Ref: A00-300995 Case No. 871626 Macpherson II
Volume XII, Pages 3-41, Monday 3rd July, 1989
(In the presence of the jury)
SUMMING-UP
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, it seems likely to
me that none of you thought, when you came here for jury
service and were sworn in a long time ago now - on 8th June -
that you would try a case like this one or that you would
see, amongst others, the Cyprus High Commissioner, the former
Minister of Finance for Cyprus, the head of the Chemical
Defence Establishment at Porton Down, a clutch of professors
and a batch of distinguished doctors: all this in connection
with these two charges (separate but intertwined) against
Panos Koupparis, this ordinary English-born man with Greek
Cypriot origins.
He tells you that he is not responsible for what he did
in the early months of 1987, and what he actually did was,
according to different explanations given at various times, a
hoax, a piece of literature (as he said in evidence in the
magistrates' court) or an intelligence test for the Cyprus
Government administered during, and as a result of, drug
induced delusions, as he told you. He says he is guilty
of no crime at all and he should be found not guilty of
blackmail and not guilty of attempting to obtain money by
deception.
The Crown says that the aspect of this case which has
to be rejected is the defence to both charges. The Crown
says that it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that on
7th April 1987, Panos Koupparis made a criminal and
unwarranted demand for money with a view to gain for himself,
and that he made that demand here in England by the delivery
of the second set of demand documents to the Cyprus High
Commissioner, sent by the motor cycle courier, Mr. Tuffin.
This supported the demand with menaces or threats set out in
those 15 pages, - pages 3 to 18 of your bundles - with which
you have now become so familiar.
Secondly, the Crown says that on 14th May 1987, and on
the preceding days, Panos Koupparis, proved beyond any
reasonable doubt, attempted dishonestly to obtain £25,000 by
deception, by falsely representing that his name was Symeon [sic]
Cambanellos [sic] and that when he spoke on the telephone to the
Cyprus authorities he held a genuine intention to assist the
government to detect the poison injection generators.
It is plain to me that through these difficult and
interrupted days or weeks, you have listened with the
greatest care and patience to the evidence, including (and
perhaps central) that of Mr. Koupparis himself. He chose to
give evidence and so what he said is part of the patchwork or
raw material of the case, and a very important part of it.
Soon it will be for you to resolve whether this man is guilty
or not guilty of these two charges and you will act, of
course, only upon the evidence and your view of it.
I shall sum up the evidence as I address you in so far
as I feel it is necessary, and I put the matter thus on
purpose because as the case has developed it seems to me that
by far the greater bulk of the facts in the case are accepted
by both sides as being true or proved. Therefore, there are
large parts of the evidence to which I shall not refer you
at all. Furthermore, Mr. Beckman in particular has read to
you considerable extracts from the witnesses upon whose
evidence he relies, so that you have the advantage of having
heard that evidence twice over.
If I do not mention part of the evidence which seems
powerful and persuasive to you, then please give that
evidence the weight you feel it deserves. If I stress any
evidence or any aspect of the case and you disagree with my
stress, then ignore it. My object is to tell you what law
and principles to apply and to sum up the evidence, and
although I must take some time over it, I will try to be as
brief as I can.
Your task - and it is your task alone - will be to
decide the case, and you can take into account all the
arguments put forward here if you think that they have
validity, and act justly, as I know you will, not being
deflected too much by the opinions or higher reaches of
advocacy which you heard, but looking at the case as a whole
and with a cold appraisal and good common sense, assessing
both the evidence and the argument put forward. Your task is
to reach your conclusions as to this man's guilt or innocence
in accordance with the principles upon which I will direct
you. The lawyers have now stopped expounding the facts and
dealing with their arguments and the time for decision by
yourselves will soon come.
The decision is whether this man is proved to be guilty
of one or other or both of these offences. Do not spend too
much time on small individual points. There may, of course,
be different views on parts of the evidence in various
departments. In the end the decision is one made
individually by each of you overall as to this man's guilt or
innocence, so that you reach your collective and unanimous
verdicts. As I shall tell you at the end, that is what you
must seek to do when you reach your conclusions.
Remember always that the Crown has to prove its case
upon this just as upon any criminal charge. We say that the
burden of proof lies upon the Crown. Every man in this
country is innocent until he is proved to be guilty, whether
a charge of speeding in the magistrates' court or murder in
the Old Bailey. Therefore, rightly and invariably, the
position is on these two charges that the Crown must prove
its case.
The standard of proof to be achieved is a high one.
Again, the rule is the same in this as in any criminal case
in this country. Before you can find Panos Koupparis guilty
you must be sure that he is proved upon the evidence to be
guilty. Nothing less than that will do. If you are not sure
of his guilt acquit him. If, on the other hand, you are sure
that he is guilty, then it is your duty to say so, regardless
of the consequences to him, which would be solely for me to
deal with by way of sentence. No sympathy for him or his
family, of which you saw several members, must move you, nor
must you be moved by the fact that, for example, this trial
has been long delayed and he has been in custody. That
would, of course, be taken into account should he be
sentenced by me. It is irrelevant for the purpose of your
consideration of the facts. No mention of possible
sentences should have been made and you will realise that
such matters are not relevant at this stage.
Whenever I say, "It must be proved", or, "You must be
satisfied", or, "The Crown must prove", or whenever I use any
similar expression, remember where the burden of proof lies
and the standard that must be achieved.
One word about character: this man has a minor
conviction for dishonesty. My firm advice would be that the
fair way to look upon that would be really to ignore it.
Judging, as you do, other offences purely as they are, treat
him as effectively of good character. You may look at his
evidence and at him as you look at all the others involved.
He, like all the witnesses, can say that his character in the
past is good and that should be taken into account in his
favour when you consider whether he is to be believed in what
he tells you.
What then are the charges? Each offence and its
ingredients are in fact usefully set out with clarity in the
indictment, but I must expand upon that document which you
have, and to which you can refer later with confidence, as a
document setting out the ingredients of the crimes.
