April 1987 Mr. Kouparris stayed at the
Hotel in Room 482. He left the Hotel on the 17th April. The witness was
shown Exhibits page 260, Exhibit numbers 30-34. I now see page 260 of the
bundle, Exhibit numbers 30-34.

On the 20th April he again stayed at the Hotel leaving on the 22nd April
1987. I produce a print out of the telephone calls made from Room 482
between the 11th and 12th April 1987. The witness then produced Exhibit
number 30-34 inclusive.

The bill for the period between the 11th and 17th April was £1,635.80 plus
VAT. [The witness then looked at pages 261, 262, 268 and 269 of the bundle]
and gave details of what was on the papers.

Cross Examination

[It appears that he gave the following answers although it is not clear from
any of the notes made available to me.]

I did not see and have not been able to find a booking in the name of
Campenella for the 14th May 1987. I have no knowledge of a booking in that
name.

I have been asked to find out whether a Mr. Miller stayed at the
Intercontinental Hotel. I can say that an S.A. Miller stayed for two nights
without a reservation. This was on the 26th and 27th March 1987. He asked
for a late (afternoon) check out. He gave an address and passport number. I
produce a computer print-out regarding Mr. Miller. Either the guest or the
receptionist at the time would fill in the registration card. I couldn't say
which member of staff dealt with this particular card. [He is referring to
Exhibit number 150 - a print-out.]

The witness was also referred to pages 98 and 99 which he said was a
cancelled passport. And also to pages 113 and 116 which he said was a valid
current passport.

14th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF D.CON. PRATT

On the 14th May I was on duty at Paddington Police Station. D.C. Madden
gave me a number of items. I now see Exhibits 117 and 118. These were
two packets of money in a coat pocket. I also see a brown envelope.
Exhibit 60 is a briefcase and contents. Exhibit 5 is an address book. The
witness referred to page 1921. He then referred to the Exhibit photocopied
at page 22 which he explained was a folder with rubber gloves and
correspondence. It was explained to the jury that these items had been
treated for finger print evidence and that explained the smell and the
state of the Exhibits. The witness then looked at pages 24 to 36, 37, 38 and
44. As to page 38 there was a reference to the name FRIXOS
NICOLAIDES. As to page 44 there was a reference to the name
SOPHOCLEUS. And in addition the reference to 21st Century Yuppie
Mania.

I saw Exhibit 8 which was a filofax. This was handed to me by another
Police Officer. I took control of Mr. Kouparris's clothing and a magazine.
[This was a new Exhibit number 147.] It is called The Diplomat and is in a
sealed plastic envelope addressed to 93 Park Street and this is how I
received it at the Police Station. It came from Mr. Kouparris on his search
of his person at the Police Station. I made photocopies of some of these
exhibits so that the originals could be finger-printed. [Comment - It
appears that Mr. Kouparris has taken this magazine from the Embassy.]

D.C. Keating gave me the following Exhibits from Strickland Court,
numbers 14, 15, 16 and 18. In particular the documents at page 170 was
considered. This was an application form for membership of Browns. It is
in the name of Commander Nemo.

Also considered in Exhibit 16 were the following matters. At page 171 a
receipt dated the 26th March 1987 in the name S.A. Miller. Also
considered receipts at page 173 and 175, 176 and Access receipt from an
address in St. Ives in Cornwall, and pages 177 to 185 being receipts from
the Intercontinental Hotel. Page 186 a receipt from Browns Nightclub. As
to Exhibit 18, pages 199 to 200 of the bundle, these were also considered.

Cross Examination

The filofax and envelope were given to me separately by D.C. Madden. The
magazine came from Mr. Kouparris when he was searched. I was assigned
to be the Exhibits Officer of this case. I keep a book logging all items and
where they were found. It would have been uniformed officers who carried
out the initial search at which I was not present. I was not present at the
time when the personal search took place, but I just got the results, i.e. the
personal property. A list of property is made and placed on the Custody
Record at the time of the search. There were photographs of either
Marilyn Munroe or a look-a-like type found in the briefcase.

There is a bag with trainers in it, perhaps they were in an inside pocket or
something. They were not very bulky. I was given more than one passport,
but I have them somewhere. I believe that there were some out of date
United Kingdom passports.

Exhibit 5 was looked at in some detail. As indeed was Exhibit 7, the
witness saying that some of the terms in this Exhibit could relate to
computers.

Documents were found at his house at Strickland Court, which connected
him to the Cyprus High Commission. The witness refers to Exhibits 14 to
16 inclusive. Pages 168, 170, etc. were looked at. The witness continued by
saying he did not see Exhibit 17.

14th April 1989

There then followed legal argument on a number of matters.

Tapes

It was indicated that an expert was looking at the originals of the tapes at
the Metropolitan Police Laboratory and a transcript will be ready by the
middle of the following week. An application was made on behalf of Mr.
Kouparris so that he would be able to hear the tapes to decide which of the
Cyprus witnesses, if any, were needed to attend.

Law - the admissability of the interviews of Mr. Kouparris

It was argued on behalf of Mr. Kouparris that the interviews should not be
admissable before the jury on the following basis that Mr. Kouparris had
been denied access to a solicitor and at some stage had required medical
assistance.

14th April 1989

At this stage a witness was called to give evidence regarding the situation
about the interviews. The witness was called Superintendent Edwards.

EVIDENCE OF SUPT. EDWARDS

At some stage Mr. Kouparris was allowed access to a solicitor. I don't
recall when this was. I agree he had asked for a solicitor. He was
interviewed, however, in the absence of a solicitor. Despite the fact that he
had asked for a solicitor. There was no solicitor present in the first
interview. I was concerned about the public safety of this matter and we
did not know how many other persons were involved in the plot. It was my
decision to interview him in the absence of a solicitor. Further arrests
were expected to be made that day. I had been involved in the case for over
six weeks. I found Mr. Kouparris to be cocky at some stages, arrogant and
very uncooperative. He did not appear to be upset or out of his depth,
however. I was aware that he wanted a specific solicitor to be called and
he did arrange for one to be obtained for his wife.

Cross Examination

I was a Detective Chief Inspector at the time. I am now a Superintendent.
I did not know of the firm of solicitors called Stockler. I am not a local
officer so I was not sure about a

duty solicitor. I do not recall him asking for a solicitor. If he did ask for a
solicitor it would be in my note. He did ask for a solicitor on the 15th May
1987. We started interviewing Mr. Kouparris at 3.42pm. Mr. Kouparris
did make a specific request at noon [date not specified] for Mr. Stockler.
This may have come to my attention but I don't recall it.

