Ref: A00-300995 Case No. 871626 Macpherson II
Volume XI, Pages 70-77, Thursday, 29th June, 1989
(In the presence of the jury)
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, so far as the live evidence is concerned,
that completes the defence case, but there are certain
admissions which have been agreed between the Crown and the
defence.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Are they written out?
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, what we propose to do is they are written
out by hand. We finalise everything today. What we proposed
to do was to write them out and then a typed copy will be
before your Lordship in the morning.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, you have a good
deal in this case already but the last part of the evidence
is going to be admissions. You will see how far they take us
when we hear them. Do not worry if you do not take them in
today because you will have them in writing tomorrow. The
system allows this to be done now so as to avoid calling yet
further witnesses.
MR. BECKMAN: May I ask my learned junior, who has not been heard
of in the case before, have the opportunity of reading that?
MR. HAMBLIN: May it please your Lordship, members of the jury,
the admissions made in the case for your consideration are as
follows: No. 1, that one of the items that was photocopied
in the presence of the witness Tina Moore was an Amstrad
computer magazine.
The second admission is in three parts: as far as (a)
that the witness Chief Inspector Christophides had obtained
information from Cyprus that the defendant's grandfather was
called Koupparis but that villagers called him Cambanella [sic] as
a pseudonym; (b) that he can further state that a number of
relatives of the defendant had given statements under oath
concerned on this matter, giving their second name as
Cambanella [sic]; (c) Mr. Christophides is unable to say whether
Mr. Koupparis has ever used the name Cambanella [sic].
The third admission is as follows: if the payment of
US $15 million were to be made as set out in the demand
document - that is to say, one third denominations of $100,
$500 and $200 bills - the total weight of the money would be
28 kilogrammes, but if the payment of US $15 million were to
be made entirely of $50, the total weight of the money would
be 100 kilogrammes.
The fourth and final admission is this: that $200 bills
US currency have never been printed and have never been in
circulation, and that US $500 bills have not been printed
since 1968 and are withdrawn once they are discovered, but
otherwise remained and do remain valid currency.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, there is another matter and that is the
statement of Mr. Agisilaou who gave evidence on the last
occasion, but it has been agreed his statement can be read.
(The statement of Mr. Agisilaou was read)
MR. BECKMAN: One final matter is that there is a matter of law
to be discussed before I close my case. Before I deal with
that, there are some additional transcripts and tapes which
are agreed. These can be given to the jury so far as they
would be relevant to other considerations. I do not ask for
them to be read now.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: If they are part of the evidence,
otherwise they should not go before the jury.
MR. BECKMAN: They are agreed as part of the evidence.
MR TEMPLE: Yes, my Lord, obviously ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Are they ones we have heard again?
MR. TEMPLE: Some of them add a little bit to the summaries.
My Lord, the position was, as the Court knows, originally it
was hoped the summaries would be sufficient, but obviously I
accept the position; Mr. Beckman wants additional matters to
supplement the original.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I wonder whether I ought not check to
see which part the jury has.
MR. BECKMAN: One of them in particular is 89. We heard that,
we did not have a transcript.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: They can go before the jury.
MR. BECKMAN: The last matter is a matter of law as to
admissibility.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, these will be
given to you now. If you leave them in your places, I will
check what you have so that we know we have the same. I do
not suppose a great deal of it will ever be referred to
again, but I want to make sure that we have the same
documents. (Handed to the jury)
MR. HAMBLIN: My Lord, there is one other point which has been
agreed between the defence and prosecution. It is an agreed
summary of conversations between Mr. Koupparis and/or
Cambanella [sic] and Mr. Panayides, the High Commissioner. It has
not been heard in evidence. The position is this: having
discussed the matter with the Crown and as a result of
investigations and transcripts having been made available, it
has been able to be agreed between the prosecution ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: It is going to be referred to; by whom
and when?
MR. HAMBLIN: It arises this way: that from the evidence of
Mr. Panayides, he referred to the fact that there was a
telephone conversation.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: What I asked was who was going to refer
to it.
MR. HAMBLIN: It will be referred to in the closing of the case.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: All right, the jury can have that also.
MR. HAMBLIN: I am obliged.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Mr. Temple, will you agree tomorrow what
bundle of documents should be given and the sense to which
they have a bearing? It is important that this should be
done.