Just before turning to recall the definitions and other
topics, I must tell you that these charges must be considered
separately. Each depends upon evidence which comes from the
same witnesses sometimes or the same source, but each is
legally independent of the other and requires separate
consideration and a separate verdict. Because he is guilty
of one he is not necessarily guilty of the other, and vice
versa. We have really heard very little of Count 2; mostly
the focus has been on Count 1. Later I will deal with Count
2 separately. Because I concentrate largely on Count 1, do
not let Count 2 and its very simple framework escape your
mind. I am sure that you will not.
Blackmail is the first count where the law says that a
person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for
himself, he makes an unwarranted demand with menaces. For
this purpose the law goes on to say that a demand with
menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in
the belief that he has reasonable grounds for making the
demand and that the use of the menaces is a proper means of
reinforcing the demand. There is no question or allegation
here that Mr. Koupparis says or thinks that he had reasonable
grounds for making the demand or that the use of menaces was
a proper means of reinforcing the demand. Therefore, the
question is, is it proved for sure that Mr. Koupparis, with
a view to gain for himself, made the unwarranted demand with
menaces in question?
Dishonesty strictly arises in connection with this count
because, of course, blackmail may be motivated by many
things. The question to consider is, is it proved that
Mr. Koupparis acted contrary to the law and committed this
offence of blackmail, which is of course prohibited by the
law? It is right that a man who makes an unwarranted demand
for money and makes threats is in general terms not a good
and honest citizen, but that is the extent to which
dishonesty comes into Count 1.
Let us then look at the case as it is put before you.
It seems to me that it is quite obvious that, on the face of
the documents, a demand for money was being made. Also it
is quite obvious that menaces or threats were made, on the
face of the documents, to back up the demand and there was no
warrant to make such demands. Again, on the face of the
documents, the whole thing was being done with a view to gain
for Mr. Koupparis. You will note, of course, my stress on
the words, "On the face of the documents" in what I have just
said. Therefore, the questions are whether you are sure
that what appears on the face of the documents was the true
position and is proved so to be by the Crown, and whether you
are sure that this man's mind, abnormal though it was, went
with his actions so that he was responsible for what he did.
In essence, what he says in respect of the various
ingredients of that offence is first, that this copy of the
documents was no true or real or actual demand at all.
Furthermore, he says that because any expert or indeed good
amateur investigation would readily show that the menaces or
threats were not feasible, thus, there were no real menaces
or threats at all. He says that the whole was a hoax or
intelligence test and the product of a deluded mind, so that
there was no blackmail, and he never believed a penny would
be paid to him. Perhaps most important, he says his mind
did not truly go with his actions and that his responsibility
for his actions is thus not made out. Those are all matters
for you to consider and resolve.
Really the position is if, at the end of the day,
Mr. Koupparis's explanation, evidence and assertions are or
may be true, why then, the defence say, there is nothing
criminal in these documents at all and they are just paper
with words on. The defence say that the case is not proved
and, in particular, that Mr. Koupparis should not be held to
be responsible for what he did.
If you reject what he says, you must still consider
whether these documents might influence or make apprehensive
the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability and
courage so as to accede unwillingly to the demand made. You
must, in any event, consider what effect these documents
might have on the mind of an ordinary, reasonable man,
because if such a person simply could not be disturbed or be
made apprehensive by them, then no true menace or threat can
be said to exist, but if the documents are shown in that way
to contain a menace or threat which might make an ordinary,
reasonable man apprehensive, then you must decide whether it
is proved here and for sure that the demand with menaces was
truly made and surely made and intentionally made with a view
to gain by Panos Koupparis, in whatever name or guise he
actually made it.
I end that part of my directions with those words and
the reference to the identities assumed by Mr. Koupparis
because it is important to note that you cannot, of course,
call yourself by another name or assume another identity and
hope thus to escape the consequences of your actions.
Again, this impinges on the medical issue, to which I shall
soon turn. The man in that skin is Panos Koupparis and, all
things being equal, he is responsible for Captain Nemo's
actions and for Colonel Digsby's actions, just as much as the
good Dr. Jekyll - about whom some of you I am sure will have
read - would have had to bear responsibilty [sic] for the deeds of
the bad Mr. Hyde, provided that you are sure that he knew and
appreciated what he was doing and that it was contrary to the
law, and provided that he could and did form the intention to
do what he did.
I propose at once to deal with the scientific and
medical aspects of this case and I feel that you may be
interested in what I have to say about those topics in
particular which have loomed so large here. The scientific
evidence consisted of the evidence of Dr. Pearson from Porton
Down for the Crown, who covered the scientific side, and
Dr. Witherson [sic], on the chemical side, and Professor Stewart
from, I think, Southampton, on the electronic side for the
defence. There is no doubt that upon a scientific view and
upon examination by people of perhaps even less great
expertise than these, that the chemical and electronic sides
of these documents are now known not to be feasible and
impracticable and could never have been put into production
and operation.
As to the chemical side, you will probably remember the
evidence and cross-examination of Dr. Pearson. Repeatedly
he was asked about the electronic side and told you he could
not deal with that. As to the chemical side, he told you
again, and repeatedly, that his first general reaction was
that the documents appeared to offer a feasible means of
disseminating diverse chemicals, but that after examination
he and his team - for he did not do it alone - felt that it
no longer held up to that scrutiny. Some mustard gas could
have been produced from some of the products listed on page
17, but plainly, as a practical proposition, Dr. Pearson was
no more in the end asserting that chemical reality or
viability of Captain Nemo's scheme than was Dr Witherson [sic].
Dr. Witherson's [sic] evidence was stronger in its content
than Dr. Pearson's, and you will recall he said his
disagreement with Dr. Pearson, about which I asked him, was
particularly with regard to the amount of gas which was
produced and the scale which would be necessary, both in the
way of materials and expenditure of money, in order to
achieve any success at all. Dr. Witherson [sic] said that there
was superficial credibility in the document but when you
look at the detail it starts drifting off from credibility.
That is the line the scientists take, that it could not have
been done and only a tiny total of mustard gas could have
been produced. Any attempt to implement the scheme would
require a vast amount of equipment and would cost $10 million
to $100 million - a wide band on the financial side, you may
think, from a cautious scientist.