Legal argument was then advanced by Mr. Anthony Arlidge on behalf of
Mr. Kouparris. He referred to paragraph 15/38 of Archbold. He stated that
none of the property procedures had been followed in this case regarding
the question of interviewing a suspect. He asked the Judge to exercise his
discretion to exclude the interview evidence due to the fact that the
probative value of the interviews were limited. In particular it was noted
that the Defendant had persistently said that he did not want to answer
any questions at that stage. It was further advanced that any answers
that were obtained were obtained in a manner which could be, and should
be regarded as oppressive. The general reliance upon Section 78 of PACE
was made. It was noted by the Learned Judge that at almost every stage
Mr. Kouparris has asked for a solicitor.

The Crown asserted that Mr. Kouparris was simply showing his arrogance
of the English Legal System and the jury should be entitled to see the
material. Further, it was suggested that Mr. Kouparris knew exactly what
he was doing and that he had suffered no prejudice.

The Crown referred to the case of Allidice. They argued that it was a
superficial breach of the rules. Reference was made to the top of page 151
and 143. The Crown suggested that Mr. Kouparris was well able to look
after himself at a time during these interviews.

In reply Mr. Arlidge for Mr. Kouparris stated that if a solicitor had been
present he could have advised Mr. Kouparris to say nothing. And that if
the Crown were able to rely upon this interview they would be inviting the
jury to say that the reason he behaved in this way was simply because he
was guilty.

The Learned Judge gave judgment on this point in favour of the Defence.
He stated during his judgment the following matters. Mr. Kouparris was
arrested on the 14th May 1987 and when taken to a Police Station he
named a solicitor whom he wanted immediately. He was interviewed at
1522hrs by D.C.I. Edwards and there were three later interviews. It is
clear that in the first three of these interviews Mr. Kouparris asked for a
solicitor to attend. Mr. Edwards gave evidence that Mr. Kouparris was
denied access due to lack of knowledge as to the number of other persons
being involved. The Defence submit that the first three interviews should
be excluded because of a breach of Section 58. The Crown do not argue to
the contrary. These interviews took place before the case of Samuels (18th
December 1987) and Allidice (10th May 1988) decisions. The request by
Mr. Kouparris was made, repeated and ignored, and there was a breach of
Section 58. There was no authorisation of delay of this request and so this
request should have been complied with. Section 76 of PACE states that
interviews should not be admitted in a trial if there has been a breach.
Despite the fact that Mr. Kouparris seemed to be well capable of dealing
with questions that he was given it is my judgment that the answers are
not unreliable. However, Section 78 of PACE extends the discretion as to
the fairness of

proceedings. In my view it is unfair to include the first three interviews. I
therefore exclude them but the fourth interview should be included if it
possible to do so without it being seen out of context.

As result of this the Crown decided that they would not seek to rely upon
the fourth interview. Mr. Arlidge on behalf of Mr. Kouparris agreed with
this course of action.

The third point of legal argument concerned the transcript of the hearing
in front of the Common Sergeant which took place in February of 1989.
The authority that was relied upon by the Crown was Regina against
Hutchinson.

It was quite clear that anything that Mr. Kouparris said at the pre-trial
review was whilst he was unrepresented he was not on oath and he had
not been cautioned.

[From the notes available to me it appears that the Judge ruled against
the admissability of the transcript before the Common Sergeant. However,
it appears that the Crown will seek to rely upon the admissions of Mr.
Kouparris made by him at the Committal. The are contained in the
Deposition which forms the first part of the statement bundle.]

17th April 1989

At the beginning of this day's hearing the Defence sought an

adjournment for two days in order to listen to the tapes which had been
produced by the Crown of the telephone conversations. The Judge
indicated that he would permit this adjournment.

In the meantime evidence as called. The first witness to be called on this
day was Mr. PRENDERGAST.

17th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF MR. PREDERGAST

I have already incorporated the evidence that he gave on this day in the
notes above. His evidence related to Mr. Miller and the staying at the
Intercontinental Hotel. Documents at page 491 and 129 were looked at.

17th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF MR. MARK ACOTT

I am a Security Officer at the White House Hotel and I have been there
since 1986 and I can deal with matters in April of 1987. He was tendered
in evidence.

Cross Examination

I can confirm that someone called D. Edwards stayed at the Hotel and was
asked to leave on the 5th April 1987. I identified Mr. Kouparris as
Edwards. The Hotel is in Albany Street, London, NW1 and it is a four star
hotel. I do not know anything about it having drinks late at night with any
other people. I was told by members of staff that he was odd. He
apparently did not want anyone to enter his room and did not want it
cleaned. I did not know about electronic equipment, nor a public
telephone. He did use the 'phone in his room. He did dial numbers. I have
no idea if the room was searched, I only made one statement.

The witness was shown a bill and a register which have been given
numbers 151 and 152. The witness confirmed that there was a credit card
number given by Mr. Edwards when he made the reservation. However, as
he paid cash the staff would not have needed to see the actual card. The
reason for this is because he elected to pay cash when he arrived. He paid
£200.00 cash on his arrival. The point came when he was asked to leave
the Hotel. I did get some correspondence from a solicitor called William
Stockler.

His Client had complained about his treatment at the Hotel and was
seeking compensation. The letter talked of the guest being Panos
Kouparris.

17th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF D.CON. PHILLIPSON

This Officer gave evidence of the surveillance on the 10th May 1987. He
stated that his number for identification purposes might have been 540 or
262. He stated that at 9.46 he was walking in East Dulwich Road when he
was stopped by a male who was Mr. Kouparris. The Defendant asked him
for 20 pence in exchange for which he would advise him on investments. It
seemed a way to start a conversation and get money off me. I declined his
offer and went away.

Cross Examination

I do remember a mention of Aids Anonymous although I cannot remember
the details.

17th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF D. SUPT. EDWARDS

On the 14th and 15th May I interviewed the Defendant Mr. Kouparris, he
said nothing. At the Committal proceedings of this matter I was present in
Court when Mr. Kouparris elected to give evidence. He was represented by
Counsel and a solicitor. If a person elects to give evidence and note is
made of what is said, it is written down and at the end of the evidence a
Defendant is required to sign each page if he agrees with what he has
said. This is what happened with Mr. Kouparris. The witness then
identified a handwritten original Deposition in the name of Panos
Kouparris dated the 25th November 1987. The typed version of this
document was then distributed to the jury. There was no cross
examination. [Comment - Mr. Kouparris is upset about the way that the
interviews were dealt with by Mr. Ardidge. He has indicated to me that he
believes that the new jury should be made aware of the way in which he
was treated by the Police at the Police Station. Clearly this matter needs
to be discussed with Mr. Kouparris.]

17th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF D.SGT. ELBOURN

On the 14th May 1987 I went to Strickland Court and saw Mrs. Kouparris. This
witness deals with the arrest of Mrs. Kouparris. [Comment - There is very
little that this witness will be able to help us with and it may well be
that we can do without him giving evidence.]

