Ref: A00-300995 Case No. 871626 Macpherson II
Volume III, Pages 1-20, Monday 12th June, 1989
(In the absence of the jury)
Discussion: witness availability
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, it is with some regret that I have to
inform the Court that there have been some difficulties in
getting the Cypriot Government personnel to court this
morning. It is not because they declined to attend, it is
because they have other business to attend to and their
presence can be achieved tomorrow or Wednesday or Thursday.
Matters have been re-arranged. Superintendent Edwards will
be cross-examined and I will then call O'Neill. I can call
the security officer from The White House, fingerprint
evidence and then the High Commissioner to give evidence at
two o'clock this afternoon.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: We are still a juror missing. Is there
anything else we can do?
MR. TEMPLE: No, my Lord. Could I hand up a notice of additional
evidence from the fingerprint officer, Mr. Irvine, and I have
superimposed page 498 of the bundle reference to the
pagination which Mr. Irvine will be dealing with. It makes
your Lordship's note easier to compile.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I am puzzled to know why the fingerprint
evidence is necessary.
MR. TEMPLE: The short point is this: the Crown say it may be
significant that this defendant's fingerprints were found on
documents found at Strickland Court and in Cyprus and in
contrast there is a marked lack of fingerprints at all on the
demand documentation and it is not entirely coincidental, say
the Crown, that there were some rubber gloves found in his
briefcase.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: He may have been trying to avoid his
prints being on the document.
MR. TEMPLE: Precisely.
MR. BECKMAN: May I say this: the programme my learned friend
has in mind means again we will have a short day.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I do not mind.
MR. BECKMAN: May I say this: we are progressing at a great
pace and, I have every reason to believe, will continue to do
so.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Is this fingerprint evidence in issue?
I would have thought it could be agreed.
MR. BECKMAN: It is not in issue.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Perhaps you could draft an agreement.
MR. BECKMAN: I am prepared to agree it.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, the Court of Appeal have said on more than
one occasion that there are limited aspects of evidence
where, by way of example, the Crown are usually encouraged to
call evidence of the pathologist in a murder trial simply to
highlight the important points. With respect, I take the
same view with regard to this evidence, the principle being
if too much is given to the jury by way of admission or
agreement it could be that the effect of the evidence is
perhaps lost.
(The trial was adjourned for a short time)
(In the presence of the jury)
Detective Superintendent ALEC EDWARDS: Recalled
Cross-examined by Mr. Beckman
Q. Mr. Edwards, were there any press releases either by or on
behalf of the police? A. At what stage? There have been,
yes.
Q. There have been? A. Yes.
Q. Who authorised those press releases? A. The Deputy
Assistant Commissioner.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Mr. Beckman, at what period are we
looking, 1987 or recently?
MR. BECKMAN: Any time prior to the trial at the moment, then I
will get more specific. There may be others I do not really
know about.
THE WITNESS: We are talking about a two year period. There
certainly was, before the trial, a press release from
Scotland Yard.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: That is not specific enough to me
because we all know that this matter has been in court before
and we had to start it again. "Before the trial", means
what? A. Certainly shortly after the arrest, my Lord.
MR. BECKMAN: So there is a press release shortly after arrest by
Scotland Yard? A. Yes.
Q. Have there been any other press releases since? A. Other
than reporting court appearances, I would say there have not.
Q. That is not a press release, that is spontaneous publication
by some member of the press saying what has happened.
A. Yes, off the top of my head I think that is the only
press release I can recall.
Q. That was authorised by whom? A. Deputy Assistant
Commissioner Worth.
Q. That is Mr. Brian Worth, OBE? A. Yes, since retired.
Q. That press release, was that to the English newspapers or the
Cyprus newspapers? A. Basically to the English newspapers
but I would imagine that it was released to the Cyprus
newspapers through the Press Association and Reuters.
Q. What did that release say, can you remember? A. I really
cannot. I suggest Mr. Koupparis had been arrested and we had
been working with the Cypriot police on the matter and he was
charged with this offence. I would have to see a copy. I
could possibly get hold of a copy, but off the top of my head
I cannot remember.