On the other hand, two things must be recalled and
repeated, say the Crown. Both Dr. Pearson and Dr. Witherson [sic]
said you could not say there was no threat at all set out in
the documents. "I think", said Dr. Witherson [sic], "that you
could not say there is no threat and you would have to take
it seriously, but not to the whole of Cyprus. In analysis I
would say you could ignore it and get on with it" - meaning,
I suppose, get on with life.
Perhaps, more important, since his was the only report
in existence at the date of delivery of the documents to the
High Commissioner on 7th April, Dr. Pearson said this: "I
had to tell the authorities at once whether it was practical
or rubbish. We could not guarantee that it was a load of
rubbish. There was enough credibility for that. The
superficial view was that it could be real but it did, after
examination, lack credibility. We did not advise that there
was no danger here; we said that it should be unlikely that
the threat was real, but we could not say that there was no
threat."
As to the electronics, you heard Professor Stewart.
"On the face of it", he said, "it was an attempt to convince
the reader of its veracity and it invites the recipient to
receive expert assistance." He referred in detail to the
jumble of real and wholly inapt terms of expression and
provisions which you will recall. "These terms and
descriptions might be confusing", he said, "to somebody not
using the terms regularly. I described the technical
descriptions as an intensive product from the technical point
of view. The document has possibilities in it but there are
a wealth of practical difficulties. The thing is not
feasible from the aspect of the list" - that is page 16.
"If asked by the government if it was a genuine threat or a
hoax, after I had studied it carefully and in some depth, I
came to the conclusion it was a hoax. It has very little
depth. Some terms are in the right place but it is over the
top; it is close to an April Fool's joke."
In cross-examination he gave the same conclusion.
"Initially it has a superficial air of being feasible. The
initial interpretation could be that it was feasible but
there is no depth to it. I would have said that the
document gave the strong impression of a hoax and I would
advise to find out who did it." All this of course refers
particularly to Count 1 and you must bear in mind all that
evidence when considering if the charge is proved, and upon
the question particularly of whether or not the demand or
threats were by an ordinary, reasonable man.
The point is however, and I direct you that when you
consider whether this was a real and true demand for money
with menaces, you must look at the whole picture. Remember
of course the scientists' evidence in its detail and in its
conclusions. Does it support the suggestion that the whole
thing was obviously and clearly and plainly not to be taken
seriously by those who saw it? Alternatively, does the
scientific evidence itself bear out the Crown's argument, as
Mr. Temple says that it does, namely that an ordinary,
reasonable, sensible person would take the matter seriously
and would feel menaced, at least until he was definitely told
not to worry?
Those involved were not chemical or electronics experts
or even, so far as we know, amateurs in those fields. They
were, for example, a minister for Cyprus, Mr. Mavrellis, who
you heard; others, including apparently the President, who
read the document through in Cyprus, and most particularly
for this case - which concerns the English delivery of the
second set of documents - the High Commissioner for Cyprus,
Mr. Panayides. I feel that you will perhaps especially
recall him and his evidence, both about the receipt of the
documents on 7th April 1987, and about his own part played in
the ultimate visit of Mr. Koupparis in the person or name of
Symeon [sic] Cambanellos [sic] on 14th May 1987, when the High
Commissioner handed over the envelope which, to all intents
and purposes, contained £25,000 in £10 notes.
Mr. Panayides spoke to Mr. Koupparis on the telephone
after the document had been copied and photographed, and
particularly in the case of the copy or fake telex, page 3,
produced at the Moore Printcraft premises in South London.
They were sent to the High Commissioner and on 7th April he
accepted delivery of them. "On the telephone the caller had
told me", said the High Commissioner, "he was going to send a
letter to the President. He said it was a copy of the
letter delivered beforehand in Cyprus. The letter was
coming via a courier. It came and a policeman opened the
letter. I had not seen the documentation before."
In cross-examination on this point Mr. Panayides said he
was told by the caller he was going to receive a copy of a
threatening letter which had been sent from Cyprus. This
was part of a pretence, of course, emanating from Cyprus,
because in fact the document had been received and the
authorities were pretending that it had not been received.
You will recall that the High Commissioenr [sic] told you that he
and others deduced that Digsby and Cambanellos [sic] were all the
same person. They (that is the authorities) wanted to find
out who he was and to tie the man in with the blackmail in
Cyprus. "We wanted to find out and we were all exhausted
and we wanted this suffering to be over. We were surrounded
by police and we were trying to help so that this is over,
because it was like a nightmare. For quite a number of
weeks we have been getting inhuman treatment being under
threat."
Those were his words in cross-examination by Mr. Beckman
and, of course, he told you that later, on 14th May, it was
he who saw the real Koupparis in his role as Cambanellos [sic],
wearing his one glove and I think also his hat and dark
glasses, and that he left with the brown envelope after he
had opened it, checked the contents and packed in two
separate bags the bundles of notes. That the High
Commissioner did alone and, you may think, with some courage.
He is plainly a fearless man, but what effect did the London
set of documents in fact have upon him? It is for you to
bear in mind what he said. An important witness when you
look at the whole of this blackmail count and decide whether
this was surely and truly and genuinely a repeat of the first
demand made with menaces and with a view to gain for
Mr. Koupparis, or whether it is obviously and plainly nothing
of the kind, simply a hoax or April Fool, or a copy of the
intelligence test set by Mr. Koupparis in his deluded state.
I mention one matter before looking at the medical
evidence. All these documents could not be a second demand
but were simply copies arranged simply as part of the plan to
arrest Mr. Koupparis. Since the second set of documents
were copies of the first set, the suggestion was that there
was no basis in law for a prosecution here in any event. I
rule that in law that was wrong; that the delivery of the
second set of documents, accompanied particularly by page 3,
the artificial or copy telex, could amount in law to a fresh
demand with menaces made in England.
Mr. Beckman argued before you, as he is fully entitled
to do, that that delivery was not in fact a second and fresh
demand at all but simply a sending of copies, so that no
crime could be committed here by sending them. You can
consider that point of course, and it is a matter for you to
consider, but my advice to you would be that perhaps that
point is not the best one raised by the defence. Given that
Mr. Koupparis, alias Nemo, alias Digsby, was unsure that the
documents had arrived, why should an English delivery to the
High Commissioner not be a second fresh demand?
