| CRIME — Terrorism — “Safety” interviews — Whether evidence obtained from defendant during “safety” interview admissible against him at his subsequent trial — Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 78, Code C — Terrorism Act 2000, Sch 8, paras 7-9
R v Ibrahim and others [2008] EWCA Crim 880; [2008] WLR (D) 127
CA: Sir Igor Judge P, Forbes and Mackay JJ: 23 April 2008
Evidence obtained during “safety” interviews conducted with a defendant under the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 was admissible at his subsequent trial subject to the ordinary principles governing a fair trial, and the over-arching provisions in s 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held when refusing applications by Muktar Said Ibrahim, Yassin Omar, Hussein Osman (aka Hamdi) and Ramzi Mohamed for leave to appeal against their convictions on 9 July 2007, at Woolwich Crown Court before Fulford J and a jury, of conspiracy to murder, for which they were sentenced on 11 July 2007 to life imprisonment with minimum terms of 40 years.
Para 8 of Sch 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 provides: “(1) …an officer of at least the rank of superintendent may authorise a delay – …(b) in permitting a detained person to consult a solicitor … (3)…only if he has reasonable grounds for believing … (b)…that the exercise of the right [to consult a solicitor] … will have the consequences specified in sub-paragraph (4). (4) Those consequences are – …(c) the alerting of persons who are suspected of having committed a serious … offence but who have not been arrested for it; … (f) …thereby making it more difficult to prevent an act of terrorism, and (g) … thereby making it more difficult to secure a person’s apprehension, prosecution or conviction in connection with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.”
SIR IGOR JUDGE P said, in the reserved judgment of the court, that on 21 July 2005 the four defendants detonated bombs in the underground transport system at Stockwell, Warren Street, Shepherd’s Bush and on a bus in Hackney but the main charges failed to explode. The defendants made their escapes. The immediate objective of the investigation by the police was directed to protecting the public from any further violent incidents by finding and detaining the bombers. The four defendants were arrested, together with 14 other individuals suspected of terrorism offences. Superintendent McKenna directed that, in accordance with para 8 of Sch 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000, “safety” interviews should take place to secure public safety. In safety interviews a suspect would be interviewed to obtain information which might help the police to protect life and prevent serious damage to property. The question arose at the trial and on appeal whether the results of such interviews should then be used as evidence against the suspects. It was clear that the admission of safety interviews or their fruits, in evidence at a subsequent trial, was not precluded by the legislative structure.
The safety interviews in this case provided important evidence against the defendants because of their demonstrably untrue assertions which failed to suggest the defences, later advanced at trial, that these bombs were hoaxes. Fulford J ruled that it was clear beyond doubt “that the defendants were not misled or deceived as to the underlying purpose of the interviews, the possible consequences of answering questions or the potential risks of not revealing elements of their defence”. He also said that it was sometimes necessary “for a suspect to have the assistance of a lawyer before he [could] understand and describe a complicated defence, but that was not the case here”. Access to lawyers was denied for a relatively short period and in no case for more than eight hours. Their lordships could find nothing to support the conclusion that Fulford J’s decision to admit these interviews in evidence at the trial was in any way flawed. The applications would be refused.
|
