Ref: A00-300995 Case No. 871626 Macpherson II
Volume X, Pages 6-23, Tuesday 27th June, 1989
(In the absence of the jury)
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, may I mention to your Lordship the next
witness is Miss Debbie Postgate. She is the solicitor in
charge of the case for the previous firm of solicitors. What
has been agreed - to save time and since in the circumstances
because effectively we cannot have the witnesses here - is
she is going to give evidence that she has interviewed
Dr. Sophocleous and Dr. Evdokas and Mr. Georgiades the
chemist. She has taken statements. The way we have agreed
to deal with the matter is that she will give evidence, not
of what she was told the statements contain in general terms,
but to deal with the matter, as far as she can tell us, as
to what she was told and what she saw was prescribed by way
of drugs.
(The jury was brought into court)
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I am sorry to keep you waiting, ladies
and gentlemen. There were a couple of matters of law and
possible future evidence with which we had to deal.
DEBORAH MARGARET POSTGATE: Sworn
Examined by Mr. Beckman
Q. What is your full name? A. Deborah Margaret Postgate.
Q. Your address? A. This is my professional address, 379
Brixton Road, London SW9.
Q. Your occupation? A. I am a solicitor.
Q. With which firm are you a solicitor? A. It is called
Hallmark Atkinson Winter.
Q. How long have you been with them? A. I have been qualified
eight years but I have been with this firm for three.
Q. Were you previously instructed in this case? We already
know there was an abortive trial and you were previously
instructed in that matter? A. That is right.
Q. We need not go into the pros and cons of that at all, but in
the course of being the solicitor in the case did you have
occasion to go to Cyprus and interview three people?
A. That is correct.
Q. Were the three people that you interviewed Dr. Sophocleous,
Dr. Evdokas and Mr. Georgiades, amongst others? A. Yes,
amongst others, that is right.
Q. You saw other people as well? A. Yes.
Q. I am not going to go into the statements you took, but was
the purpose of seeing them to take statements from them as
potential witnesses? A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Although I am not going into the generality of the
statements, is it right that in the course of so doing, you
took details of the drugs prescribed to Mr. Koupparis over
the period of 1986 into 1987? A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Presumably you are in a position, having looked at your
notes, to be able to tell us what drugs you were told he was
prescribed or given or recommended to him, as the case may
be? A. I have my original notes here and using these I can
answer those questions.
Q. In the absence of any objection, I am going to assume you can
use those notes. I think you saw Dr. Sophocleous on 22nd
February 1989? A. Yes, that is right.
Q. So far as he told you anything in relation to the
prescription of drugs, did he tell you of any drug that he
had given to him in November 1985? A. Yes, he did.
Q. What was that drug? A. He told me that on 28th November
1985, he prescribed Clopixol.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Can you spell that for me?
A. C.L.O.P.I.X.O.L. Perhaps I could say something at this
point. I saw Dr. Sophocleous; he had his notes. His notes
were written in English. At the start of the interview he
didn't want to let me see the notes and he, reading from
them, gave me a summary of what drugs he had prescribed to
Mr. Koupparis. Later in the interview I asked him if I could
have a photocopy of those notes, which he refused. I then
persuaded him to let me actually read the notes myself and
they were written in English. Although they were in quite a
bad scrawl I was able to decipher them. There were
discrepancies between what he told me verbally and what I -
I'm sorry, should I ---
MR. BECKMAN: Would you just wait a moment?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: No, go on. A. --- and what I read
myself in the notes.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I rather wonder what the value of the
evidence is in that case, but we are going to hear it so ---
THE WITNESS: Well, I have got an account given by him as to
what he prescribed.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, forgive my interrupting. The Crown take
the view that it would not be right or fair to rely on a
strict application of the rules of evidence to shut out
matters which may assist the jury. However, I thought I
indicated to Mr. Beckman that the extent to which the Crown
are prepared to waive any technicalities really comes to
this: the extent to which this witness can give the factual
position as to the drugs which were said to have been
prescribed by various physicians does not extend to an
in-depth investigation as to what may or may not have taken
place during the course of the interview.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: We will see how we get on. Ladies and
gentlemen, the point is that enormous expense has been
incurred in this case already in bringing people from Cyprus
and calling professors and so on. Everyone wants to avoid
bringing these doctors over. Normally what somebody says to
somebody else is not evidence at all. It is not a question
of waiving rules, it is just not evidence because that is
unreliable; what somebody said to somebody is unreliable.