Mr. Koupparis says that he knew from others (namely
Mr. Iacovou and two others) that the documents had been
received, but the main actors on the Cyprus side, from the
President through to the High Commissioner, were saying that
they had not been received. It is certainly open to you to
say that the sending of the second set was a demand, subject
of course to the other matters raised by the defence. It is
entirely a matter for you.
Now the medical side. This of course occupied much of
our time; it is for you to decide to what effect. First,
there is very little doubt that Panos Koupparis is an odd
man. Nobody hearing him could reach any other conclusion.
His family say he is now his old self. You have seen him
and soon I will remind you of what he said to you. It is for
you to judge him, particularly in this case bearing in mind
all that has been said of him and taking into account both
the tone of his evidence and his demeanour. There is no
doubt that by the important days of March to May 1987, he was
abnormal. Dr. Carne, a general practitioner, and
Dr. D'Orban, a psychiatrist called by the Crown, both say
that he was in 1987 suffering from hypomania. Both of these
doctors have seen and examined Mr. Koupparis. Dr. Carne
actually saw him on 15th May 1987, the day after his arrest.
To Dr. Carne Mr. Koupparis said he was dependant on
nicotine. He had something wrong with his face and one eye.
He said he was suffering from withdrawal from Zanox [sic], a
tranquillising drug. He mentioned no other drugs. He was
in a very elated mood. "Hypomania", said Dr. Carne, "is a
reverse condition from depressed. Somebody in a state of
hypomania believes himself to be capable of doing remarkable
things. Mania is at the top of the register; hypomania is
the next stage down and not as florid as that. I gave him no
treatment."
In cross-examination he readily accepted that he could
not exclude the conclusion that Mr. Koupparis's condition
could have been caused by drugs about which he had not been
told. "What Mr. Koupparis said could have been unreliable",
said Dr. Carne, "but my preference was for endogenous
hypomania, which means a condition coming from within the man
himself. Not drug induced hypomania but an illness of the
mind. He was exaggerated in his behaviour. He took charge
of the situation and his attitude was typical of hypomania."
Dr. D'Orban was of the same view. He saw Mr. Koupparis
for two hours. He was examining him primarily to see if
Mr. Koupparis was fit to plead and stand trial. Fortunately,
there is no question that he was and is thus fit and no
question of insanity in legal terms arises in this case at
all. Fortunately that is so, but Dr. D'Orban concluded
that at the time of this alleged offence Mr. Koupparis was
probably suffering from an illness, namely hypomania. "This
is primarily a mental state of disturbance of mood", he told
you, "in the direction of elation, excitement, excessive
well-being, energy, sometimes delusional ideas - mostly
grandiose ones, that the person is famous and has performed
great feats."
As to Mr. Koupparis's state of mind in April and May
1987, Dr. D'Orban said he felt Mr. Koupparis's judgment [sic] would
be quite severely impaired because of his mood changes. "He
would know the nature and quality of his acts. He would know
right from wrong. His symptoms would be one of exaggeration
of personal traits." The Crown of course ask you
particularly to note that opinion.
In cross-examination he said this: "I think if he
stopped to consider them, he would realise the consequences
of his acts but he might not stop to do so. He would not try
to control himself." Then the doctor was asked many
questions about drugs and about the possible effect of the
mixtures of drugs which were reported to have been prescribed
in Cyprus. Dr. D'Orban readily accepted whether the
condition of Mr. Koupparis was drug related or purely an
illness of hypomania, Mr. Koupparis's judgment [sic] would have
been affected. "He would not have stopped to consider in a
cool and calm fashion what he was doing or its consequences.
His abnormal moods could have led him into a state of
fantasy. He would, however, be capable of knowing what he
was doing. I think he did know what he was doing. He was
creating a double identity but he would be capable of
realising he was not two people. Hypomania or a drug
induced condition of similar characteristics could cause him
to have a mad sense of humour and be a joker. He might
consider something funny even though others might not
consider it funny at all."
For the defence the evidence is different. Two
doctors, Dr. Beard and the lady, Dr. Ashworth, told you that
they saw Mr. Koupparis back in May 1981. He said he had
been having many disturbing symptoms at night, but both
doctors said that they found really nothing wrong at all.
They at first prescribed a sleeping pill. Dr. Ashworth's
opinion was that Mr. Koupparis was under pressure at work.
None of the test showed any mental problem at all.
In cross-examination Dr. Beard made comments upon the
demand, which you will recall, and it did seem to me that
part of his evidence was of doubtful value, not on any lack
of medical expertise, but simply because it is really for you
to judge the documents. I ruled that Dr. Ashworth in her
turn should not follow that line. The two doctors therefore
effectively deal with May 1981, and certainly they show no
abnormality at all at that time.
Then you heard Professor West, a retired professor, a
psychiatrist of much experience who has seen the relevant
documents in the case and also the reports of Dr. Bowden and
Dr. Ashton. He concludes that Mr. Koupparis suffered from
hypomania on all that he has seen and read. "Publications",
he told you, "are in favour of the condition having been
induced by drugs. Hypomania leads to mood changes towards
elation and excitement and over-activity. Persons suffering
from it may behave recklessly to themselves and others, in a
way which they would not normally behave.
In cross-examination he agreed that if, for example,
Mr. Koupparis were asked if the documents were a blackmail
demand he would probably have said, "Yes". "I certainly
think that he would have understood the literal meaning of
what he was saying and that it amounted to a threat, but I do
not think he would have done it - that is to say, done what
he did - in a normal condition."
You also heard from the lady, Dr. Ashton from Newcastle.
She specialises in drugs and their effects. She was asked a
number of things as to whether Mr. Koupparis's mental state
was or would have been caused or aggravated by the drugs
which he was prescribed. She gave you a comprehensive tour
through the list of drugs which Mr. Koupparis told you had
been prescribed and taken, and the fact is perfectly plain
that if he took all that the two Cyprus doctors said that he
should, particularly in varying combinations, "You would",
said Dr. Ashton, "confuse the brain because excessive doses
and combinations would have that effect. The other effect
of these drugs or withdrawal from them, particularly a sudden
reduction, could cause a delusional state.