Q. Perhaps at some time I can have a draft of the actual release
that the police gave. Did Mr. Brian Worth in fact hold a
press interview or was it just a formal documentary release?
A. I couldn't answer that. I certainly was not present
during this release.
Q. If he held a press interview himself or with others (perhaps
Cypriot police personnel or something) anything then said
would add to what is in the formal release? A. I am sorry,
could you repeat that?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: He has already said he does not know
about it.
MR. BECKMAN: Yes, my Lord. I am getting the particular fact for
the jury so they know in case it arises later. (To the
witness): You get a release on the one hand which is a
formal document? A. Yes.
Q. If there was then an interview with the press and they would
ask questions of Mr. Worth or anyone else, that information
would be added to the release? A. One would assume it was
the same information; I really do not know.
Q. Is it the custom to check the information published after
there has been a release? A. Yes, we have a controller at
the press bureau where they monitor this release in the
newspaper and they would copy the account for the officer
in the case.
Q. Is it right if anything said by the press was manifestly
wrong you would get to know about it? A. Well, with the
greatest respect to the press, this happens every day of the
week.
Q. I accept that. If they get it manifestly wrong you would get
to know about it, you the police? A. There is a good
chance.
Q. In this case, as far as you are aware, is there anything that
was published by the press in London, really anything else
that was manifestly wrong as far as you are aware? A. I am
reluctant to answer that without actually checking the record
again. There is nothing blatant I can think of.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Do you mean you cannot think of
anything? I do not know what is the purpose of this, but
you cannot think of anything that was published that was
manifestly wrong? A. That is correct, my Lord, but I would
like to check the record, just in case.
MR. BECKMAN: I take it that any such release by the Cypriot
authorities would be something you would know nothing at all
about? A. That is correct.
Q. Equally, in any release by the then government in Cyprus, by
the politicians, either on televison [sic] or to the press, again
would be something you know nothing about? A. That is
correct.
Q. The man under whose command you were working was now retired,
Brian Worth, OBE? A. Yes.
Q. Was there anyone else above you in the chain of command?
A. Yes. I mean, there was the Head of Operations, I was the
senior investigating officer in the case. There is a Head of
Operations for the Anti Terrorist Branch, who would be
Detective Chief Superintendent Wilson. In turn there is a
head of the branch, that is Commander Churchill-Coleman who
heads the Anti Terrorist Branch. Then we come to the Head
of Special Operations, who was Mr. Worth at that time.
Q. You were working, I take it, in close liaison with the
Cypriot authorities? A. With the Cypriot police rather
than the authorities.
Q. So that you personally - when I say "you", I am referring to
the police because at the moment I have only you to cross-
examine you appreciate, so I must ask you to answer on behalf
of them all so far as within your knowledge. A. Yes.
Q. You were working in close association with the Cypriot
police? A. Yes, and in fact "you" is referring to me.
Most of the direct liaison was with me.
Q. You did not act in close liaison, or did you, with any
Cypriot politicians? A. No.
Q. I think the police you dealt with was principally the Chief
of Police, Mr. Yannou [sic]. A. Yes.
Q. Who else did you deal with as far as the Cypriot police were
concerned, or was it just him? A. Most of the operation
would be (inaudible) was Mr. Demetriades who was a
superintendent. There would be 'phone calls between he and
myself and of course later on, as the case developed, there
would be Mr. Andreas Christofides, a chief inspector.
Q. Did you go to Cyprus in connection with the case yourself?
A. After the arrest of Mr. Koupparis I did.
Q. Before the arrest, did Mr. Yannou [sic] come over here? A. Yes.
Q. Many times? A. Certainly once, possibly twice.
Q. Certainly once. What date was that? A. I cannot remember
the exact - somewhere in the region of 29th March 1987.
There was a communique before that, on the weekend in - I
think it is 29th March 1987, and so that in fact he was on
the way with this problem, and at that stage I was engaged as
liaison officer to advise with their problem because it had
not become a British problem at that time.
