PROCEDURE

The case originated in two applications (nos. 35730/07 and 4285/08 against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by British nationals, Mr Joe Anthony Ashendon (“the first applicant”) and Ms Marilyn Jones (“the second applicant”), on 8 August 2007 and 9 January 2008 respectively.

The first applicant was represented by Mr G. Bromelow, a lawyer practising in London with Saunders Law Partnership LLP, assisted by Mr S. Simblet, counsel. The second applicant was represented by Mr T. Coolican, a lawyer practising in Birmingham with Russell Jones and Walker Solicitors. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr D. Walton and Ms H. Moynihan of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The applicants alleged that the refusal to award them their defence costs, after they had been acquitted in their respective criminal proceedings, was in violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

On 23 April 2008 and 2 October 2009 respectively, the Vice-President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice of the applications and to communicate the complaints concerning Article 6 § 2 to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of each application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

The applicants and the Government each filed written observations (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES

A. Mr Ashendon

The first applicant was born in 1985 and lives in London.

In the early hours of 2 April 2006 the first applicant was discovered sleeping in a flat in a sheltered accommodation complex. He was naked from the waist down and intoxicated. Blood tests subsequently showed that he had consumed alcohol and ecstasy the night before and that he was a regular cannabis user. The tests also showed a positive response for cocaine.

Police and paramedic personnel were called to the scene. After investigation it was thought that the first applicant had gained entry to the flat through another flat in the complex. Upon entering the second flat, the police discovered its occupant, Mrs B, who was ninety-seven years of age, lying on the floor. She too was naked from the waist down. She was covered in faeces, she was upset and confused, and said she was in pain. She had a number of injuries and told the police she had been sexually assaulted in the night.

The first applicant’s jacket, shoes, trousers and underpants were found in B’s flat. Faecal material, which was found to contain components of B’s DNA, was found on the applicant’s t-shirt. Pubic hair, visually similar to that of B, was found on the first applicant and elsewhere in the flat where he had been found. Swabs were taken from the first applicant’s penis but no DNA or blood was found. There was no semen found anywhere.

When interviewed by police the following evening, the first applicant admitted to having been drinking and to having taken an ecstasy tablet. He denied having committed any offences and stated that he had no recollection of events. He was interviewed on a further four occasions and states that he co-operated with the police each time.

The first applicant was charged with burglary, rape (by penile penetration), rape (by digital penetration), and sexual assault. The applicant’s trial began on 5 February 2007. The prosecution offered no evidence in respect of the burglary charge and a not guilty verdict was recorded. In respect of the remaining charges, it was not suggested by the defence that someone other than the first applicant had assaulted B, or that there had been no contact between them. Instead, the principal area of dispute was whether the first applicant’s actions had amounted to rape or, alternatively, sexual assault. The prosecution’s case was that they did. The applicant maintained that they did not. In giving evidence in his defence, the applicant repeated that he had no recollection of events on the night in question.

The trial judge’s summing up to the jury contained the following direction: “We all know this is a horrific, a disgusting episode. We all know that, and we all know – there has not been any argument about this, has there? – where moral responsibility lies but we are a court of law, we are not here to dish out admonitions for immoral conduct, disgusting behaviour. ... We are here to judge whether a crime has been committed, whether the criminal law of the land has been broken. In order to do that you have to be objective. You have to stand back from the feelings of disgust and revulsion that come from the facts of this case and be objective. That last thing anyone would want is to compound an already awful event with another awful event, which would be a verdict based upon emotion and feelings of distaste and disgust rather than a verdict based upon a proper, logical, objective analysis of what has happened and that is what you are trusted to do.”

On 14 February 2007 the jury acquitted the applicant of the three remaining charges. When the first applicant applied for his costs (which exceeded GBP 100,000 and had been met by his family) his counsel stated: “This is a case in which [the first applicant] was inevitably going to be charged with a criminal offence, I do not doubt that for a moment, and the point I made to the jury was that had a different criminal offence been charged he may have had no alternative but to plead guilty, but costs have been expended on defending him on charges for which he has been found not guilty. Bearing in mind everything Your Honour has said about his conduct that, in my submission, would not be a relevant consideration to the application that I make now because once he was interviewed by the police he did his best...to tell the truth as he understood it and remembered it to be so he did not do anything more at that stage to bring this prosecution upon himself, simply the conduct which ended him up where he was.”

