Ref: A00-300995 Case No. 871626 Macpherson II
Volume XII, Pages 41-46, Monday 3rd July, 1989
(The jury retired at 11.35 a.m.)
(The jury returned into court at 2.13 p.m.)
Verdict
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Mr. Foreman, will you please confine
yourself to answering my first question either "Yes" or "No".
Members of the jury, have you reached a verdict upon which
you are all agreed?
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Yes.
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Members of the jury, do you find the
prisoner Koupparis guilty or not guilty on Count 1,
blackmail?
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Yes.
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Guilty or not guilty?
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Guilty.
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Do you find him guilty or not guilty on
Count 2, of attempting to obtain property by deception?
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Guilty.
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Members of the jury, you find Panos
Koupparis guilty on Count 1 and guilty on Count 2, and that
is the verdict of you all?
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Yes.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, in view of the jury's verdict, if
Mr. Beckman requests I shall tender Superintendent Edwards
for any further questioning regarding antecedents.
MR. BECKMAN: Would your Lordship be kind enough to take
mitigation a little later this afternoon? My Lord, the
reason is something that has occurred a very short while ago
in respect of which I would like to take instructions.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Yes. I think the best thing to do would
be to say that I will do it at quarter to four.
(The trial was adjourned for a short time)
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Mr. Beckman, do you want the officer
called?
MR. BECKMAN: No, my Lord.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: As I indicated, I propose to deal with
him as if he were a man of good character.
Plea in Mitigation
MR. BECKMAN: I am obliged for that. In those circumstances I
can be very short indeed. Why I say that I can be very
short indeed is because all the mitigating factors in the
case have been spelled out in the course of extensive
evidence. Indeed, on several occasions your Lordship has
pointed that out yourself.
There are four matters I wish to refer to and indeed
three of them effectively are reminding your Lordship of
things you very properly thought fit to say at the time. My
Lord, first of all your Lordship indicated that you were
concerned about the question of (inaudible) referring to the
case as a matter of seriousness, not being the case of any
significance. Later your Lordship pointed out, quite
rightly, by March 1987 he was abnormal and doing strange
things, and when Dr. Ashworth was giving her evidence and
said anyone not in a hypomanic state could do that sort of
thing, again your Lordship rightly pointed out that had been
accepted by the other doctors and expressed the view that it
does not mean that he is not guilty but it may be excellent
mitigation. May I respectfully repeat and adopt that?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: It certainly reduces what would
otherwise be the sentence in a case of this kind.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, bearing in mind ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I should just say this is the
significance of the case. I do not think I was indicating it
was an insignificant case, was I?
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: If I was, having heard the High
Commissioner, I have changed my mind to that extent.
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, may I put it this way: I am sure your
Lordship is (inaudible). There was the objective view on
the one hand and the view of the High Commissioner on the
other, and your Lordship may well find it right as it were to
propose the word "insignificant" is too high, but to put it
less significant than would seem apparent on the face of the
papers, bearing in mind particularly his state - I think that
would be a fair and proper way of putting it.
My Lord, finally may I mention this to your Lordship
because all the other factors are before your Lordship, and
that is this: that Doctors Sophocleous and Evdokas who might
be of some assistance to the Court apparently refused to
come over and it may be that it could have been of great
assistance in many ways had they come.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Mr. Beckman, what about the cost of this
trial? What is the cost? Has he been legally aided all
the way through?
MR. BECKMAN: My Lord, he has been legally aided throughout.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: With any contribution?
MR. BECKMAN: As far as we are concerned we have been legally
aided throughout. I am told there is some question - I have
the advantage of someone who was in the case earlier who
indicated there might have been some private contribution.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I am only interested in whether I can
make him pay part of the costs because he has caused the most
enormous expenditure in this case and I want to know whether
he can pay anything. If he cannot there it is.
Alternatively, am I in a position to make an order which
might be enforced later should he achieve any money?
MR. BECKMAN: I do not think the court clerk can be of
assistance.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: She told me there was a nil contribution
and he is without means, is he?
MR. BECKMAN: Your Lordship is aware where he has been for the
last two years.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Yes I know. That of course will be
taken into account in his sentence.
MR. BECKMAN: I am aware of that; I was referring to that as
being the place where one would not amass a great fortune.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Of course not, but who knows, he may
have funds and presumably they have been investigated and
therefore, having marked that fact, there is nothing I can do
about it.
MR. BECKMAN: I am not aware there are any and I have no
information.
SENTENCE
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Panos Koupparis, you have been found
guilty on very clear evidence of these two offences. Having
heard the whole of the case, I am convinced that you caused
prolonged and marked apprehension by blackmail in the minds
of the High Commissioner for Cyprus and others involved.
You made matters worse by your devious and carefully prepared
telephone calls and the interlocking attempt to obtain
£25,000. Having heard those telephone calls, I appreciate
the deviousness of what you did.
Ordinarily, and but for the doctors' evidence, I believe
a sentence of around seven years would have been proper in
this case since it is necessary not only to punish those who
blackmail, but deter others who may be inclined to cause the
kind of disruption you caused; the nuisance to the
authorities and police and the extent of apprehension that
such activity caused. However, I take into account
particularly, as I have indicated, all that I have heard
about you from the doctors, in particular those who saw you
in May 1987, and those who told me what the drugs might have
done.
I take into account also your general good character.
You have no benefit for your plea because you chose not to
accept your guilt. Of course, I add nothing because of
that, but you gain no credit in that department.
You will go to prison for five years; five years on the
blackmail count, Count 1, three years on the second count,
both concurrent. I believe that these sentences and the
fact that they are made concurrent represents the limit of
mercy that I can extend to you.
oo0oo
Index | Previous | Appeal before the 'Single Judge'