That is the rule, but it has been agreed that to a limited
extent this lady can tell us what the doctor says he
prescribed. What weight you give to that evidence will be a
matter for you in the future. (To the witness): First of
all, Clopixol in November 1985? A. Well, yes, but I am
sorry to confuse you, but I must distinguish between what I
was told orally by Dr. Sophocleous and what I actually read,
and I would like the Court's guidance.
MR. BECKMAN: That is exactly what I was going to do. What I was
doing was this: I am going to ask you first of all what he
told you and then I am going to ask you what you saw on his
notes. That is the way I intended to do it. If Mr. Temple
then wishes to investigate any differences between the notes
and what you were told, that is a matter for him. Subject to
any ruling by my Lord, that was the approach I intended to
take. To go back, we have first of all the position that in
1985 he was prescribed --- A. February '85, Clopixol
intramuscularly, which means through the vein, 200 milli-
grammes each, two to three weeks.
Q. As far as what you were told, first of all can I ask you
this in the same context: did he keep and produce to you
copies of the prescriptions which he made? A. No, he never
did.
Q. I think you told us - and see if I summarise it correctly -
he did keep records which at first he was not prepared to
disclose to you nor photocopy, then he let you see them?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. You then saw his notes? A. That is right.
Q. What you are about to tell us is, you hope, an accurate
record of his notes? A. That is right.
Q. Before you do so I want to ask you about one matter and I
want to ask you this as neutrally as possible - I can tell my
learned friend in advance so he is not taken by surprise.
(Pause) No problem about that; I wanted to make sure my
learned friend was content. Did he tell you - did he show
you - before we go into the note, did he show you on the note
on 5th December 1985, something which appeared to read as "OK
12 Ins"? A. Yes.
Q. What did that mean to you as far as you were concerned?
A. Well, I took it to - I understood it to mean 12 insulin
injections. I was probably led to that conclusion because I
had already been instructed that insulin had been prescribed.
I pointed out to Dr. Sophocleous ---
MR. BECKMAN: I think we are now entering the - I am going to do
it this way --
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: What was the date? A. Fifth of
December '85.
MR. BECKMAN: So it read "OK 12 Ins". You then spoke to the
doctor on the lines of whatever you were told. Did he leave
the notes as they were or did he then attempt - or did he
amend them in your presence? A. Yes, he took a pen and put
a "B" in front of the "12", then the changed "Ins" - which is
a capital "I" and little "ns" to a capital "I dot" meaning -
capital "M", meaning intramuscularly.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: "Intramuscularly." That still means
injections? A. Yes, it then read "OK B12, I.M."
MR. BECKMAN: "B12 I.M" to you was what? A. B12 is a vitamin
which is prescribed - I'm not a doctor but it is
significantly different from insulin.
Q. He changed what might have been insulin to what might be a
vitamin. Now, let us go - and I think you have a note of
this - to your reading of his notes. I do not want to know
what happened on the times, but as far as dates are concerned
they might help. What was the date of the first appointment?
A. Tenth of June '85.
Q. The second appointment was when, the second date that you
have? A. On the second date, 25th November 1985.
Q. Is there then a reference to drugs on that date? A. Yes,
there are three drugs. The first is Redeptin and that is
again an IM injection, and then after it figures "20/11".
The second drug is Mutabon D and then Roman numeral "I
nocte", meaning by night.
Q. Presumably by night? A. Yes. The third drug is Melleril
retard(?) then Roman numeral "I 200 bd" - little "b dot"
little "d dot", meaning twice a day. Then ---
Q. Is there then another entry which has no date? A. Yes,
there is another entry with no date which is three drugs.
The first is Akineton, Roman numeral "I b.d." The second
drug is Effortil, Roman numeral "I" then it says "In a.m."
and the third drug is ---
Q. "In a.m." standing for ---? A. In the morning, I presume.
The third drug is Surelax and that is again Roman numeral "I
nocte".
Q. There was next an entry; was that for 28th November 1985?
A. Yes, that was Clopixol and it read Roman numeral "I
Clopixol 200".
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Have we had that before? A. That was
the one which he had told me about presumably.
MR. BECKMAN: That was when I was dealing with the oral as
opposed to the written. (To the witness): Was the next
entry 5th December 1988? A. Yes, that was.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Not 1988. A. Sorry, '85.
MR. BECKMAN: I am much obliged, my Lord.
THE WITNESS: The 5th December was one entry which was altered
and it reads "OK 12" I thought "Ins", and it was altered to
"B12 I.M."
MR. BECKMAN: You then have an entry with no date to it?