17th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF W.D.C. MILES

In May 1987 I interviewed Mrs. Kouparris. The witness then dealt with
the way that interviews were conducted. There was nothing of any real
relevance in her examination in chief to concern Mr. Kouparris.

Cross Examination

I accompanied Mr. Kouparris to the Police Station. I was not given the
briefcase, it was placed in the boot of the car. I knew that the case was to
deal with blackmail. There had been a briefing. I used the word briefing
lightly, it had not been a formal briefing as such. I do not know why the
question about the pets was asked by D . C . Robson. I had not been told
about a call involving a dog to the Embassy. I had been told that there was
a dog heard in the background of the calls, however. I was not told about
calls to the Palace by little girls. I was told that there was a dog, so they
must have heard the tapes. Any of the officers in this case could have told
me this, it could have been Madden, Dillon, Pratt, Edwards, Robson or
Johnston.

Re-examination

I did not have anything to do with the briefcase.

17th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF W.D.C. JOHNSTON

This witness interviewed Mrs. Kouparris on the 15th May 1987.
[Comment - this witness has no relevance to Mr. Kouparris's case.]

17th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF JOHN IRVING (Finger Print Expert)

The contents of his evidence at this stage was to do with Mrs. Kouparris's
finger prints and palm prints on a number of documents. He explained the
process under which it was possible to see finger prints on paper
documents. He stated that it was impossible to say what length of time a
finger print could stay on a particular document. The only reference to Mr.
Kouparris appears to have been regarding document at page 286.

The Court then adjourned until the 20th April 1989 in order that the
Defendant had sufficient time to listen to some tapes which had been
produced to him.

20th April 1989

It is clear that by this time considerable problems had arisen between Mr.
Kouparris and his Counsel and solicitors. Mr. Kouparris asked the Judge
for the trial to be abandoned. He stated that over the last two days the
Defence had listened to the tapes and that an expert was required to
examine the original tapes as there appeared to be gaps and omissions
from them. The Defence objected to the admissability of the tapes. The
Crown said that they would wish to argue the point but it would probably
be a lengthy matter. The Crown also stated that they would try to get
further statements to clarify the position. Mr. Kouparris stated that he
had heard part of the Greek tapes and demanded that transcripts of these
tapes be supplied.

Mr. Kouparris argued that there were a number of matters that the
Crown had not given full disclosure upon. He also wanted details of the
trial in Cyprus that had taken place. He stated that in his view the Crown
had altered the indictment following the elections which had taken place
in Cyprus so as not to embarrass the Cyprus Government.

It appears that at this stage the Defence had not served any medical
evidence upon the Crown. Mr. Kouparris stated that in his view it was
unfair that he should have to deal with matters as and when they arose
and that the information was arriving piecemeal during the trial. He was,
therefore, not able to give instructions as to what question that should be
asked. Mr.

Kouparris argued that he was at a severe disadvantage and asked for
another set of Counsel who would act in the way in which he wished them
to act. He asked for the trial to be aborted and fresh trial to start and in
the meantime for the trial of his wife to continue without him being
present.

This application was strongly opposed by Counsel for Mrs. Kouparris. Mr.
Arlidge on behalf of Mr. Kouparris argued that Mr. Kouparris's behaviour
might reflect a medical condition. He stated that he knew that the Crown
intended to call a psychiatrist at some stage. [Comment - From the notes
available from the CPS it is clear that a conference with Dr. Herridge had
taken place on or about the 18th April 1989. This conference had been
attended by Counsel for the Crown.]

The Crown argued that the matter was joint enterprise and both
Defendants should be tried together. Further, there had been four medical
reports available and another psychiatrist had been consulted. At this
stage it was stated by Mr. Arlidge that automatism and/or insanity were
not to be an issue. The Crown stated that disclosure had not changed in so
far that there was no more material to be disclosed. Further, that Mr.
Kouparris had had two sets of Counsel and solicitors and that in his view
the instructions had differed between one set and the other. The Crown
had tried to anticipate the nature of the evidence to come, for example
whether the issue of the blackmail demand was a joke or indeed whether
the Defendant's mind had been befuddled with drugs. [Comment - This
information must have come from the

Defence Counsel and/or solicitors in the case because there is nothing
within the cross examination to indicate that this would be the point.] The
Crown, not surprisingly, opposed any application for an adjournment
and/or a re-trial.

Mr. Arlidge replied that the indictment stated between January and May
1987 which meant all things had to be investigated between those dates.
That previous adjournments had given rise to useful work for the Defence
and the opportunity to prepare the case. It would be wrong to look on this
as a further manipulation of the Court.

The Learned Judge stated as follows "Counsel is most helpful to a
Defendant in these sort of cases. It will be extraordinarily difficult for the
case to proceed without him being represented. This case is nearly two
years old. The trial will go on and I am not prepared to adjourn or abort it.
Mr. Kouparris has had two sets of Counsel and three solicitors and I will
not extend Legal Aid to a third set of Counsel."

At this stage Mr. Arlidge stated that he and his Junior Counsel and
solicitors would withdraw from the case.

Immediately after the luncheon adjournment Mr. Kouparris made a
further application to adjourn the case which was refused by the Judge.
The jury were told that Mr. Arlidge and his Junior had withdrawn and
that Mr. Kouparris was going to represent himself. The case was
adjourned until the 21st April 1989.

21st April 1989

The first matter that was dealt with on this day was a matter for Mrs.
Kouparris regarding the admissability of two passports, Exhibits 44 and
45. They do not concern Mr. Kouparris and I do not propose to deal with
them. Mr. Kouparris stated that he would make available a medical report
by Dr. Ashton, but that there may be agendums to this report. The
Learned Judge indicated that Mr. Kouparris should wait until the report
is complete and that Mr. Kouparris would not be open to criticism because
of this matter.

21st April 1989

EVIDENCE OF MR. AGIGILAOU

He was a contractor. In May 1987 he was at number 6 Sina Street. Mr. and
Mrs. Kouparris lived next door to me. Mr. Kouparris was working for an
export company. I do not know the name of the Company. He worked from home
and he worked all night when he first moved in there.

Mr. Kouparris did own land, I think it was two pieces. He sold one of them,
but I do not know how much he got for it. I have heard that he received
£25,000.00, I do not know what he did with the money. He would have sold the
land in about 1985.

During March of 1987 I knew that Mr. Kouparris had gone to London. Two to
three months before this time Mr. Kouparris was staying indoors all of the
time. He closed himself in the house. Sometimes we went there and talked.
Mr. Kouparris was rational but an introverted kind of person. We did not
speak about doctors.