In refusing the application, the trial judge said: “With regard to a defendant’s costs you [Counsel] are right, the costs should and almost invariably would follow the event. I cannot think of another case in my 35 years’ experience in the criminal courts in which it is more apparent that a defendant’s conduct, albeit that it had led to him being acquitted, but a defendant’s conduct has led to him being brought before the court and, given the nature of the circumstances and the consequences to the very vulnerable victim, the injuries that were seen upon her, where they were seen, the combination of facts, it is one of those cases where I feel it is right for the court to exceptionally say a defendant’s costs order will be refused. He [the applicant] will have an opportunity, I have not the least doubt, in the months and years ahead to make some recompense to his family who have stood so loyally by him. It is not an order that I lightly refuse but this is one of those exceptional cases where it seems to me to be justified.”

B. Ms Jones

The second applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Stourton, West Midlands.

In 2005, the police began investigating the business affairs of a company where, it was alleged, there had been money laundering, theft and fraud. The second applicant is an accountant and the company had been one of her clients. In the course of their investigation the police came into possession of an audio tape, which recorded a conversation between the applicant and another person under investigation, A.R., in which the applicant was alleged to have provided advice on how to steal from the company.

The second applicant was interviewed under caution on 1 June 2006. The tape was played to her and, on the advice of her solicitor at that time, she declined to reply to the questions put to her. It appears that, at this time, the police did not know the provenance of the tape or the date the conversation was recorded; the applicant maintains that, when interviewed, she was unable to remember the conversation or the date of it.

On 11 July 2006, the second applicant was charged with an offence of perverting the course of justice and, in September 2006, with two co‑accused including A.R., she was charged with conspiring to steal from the company between 1 June 2000 and 31 October 2004.

A defence statement was served by the applicant on 18 January 2007 in which she addressed the tape recording. She denied any discussion of impropriety, challenged the admissibility of the tape as evidence and stated that, if the prosecution established her voice was on the tape, any comments she had made in the conversation had been taken out of context.

The second applicant maintained that, at the start of the trial, the prosecution offered to drop the charges against her and three co-defendants if A.R and another defendant, C.R., pleaded guilty to a significant proportion of the charges against them. She alleges that if this offer had been accepted her application for her costs would inevitably have been granted. The Government, in their observations to this Court, do not accept that such an offer was made or that, if it had been accepted, the second applicant’s application for her costs would inevitably have been granted.

At trial the second applicant sought to have the tape excluded from evidence but the trial judge ruled that it was admissible. The second applicant then gave evidence in her own defence in which she explained that she had been able to calculate the date of the recording (1996) by reference to matters referred to in it. She also stated that, even if the tape was genuine and had not been edited as she alleged, the conversation was not in any way criminal or dishonest in purpose.

In his closing speech, counsel for the prosecution argued that the jury could and should draw an adverse inference from the fact that the applicant had relied on many facts in her defence, none of which she had mentioned when she was interviewed. In his summing up, the trial judge told the jury that the second applicant had failed to mention something in her police interview that she now relied upon in court. He also indicated that if the jury concluded that the second applicant had genuinely and reasonably relied on legal advice they should not draw an adverse inference.

On 11 July 2007 the second applicant was acquitted unanimously of the two counts facing her. Three defendants, including A.R. and C.R., were convicted of the majority of the charges against them. One defendant, M.R., was acquitted of all charges against him and another, S.R., was acquitted of all but one charge against her. M.R. and S.R. were legally aided but were granted defendant’s costs orders in respect of their own expenses.