A. Yes, and that reads three drugs; in fact the first two
are numbered "1" and "2", and the first drug is Melleril
again and that was 200 milligrammes nocte. The second
drug ---
Q. That is the same amount as before, is it not? A. Yes,
well ---
Q. The same as 25th November. A. In fact that reads "200
twice a day" and this says "200 by night". I cannot comment.
The second drug, No. 2 is Mutabon. We had it earlier on 25th
November, Mutabon D and it says "nocte", and the third drug
is Stelazine and that says "2 milligrammes b.d.", 2 milli-
grammes twice a day.
Q. In so far as we are contrasting that date with the 25th,
Melleril and Mutabon appear earlier; at least one is Melleril
retard, and Mutabon appear on the 25th? A. That is right.
Q. Do you know, is Melleril and Melleril retard the same thing
or not? A. I don't think I can say.
Q. Then we have an entirely new one, Stelazine? A. Yes.
Q. The other question I would ask you is this: as far as you
can see from the notes, is there any apparent reason why
Melleril and Mutabon be numbered "1" and "2" and Stelazine
not being numbered? A. It would be impossible to say from
Dr. Sophocleous' notes.
Q. Can we come to 20th July. A. The drugs shown on 20th July
1985 ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: We are going back, are we? A. Yes,
that is right. I am reading from a transcription of notes
which were not in chronological order.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I wonder, Mr. Beckman, what value all
this has, because it is second-hand evidence, confused dates,
altered notes and it is nearly two years before the events
with which we are concerned.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, first of all, it is agreed to do it this
way, as your Lordship knows.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Agreement is one thing but what I think
is another, sometimes.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I am doubtful about this evidence, as
you know, but carry on. If we have to go back to July we
will.
MR. BECKMAN: May I say the defence case has been running on the
basis of matters which can be agreed with the prosecution
which they have the opportunity of assessing things most
efficiently. We can only do our best.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: All right, we will go back if you like.
(To the witness): You said 20th July? A. Yes, there are
three drugs then.
MR. BECKMAN: This may be important in case anything arises, the
confusion in the date there, that is the wrong order, does
that come from the way you took the notes or does that come
from the way the doctor set them out in his notes? A. The
way that the doctor set them out in his notes.
Q. So in other words, you are being accurate, you have not
retained his notes because they could be misleading? A. Yes.
Q. On 20th July what are the drugs referred to? A. Parstelin -
and no dosages are given for any of these three drugs. The
second drug is Lexotanil; the third drug is Redeptin.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: That is a new one, is it not?
A. Parstelin and Lexotanil are new, Redeptin we had on 25th
November.
MR. BECKMAN: The next date is 13th November 1985, is it not?
A. Yes, two drugs. The first one is Surrector 100
milligrammes Roman "I b.d." The second drug is Lexotanil 6
milligrammes "1/2", presumably half b.d., 6 milligrammes
nocte, and the third drug Priadel 400 milligrammes nocte.
Q. Was the next occasion 9th December 1985? A. Yes.
Q. Again do not tell us anything other than the drugs. What
were the drugs referred to on that day? A. Three drugs
I.M. Redeptin 2 ml. The next drug Stelazine.
Q. Presumably "2 ml" is 2 millilitres, a liquid? A. I cannot
say. Stelazine 2 milligrammes b.d. The next drug
Melleril, which we have had before, 200 milligrammes nocte.
Q. Then the next occasion is 16th December 1985; again only the
drugs. A. It reads: "Takes Valium, 5 milligrammes PRN".
Q. Presumably that would mean not that he has prescribed it but
Mr. Koupparis is taking it, but you do not know? A. I can
only assume, I don't know.
Q. Go on to the other items. A. Then it says: "18 day
Clopixol 100 milligrammes". Then it says: "7 days Redeptin
2 ml". Then it says: "Melleril 100 milligrammes nocte 7
days and Mutabon Roman numeral I nocte". Then it says:
"Clopixol 100 milligrammes nocte".
Q. Then the next occasion was 13th January 1986? A. That is
right.
Q. Again straight to the drugs which are ---? A. Parstelin
Roman numeral "II" and then blank and then Roman numeral "I".
The next drug Lexotanil 6th - I am sorry, that is right,
Lexotanil 6. The next drug Valium 5 milligrammes and "1/2"
and half and half, so that is milligrammes half and half.
Q. That would appear a reference to Valium as opposed to the
reference on 6th December. On the face of it, it would
appear one is referring to taking Valium without prescription
but here, on the face of it, it is with a prescription?