Cross Examination

Mr. Kouparris moved there in 1983. Mr. Kouparris rented the property from
me. His in-laws lived close by and we have been friendly for many years. I
notice the introverted behaviour of Mr. Kouparris about six months before he
left for England, perhaps September 1986. Before this time Mr. Kouparris was
a

joyous person and alright. We spoke together nearly every day prior to the
last six months. After that Mr. Kouparris did not talk.

Mr. Kouparris did not appear to have difficulties with money, but after the
sale of the land he was deceived by a number of other people. I know of two
people who deceived him, but I do not know if the case came to Court.

I know that Mr. Kouparris was taking sleeping pills. He stopped taking them
as they were making him too drowsy. My wife spoke to his wife about this. I
do not believe that the Police talked to any of the relatives. I knew Mrs.
Kouparris very well and she, of course, was a good friend of mine. I have
heard that a doctor was seeing Mr. Kouparris for nerves at intervals. I
never saw the doctor. I don't recall speaking to Mr. on the 'phone when he
was in London. My wife did telephone me from America. [The witness was then
shown his statement.]

When Mr. Kouparris spoke to me from London he said he was very busy and
slammed the 'phone down. I wasn't surprised at this. His in-laws said that
Mr. Kouparris was making long calls to them at night and that they were very
worried about him. At one stage prior to him going to London I saw Mr.
Kouparris in his garden looking thoughtful. I thought he was ill. On two or
three occasions when I saw Mr. Kouparris in the kitchen I'd say "Hello" and
he would simply jerk. I did hear screams during the day, but not at night
time. I did think about it but I never asked him.

Mr. Kouparris was alone in the house when I heard the screaming.

Before Mr. Kouparris left for England he talked about equipment for opening
up a well. It was earth moving equipment for tunnelling. I do not recall the
name that he called them. The word 'PIG' is the word of a drill on the
surface not deep down. A friend of Mr. Kouparris had the equipment in
England and would distribute the equipment in Cyprus. I didn't take it very
seriously as it did not seem very sensible.

In the evening the Police came and surrounded the house with guards. We were
not allowed to go to Mr. Kouparris's house. We made a statement and on the
next day we discovered that Mr. Kouparris had been arrested. The Police were
there for one night and one morning. I don't know what happened but I do
remember that I saw a photograph of the contents of the search in the press
but I don't recall a list being published. I do know that his sister-in-law
was arrested. I know her very well. She was detained for two or three days.
I did not attend her trial but they let her free because there was not
enough evidence. I do not remember the President making a statement to the
press. A number of papers reported that it was a political scandal. Some
people thought that it was pre-election publicity, but I did not read the
papers.

I thought that there was something wrong with Mr. Kouparris's nerves. I
suggested that he should change doctors and get one in England. Once Mr.
Kouparris stopped taking the drugs he was

alright. He seemed well. That was before Mr. Kouparris went to England. Mr.
Kouparris was active and energetic and starting new businesses when he
stopped the drugs. When he was taking drugs he did not talk at all. My wife
told me that he had stopped taking the drugs at some stage.

This witness did not remember that Mr. Kouparris had referred to the
tunnelling equipment as PIGS. The witness thought that the project was too
grand and that it could not be realised.

Just before Mr. Kouparris went to England when he stopped taking the drugs
he became very active and wanted to start up a number of new businesses. The
witness then said "When you were ill you did not speak at all. Yes it was a
very marked change".

21st April 1989

EVIDENCE OF MR. CHRISTOFIDES

This witness dealt with the search of number 6A Sina Street in Nicosia on
the 15th May 1987. He stated that he had authority to make the search upon a
Court Order with a Warrant. Present during the search was one of the in-laws
of the Defendant Mr. Kouparris. A record was kept as to the items that were
found.

The record is included in my statement. I have a list but it is written in
Greek. The list was made when I returned to my office. The two passports
were found on a small table in the living room and they were not covered up.
There was a lease agreement between Futura Investments Limited to lease the
premises at number 6A Sina Street. I understand that Mr. Kouparris owns that
business. The premises were rented to Futura Investments for one year from
the 1st August 1986 until the 31st July 1987. The cost was £80.00 per month.

Cross Examination - by Mr. Kouparris on his own

I received instructions from the Chief of Police whose name appears Frixos
Yiangou. I started the investigation with three other officers. I was in
charge of the team. The search was conducted by the team but I do not have
all of my notes with me. I was in charge of the search, but another officer
was in charge of the investigation.

Mr. Kazapaniotis was in charge of this investigation. During the search all
of the matters which were seized were shown to me and I decided whether they
were relevant or not. I was not briefed as there were hundreds of documents
to look at. Initially I looked at things and if I thought they were relevant
it went to HQ where the person in charge looked at them for themselves.

Documents detailing a blackmail threat would have been relevant. I was aware
of the blackmailing matter. I took the decisions during the search.

I did see the blackmail letter before the search was carried out. It is not
possible to know what one is looking for in advance of a search. As you see
things you wonder if they become relevant or not. We were not looking for
specific items, but evidence linking the occupier of the house to the
offence or something revealing the true identity of the Defendant. We were
not in a position to assess whether or not the contents of the letter could
be realised, though I understood that someone was trying to force the
Government to pay money so that a big disaster could be avoided.

I am not aware of the statements in the press. The case was opened and had
to be investigated. I can't recall exactly the contents of the letter, but I
know that $50 million was mentioned. The payment of this money was not for
me to judge. There were instructions on how payment could have been
effected. The witness was then shown Exhibit 4, page 13. The person

requiring the money wanted it to be paid in different denominations
including a $200 bill. I am aware that $200 bills do not exist. If he had
been offered different denominations I am sure that he would have accepted
the money. The $200 bills could just have been a typing error, or it is
possible that the Defendant was not aware at that stage that $200 bills did
not exist. The gist of the letter was a demand for money.

At this stage Mr. Kouparris stated that it must have been clear that there
was an elaborate method for payment of this money and it was only if the
instructions were carried out exactly as per the letter that payment would
be effective. He indicated that payment could not be effective because $200
bills did not exist.

The witness was then shown Exhibit 4, page 14. He then stated that he still
believed that the money would have been accepted in any denominations
offered. Upon reading the last section of page 14 the witness stated that it
made him think that the Defendant wanted to try and frighten the Government
as much as possible. He formed a view that he was truly determined to carry
out these threats.

I found documents in the flat relating to Futura Investments. I do not
recall what sort of money I found in the flat. I did find account books,
military arms books, books on spying equipment, etc., in the flat. There
were also photographs of people, locations, electronic equipment and
appliances. I remember two desks, two computers and a number of envelopes
and other

documents. There was also another desk with a metallic drawer with another
computer. It was an untidy office. I did not study all of the files that I
found, but they seemed to be books kept for the Company. Those files and
other document items were moved to the Police HQ for evaluation.