"I believe that in March and April 1987, those drugs
could have pushed him into the hypomanic state that he was in
and into a fantasy world. Very possibly he would not be
able to distinguish fact from fiction. He would be highly
likely to be confused and not able to distinguish reality
from fantasy. His brain would not be functioning as a
rational person. From time to time he would be operating in
a rational manner, but his judgment [sic] would be one of the first
things to go."
"In cross-examination she admitted that her opinion was
based on what she had been told and from the case papers.
She had not heard the telephone tapes but she knew the case
covered a period of six weeks. She repeated her assertion,
which I am sure you will accept, that if Mr. Koupparis took
all those drugs in various combinations he would, for that
reason, be likely to be hypomanic. "His brain could be
confused. His contact with reality is less. That is a sign
of confusion. I have seen people", she said, "who are living
in a very vivid fantasy world, but the thing missing is
contact with the environment."
Mr. Temple then sketched out the scenario of this case
and Dr. Ashton said that her view was consistent with that
picture. "He was living parts in his mind as if he were
writing a story in a book. Of course, he is not in fact
writing a story, he is thinking but not necessarily relating
to real life." The demand documents, she thought, are
representative but the message is certainly clear. "It is
most beautifully constructed but the real consequences of it
may be confused. If I got the documents", she said, "I would
immediately think that the person who made them was not
normal."
When she was re-examined she repeated her belief that
the documents themselves were abnormal. "I would say", she
said, "that the author was in a hypomanic state. I would not
say that in such a state what you did would be conscious or
willing. You may be very much involved in a fantasy world
but you would not relate to the ordinary world."
Those, then, and the cumulative summaries fuse together
that evidence. You must bear in mind all that you heard
from Mr. Koupparis and from his family and those who saw him
at the relevant time, particularly March to May 1987, because
the decision in this case is yours and not the doctors.
Their evidence is part of the whole picture which you must
consider, but the evidence is there from others for you to
put alongside the doctors' evidence.
As Mr. Temple says, the doctors' opinions and comments
on their own may be misleading. What you must do is relate
their opinions to this particular case and to what actually
happened and to all that you have heard. Mr. Koupparis has
listed for you what drugs he said he took. You have the
documents. There is no doubt - you have heard from his
mother and his younger brothers - that he was taking
considerable doses of pills while he was in Cyprus. He had
been a very normal person until about 1986. They told you,
as he did himself, that by 1986 he suffered grave depression
and had other strange experiences.
In the hands of Dr. Sophocleous and Dr. Evdokas he says
that he was subjected to a barrage of prescriptions. The
solicitor, Miss Postgate's evidence of her survey of the
doctors' notes bears this out. I carefully noted all the
drugs to which she referred. They do not tally exactly with
Mr. Koupparis's own list, but certainly in the latter days
they seem to bear out what he has written down for you. I do
not believe for a moment that a detailed analysis is
necessary. It is for you to consider whether all the
evidence supports his assertion that he took as many and in
such a variety as he says.
You have in this context much evidence also about the
relevant time to bear out the assertion that Mr. Koupparis
was certainly doing strange things, amongst them surely -
there is no need to read out the evidence - the two young
brothers, both young men of character and kindness to
Mr. Koupparis. They told you all about his odd behaviour in
London, about his spending of money, about his odd clothing,
about his unaccustomed lack of generosity over that hotel
meal, about the talk of his wheel clamping ideas and about
the belief that he would be the next President of Cyprus.
Some time ago now you will recall hearing from those
four rather interesting young people who met him in London
when he was gazing at an electronic shop window. They told
you also about his strangeness, about his wish to turn them
into a pop group, about his use publicly of the name Nemo,
about his living in the White House Hotel where he was known
as Mr. Edwards - he appeared to be well off and flash - and
at the Inter Continental, where he behaved with some
eccentricity - "Rather like someone affected by drink or
drugs", said the security man. "We saw his passport, saw
his real name", said the young Mr. Kindersley. "He was easy
to recognise and made no attempt at disguise. He said he had
a cure for AIDS and had a Marilyn Monroe look-alike. He
wore one glove, dark glasses and a distinctive hat."
He met Mrs. Majszczyk, the secretary to the managing
director of Alcom, who told you about Mr. Koupparis at the
relevant time. He used a voice disguiser at first when
talking to her but she found out it was him and went to
dinner with him. He said odd things, such as that he was
working for the Cypriot Government and his baby brother was
his bodyguard. Later she had dinner with him again but
everybody spoke in Greek. Later still - she gave this as
29th April - he came to demonstrate some of the firm's
equipment but he was inaccurate in what he did say. She did
not see him again. He said at one stage he had seven
different identities.
You also heard on the defence side in this context from
others, notably Mr. Cariagorgias [sic], a bookseller and teacher of
English from Cyprus, who told you (latterly in Greek, you
will recall) about his experience of Mr. Koupparis in Cyprus:
very polite and not at all strange until 1986, but then
sometimes very depressed and he said he would like to hope
his disposition changed. "Once or twice I went out with
him", he said. "He found a way to change water into gold.
He told me about the two doctors and that he was taking too
many tablets. He was very active by the end of 1986 and had
many ideas, suggestions that he might push the Turks out of
Cyprus. Some of the things I thought were crazy ideas."
"When he left was he acting normally?" asked Mr. Beckman.
"I think he was a bit confused", said the witness.
You also heard from Mr. Agisilaou, whose statement was
read to you by Mr. Hamblin - Mr. Hamblin's only role, final
appearance in the case, if I may be allowed to say that. He
told you about Mr. Koupparis and about their discussion about
machines for making tunnels just before Mr. Koupparis left
for England. "I did note his introverted behaviour during
the six months prior to his visit to England. Before this
time Mr. Koupparis was a joyous person. I know he was taking
sleeping pills. He stopped taking them as they were making
him drowsy. I thought there was something wrong with
Mr. Koupparis's nerves and I suggested he should change
doctors and get one in England. I can say once Mr. Koupparis
stopped taking the drugs he was all right. He seemed well.