A. Certainly it would seem sensible.
Q. We move to 29th January? A. Yes.
Q. What is there referred to? A. Four Parstelin daily and
Lexotanil 6 one half nocte.
Q. Does that bring an end to the list as far as you have got it
from Dr. Sophocleous? A. Yes.
Q. In so far as there may be any different dates,
inconsistencies or anything, I take it that is nothing you
have done but what you have given is an accurate extraction
from the doctor's notes? A. Yes.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: That is the end of the notes, is it?
A. Yes.
MR. BECKMAN: An end of the notes as far as you were shown?
A. As far as I was shown them.
Q. Were you allowed to see his records otherwise? A. No.
Q. Have you been able to see them? A. No, I have ever seen
more than what I have just described.
Q. We know that you moved from Dr. Sophocleous to Dr. Evdokas.
Did you later see Dr. Evdokas? A. I saw Dr. Evdoka on 20th
February 1989.
Q. Is it "Evdoka" without an "s"? A. I think it depends. I
think when you are addressing him you call him "Evdoka". I
don't speak Greek but that is how he described himself.
Q. You took a statement from him in general terms in
anticipation of his coming here to be a witness but I only
want to deal with the prescriptions. A. Yes.
MR. BECKMAN: As far as that is concerned, I want to deal with
what you were told orally in relation to the drugs only
before I then go on to the written notes.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Did he give them orally and in his notes
also? A. His notes were in Greek; I couldn't read them. I
can read the drug names in Greek because I know the alphabet,
but he wasn't willing to let me see his notes either.
MR. BECKMAN: I want to deal with this - I do not want you to
tell us what his conclusions were from what he was told. Was
he fully aware of the drugs that had been taken previously?
A. Hm.
Q. Let us progress to your note. Did he have a precise
knowledge of what was prescribed? A. No, I don't think so,
I will just check. No, he didn't.
Q. Again just answer this "Yes" or "No", did he advise you -
perhaps if I speak to my learned friend we can agree this.
(Pause) I will ask you to answer this question "Yes" or
"No". Did he tell you about the availability or otherwise of
drugs over the counter in chemists' shops? A. Yes.
Q. Again "Yes" or "No", did he tell you what his prescription
habits were? A. Yes, he did.
Q. From that did you then go to his records? A. He read out
to me from his records.
Q. He read out his records to you? A. Yes.
Q. Did you have an opportunity of seeing them? A. I did see
them, but as I say, they were largely in Greek and from what
I could see - because I can understand the drug names written
and the oral account that he had given me was accurate.
Q. So far as the notes were concerned, did they seem to be - did
they look like good notes or not? A. They were a striking
contrast to Dr. Sophocleous. I thought they were proper
doctors' notes; his whole approach was a good deal more
professional.
Q. The first note was 12th August - I think you have 12th August
1986? A. Yes.
Q. What drugs prescribed then? A. Fluanxol 1 milligramme TDS,
which means three times a day. The next drug, Akineton
retard - when he read it out to me I understood it to be
Agineton but it is Akineton with a "k" - 4 milligrammes once
a day. The next drug, Lexotanil 6 milligrammes at night and
Rohipnol nocte.
Q. Is the next 19th August 1986? A. Yes, the next is
Stelazine on 19th August 1986, Stelazine 10 milligrammes
nocte. Then Akineton, one at night. Next Largactil 50
milligrammes nocte. The next Halcion 0.5 milligrammes nocte.
Q. Then the next occasion is 25th August 1986? A. That's
right. He said, "I added Ludiomil 75 milligrammes".
Q. So that would seem, then, that the drugs prescribed were
cumulative? A. Yes, he added two drugs on that date and
said that he removed Stelazine.
Q. Therefore, one assumes on the face of the notes that the
drugs being taken are cumulative and not different ones on
different occasions? A. No, unless he indicated he
continued to prescribe, yes, cumulative.
Q. What was the other one? A. Ludiomil and Navine 10
milligrammes, and he removed Stelazine, and that continued
until the next date, which is 15th September 1986, when he
added Anafranil 75 milligrammes, and he said he stopped
Ludiomil and the antidepressants - sorry, two antidepressants
at that time, so he stopped Ludiomil and added Anafranil on
that occasion.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Added Anafranil? A. Added Anafranil
and stopped Ludiomil.
MR. BECKMAN: You said "Two". A. My note says "Two anti-
depressants. That is me confirming with him that Koupparis
was then being prescribed two antidepressants.