The second applicant applied immediately for a defendant’s costs order, pursuant to section 16(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (see relevant domestic law and practice below). The trial judge refused the application. He stated: “The relevant features, in my judgment, in this case are these: that [the second applicant], acting very much on the advice of her then solicitor [name omitted], exercised her right to silence when answering ‘no comment’ in her police interview. I emphasise she cannot be criticised for that, and the advice was given in good faith and it was accepted in good faith by [her]. However, in my judgment it is a relevant consideration in deciding whether a defendant’s costs order should be made in this case. Her failure to answer questions, in my judgment, to some extent had the effect of bringing this prosecution on herself, allowing the police to believe that the case against her was stronger than it in fact has turned out to be. In particular, a cardinal plank of the prosecution case against her on the conspiracy count was a taped phone call between her and [A.R.] in which on the face of it she appeared to give advice to [A.R.] as to how to steal from the company. Her failure, in my judgment, of putting that phone call into its true context and true timescale clearly influenced the prosecution decision to bring charges against her, and it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that I have come to the conclusion that to that extent she brought this prosecution upon herself and in my judgment that is a proper reason for refusing a defendant’s costs order. In no way is that decision meant to indicate that she is in any way guilty of this offence, she is not, she has rightly been acquitted by this jury.”

On 30 July 2007, the second applicant renewed her application in writing, relying inter alia on the fact the she had been unable to recall the conversation on the tape recording until the trial had started and that one of the reasons her solicitor had sought disclosure of the tape was to consider whether to propose to the police that they should re-interview her. The trial judge declined to hold an oral hearing on the renewed application and stated that he was unable to make the order for the reasons he had already given.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e1
001-106200_a7_em1
CODE
DIRECT
35730/07
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e2
001-106200_a7_em2
CODE
QUASI
4285/08
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e3
001-106200_a7_em3
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e4
001-106200_a7_em4
DEM
QUASI
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e5
001-106200_a7_em5
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Joe Anthony Ashendon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e6
001-106200_a7_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Marilyn Jones
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e7
001-106200_a7_em7
DATETIME
QUASI
8 August 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e8
001-106200_a7_em8
DATETIME
QUASI
9 January 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e9
001-106200_a7_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr G. Bromelow
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e10
001-106200_a7_em10
LOC
QUASI
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e11
001-106200_a7_em11
ORG
QUASI
Saunders Law Partnership LLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e12
001-106200_a7_em12
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Simblet
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e13
001-106200_a7_em13
PERSON
QUASI
Mr T. Coolican
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e14
001-106200_a7_em14
LOC
QUASI
Birmingham
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e15
001-106200_a7_em15
ORG
QUASI
Russell Jones and Walker Solicitors
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e16
001-106200_a7_em16
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e17
001-106200_a7_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Walton
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e18
001-106200_a7_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Ms H. Moynihan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e19
001-106200_a7_em19
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e20
001-106200_a7_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
23 April 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e21
001-106200_a7_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
2 October 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e5
001-106200_a7_em22
PERSON
DIRECT
001-106200_a7_em5
Mr Ashendon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e22
001-106200_a7_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e10
001-106200_a7_em24
LOC
QUASI
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e23
001-106200_a7_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
In the early hours of 2 April 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e24
001-106200_a7_em26
LOC
NO_MASK
sheltered accommodation complex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e25
001-106200_a7_em27
MISC
NO_MASK
naked from the waist down
HEALTH
insert
001-106200_a7_e26
001-106200_a7_em28
MISC
NO_MASK
intoxicated
HEALTH
insert
001-106200_a7_e27
001-106200_a7_em29
MISC
NO_MASK
consumed alcohol and ecstasy
HEALTH
insert
001-106200_a7_e28
001-106200_a7_em30
MISC
QUASI
regular cannabis user
HEALTH
insert
001-106200_a7_e29
001-106200_a7_em31
MISC
NO_MASK
positive response for cocaine
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e30
001-106200_a7_em32
DEM
NO_MASK
Police and paramedic personnel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e31
001-106200_a7_em33
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mrs B
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e32
001-106200_a7_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
ninety-seven years of age
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e25
001-106200_a7_em35
MISC
NO_MASK
naked from the waist down
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e33
001-106200_a7_em36
MISC
QUASI
covered in faeces
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e34