Mr. Koupparis was active and energetic and started new
businesses when he stopped taking the drugs. When he was
taking drugs, however, he did not talk at all."
Where does this all lead? It is, of course, for you to
consider, although in the end it does seem to me - and you
can agree or disagree as you like - that the conclusion is
that in March, April and May, Mr. Koupparis was indeed
strange and over-active and grandiose and abnormal. Whether
or not this was a result of hypomania or the effect of drugs
or through withdrawal, we may never know for sure. It may be
that his condition was caused by a combination of those two
causes.
Whatever the result may be, what you have to consider is
the picture of him as you have it here described,
particularly by all the witnesses together. For the purpose
of this part of the case, you may assume if you like that the
drugs caused him to be as he was, a man suffering from
hypomania, but it is entirely a matter for you to decide
where that takes you.
I must direct you that unless those drugs or that
hypomania went so far as to remove from him his capacity to
make any rational decision and to form an intention, and thus
took away his responsibility for what he did, he is not able
to use all that evidence to rely upon his abnormality as any
protection in this case. The Crown must, of course, prove
that when he produced and delivered these documents to the
High Commissioner on 7th April 1979 (sic), he knew what he
was doing, understood what was in the documents and intended
to make a demand with menaces which was unwarranted and which
was made with a view to gain. If the documents and all the
evidence lead you to that conclusion, it is not a defence to
say that the intention in Mr. Koupparis's mind might or would
not have been formed but for the hypomania, or the drugs and
hypomania combined, unless those drugs or that hypomania, or
a combination of the two, so affected him that he literally
had no insight into what he was doing and was incapable of
forming any intention or of reaching any rational decision.
Mr. Temple points out with some force the nature of the
documents themselves, the addition of page 3, the writing on
page 159, and indeed, the evidence of everybody involved that
while Mr. Koupparis was abnormal and odd he seemed able to
implement all that led to the sending of the document and the
taking of that fake money, including, perhaps particularly,
making 40 telephone calls in his various guises.
In this context I believe that it is right and fair to
take the comparable example of alcohol and its effects on
intention. A drink induced or caused intention is just as
much an intention as a sober intention. It is no defence at
all to say, for example, a person has stolen or blackmailed
or even murdered since the effect of alcohol is so absolute
and extreme that the ability to form any intention is
removed. That is, if you think carefully about it, very good
common sense because otherwise anybody could say, "Oh, I took
a lot of alcohol" - or indeed, a dose of cannabis or drugs -
"and did what I did because of that, so please say I am not
guilty."
Therefore, you look at the whole picture, bearing firmly
in mind that it was only if he was or may have been in such a
state as a result of drugs or hypomania, or both, that he
could not and did not form the necessary intent to do what he
did, and literally did not know truly what he was doing, that
he can in the end be helped by the medical evidence. It is,
of course, for you to decide. The Crown simply says that
this is nothing like such a case and that Captain Nemo and
the abnormal and odd, elated, grandiose Mr. Koupparis is just
as much responsible for what he did as would have been the
normal but still odd Mr. Koupparis that you saw here in the
witness box.
The position then is that simply because a man is
abnormal he cannot say that he is not responsible for his
actions. It is a question always of degree, and only if his
power to reason and his ability to decide and to form the
necessary intent is removed from him, can he say that he is
not responsible for his actions. All of this is, of course,
at the heart of the defence case; they have raised the matter
by way of defence. It is still, however, for the Crown to
prove this case. The defence do not in this, as in any
other part of the case, have to prove anything.
Therefore, the question is, has the Crown proved that
this is an unwarranted demand for money? Has the Crown
proved for sure that what Mr. Koupparis did was done
intentionally and consciously, and that he was not at that
time in such a state through drugs or hypomania, or both, as
to be incapable of forming the necessary intention and
decision which the Crown says he formed and made?
During his speech to you, Mr. Beckman went at one stage
in my judgment [sic] further than the law allowed him to do on one
aspect of this case. He said in effect that this man has got
to be normal in his understanding to form the necessary
intent. That might suggest that an abnormal or hypomanic
man is automatically not capable of forming the necessary
intent. Dr. Ashton perhaps also strayed in this regard when
she seemed to be saying or suggesting that a person suffering
from hypomania could not commit a crime, but that is not the
law. A person who has drunk too much or taken drugs or is
hypomanic and is thus abnormal, can form the necessary intent
or intention and can understand full well what he is doing.
The question is whether it is proved in this particular case
that he was capable of doing so and did so. That is the
question here.
Has the Crown proved that this particular man, in spite
of his hypomania and his abnormality, consciously made a
demand with menaces with a view to gain and intended so to
do? Did he copy those documents and compose page 3 and
cause them to be sent to the High Commission?
It seems to me at this point right to remind you of what
Mr. Koupparis said in evidence. I can deal shortly with the
remainder of the evidence and then I shall turn to Count 2.
Remember that Mr. Koupparis's evidence relates to both
counts.
He told you about his early experiences. He had "O"
levels in chemistry and geography. He has no university or
technical training but he has considerable business
experience. Until 1981 he never had a major illness and then
he had what he called "sleep jumping" and was seen by a GP
and, we know, by Doctors Beard and Ashworth. In 1984, the
family went to Cyprus and from then onwards he changed. He
was depressed and easily confused, and eventually he gave up
work and suffered general and prolonged lethargy. That led
him in turn to Dr. Sophocleous and Dr. Evdokas. You will
recall he gave you this list of all the drugs the doctors had
prescribed. At one stage he collapsed because of his
reaction to Parstelin. In the summer of 1986 he was
prescribed the drugs which he sets out in the list you have.
By January 1987, he said that his thought processes were
getting warped and he started to live in a fantasy world.
He suffered from amnesia. He started spending and
gallivanting - that was his word - all over town. "I do not
know if I was myself in these months of 1987. I was not
blackmailing the government and I do not dispute the facts of
what I did. I can remember the case particularly through the
eyes of the witnesses and I think I recall buying the
Winthorpe [sic] ticket and I recall 100 kilos of excess baggage.