Mr. Kouparris's mother-in-law was present at the search. A number of the
items have been returned to the family although they have refused to accept
delivery of them. I do not know what has happened to these documents. I
believe on top of the filing cabinet there were some drugs which we left
there. They were not taken as evidence. I do remember that there were some
prescriptions but I do not remember their contents.

The most important Police Officer was Mr. Kazapaniotis, but I do remember
that there was another Police Officer who was present. A number of
photographs were taken at the scene. I have a series of photographs which I
have kept to refresh my memory with. I have 15 or 20 of them here, but they
are not bound.

The Court adjourned to Monday, 24th April 1989 at this point.

24th April 1989

At the beginning of this day there was argument about which witnesses should
be called by the Crown. The Crown said that they would give the Defendant a
copy of the potential witnesses after the luncheon adjournment. Mr.
Kouparris complained that this was a Cypriot matter, not a British matter.
He further complained that he did not have a list of witnesses. The Judge
indicated that he would hope that the former solicitors would act as a post
office to obtain witness names and details. The Crown indicated that they
intended to call evidence of 'phone calls to the home of the Presidential
Palace and two other witnesses together with some technical evidence and
possibly a doctor. They also mentioned the word 'hypermania'. The Defendant
showed the Judge a letter from Dr. Phillpot. The Crown indicated that they
would be calling Dr. Carne and Dr. Fraser has well.

The next witness was Mr. Millar.

24th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF MR. S.A. MILLAR

I am a British Telecom Technician and have been for the last 19 years. I
have had a driving licence and between 1973 and 1977 I was disqualified for
a driving offence. I have never lost my licence. The witness shown Exhibit
10. This is not my handwriting and I do not know of the name Kouparris.

Cross Examination

I do know of a building called Holcroft Court. I may have gone to number
230, but I do not recall Mr. Kouparris at all. I do not remember what I did
in April 1977. I could have visited number 230, I simply don't remember. I
did not fit Prestel lines at that time. This licence (Exhibit 10) is not
mine, but the name and address are correct. The endorsements are also
correct. The issue number on this particular licence is number 1 but on my
real licence the number is 2. My last licence was a red book. This one,
Exhibit 10, is not my signature. [At this stage Mr. Kouparris admitted that
Exhibit 10 was signed by him whilst he was at Strickland Court in 1987.]

I do not remember losing the licence at all. Exhibit 10 could not have been
used by me, it is not my signature. I have never had to apply for a separate
licence.

Re-examination

I did lose a British Telecom card in the West End seven or eight years ago.
That had my signature on it. I have never stayed at the Intercontinental
Hotel. I will certainly try to find out whether a Prestel line was installed
at number 230 Holcroft Court.

{This witness was recalled. He stated that BT records confirmed he had
installed a Prestel line at 230 Holcroft Court in April 1977. There is no
note of that evidence within this transcript}

24th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF JOHN IRVING (Handwriting Expert)

I took a number of notes from Mr. Kouparris's home in Cyprus including the
demand documents form Nicosia and the demand documents from London a Nemo
envelope. I tested them for finger prints after an initial test. I compared
any prints that I found with a set of finger prints which I had received
from Mr. Kouparris (this was Exhibit 141). The witness then referred to a
number of documents and finger prints that he found. A schedule will be
found at page 489 of the Exhibit bundle. Importantly on pages 1 to 18 of the
Exhibit bundle although some finger prints were discovered on these
documents, none of them were found to be of any value or to match Mr.
Kouparris's finger prints.

Cross Examination

It is impossible to determine the length of time that a mark will remain on
a piece of paper. It is not possible for us to tell whether the writing was
put on the paper after the hand print unless a microscope was used. We would
not do this.

A black leather glove could leave marks as it has a tan skin, but this would
depend on the kind of leather. This would not be recorded as we were looking
for finger prints - that was our sole objective.

I did re-treat the items that had been submitted to me from Cyprus. These
appear to have been treated once before by the Cypriot Police. There were no
marks on the Nemo envelope or the documents sent to the High Commissioner in
London that matched Mr. Kouparris's.

Re-examination

The treatment of the documents in Cyprus would not have harmed the
identification aspect of his tests in this country at a later time. He
stated that he expected the tests that he carried out would show up more
marks in any event.

24th April 1989

FURTHER EVIDENCE OF MR. CHRISTOFIDES

He was recalled so that Mr. Kouparris could cross examine him further.

It is possible that I was informed of the existence of the demand document,
etc. after the announcement was made by the Government. I am unable to check
the announcement that was made by the Government spokesman. I do not
remember if I saw the documents before or after the announcement. I did know
the contents of the letters before I carried out the search of Mr.
Kouparris's property in Nicosia. I cannot remember whether the search was
before or after the announcement. Thinking about it I do not remember
whether I saw the documents before or after the announcement.

The British and Cypriot Police began to collaborate but I was not involved
in the early stages. I read the original demand letter and understood the
gist of it. English is not my mother tongue and I have some difficulties
reading it. I understood the meaning of these documents however. I would not
like any misunderstandings when I give my evidence and that is why I need an
interpreter at this stage.

When I visited the house it was guarded. I did not know that the neighbour
was the owner of the property. Our efforts were to try and find items
relating to the demand document. I do not know

whether the Ministry of Labour's name was Campenella or not. The witness was
shown Exhibit 155. It is possible that this is one of the many papers that I
found at the house. I do not know how long Mr. Kouparris lived in Cyprus. It
may be recorded somewhere but I do not know. The basic duty of the Police is
to investigate the citizen, not his roots. I am not aware of your
relationship with the Campenella family. I will contact Cyprus if the Court
requires me to do so.

Witness was then shown Exhibit 153. Reference was then made to a briefcase
that contained a movie system which meant that filming could take place of a
subject without the subject moving or knowing about it.

The witness was then shown a photograph of the briefcase known as Exhibit
156. This has not been produced as an Exhibit and I only show this
photograph to assist the Court as to the contents of the flat. The British
Police were shown all the relevant documents that we had discovered. Some
objects were given to them in a complete form. They did not, however, have
access to all of the items from Cyprus. There is another investigation
concerning this Defendant being carried on in Cyprus at the moment. In a box
on the floor in the office there was some equipment. I saw many catalogues
advertising security and surveillance equipment. I do remember special
briefcases and suitcases which would be used to carry quantities of cash. I
did see on top of the filing cabinet a blue box. I can't remember the
contents of it. I did find some drugs, but I cannot remember

if they were inside that box or not. I found drugs in three or four
different places. Most of the drugs were inside the office I think. I don't
remember finding any certificates from a doctor. I took a substantial
quantity of documents from this house and passed them on to my team for
evaluation. I was not involved in the investigations so I don't know what
prescriptions were taken after my search.

