CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 10 septembre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s18D96D33 { width:15.69pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32AFAD20 { width:26.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     419   10.9.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS IN THE CASES OF EDWARDS AND LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   Tuesday 10 September 2002 at 9.30 a.m.   The applicants   The applications (no. 39647/98 and no. 40461/98) were brought by two United Kingdom nationals, Martin John Edwards, who was born in 1946 and resident in Kent, and Michael Lewis, who was born in 1953 and resident in Tonbridge.   Summary of the facts   Martin Edwards   The applicant was arrested in a van with an open suitcase containing 4.5 kg of heroin on his lap. He was subsequently convicted of possessing a Class A drug with intent to supply. His defence was that he did not know the suitcase contained drugs until the moment it was opened, and that he believed he was taking part in a transaction to sell stolen jewellery. He claimed to have become involved in this operation at the behest of a man called Geoffrey Lerway. Neither Lerway nor any of the six other men and women who participated in the drugs offence were ever arrested or charged in connection with it. The applicant contends that Lerway and the others were either undercover police officers or informers acting on police instructions, and that they were agents provocateurs , organising the crime, lying to the applicant and inciting him to become involved in it. At the first instance trial the prosecution applied to the judge ex parte for an order allowing them, on grounds of public interest immunity, not to disclose certain relevant evidence to the defence. The judge, who had been informed of the applicant’s case, ruled that disclosure would not assist the defence. This ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal, which itself examined the material in question and held that “nothing in the documents could possibly have assisted the defence at trial; indeed quite the reverse”. In consequence, the applicant has never been able to establish the identity of the other participants or the nature of each participant’s connection with the police. None of them gave evidence at trial, with the exception of “Graham”, an undercover police officer, whose full name was never disclosed.   Michael Lewis   The applicant’s version of events was that he had been introduced to a man named “Terry” by an acquaintance, Colin Phelps, since Terry appeared interested in purchasing from the applicant some bankrupt stock. At a meeting in July 1995 Terry had started talking about counterfeit currency and had pressed the applicant to obtain some as part of the transaction. Although the applicant claimed never hitherto to have been involved with counterfeit currency, he did have a contact, “John”, who was able to supply forged bank notes. Terry went on to introduce the applicant to two men called “Jag” and “Jazz”. At a third meeting on 14 July 1995, Jag turned up with “Chris”, who was subsequently revealed to be an undercover police officer, and an order for a large amount of currency was placed. The applicant met Chris and another undercover officer, “Ian”, in a public house car park. He showed them some counterfeit notes, and was immediately arrested by uniformed officers. More counterfeit notes were found when his house was searched.   The applicant maintained that he had been entrapped by undercover police officers and participating informers into committing the offences of possession of counterfeit currency with intent to deliver it to another. At the start of his trial he applied to the Crown Court judge for an order that the indictment should be stayed for abuse of process. He also requested the judge to order the prosecution to provide more information and documents, including information relating to the question whether Colin Phelps, “Terry” or “Tel”, “Jazz” or “Jag” were participating informers or undercover police officers.   Prior to making his ruling on the defence application, the judge heard, ex parte , an application by the prosecution to avoid disclosing certain material evidence on grounds of public interest immunity. The judge refused to grant a stay or to order further disclosure, indicating that most of the information sought was subject to public interest immunity. He also ruled that, while it was clear that “Chris” was coaxing the applicant, there was no evidence of pressure being applied. A second submission was then made on the applicant’s behalf to exclude the evidence of undercover police officers under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”). However, before evidence was called from the officers in question, “Chris” and “Ian”, the defence counsel sought guidance from the judge as to the areas of cross examination which would or would not be allowed, given that certain issues relating to the investigation were covered by public interest immunity. It became apparent that most of the areas of cross examination necessary to develop the submission were not to be allowed. Accordingly, the submission was withdrawn and the applicant entered guilty pleas to the indictment.   Complaints   The applicants complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that the incitement of the offences by agents provocateurs , the non-disclosure of evidence and the failure to identify or call as witnesses the other participants in the offence deprived them of fair hearings.   Procedure   Mr Edwards’ application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6   September 1996 and Mr   Lewis’ application was lodged with the Commission on 16   May 1997. The cases were transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998.               Composition of the Court   The cases will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), judges , Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Huw Llewellyn , Agent , David Perry , Counsel , Sarah Cookson , Ian Chisholm , Melanie Cumberland, Advisers ;   Applicants:   Ben Emmerson QC, Jonathan Hall , Counsel, Paul Maynard, Adviser .     ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A decision on admissibility will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.