England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

IN THE CROWN COURT No T96/1159

Nottingham Crown Court

Sitting at

The Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Tuesday 28 January 1995

B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE LATHAM

R E G I N A

- v -

ANTHONY ANDREAS ANTONIOU

TIMOTHY REDHEAD

______________________

Computer Aided Transcription by Smith Bernal

180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD

Telephone 0171 831 3183

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

______________________

MR DICKINSON appeared on behalf of THE CROWN

MR HOWARTH appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANT ANTONIOU

MR CAUDLE appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANT REDHEAD

______________________

D I R E C T I O N S H E A R I N G

______________________

MR DICKINSON: My Lord, I appear on behalf of the Crown; my learned friend Mr Howarth represents the defendant Antoniou and my learned friend Mr Caudle appears on behalf of the other defendant, Mr Timothy Redhead.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: Yes. First of all, can we deal with what might be called the relatively uncontroversial aspects of the case? The prosecution was required to produce an outline of the facts or opening (or whatever you like to call it) and it did not do so in time, did it?

MR DICKINSON: My Lord, my understanding is that at the last Directions hearing, which was on 20 December of last year, an indication was given by Leading Counsel for the Crown, my learned friend Mr Joyce, that the Crown would be serving an amended case summary in order to incorporate evidence that had been served since the committal hearing in July of last year and in effect to amend my original case summary in the light of the new evidence, in particular the telephone evidence. My understanding is -- I was not present at that hearing, so my understanding is based on what was said to me by Mr Joyce -- that the Crown gave a target date of 14 January. In fact, I completed that amended case summary on 15 January. I hope your Lordship has seen that?

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: Yes, it has been done now.

MR DICKINSON: Yes, it has.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: Have counsel for either defendant seen it or are they requiring any order in respect of it? Mr Howarth?

MR HOWARTH: My Lord, I have seen it.

MR CAUDLE: My Lord, I have not. It may be that it has arrived with those instructing me, but it has not arrived in Chambers yet and as of last week when I spoke to them they had not seen it.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: We must make sure that your client has the document unless there are any difficulties about that. Well, there should not be any difficulty.

MR CAUDLE: Now that I have seen my learned friend's, I can take a copy from him.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: Are there, dealing with what one might call the "non-controversial matters", any there any other matters of directions that I need to give today?

MR DICKINSON: My Lord, with respect, I think not directions, but it might be helpful if I indicate that my learned friends and myself have been discussing this morning matters which need to be attended to in the near future. The first matter is absent witness orders. I understand at the last Directions hearing Leading Counsel on behalf of both the Crown and the defendants indicated that it is likely there will be approximately 20 absolutely bound witnesses. Presently there are 80 absolutely bound witnesses. It is perfectly clear that many of those witnesses who were absolutely bound at the committal hearing cannot be absolutely bound witnesses. For instances, there were three witnesses who were sharing the car --

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: I understand that, Mr Dickinson. What are you asking me to do today?

MR DICKINSON: I simply express the hope that in the very near future the defence can make plain their witness requirements and in the light of that I shall be preparing admissions and substantially editing the lengthy interviews.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: Mr Howarth and Mr Caudle, you have heard that. I will come back to what I propose to do about that (if anything) when I consider the matter relating to Mr Antoniou's representation.

MR CAUDLE: My Lord, can I mention that I was at the Directions hearing and in fact I had, on behalf of Redhead, sorted out the witnesses that I require. We were told by Mr Joyce that there was more evidence to come and that there was still unused material to be disclosed and the "order" which your Lordship made was that everything should be done by mid-January. Indeed, your Lordship ordered that the schedule of admissions, the other evidence, and the disclosure should be done before the final witness orders were made, otherwise they may have to be changed. I am told by my learned friend that there is not anything else to be served or disclosed.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: Has anything been disclosed since Mr Joyce indicated that there was some material to be disclosed?

MR CAUDLE: Since the Directions hearing I have not seen a single piece of paper. Those instructing me have written, I am told, on a number of occasions asking for certain things and have not received replies. We will speak to them again as soon as we finish here and find out exactly what it is and now that I have got my learned friend's name and number, I can contact him rather than my solicitors going through the usual customs. I can go to him direct and tell him what I want.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: It is very unsatisfactory, putting it bluntly, with everybody being put on notice that there is material to be disclosed, or evidence to be served, that you appear to have heard nothing.

MR CAUDLE: My friend tells me there is some misunderstanding between those who lead and those who follow as to what there is to come. It seems that there is nothing else.

MR DICKINSON: My Lord, that is right.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: So from your point of view, what Mr Joyce said in December appears to have been based upon a misunderstanding?