When a statement is given it is confidential and is only given to authorised
persons. The Police cannot give out confidential documents but doctors can
give out matters if they so desire. I have no authority to hand out
statements but the person who gave the statement may be able to give the
statements to you. If you had been charged in Cyprus you could have had the
statements disclosed to you. I do not know what the law is in England and
perhaps it is because you were tried in England that you have not been given
the statements from the witnesses in Cyprus. The statements are given to a
lawyer before a preliminary hearing. A decision is then made as to whether
the case goes to the Assizes Court or not.

At this stage the Judge asked a number of questions:=

Q1. Is the answering machine in the hands of the Police? And would it take
the tape AH/6?

A1. The answering machine takes two spools, one is smaller, one is bigger.
AH/6 does not fit this machine.

Q2. Is there any evidence as to the name of Mr. Kouparris's father?

A2. There is no statement available regarding the name of Campenella. There
is a document to show that Mr. Kouparris was trading under the name of
Campenella. His marriage certificate dated 1978 shows the name Kouparris and
there are some GEC examination results in 1968 showing the name Panos
Kouparris.

Q3. Are there any statements in Cyprus from any doctors or pharmacologists
regarding prescriptions made out to Mr. Kouparris within the year of the
Spring of 1987? And in addition, is there any reason why these statements,
if they exist, should not be disclosed to Mr. Kouparris?

A3. Refers to the production of two medical prescriptions.

The Court was adjourned to the following day.

25th April 1989

Mr. Christofides continued giving evidence...

I did not know that your father's name was Campenella. Records are kept by
the district officer but we did not find any such documents in the search of
your property. I do not remember the

trial of your sister-in-law. I had no opportunity to do so and I have not
had the time to concern myself with this matter.

[At this stage a juror became ill and the Court was adjourned until 2
o'clock.]

Mr. Christofides continued...

I do know of a man called Marcos Spanos. I do know this man but I did not
know that he is your first cousin. If it is relevant I will check this out
with pleasure. However, I do not see why I should do detective work for you
in the UK, but if the Court wants it I will do it. I will need to take
certain statements and see other people in Cyprus. I would need a copy of
the Court record for me as soon as possible. Records are kept by the
district office. I certainly did not carry out a full investigation of your
family's descendants. I checked our records for over 20 years and your name
is Kouparris.

The witness was then asked a number of questions about the photographs that
were taken during the search [Comment - Copies of these photographs should
be obtained.]

I cannot remember the filing system and I cannot recall the great number of
files. We passed the files to the investigating team and I have been told
that nothing of significance was found.

The doctors that were spoken to and produced your particulars

were very helpful. There would be no problem in presenting them for the
Court. My purpose here is to help the Court make the right decision and I am
not here to acquit or condemn anybody. I have made enquiries from the person
in the investigation team and they have told me that your Defence have been
allowed all that you have asked for.

We did find some floppy discs, these have been handed to the British Police
for their investigations. It is possible that they contained matters
relevant to this case. I do not know. We handed the computer and the discs
to the British Police but an expert did look at them in Nicosia and as far
as I know the computer is still there, but not the cassettes for floppy
discs. We collaborated with the British Police and discussed relevant things
in Cyprus.

There then followed legal argument regarding the floppy discs. The argument
concerned the documents in Cyprus and the floppy discs. Mr. Kouparris
demanded copies of the floppy discs from Cyprus. The Prosecution remarked
that Mr. Kouparris had spent two days listening to tapes. The trial had
become seriously fragmented which will make the jury's task very much more
difficult. It was explained to the Judge that nothing had been wiped out
from the tapes, no copying had yet been done because Mr. Kouparris had not
handed over to the Prosecution what he required copied. The Prosecution
indicated that they would try to make one of the other witnesses, a Mr.
Vovides, bring the discs with him from Cyprus when he returned to the United
Kingdom

to give his evidence. The Judge agreed that this would be a good idea and
the discs could be looked at once they were placed on a computer.

Mr. Kouparris objected to Exhibit 159 being used. He also objected to his
private medical documents being shown to the jury.

The Judge then mentioned that Mr. Kouparris had introduced his state of mind
during the time of his alleged offences. He stated that he had sought to
introduce as part of his Defence that he was not responsible and should not
be held criminally responsible for his actions. He gave his reasons as being
that his behaviour was induced by drugs prescribed by his doctors, for
example, that he had been given drugs of the wrong type, too many and for
too long. [Comment - Mr. Kouparris must have mentioned these type of matters
to the Court at some stage although they do not appear in any of the
transcripts that I have seen.]

Mr. Kouparris indicated that he was becoming very tired due to the fact that
he had eight hours travelling to do each day and that his concentration was
weakening. The Judge offered to try and sit at a later time in the morning
and rise early in the afternoon. Mr. Kouparris said he did not need to rise
early in the afternoon.

26th April 1989

The Judge appears to have arranged for one of the Counsel previously engaged
by Kouparris to assist him in the cross examination of medical evidence.
This help would be given to Kouparris on the Friday at lunch time. The
Prosecution indicated that they had interviewed Mr. D'Orban and a Dr.
Herridge and that they would be calling both of them in addition to Dr.
Carne and Dr. Fraser.

Mr. Christofides continues evidence...

We found a number of objects which after we had checked with our archives
were given to the British Police. These are Exhibits AH/16. There is nothing
else in the hands of the Police. I do not know the difference between a
mirco-drive cassette or a floppy disc. I understand that we are now taking
statements in Cyprus although I do not have those statements as yet. I have
been told that they will be supplied to me by fax. I have been given
information that your grand-father was called Kouparris, but that villagers
called him Campenella as a pseudonym. Your father was registered at
Kouparris and he belonged to the same family. Some of the relatives of the
Defendant have given statements under oath giving their second name as
Campenella. I do not know if the Defendant has ever used the name
Campenella.

We did find a Sinclair computer. I handed it to the Police for them to find
out. It was a Sinclair 2000. (The witness was then shown Exhibit number 41,
labelled AH/1-3.) These are handwritten notes and they were considered
relevant, but the Court should

decide this. I found them in three different places. I cannot help as to the
order of the pages. There were pages inside a box file and I do recall being
asked about a briefcase. (The witness was then shown documents page 293.)
There were index cards but I did not recall the number or quantity. I cannot
see any particular relevance glancing at them. (He was then shown page 294-
300 and 301.) I do not recall any such incident in Cyprus. It is something
that could have taken place, but no such incident did occur. I do recall a
ship being found, but the crew were missing- I don't remember the details
and I can't answer questions that support those things.

I found a lot of magazines and books in the office at the flat. (Shown page
303.) The Dynamics of Abstract Targeting is a title that I would not
understand the meaning of.