Q. What did he bring with him? A. It was a copy of the demand
document.
Q. You mean the original demand document which had been sent to
the Presidential police in Cyprus on 23rd March, that they
retained the original and you were given a copy? A. Yes,
but I did explain - perhaps it didn't come over very well -
that we were advising. This was a Cypriot problem in
Nicosia. We were asked for our advice with our previous
experience in this sort of case.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Did you know where Mr. Koupparis was at
that time? A. Not at all, didn't know of his existence or
who in fact the blackmailers were.
MR. BECKMAN: So that was, as far as you were concerned, a
Cypriot problem in Nicosia and they came to you for advice?
A. Yes.
Q. The demand having been made? A. Yes.
Q. Having been received in Cyprus? A. Yes.
Q. You are then given a copy of this document which you have
become familiar with since? A. Yes.
Q. Was anything else brought over by the chief inspector?
A. The Chief of Police.
Q. I do apologise. A. I really don't recall but you may
advise me if there was.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: You dropped your voice. A. I am
sorry. I don't recall but it may well be I have forgotten
something.
MR. BECKMAN: Are there any files in existence that would tell us
what then happened by way of the operation? A. I wrote a
report on this case outlining the facts at a later stage.
Q. When was that? A. That would be some weeks after the Chief
of Police attending London, and there are other records which
we started to keep, messages and that sort of thing.
Q. The main record, the report you refer to, was that created
before the documents were delivered to the Cypriot High
Commission? A. No.
Q. That was after? A. Afterwards.
Q Was it created after the arrest? A. Yes, but we have a
record of various messages.
Q. Presumably - I think Mr. Temple and I agree - probably what
is created after the arrest is a privileged document?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is a document I am not allowed to see, any more than
you can see my instructions? A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. But you agree no documents created before the arrest which
would assist us into what was done we would be able to see?
A. I would have to take advice.
MR. BECKMAN: If you would be so kind, and then we can discuss
it.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Was there a report after the arrest?
A. There is no report that I recall. There are copies of
telephone messages and various indices we would keep.
Q. From that file, even though we did not have a formal report,
one would get a shrewd idea of what was going on and what was
attempted to be achieved? A. Yes.
Q. With the documents you got from Cyprus, what did you do with
them? A. Which documents are we talking about, the first
lot Mr. Yannou [sic] brought over?
Q. The documents you got from Cyprus. There are not any others
that came from Cyprus? A. Yes, at a later stage we found
stuff with Mr. Koupparis.
Q. I mean these documents; I am not talking about exhibits
found at his premises. The demand that was sent to the
Presidential Palace, what did you do with them?
A. Basically we tried to analyse them. We spoke to various
people at various laboratories. We actually kept them in
our possession and we used them to work on.
Q. With these documents can you tell us who you went to, which
laboratories for analysis? What technical assistance did
you get? Can you tell us who? A. From the electronics
side we have the Department of Special Operations. They
dealt with the technical side and there was an officer there,
he is a civilian officer whose name I don't recall. We did
take advice off him as to the feasibility of the technical
side of these demands.
Q. Of the electronics aspect? A. Yes.
Q. You do not know his name but if you would be so kind to give
us his name later - what other expert assistance did you
seek? A. From the toxicology side I attended the
Metropolitan Police laboratory in Lambeth and spoke to a
scientist there, a Miss Jenny Wright - I think I have got the
surname correct - to take advice from that person.
Q. That is to do with toxicology? A. Yes.
Q. What other experts did you seek assistance from? A. In the
initial stage I think that is all that we started with.
Q. Subsequently the documents were sent to the ultimate
authority on these matters, were they not, the people at
Portland (sic) Down? A. Yes, that came about as a result
of what our laboratory told me and then that was sent to
Porton Down. A copy of that was sent to Porton Down.
Q. Did you get a report back from Portland Down? A. Yes.
Q. Was it written or oral? A. An officer went down there and
actually took a statement from the scientist concerned.
Q. Is that the statement we see in this case or was there
something else? A. At this point I think it is the
statement you see in this case.