That idea came from a book I was reading. I was due to go to
London to see a specialist."
Then, as to the first set of documents, he told you he
did not remember sending them - "But I am not in a position
to say 100 per cent that I did not send them. I do not
remember ever having prepared the documents in that form. I
wanted to become President of Cyprus. I remember making the
telephone calls. I had to find out why the Cypriots had
failed the intelligence test I had set them." That was his
introduction to those words. "I thought all I did was
logical and reasonable. I knew they had received the first
set of documents from the telephone calls, from three other
ministers of the government, but I wanted a reaction and to
know whether they were taking it seriously or whether they
realised it was all a hoax. My family name is Cambanellos [sic];
I am entitled to use that name.
"As to the second set of documents, I think I sent them.
It was not a demand: the whole point was to confuse the
situation. I copied that Amstrad article on the same
occasion, that article about Alan Sugar producing rocket fuel
out of sugar. My intention was to defuse the situation. On
14th May I went for a passport. I said I was the only
person who could get Nemo on the telephone. I did say I had
the ability to find the PIGs. When I was speaking as
Cambanellos [sic] it was very difficult. It is very difficult to
describe this multi-faceted personality. I was never me. My
mind was scrambled. I have the right to use the name
Cambanellos [sic]."
Later on he said that he had become addicted and
vulnerable because of all the drugs. "As a result of my
delusions I thought it was necessary to apply an intelligence
test to see whether the Government of Cyprus could handle a
Twentieth Century situation. Digsby was based on a friend of
mine. Cambanellos [sic] was the Cypriot side of me." You will,
I am sure, recall it all because it was unusual evidence.
In cross-examination he agreed that he had given the
evidence that he did in the magistrates' court - pages 492 to
499. He gave that evidence for his wife. "As to page 159,
although I admitted writing it in court, in fact I think my
wife may have written it although the actual words emanated
from me." That is the handwritten reinforcement of the
demand to which we have been referred many times.
Then he told you that he himself had obtained the
document with the logo from the High Commission in Cyprus.
He agreed that the letters about the parking clamp were his,
although he said that the letter proved his point, namely
that he did not know what he was doing. As to the demand
documents, he agreed that he had composed and typed them. "I
did it for other reasons. I went to lengths to ensure that
no money was paid. It was an intelligence test. I applied
this as a test." He said there was no blackmail demand
contained in them because he knew they could not pay that
sum.
As to Count 2, he agreed with Mr. Temple that he
anticipated he would receive £25,000. "I had made it clear
that I could locate the PIGs." So it went on and you will
recall it all. He said, "I never considered that it was
blackmail technically; it was a little piece of nonsense."
At the very end he said that he was disturbed that it was
taken seriously and that all the trouble and expense that
followed had been caused by what he had done. "It was not my
intention that it should be taken seriously. I accept it did
cause distress from what I have seen subsequently, but had
gone out of my way to make sure the whole thing was
nonsensical. The documents appeared humorous to me and I
expected everyone else to take the same vein." That is his
evidence. It is very much a matter of what you make of it
and of him in the light of all the other evidence you have
heard.
I have dealt with much of it already, but it is right
that I should deal in skeleton form with some dates and
events which bear upon the matter. We know that
Mr. Koupparis in fact prepared the first set of documents,
probably at his home in Cyprus during March 1987. On
20th March, the first set was posted to the President's
Palace and received there. On 21st March, a bandaged
Mr. Koupparis went to buy the Winthorpe [sic] air ticket. He
paid for it in cash. He also paid £480 for 100 kilos of
excess baggage. In this context the Crown says you should
look at page 292, which is the mathematics of the weight of
dollar bills. Remember the argument both ways about that.
Thereafter these documents, the air ticket and a £50 note
finished up in an envelope which went from the Inter
Continental Hotel to Larnaca Airport. The ticket was never
used.
On 26th March, Mr. Koupparis flew to London. We know
that the second set of documents was prepared by him with the
help of Moore Printcraft and delivered on 7th April, eleven
days later. Before and after that date there were numerous
telephone calls - about 40 in number if I have added them up
correctly - made by Mr. Koupparis pretending to be Digsby,
Wilkins and Cambanellos [sic]. You heard some of them and you
have a summary of them in front of you. Furthermore, you
will recall, I am sure, the clear evidence (some oral and
some read to you) of those who spoke to Mr. Koupparis in
Cyprus and played him along, perhaps particularly, the very
clear evidence of the police officer who gave a false name
and had a number of conversations with Mr. Koupparis.
Most importantly for Count 2, you must bear in mind what
Mr. Koupparis, as Cambanellos [sic] and Digsby, was saying in his
stage colonel's voice. Note particularly, if you will, the
conversation on pages 14 and 15 of your summary which
contain, says the Crown, the deception or false pretences put
forward by Mr. Koupparis. "All of that ", says
Mr. Koupparis, "was no part of any crime or dishonesty or
reality at all. It was all simply unreal, unintended and
part of the hoax or charade which I was playing in my deluded
state." The Crown says such an explanation is invalid and
says that it is blown out of the window and disposed of,
particularly when you look at the whole picture and at what
Mr. Koupparis (posing as Digsby, Wilkins and Cambanellos [sic])
actually did over a period of six weeks.
In particular, after all these telephone calls, on 14th
May he went by car, driven by Mr. O'Neill, to the High
Commission. On the way he obtained a photograph of himself
which he had been told to bring in order to obtain a passport
for Mr. Cambanellos [sic]. When he arrived he had with him a
briefcase containing, amongst other things, a pair of rubber
surgical gloves. After seeing the High Commissioner, he
walked out with what he plainly believed to be £25,000,
exactly the amount for which he had asked on the telephone,
representing, as he plainly did if you remember the evidence,
that he could assist in Cyprus's problem about the poison
injection generators and that he required a passport.
Nothing in these representations was true for there were no
PIGs and he did not require a passport.
Where in the light of that evidence stands Count 2?
The Crown says that it is proof that it was an interlocking
but separate part of Mr. Koupparis's intention to get money
and that you should not be fooled or have the wool pulled
over your eyes as to this, or indeed any part of this case.