MR DICKINSON: My Lord, that appears to be right, I am sorry to say. The amended case summary is based upon evidence which was served either prior to the committal or no later than the day of the last Directions hearing on 20 December. Indeed, the telephone evidence -- the main additional items -- that telephone evidence was served for the most part in about October.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: All I am going to say is that it seems to me that I should note clearly that the prosecution assert today that there is no other material upon which they intend to rely and there is no other material which is in their possession which they are under any obligation to disclose.

MR DICKINSON: My Lord, that is my understanding, subject to one matter which is the question of admissions. The Crown do intend to serve admissions. For example, I have asked the officers in the case to prepare a schedule, which I have seen this morning, which sets out in simple and clear terms the relevant telephone conversations and telephone calls -- the dates, times and telephone numbers concerned. That comes up in admissions.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: Is that all the material the defence have already had?

MR DICKINSON: The material on which the admissions are based, yes.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: That is what matters.

MR DICKINSON: Yes.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: Mr Caudle, does that give you comfort?

MR CAUDLE: My Lord, it does. As I say, when I find out from those instructing me what they think they still require, I can speak to my learned friend and put him on notice that perhaps there is something he does not believe is there.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: I thought it right to get a clear assertion, which I have noted.

MR DICKINSON: My Lord, may I mention one other matter? So far as Mr Antoniou is concerned no psychiatric report has been served. I mention that because at one stage indication was given that the defence on behalf of Mr Antoniou was that they would seek a verdict of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. If there is to be an expert's report served on behalf of Antoniou, the Crown are likely to want to instruct their own expert.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: My understanding is that I expect Mr Howarth has more pressing concerns so far as Mr Antoniou is concerned. Yes, Mr Howarth, where are we so far as Mr Antoniou is concerned? There is request by him, through the solicitors Hollingsworth(?) & Co, for a change of solicitors but not a change of counsel.

MR HOWARTH: My Lord, yes.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: No proper reasons are given in any of the documents that I have seen which could possibly justify a change of solicitor. The situation is, however, somewhat clouded by what appears to be a threat by Mr Antoniou that he is intending, if he does not obtain his wish, to sack both counsel and solicitors either between now and trial or, as I understand it, he could well consider doing so at the time of the trial.

MR HOWARTH: My Lord, yes. I saw him two weeks ago today and that is the view he expressed to me and I gave him certain advice. He says that if the change were not made he would represent himself at trial and ask for every witness to be fully bound.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: He can be told that he is perfectly entitled to represent himself at trial. That is his entitlement. But there is one matter above all which he must understand, and that is because of the interests of justice, and the interests of Mr Redhead, the case will go ahead on the date that the trial has been fixed. If the consequence of that is that witnesses are not available, then there are provisions which the court can use to ensure that the evidence is before the court whether the witness is available or not.

MR HOWARTH: My Lord, that is the advice which I gave Mr Antoniou. I do not know whether he is likely to want to represent himself at trial or continue with the representation he currently has.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: Mr Howarth, I thought it was very important that we should have this hearing so that I could indicate what my view is. Of course, he must also understand that it is not out of cussedness that the court does this, but because he is in effect seeking to impose upon the public funds extra costs which, were he having to pay for his defence himself, he would never dream of incurring because the new solicitors would undoubtedly require to do a lot of work for which they would prima facie be entitled to be paid and that is work which has already been done by the previous solicitors. This is preaching to the converted, I know, but I think it is right that it should go down on the transcript in case it is appropriate for the transcript to be given to Mr Antoniou to read.

MR HOWARTH: My Lord, yes.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: Is there anything else that you wish to say, Mr Howarth?

MR HOWARTH: No, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: Mr Caudle, is there anything you wish to say?

MR CAUDLE: Having heard your Lordship say that the fixture will not be broken, I have achieved what I came to achieve.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: Mr Dickinson?

MR DICKINSON: No, thank you.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: I therefore make it quite plain that although Mr Antoniou is entitled to represent himself -- that is every defendant's right -- that right is not in this case one which he can exercise regardless of the effect that it has on his co-defendant in the general interests of justice. It follows -- and I say it formally and finally -- that the trial will start on the date that it is fixed to start, whatever Mr Antoniou's decision may be as to representation and the matter will proceed on the basis that there will be no adjournments and the evidence of the witnesses will be given as appropriate; if they are available to give evidence, they will give evidence in person, otherwise there are other ways in which evidence can be given.

Is there any other matter any of you wishes to deal with this morning?

MR DICKINSON: No, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE LATHAM: Thank you very much. I am sorry to have dragged you here at 9.30am, but it seemed to me to be sensible.

__________________________________________