Q. As far as you are concerned, therefore, there was no formal
report from Portland Down in relation to these documents?
A. Certainly there were a number of telephone messages
between the police and Porton Down.
Q. These telephone messages, presumably, is the information
which Portland Down was supplying to you? A. Yes.
Q. There again in due course, after having discussed it with
Mr. Temple, I shall ask for these to be subject to
(inaudible). A. That is all I can recall at this time.
Q. There is no formal written report such as one sees, "Analysis
of documents": heading 1 "Toxicology"; heading 2
"Electronics"; heading 3 "Whatever", then "Miscellaneous" -
nothing like that? A. I am really trying to think on that.
I am not sure if there was or there was not.
Q. If there is such a document I think I would be entitled to
see that. Would you be kind enough to let us know one way or
the other. If there is produce it, if not then tell us,
sobeit. There then must have commenced at some stage the
operation - I forget the name you used - for the surveillance
aspect. A. Drifter.
Q. There then comes the stage when you set in process the
operation? A. Well, yes, there was but it was some weeks
into the advice given to the Cypriot police.
Q. It was some ---? A. Weeks later. The operation in fact -
as the development went into the case we were advising the
Cypriot police on the strategy to use against the blackmailer
or blackmailers, and then of course there came the point
where in fact there seemed to be a London connection.
Q. Putting it another way, the offence had taken place in
Cyprus; you, together with the expertise you could call upon,
were the most experienced people and the Cyprus police came
to you for help? A. Yes.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Was that because they knew there was a
London connection or because they simply wanted your general
advice at this stage? A. It is the latter, my Lord.
Q. Then later the London connection seemed to emerge? A. Yes.
Well, we had a further demand placed with the Cyprus High
Commission. Can I just say this? This is not an unusual
occurrence between the Cypriot police and Scotland Yard.
MR. BECKMAN: I accept that obviously Scotland Yard would have a
greater ability to deal with these matters. May I mention
that earlier the witness had said specifically, "Events had
taken place in Cyprus and they came to us for advice and then
later the London connection became apparent". He did
actually say that.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Of course, yes. I did not miss that.
MR. BECKMAN: I am sorry, my Lord, I do apologise. (To the
witness): Did you start then an operation when the London
connection became apparent? A. Yes.
Q. Not so much the London connection as the person might now be
in London? A. Well, we had a development. There were
going to be demand documents placed with the High Commission
in London for transmission to Cyprus.
Q. You had the position that a demand document was going to be
placed with the High Commission in London to be sent on to
Cyprus. Who achieved that? A. I think it came out of
telephone calls from the blackmailer telephoning
Mr. Demetriades in Cyprus.
Q. Who achieved the situation to get the man to deliver the
document to London, the offence already having taken place in
Cyprus? A. The blackmailer developed it with
Mr. Demetriades.
Q. You mean he was not brought into doing that; he did it
totally of his own volition rather than being asked?
A. That is my understanding of it, my Lord, I was not
present.
Q. Sobeit, we will look at it again. At any rate, however it
was, the situation was achieved in which, the offence having
taken place in Cyprus, a further situation is then achieved
in that the blackmailer has got, whatever part he took, to
send copies to London to be sent on to the President of
Cyprus? A. Yes, the blackmailer actually had the document
delivered to the High Commission in London.
Q. We used the word "blackmailer" quite properly because at
that stage the man was not - his identity was not known to
you? A. No, not at all
Q. Therefore, to you he was the blackmailer, the demand having
been made in Cyprus? A. Yes.
Q. That made him a blackmailer? A. Yes, I was advising ---
Q. Well --- A. Well, there are two situations. You have
one in London, one in Cyprus prior to the one in London. He
was a blackmailer blackmailing the Government in Cyprus.
Q. You do not have to jump ahead of me; I know the point I am
getting at so we can stick to the question. From the point
of the delivery of the document in Cyprus, the offence being
there completed, he was therefore - he was a blackmailer
quite properly described by you. A. Yes.