The Crown also says that the following matters are proved,
which I direct you they would have to be in order to bring
the second count home: first, that this was a dishonest act;
that this was a dishonest act by Mr. Koupparis. "Dishonest"
is an ordinary English word and you know what it means.
No-one says that Mr. Koupparis is ordinarily a dishonest
individual; as I have told you, the opposite is shown to be
the case. However, on this occasion, perhaps because of the
drugs or the hypomania, or both, the Crown says that he
allowed himself to act consciously and intentionally and
dishonestly and that he pretended that he wanted a pay-out
and that he wanted a passport, and pretended that he could
help, through the Digsby and Cambanellos [sic] team, to neutralise
the threat posed by the demand document.
"That", says the Crown, "was deception because these
representations or pretences were false or untrue and as a
result largely fake money was paid. Of course, in the end he
got nothing, but the Crown says that he attempted or tried to
do so and that he is thus guilty of Count 2.
Once again the basic facts of what he did and said are
accepted by Mr. Koupparis, so that there is no need to dwell
on these facts in summing-up the case or in your
deliberations. Once again the question is whether or not the
Crown has disposed of the defence and proved its case. The
defence here is two-fold. Mr. Koupparis says again that
this was all unreal and unintended and that there was no
seriousness or true meaning in what he did at all.
Secondly, he says that he did nothing dishonest and all that
he did was done because of hypomania, without any intention
formed by him or capable of being so formed and that he was
never dishonestly after money at all. He says it was simply
and solely part of the whole picture of a deluded
intelligence test or hoax; a product of his deluded mind.
I do not believe that in connection with Count 2 I can
help you further. The Crown must prove the ingredients of
the offence and once again must disprove and blow out of the
case these defences raised by Mr. Koupparis. In this count,
as in Count 1, the medical evidence can and does surface and
my direction to you about its part in the case applies also;
the question is one of degree.
Is this a case, as the Crown said, where abnormality and
crime co-exist? Is this proved to be a sure and true case
of a conscious, dishonest and intended attempt to get money,
done by an abnormal man but still amounting to a crime of
dishonesty? "If it is not, how comes it", says the Crown,
"that this man was leaving the High Commission with, as he
thought it to be, £25,000 when he was arrested and detained?"
Alternatively, may it be, as the defence say, that this man
was in this instance, as in the blackmail case, so affected
by the scale of the hypomania that he did not and could not
form any intention and thus should be found not guilty?
Just before I conclude, let me say a word about the
documents you have because the bundle is fat and it has been
added to as we have gone along. Concentrate upon those
which bear directly on the case and particularly upon those
to which you have been specifically referred, although of
course you may consider any or all of them, entirely as you
wish.
Many of the documents were found at Mr. Koupparis's
homes, both in Cyprus and in London, including of course
copies of the demand document in what we have called the
"Skull and Crossbones File" in London; page 159, the draft
renewal of the demand which was never sent or received; page
153, the "Mission Accomplished" letter which Mr. Koupparis
said he sent but which was apparently not received; the
evidence in the magistrates' court, pages 492 to 498. This
has a place in the case because it was evidence on oath and
Mr. Koupparis agrees that he gave it, although my advice to
you is that you should concentrate primarily upon what he
actually said here. Bear in mind any differences or
contrasts between that and what he said at pages 492 to 498
only as a test of his evidence given here.
I am not sure what you thought of Mr. Beckman's tour of
the London found documents in his opening. Some of them are
certainly bizarre, but since the opening we have heard very
little about them and Mr. Koupparis's only reference to them
was to say they were notes about stories that he might write.
We do not know exactly when these documents were written and
we know very little about them apart from what appears on
their face. Perhaps, although it is a matter for you, it is
safest not to draw too many conclusions from those. There
are pitfalls in them, as Dr. Ashton discovered when, in her
Newcastle ignorance, she thought that the reference to the
Denver Boot in document "G" was a hypomanic invention. There
it is. Those documents exist and you heard Mr. Beckman, I am
sure he would not mind my saying, in full flood upon those in
his opening. It is, of course, for you to decide whether he
is correct in his references to them and in his deductions
that he asked you to make upon them.
Panos Koupparis is now in your hands. Much of what you
have heard about him would, as I said during the trial, in
any event help him should he have to be sentenced, but at
this stage the question is whether or not this whole strange
case leads you to convict him of criminal offences.
Remember please that an unsettled or abnormal mind does
not automatically absolve a man of a crime. Remember, on the
other hand, what must be proved and that the Crown must prove
its case upon each of these counts before you can convict
Mr. Koupparis. I do not believe that the Crown ever said
that he was a genius or a mass criminal: it says he is a
fairly insignificant, abnormal man but that his guilt is
clear. The defence say that this is not so and that at
least you should doubt whether his mind went with his acts,
that you should doubt the genuineness of these documents and
that you should find he did nothing dishonest or criminal at
all.
Remember please that we will require separate verdicts
on each count of guilty or not guilty to be given by your
foreman. As I said earlier, when you retire you must do
your best to reach verdicts which are unanimous; that is to
say, verdicts which are of all twelve of you one way or the
other. I hope that is perfectly plain. Forget anything you
have heard or read about majority verdicts. If later, and it
would be well into the afternoon, I considered it right that
the matter should be raised, I would ask you to come back
into court and would give you a special direction. You must
do your best at this stage to be unanimous. Take with you
your documents.
If counsel feel it is necessary to raise any matter,
they may do so.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, may I please, out of an abundance of
caution, just make one observation about the second count?
Would your Lordship feel it might be appropriate simply to
give a definition of the attempt to the jury, namely, the
defendant must be proved to have intended to commit the crime
in question and he did acts which were more than preparatory
for the commission?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, you note those
words. That is quite right in my judgment [sic]. You may agree
or not that there was much more than preparation in this case
by Mr. Koupparis, but it is right you should take into
account the words which Mr. Temple has read to you.
(The jury retired at 11.35 a.m.)
(The jury returned into court at 2.13 p.m.)
Index | Previous | Next