Ref: A00-300995 Case No. 871626 Macpherson II
Volume X, Pages 1-6, Tuesday 27th June, 1989
(In the absence of the jury)
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, may I please mention one matter by way of
courtesy to your Lordship? Before opening the matter may I
ask you have in front of you a short extract from the cross-
examination of this defendant (handed to the Court). The
Court will see:
"The question is, I suggest, Mr. Koupparis,
at this stage in your mind you thought your
original document had gone astray." Answer:
"I was fully aware it arrived". Question:
"Who told you?" Answer: "I spoke to two".
Question: "Take this slowly, who told you?"
Answer: "I spoke to two Cypriot ministers."
"Name?" Iacovou; I don't know how he spells
his name". Then an interruption by your
Lordship: "Someone gave it yesterday", and
you spell it out. Answer: "I think the
English version is Jacob". Question: "You
mentioned a second minister". "Michaelides."
"When did you speak to these two?" "It was
the same day I spoke to Mr. Mavrellis."
Question: "On 2nd April?" "Yes. I had
to establish whether they had realised it
was a hoax and done nothing or whether they
thought it was real. In that case I had
to defuse the situation. I couldn't leave
it hanging like that. It was never my
intention to cause any stress or anything.
It was merely what I felt was my duty to
the people of Cyprus."
Pausing there, the present position is this: that a
statement has been take from Michaelides and assuming, of
course, that your Lordship rules in the prosecution's favour
with regard to rebuttal, he will be able to give rebuttal
evidence on Thursday morning. Statements have also been
taken from Iacovou and Veniamin, who your Lordship will also
recollect were the two others mentioned on this matter.
My Lord, I do not really have an application at this
stage because I appreciate that Mr. Beckman has not had an
opportunity to prepare himself to deal with it, but may I put
Mr. Beckman on notice and give the Court an indication that I
intend to make an application that the Crown should be given
leave to call Mr. Michaelides in rebuttal of the assertion
put forward by this defendant during the course of cross-
examination, and may I also indicate that the Crown are
considering making an application under Sections 23 and 24 of
the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to the effect that your
Lordship should consider the possibility of reading the
evidence of Iacovou and Veniamin. In other words, it is not
possible in the circumstances to call those two in person.
The grounds on which I make this application are these:
it was never suggested at any stage during the course of the
prosecution case that this defendant had active and direct
knowledge that the original document had gone astray (sic).
No human ingenuity could have foreseen what he would say
in that witness box to the effect that he had had direct
conversations with certainly two ministers, and possibly
more, to the effect that they in turn told him that the
demand document had arrived. Of course, it is highly
relevant and material for the jury to be able to have the
fullest possible evidence before them as to what the true
position was because it goes very much to the defendant's
state of mind when he sent out the second set of documents to
the Cypriot High Commission. Equally it goes to the
defendant's credibility because it may well be that if the
jury have the proposed evidence in front of them they will
then be in a much better position to assess the credibility
of this defendant and it may well be that if they come to the
conclusion that there was deliberate misleading of the Court
and jury they may come to a certain conclusion as to the rest
of his evidence and how much weight they can attach to it.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: When do you suggest that I should deal
with the matter?
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, as soon as Mr. Beckman is ready so that we
can make proper use of the time available.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I will deal with it later today. I am
somewhat aghast that more expense is going to be caused in
this case which is not a case (inaudible). It is appalling
what it has cost already.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, I anticipated that comment from the Court.
I have given direct instructions that nobody is to make any
direct travelling arrangements.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I understand, of course, it can be made
from the point of view of justice in the general sense that
he should be called.
MR. TEMPLE: It is a matter which has concerned more than one.
Your Lordship's comment has been the subject of
consideration.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I think the best thing to do is, you
have given notice that you are going to apply and we will
deal with it at the end of the evidence today.
MR. BECKMAN: My friend said, "When Mr. Beckman is ready", and I
am sure your Lordship echoes this sentiment. We have very
important things to do; one is to look at the law.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: If you are not ready let me know and we
will have to postpone it.
MR. BECKMAN: Certainly, I will give instructions. I will take
the adjournment during the day to give instructions.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: If your junior wishes to go out of court
he may.
MR. BECKMAN: I want to consider the matter. May I mention two
other matters while the jury is out? One is this: I have
already said to my learned friend something about which I
was taken by surprise the same as he was. Dr. Beard was
called, as was Dr. Ashworth, solely as to the question of
fact. My learned friend in cross-examination attempted to
turn him into an expert for his purposes in relation to the
document. He received certain answers in cross-examination;
perhaps - I will be frank - answers which he did not like.
Dr. Beard, who has been termed at the last minute an expert,
said a lot of totally inconsistent things, as we all agreed.
I would ask that the proper way to deal with Dr. Ashworth and
Dr. Beard is to say they were both witnesses as to fact and
restrict their evidence as to that. I mention that now and
perhaps we can deal with it later.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I had in mind to tell them to ignore
everything except as to fact. It seems to me that I was not
at my best yesterday, but I do not think he should have
commented on the letter because this man is on trial, not the
letter. I do not believe the jury ought to be assisted by
somebody's view of a letter, a doctor who saw him six or
seven years before, so that is what I am likely to do.
MR. BECKMAN: I am obliged, my Lord, but we will wait to hear
from Mr. Temple. The last matter is this: as your Lordship
is probably aware, we are calling Dr. Ashton who will be here
on Thursday, but she is backed up by Professor West.
Dr. Ashton is a psychopharmacologist; Professor West is a
psychiatrist. The way we were going to do it was call
Dr. Ashton first and Professor West would then effectively
agree with her, which would save a lot of time.
Unfortunately, due to professional commitments, Dr. Ashton
has to be here on Thursday and Professor West will be here
at two o'clock. That being so, I wish to have 15 minutes
with Professor West to unveil a few items which make the
position clearer as far as he is concerned, rather than with
him go through the whole of Dr. Ashton's report. In other
words, it is a time saving operation. Therefore, if your
Lordship would be kind enough to sit at 2.15 I would be
grateful.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Yes, all right. At some stage I
indicated that it might be necessary to have a mention about
the law. It was raised earlier but it was far too soon. I
do not know when that may be necessary but it may be that I
shall want to fit in a short session about the law on
blackmail. I am not sure that it will be necessary, but I
simply warn you I may need some assistance on that aspect.
MR. BECKMAN: We have prepared in advance, as your Lordship is
aware, and we can give any assistance when your Lordship is
ready.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: How long do you think it will take?
MR. TEMPLE: I have just received some further instructions as
to the availability of Michaelides. Dependent on that,
certainly not more than ten minutes - on blackmail or on
rebuttal?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: On blackmail. I am sorry, I am
confusing things: on rebuttal the matter will be very short
but on blackmail?
MR. TEMPLE: I would have thought the Court should allow half
an hour for discussion in total.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I cannot imagine that it will be long.
MR. TEMPLE: I do not think there is very much to this.
MR. BECKMAN: The way I might do it, there may be a written note
prepared for your Lordship.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I shall ask for that so if that can be
done by the juniors it would be very helpful.
MR. BECKMAN: We may have a written note for your Lordship if
your Lordship thinks it is of assistance in preparing the
matter later.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Ultimately I have to make up my own
mind, but if there is agreement as to what the direction
should be I should be grateful.
Index | Previous | Next