At this stage Mr. Kouparris demanded a dictionary be produced so that the
word abstract can be considered. The Judge stated that the witness could not
possibly be expected to know what Mr. Kouparris meant by abstract and the
jury would have to decide on the significance. The Judge indicated that he
did not want speech after speech from Mr. Kouparris.

On page 303 the second line relates to the Turkish Cypriot leader, but no
state recognises him as a President.

100

Pages 303-315 were then considered. I did consider these documents to be
relevant. I am not in a position to evaluate the contents of the documents
[this is the demand document]. They were handed to the British Police to be
compared with documents sent to the Cyprus Government to find out if they
were related. I kept a photocopy at Police HQ which was given to the Chief
of Police. I do not know if any evaluation was carried out or by whom. I
haven't looked at the documents personally. I felt that pages 309-315 were
relevant due to the wording. I had the wording of the blackmail demand made
in Cyprus fresh in my mind at the time.

I regarded the threat to Cyprus with the Chief of Police. The Government
took the matter very seriously and that is why the British Police were asked
to clarify the situation for us. I had not heard of the details being sent
to Portland Down before. The instructions for the Chief of Police to handle
the case shows that it was a real scare. I do not know all of the points of
this case. I do not know if any searches for the PIGS were carried out. We
did take the threat seriously and started an investigation. I do not
remember verbatim the contents of the letter, but it was for poisoning
explosions in Cyprus. I can recall the name of the poison. It may have been
Di'Tox B7 I think. I don't know that this was only a stink bomb.

I don't recall the date that the threat was made but it was before the end
of April. It could have been before the end of March. For me the facts are
brief. I was called to see the

101

Chief of Police who gave me the letter and asked me to be a negotiator. Two or three days later I had to go to London on another matter and I gave the letter to the Chief of Police here. On the 15th May 1987 I was asked with a number of other officers to search number 6A Sina Street.

102

26th April 1987

EVIDENCE OF MR. STAVROU

The witness was shown Exhibits 35 and 36 and said as follows:

I am a Presidential Under-Secretary in Cyprus. I work at the Presidential
Palace. I deal with incoming mail and in March 1987 Mr. Kiprianou was
President. I received this envelope in the afternoon of the 23rd March 1987.
There were no stamps on the envelope, I opened and read the letters which I
took seriously. I reported the matter at once to the President and was told
to tell the Ministry of Interior, for further examination and
investigations.

I spoke to the Minster of Interior and the Chief of Police, Mr. Yiangou. The
envelope was clean and bound with a white grip.

Cross Examination

A postman brought it to my off ice. There were no stamps on it. I don't know
if the Post Office was asked anything. The postman comes once or twice a
day. I was the first to read this letter and explained to the Police and the
Minister of Interior. I showed the President the letter and told him the
contents. The Minister of Interior, the Commander and the Chief of Police
were present and I delivered the letter to the Minister of Interior for them
to make the decision as to what should be done.

103

I did not act as a liaison officer. I did not receive a letter from a
Captain Nemo and did not see a letter of the 1st April or September. I only
saw the letter of the 23rd March from Commander Nemo.

I know of no further letter in September. I did not see a letter on the 1st
April. I am saying what I know not what the papers have said. I did not play
a part in the investigations, I simply briefed the Minister of Interior who
received this letter. The Minister can communicate with the President at any
time and it is not a rule that I attend these meetings.

I never knew that the threat was not serious. What happened after I briefed
the Minister of Interior was nothing to do with me. I cannot say whether the
threat was feasible or not. There were comments made about the denominations
of the notes. We never decided was viable or not, but just passed the letter
on. The author of the letter wanted $15 million. As I understood it the
destruction of Cyprus for a number of centuries was being threatened.

I did not deal with any 'phone calls. My roll ended after I delivered the
letter. The Police dealt with this matter and I was not the appropriate
person to receive their reports. The Commander of Police was Mr. Yiangou and
I cannot say who received the reports. The President is in overall charge of
all matters in Cyprus. I cannot speak for the President.

104

I don't know what Commander Nemo's next moves were to be. I can only give
you the facts as I was involved. The real purpose was to extort money. I
cannot say whether it would be viable or not. There was the demand but the
money was not given. I do not know if the bank notes existed or not. The $15
million was not paid.

After office hours the guards on duty at the Presidential Palace take any
'phone calls. All Ministers would have personal access to the President. I
cannot say whether this demand would succeed or not. One thing is for
certain, it was a demand for money without a shadow of a doubt. How it would
be carried out I do not know.

105

26th April 1989

EVIDENCE OF MR. A. DEMETRIADES

I am a Superintendent based at the Police HQ in Nicosia. Between the
26th March and the 14th May a number of telephone calls were made to
the Presidential Palace from a Mr. Digsby. He told me that he had
infiltrated the terrorist group Force Measure and that he wanted to try
and help us. He said that he worked for the Ministry of Defence in
England and though a man who was under cover he knew that Cyprus
was in danger. At a later stage a man called Campenella called saying he
was a Cypriot born in the United Kingdom and a specialist in military
matters. He said he could help us with the blackmail demand.

I used the name Frixos Nicolaides under the number 425313, this being
my office number which was ex-directory. It is now two years since the
conversations took place so I cannot remember them with any great detail.
We discussed the blackmail threat and Digsby said I should pay the
ransom. He did say that he would try to arrest the group but that damage
would have been caused. He advised us to pay the money and claim the
money back later. I made notes from the documents and I see Di'Tox 87.
The use of poison injection generators were mentioned in our first
conversation and repeated subsequently. We did discuss methods of
detection and Digsby mentioned a Cypriot friend who was born in the
United Kingdom who could help us with finding these devices. Digsby
talked to me about Force Measure and we also talked about Captain Nemo
and whether he would in fact re-iterate

106

his demand.

He was always asking me to ask the President to pay the money. This was
Campenella. I had six conversations with both Digsby and Campenella. I
think I spoke for two hours with Digsby. Digsby spoke in English.
Campenella spoke in Greek.

Campenella told me when he 'phoned that Digsby had said to him that
Cyprus had a problem. Campenella said that he thought he could help. He
said he was an expert in maths, chemistry, physics, computers, etc.. And
that he was in a position to locate the devices buried in Cyprus. He stated
that he would buy equipment and use a helicopter with a camera to locate
the devices. Campenella seemed to know what he was talking about and
also Digsby. Campenella said he would need £25,000.00 to get the
equipment. I said that I would try to convince the Government and give
me a few days to sort the matter out. He also asked for a passport in the
name of Campenella, two rooms at the Hilton in Cyprus and car with a
driver. The passport was to be handed over in the Cyprus High
Commission in London.