Q. Whatever may have happened later - and if I wish to ask about
that I will or my learned friend - the operation then
effectively began approximately when? A. I haven't got a
note with me.
Q. Roughly? A. It was the day of the second demand in London,
which I would have to check the record on that.
Q. So the operation did not start until the delivery of the
document to the High Commissioner, or did it start before the
documents were delivered to the High Commission? A. It
really depends on how you interpret the word "operation". I
mean, I had started work on 29th/30th March, so I had started
into the case then with other officers, assisting the Chief
of Police of Cyprus.
Q. Did you give any advice to the Cypriot police to engineer a
situation in which the man from London might be got to send
an identical or similar copy of the demand made in Cyprus to
the High Commission? A. I wouldn't put it that way at all,
my Lord.
Q. What I am asking you is did you advise him that, and if the
answer is "No", you can tell me what you did advise him. Can
you answer it first and then go on to what you did advise
him? A. I am slightly reluctant to discuss the strategy
that we use in a case of this kind, my Lord.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I do not see why you should.
MR. BECKMAN: Forgive me, it is ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I am giving as much rope as possible to
Mr. Beckman but you do not have to disclose confidences.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, this is absolutely fundamental.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Go on, Mr. Beckman, ask the questions.
I will rule whether they should be answered. (To the
witness): The second demand was made to the High Commission
with the second set of documents? A. Yes, my Lord.
Q. Before that, was there any arrangement made that the man
should be put up to it by the police in this country?
A. No.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: That answers your question.
MR. BECKMAN: You did not advise with the police in Cyprus to
organise that a second set of documents should be sent to the
High Commissioner in London? A. No.
Q. Did you advise --- A. It came out of the belief that
London was the second blackmail demand.
Q. If you could just stick to the question, what I want - let us
use the neutral phrase "second set of documents". My Lord
and the jury will decide what was the demand and therefore
let us use language that no-one can disagree with - the
second set of documents - whatever in law - they were
delivered to the High Commission but not as a result of any
advice of yours? A. That is correct. We used a certain
strategy in the negotiation but not as a result of our advice
on a ---
Q. And not as a result of any advice you gave to the police in
Cyprus? A. Right.
Q. So that whatever was done to achieve that situation by the
police in Cyprus had nothing to do with you? A. I don't
agree it was nothing to do with the police in Cyprus; it was
the way that the demand was made.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: That was the form of the question, you
see.
MR. BECKMAN: The way the second set of documents were got to be
delivered - let us keep the neutral term - I just want to -
the jury will have to decide in due course what caused them
to be delivered. Just so that we can exculpate you from
responsibility, it is right to say you had nothing to do with
bringing about the delivery of the second set of documents?
A. That is correct.
Q. Directly or indirectly? A. That is correct, yes.
Q. Then the operation starts, the purpose of the operation
being, the basic purpose? A. Well, it seemed that we had
the same situation in London as - the same problem as they
had in Cyprus and obviously, you know, as far as I am
concerned, and others, we had jurisdiction to deal with that
offence.
Q. Jurisdiction? A. Yes, so the purpose would be to catch the
offender.
Q. I wonder again if you would be so kind, rather than go off,
just answer the question. The question was, "What was the
purpose?" The answer was, "To catch the offender". When did
you first discover his identity? A. Somewhere in the
region of four or five days before the arrest.
Q. When did you first realise that the different names he used
originally in Cyprus and subsequently in London, though there
may be a variation, came from the same person? A. I think
to put that totally, I would say that was probably 25th
November, at the committal proceedings when he first admitted
he was all these other names.
Q. How did you get to know that a further set of documents were
going to be delivered to the Cypriot High Commission in
London? A. I think it was a 'phone call from the Cypriot
police in Cyprus that there was going to be this set of
documents delivered.
Q. Who told you that? A. It could have been one of several
persons; it may have been the Chief of Police.
Q. Can you tell us, as best you can remember, exactly what you
were told so that you knew what was going to happen? A. I
really cannot remember in what context it came. I just
assessed it that there was going to be documents delivered to
the Cyprus High Commission and we in fact kept observation
on the High Commission.