Q. Next 25th September 1986. A. Yes, Navane.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Is that a previous one? A. Yes, we
had Navane the previous time.
Q. That was 25th August and I thought you said Nadine. A. No,
sorry, it is my consonants. Next Anafranil 100 milligrammes
nocte, and the third one Ludiomil 50 milligrammes, and the
next entry was 20th October '86, when he said he stopped
Ludiomil and prescribed Anafranil 100 milligrammes nocte,
Navane 10 milligrammes nocte and Akineton one half tab.
nocte.
MR. BECKMAN: The previous entry have you got Akineton retard,
29th September? A. Yes.
Q. There it refers to 10 milligrammes. A. Yes, that was a
continuing prescription. It wasn't only prescribed that day;
he had already prescribed it on ---
Q. Does that mean, as far as you can tell, that there are 20
milligrammes in a tablet or was there an increase or decrease
of dosage? Before we had 10 milligrammes then we had half a
tablet at night. A. Well ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Just pause one moment. The entry I
have for Akineton is 19th August 1986. A. Yes.
MR. BECKMAN: Forgive me, did you not give Akineton retard 19th
September? A. We have Akineton retard beginning on 12th
August 1986, 4 milligrammes once a day.
Q. Then Akineton retard on 19th August one tablet at night?
A. That is right.
Q. Do you have an entry for Akineton retard for 29th September?
A. In my notes it wasn't newly prescribed on that day, but
because it wasn't mentioned as having been stopped, one has
to assume he continued to prescribe it on that day in the
same amount.
Q. The same amount. Do you have in your note 10th September,
10 milligrammes or not? A. No.
Q. In that case, would you please ignore my previous question
because I have been misled by a typing error on this
document: 20th December 1986? A. On 20th December '86,
Anafranil 75 milligrammes, Ludiomil 50 milligrammes and a new
drug Xanax 0.5 milligrammes, two or three per day, and the
last prescribing entry he had was on 2nd January 1987, when
it was Anafranil 100 milligrammes at night, stopped Ludiomil
and a new drug, Vivalan 50 milligrammes three in a.m. - three
in the morning two at noon, total 250 milligrammes. That was
the last prescribing entry.
Q. I believe - tell me if I have got - do you - apart from your
notes from the doctors, do you have any other prescription or
document as well, or list you have received referring to
drugs? A. From Dr. Evdoka?
Q. From Dr. Sophocleous or Dr. Evdoka. A. I do.
Q. Just tell us if you have. A. Yes, I did.
Q. You do have them so if they are required to be seen by
anybody they can? A. Yes.
Q. Did you then also see Mr. Georgiades, who was in fact a
pharmacist? A. Yes.
Q. First of all, was he able to find all his prescriptions?
A. No, he found some, not all.
Q. Was he able to tell you, at least in general terms, of the
number of items prescribed? A. Yes.
Q. Again answer this "Yes" or "No", did he tell you what his
reaction was to the drugs being prescribed during the period?
A. He thought it was too much for one ---
Q. No. A. Yes, he was.
Q. Would your Lordship allow me a moment? (Pause) (To the
witness): Did you get some documents from the chemist which
indicated some of the drugs prescribed? A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were any of these drugs in addition to the drugs that you
had already seen or been referred to by the previous doctors?
A. I am sorry, I will have to check.
MR. BECKMAN: If I can help you, I do not think, unless I
misread ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Those are prescribed or bought? They
are prescribed, are they? A. The document which the
pharmacist gave me are, as far as I know, original
prescriptions.
Q. From which doctor? A. Dr. Evdoka.
Q. Only him? A. Yes.
MR. BECKMAN: I do not think I need to take that any further.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Was there any mention on that list of
Valium? A. Not on the three prescriptions which I have.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord - (pause). May I deal with that list?
(Pause) (To the witness): Just to assist my Lord on the
last matter, is it right to say this: some drugs, unlike
here, you can get in Cyprus without a prescription?
A. Certainly that is what I was told by everybody that I
asked and certainly Valium would be amongst those.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I had no doubt. All that I wanted to
know was whether it was on prescription.
MR. BECKMAN: Can I ask this so there will be no - the
prescriptions you had, as you told us earlier, are a limited
number and they are not comprehensive; they are odd bits he
was able to find? A. I don't think that is correct.
There is no compulsion on a pharmacist to keep any records,
as far as I am aware, in Cyprus.
MR. TEMPLE: I have no cross-examination of this witness.
(The witness withdrew)
Index | Previous | Next