(The jury left the court)
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, my application - your Lordship will recall
the other day when your Lordship ruled that (inaudible) could
not go in on the application of my learned friend on
rebuttal, I said effectively I was prepared to agree to
Iacovou going in. The prosecution are not prepared to allow
that to go in on its own and my application is the same as
that made by the prosecution except I am not trying to adduce
it as rebuttal evidence. What I want to go in is the
statement of Iacovou, but also the original statement of
Mavrellis. The reason is the prosecution case has been
effectively, not in so many words but the clearest
insinuation, and it goes to a fair amount of matters of
integrity of the case ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I am sorry, I missed the second
statement.
MR. BECKMAN: Mr. Mavrellis.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: He gave evidence.
MR. BECKMAN: He gave evidence but at that stage the relevance of
the matters in his statement did not arise because at that
stage my client had not been cross-examined and said, "I
spoke to Iacovou and two other ministers", and so the
importance there - what happened then was the prosecution was
suggesting that Mr. Koupparis was lying, that it was vital to
the prosecution case on the basis that he clearly - that this
was totally untrue, that he knew that the document had not
arrived and this clearly went to the question of his intent.
As a result of that they produced, amongst other things, a
statement of Georgio [sic] Iacovou under the Act previously
canvassed, and indeed he said this in order to justify his
evidence - if your Lordship has that statement -
"I never conversed with him" -
that is relating to Koupparis -
"neither did I converse about anything with
any person about any (inaudible). As I have
not yet conversed with anyone, it would not
have been possible for me to disclose or
suggest (inaudible) to believe or give to
understand to Mr. Koupparis or anyone that
the original demand document had been received
at the office of the then President of the
Cyprus Democracy, Mr. Spririou [sic] Kyriaki [sic]."
That, as your Lordship knows, was asked for by way of
rebuttal evidence. Your Lordship refused to allow it in.
If one looks at Mr. Mavrellis's statement he says this
at page 2:
"Following that I called the President's
residence and I was told the President was
resting. I then contacted the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Mr. G. Iacovou. I briefed
him on the conversation and asked him whether
he had any idea about the alleged threats.
Mr. Iacovou informed me he was aware of the
matter and advised me (inaudible) and asked
me to place my telephone line under
surveillance so as to be able to locate the
place he was calling from."
That is totally inconsistent with the statement of
Mr. Iacovou. It means effectively, one would assume, one or
the other is, to put it just mildly, a little bit economical
with the truth, and on the face of it it would seem to be
Mr. Iacovou, who therefore was prepared to give evidence at
this stage to the jury, evidence that he knew would support
the possibility that they might convict the defendant. It
goes to, as my learned friend put it succinctly, important
issues in the case, it is our respectful submission.
Your Lordship may well at this stage have properly taken
the view there was prima facie evidence he had lied: on the
contrary, there is prima facie evidence there was an attempt
to deceive the jury so far as he was concerned on a matter
which the prosecution said to be important. In those
circumstances I would make an application that both these
statements should be allowed to go before the jury.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: This is an extraordinary application
which I refuse. Mr. Beckman seeks to put in the statement
of Mr. Iacovou and part of the statement of Mr. Mavrellis,
who has already given evidence. The origin of the Iacovou
statement was an application by Mr. Temple to put in that
evidence in rebuttal. That application was to be opposed.
I rejected the application and was told that the evidence of
Mr. Iacovou might go in by agreement. Mr. Beckman now seeks
to put it in together with this additional part of
Mr. Mavrellis's statement in order to deal with part of the
evidence of his own client. I shall deal with that evidence
of his own client in a way which is not unfavourable to
Mr. Koupparis when I sum up this case. I repeat, this is an
extraordinary application and it is refused.
MR. BECKMAN: I am much obliged your Lordship makes the last
comment because it would be a matter I would be canvassing in
my speech to the jury. I do not know whether your Lordship
requires any assistance?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I have decided I will not take that
risk; I shall deal with the law myself.
MR. BECKMAN: May I say we will leave it on the basis my learned
friend, between us, agreed what matters we could properly
canvass in our speeches.
(The trial was adjourned until the following day)
Index | Previous | Next