Q. I take it also that part of the operation would not only be
to catch the blackmailer but was also in the course of it to
obtain as much evidence as was appropriate to the offence?
A. Yes.
Q. The last matter I want to know about is this: this was in
the first event an offence which clearly had been committed
in the jurisdiction of Cyprus? A. Yes.
Q. Leaving aside any argument as to the effect of what occurred
thereafter - which is a matter which will exercise the mind
of the Court in due course - you would agree, would you not,
that was a demand of the then Cypriot Government? A. Yes.
Q. Through its President, President Kyprianou? A. Yes.
Q. And it was not only a demand of the Cypriot Government, it
was a threat - which we will look into in due course - it
would be a threat against the Cypriot people? A. Yes.
Q. Whatever else may have happened, however achieved, the
blackmail demand, the first one - whatever is said later -
was in Cyprus so the whole thing concerned Cyprus. It
started in Cyprus, the offence was completed in Cyprus, the
Cypriot people and the Cypriot Government? A. Yes.
Q. Those were, for this to be an offence, the victims or the
potential victims? A. Yes.
Q. Was there any attempt - in those circumstances they would
then have full jurisdiction to deal with the matter?
A. Yes.
Q. There is in existence an extradition treaty between this
country and Cyprus? A. Yes.
Q. Was any attempt made by the Cypriot authorities to extradite
him and take him to Cyprus to be prosecuted? A. No, not at
all, my Lord.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Not yet? A. That is right.
MR. BECKMAN: Has any attempt ever been made or intimated at any
time? A. Not that I know of.
MR. BECKMAN: Do you know, and if you do not know say so, who
made the decision to extradite him (sic) in relation to an
offence that was wholly Cypriot in many ways?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: How would he know that?
MR. BECKMAN: He might. If he does not I must accept his answer.
I am trying to find out for the defendant.
THE WITNESS: No, it is to be explained in this way: the charge
was made, the papers were sent to the Crown Prosecution
Service who engaged counsel, and we are still here today.
That is the only way I can answer that.
Q. No, Mr. Edwards, either you know the answer or, as you also
rightly pointed out, you do not know it. Do you know any
reason why the Cypriot politicians, government or authority
have not attempted to extradite him for what, on the face of
it, is a Cypriot offence? A. From talking to the Chief of
Police - and that is the only authority I would deal with -
they are quite satisfied we have jurisdiction to deal with
the second demand document in this country and they are quite
happy for that to proceed as it is going in this trial.
Q. Is there any reason you know of why the matter, which is
clearly a matter which concerns the Cyprus Parliament on any
interpretation, why there has been no attempt to extradite
him? A. I can only answer in that way.
Q. You cannot answer is the answer? A. Not really.
MR. TEMPLE: With respect, he has answered; he has given a clear
answer.
MR. BECKMAN: No, with the greatest respect ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Mr. Beckman, go on to your next
question.
MR. BECKMAN: No, my Lord, I do not have any further questions.
I respectfully disagree ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: You are going to argue that the second
delivery was not a demand? Is that going to be the position
in law?
MR. BECKMAN: That is part of the argument.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Thank you. I want to know; I want to
see where we are going.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, may I ask this - with respect to your
Lordship, I most certainly will, in the proper and normal way
disclose the defence in the usual way. So far as submissions
and any other matters are concerned, I would ask your
Lordship to be kind enough, when I am cross-examining, not to
disclose substantial limbs of the defence case.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: It is my duty, Mr. Beckman, to ensure
that the cross-examination is relevant, and unless I know at
what it is aimed and what is the object of the cross-
examination, I cannot perform that duty. Have you any
further questions of the chief inspector?
MR. BECKMAN: I do (inaudible) in the presence of the jury.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Mr. Beckman, thank you very much. I do
not want to hear any more on that; we will argue that later.
MR. BECKMAN: I want to say there is nothing I have asked which
is other than relevant. There has been a lot of work to
achieve that situation, as your Lordship is well aware.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Thank you very much.
(The witness withdrew)
Index | Previous | Next