I asked Campenella to find Digsby so that he could call me. Digsby did
speak to me and we talked about Campenella's offer. Digsby insisted that
we should accept the offer and mentioned that if it had been him he would
have asked for £500,000.00 at least. I remember I spoke to Campenella for
two to two and a half hours. There did seem to be a difference between
Digsby and Campenella's voice. The pitch was different.

107

Cross Examination by Mr. Kouparris

[At this stage Mr. Kouparris admitted that he was both Digsby and
Campenella in these telephone calls.]

I wasn't aware that a scrambler was being used on these telephone calls. I
did not know that Digsby and Campenella were the same person. The
person originally chosen to deal with this matter was Mr. Christofides but
as he was going away I was chosen. When there were no telephone calls
from Digsby or Campenella I would carry on with office work. This was the
first time that I had done this sort of work.

I handed over the tapes of the conversations to a person. I would inform
the Chief of Police that the tapes were with me. At first we discussed
things and as the plan went as anticipated I worked alone. This was in
order to stop dangers and to locate the blackmailers.

I do know that Digsby talked to Mr. Vovides at an earlier stage. I didn't
give my telephone number to Vovides, but the Chief of Police may have
given it. I used the name of Nicolaides when discussing with Digsby. If I
had spoke as a Police Officer the plan would have been thwarted. We use
whatever methods are possible in order to succeed in catching criminals.

I have not previously acted as a negotiator. It was the Chief of

108

Police's initiative to use the name of a real person to make our
conversations logical and relevant to the threatening documents.

Nicolaides had worked at the Health Ministry for a long time. I did not
think that Digsby did work for the Ministry of Defence. I do not think any
checks were made, however. I personally made no checks at all. This was a
question of blackmail and it wasn't possible that a Ministry of Defence
employee would be involved in a blackmail matter. I was convinced that
Digsby was one of the team of blackmailers. Campenella was asking for
money and Campenella had been introduced by Digsby.

The threat was serious. The Chief of Police came to London at one stage to
discuss with New Scotland Yard who had more experience. It remained a
serious threat at all times. I did speak to Campenella about sex but that
was because I wanted to organise his arrest. One does not changed
subjects suddenly in a conversation. I do not recall a conversation about
rats or fleas and I think I would have remembered this if they had been
mentioned. We did talk about my family and my daughter. I do not
remember being invited to lunch.

We talked about politics and the elections in England. There may have
been a mention of Starlin and Hitler at some stage. I did not think it was a
joke and I wanted to arrest the blackmailer. There was a threat of
poisoning a damn and that was a very serious matter to us. That is why
we carried on until the arrest of the blackmailer.

109

The caller Campenella did say he stayed at a place called Strovolou but
this has 100,000 inhabitants and the caller Campenella did not say where
he was staying. There was mention about a case being heard in St. Ives. I
did not speak to Mr. Vivides before I spoke to Mr. Digsby. I did believe
that Digsby and Campenella were two different people but that they were
working together so they could keep in touch. The proposition and demand
for a passport came exclusively from Campenella. There was no
negotiating team, only me and I needed a day's time to get the money. We
had decided that we would say it was alright. As I was posing as
Nicolaides I couldn't agree the money straight away as I would need
authority. This was not a deception from our point of view but the decision
was taken to give the money to get the blackmailers. [Comment - Is it
realistic that the Government of Cyprus would have entrusted their entire
future to one man to discuss with a supposed blackmailer?]

I was not asking for a Cypriot to help us. That was Digsby's idea. I never
asked for anyone's help. I did not give him my telephone number as I did
not want him to find out that the Police were behind this. Nor did I want
him to find out that I was a Police Officer. We were in the middle of our
investigation. I did not prevent Campenella from going to the High
Commissioner's office in London.

When the caller, using the name Digsby, rang I did say that I

110

needed to see a specialist regarding the documents. I did not ask you (this
is Kouparris) to go to the High Commission. I did not know that these long
calls were traced in England and wasn't told of a surveillance in the
United Kingdom of the Defendant from the 9th May 1987. I reported the
gist of the conversations to the Chief of Police. The Anti-Terrorist Squad in
the United Kingdom should be asked about their surveillance I cannot
help you. I did not know that they were going to go to the High
Commission on that particular day.

At this stage Mr. Kouparris stated that he was genuinely offering to help
the Cyprus Government posing as Campenella in order to find out what
was going on. He said "I was totally deluded and I expected to meet the
President of Cyprus shortly after that".

The Prosecution were invited to consider transcripts of various telephone
calls that had been taped. They indicated that they believed it was time
wasting to go through 18 transcripts. The Judge warned Mr. Kouparris
that he should think about the disadvantage that he may be preparing for
himself if transcripts went before the jury.

Cross Examination of the witness Demetriades continued...

I can't remember what was said about £25,000.00 but that figure was
mentioned to buy equipment and then to come to Cyprus to locate the
devices. He did ask for two rooms at the Hilton. Also the use of a
helicopter and a car with a driver. I do not

111

remember if a doctor was asked for. We did discuss Campenella's injury,
but don't recall a doctor being mentioned. If it is mentioned on the
recording there is no reason to obscure such a thing. If I heard the tapes it
would refresh my memory.

A question came from the jury: When will transcripts be made available,
will they be the full ones or abridged ones?

The Prosecution said that no full summary was yet available. Mr.
Kouparris said that he would not agree to the summary produced due to
its inaccuracies. The Judge indicated that no decision could yet be made
because of this problem. Mr. Kouparris would check the summary over
night as to what he would object to. The witness Demetriades should
refresh his memory in the same way over night.

The Court was adjourned to the 27th April 1989.

112

27th April 1989

On this day Mr. Hamblin appeared for Mr. Kouparris. He made an
application to change solicitors and instruct new Counsel on behalf of Mr.
Kouparris. It was quite clear that Mr. Kouparris had reached the limits of
his mental and physical capacity. He was exhausted. The Judge was
anxious that Mr. Kouparris should get a fair trial and that justice should
be seen to be done. Over the last few days he had become more and more
anxious about the role that he could play in assisting the Defendant and
more concerned about the medical evidence as to how this would be dealt
with. His role as Judge would become inconsistent with his role in
assisting with the Defence. Accordingly, he was prepared to grant Legal
Aid for two Counsel (including a certificate for Queen's Counsel) and to
discharge the former solicitors. A new Legal Aid Order was then made.

The Court was adjourned to the 28th April 1989.

28th April 1989

On the 28th April 1989 Mr. Kouparris was represented by
Mr. Michael Beckman QC and Mr. Nicholas H. Hamblin.

I do not propose to deal with what took place at this hearing or any
subsequent hearing because a full note has already been made

113

both by Leading Counsel and Junior Counsel in this case.

This transcript was prepared by Junior Counsel Nicholas H. Hamblin.
In May 1989.

114