001-106200_a7_em37
MISC
NO_MASK
sexually assaulted
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e35
001-106200_a7_em38
MISC
NO_MASK
jacket, shoes, trousers and underpants
HEALTH
insert
001-106200_a7_e36
001-106200_a7_em39
MISC
QUASI
Faecal material, which was found to contain components of B’s DNA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e37
001-106200_a7_em40
MISC
NO_MASK
applicant’s t-shirt
HEALTH
insert
001-106200_a7_e38
001-106200_a7_em41
MISC
QUASI
Pubic hair, visually similar to that of B
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e39
001-106200_a7_em42
MISC
NO_MASK
first applicant’s penis
HEALTH
insert
001-106200_a7_e40
001-106200_a7_em43
MISC
NO_MASK
having been drinking
HEALTH
insert
001-106200_a7_e41
001-106200_a7_em44
MISC
NO_MASK
having taken an ecstasy tablet
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e42
001-106200_a7_em45
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
four occasions
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e43
001-106200_a7_em46
DATETIME
QUASI
5 February 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e44
001-106200_a7_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
14 February 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e45
001-106200_a7_em48
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
three remaining charges
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e46
001-106200_a7_em49
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
GBP 100,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e47
001-106200_a7_em50
DATETIME
QUASI
35 years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e6
001-106200_a7_em51
PERSON
QUASI
001-106200_a7_em6
Ms Jones
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e48
001-106200_a7_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
1949
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e49
001-106200_a7_em53
LOC
QUASI
Stourton, West Midlands
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e50
001-106200_a7_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e51
001-106200_a7_em55
DEM
QUASI
accountant
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e52
001-106200_a7_em56
DEM
NO_MASK
clients
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e53
001-106200_a7_em57
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e54
001-106200_a7_em58
DATETIME
QUASI
1 June 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e55
001-106200_a7_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
11 July 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e56
001-106200_a7_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
September 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e57
001-106200_a7_em61
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
two co‑accused
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e53
001-106200_a7_em62
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e58
001-106200_a7_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
between 1 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e59
001-106200_a7_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
31 October 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e60
001-106200_a7_em65
DATETIME
QUASI
18 January 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e61
001-106200_a7_em66
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
three co-defendants
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-106200_a7_e53
001-106200_a7_em67
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-106200_a7_em62
A.R
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e62
001-106200_a7_em68
PERSON
NO_MASK
C.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e63
001-106200_a7_em69
DATETIME
QUASI
1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e64
001-106200_a7_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
11 July 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e65
001-106200_a7_em71
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
two counts
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e66
001-106200_a7_em72
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
Three defendants
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e53
001-106200_a7_em73
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e62
001-106200_a7_em74
PERSON
NO_MASK
C.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e67
001-106200_a7_em75
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-106200_a7_e68
001-106200_a7_em76
PERSON
NO_MASK
S.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e67
001-106200_a7_em77
PERSON
NO_MASK
M.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e68
001-106200_a7_em78
PERSON
NO_MASK
S.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a7_e53
001-106200_a7_em79
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e53
001-106200_a7_em80
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a7_e69
001-106200_a7_em81
DATETIME
QUASI
30 July 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e1
001-106200_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
35730/07
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e2
001-106200_a8_em2
CODE
QUASI
4285/08
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a8_e3
001-106200_a8_em3
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e4
001-106200_a8_em4
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e5
001-106200_a8_em5
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Joe Anthony Ashendon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e6
001-106200_a8_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Marilyn Jones
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e7
001-106200_a8_em7
DATETIME
QUASI
8 August 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e8
001-106200_a8_em8
DATETIME
QUASI
9 January 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e9
001-106200_a8_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr G. Bromelow
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e10
001-106200_a8_em10
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e11
001-106200_a8_em11
ORG
QUASI
Saunders Law Partnership LLP
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e12
001-106200_a8_em12
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Simblet
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e13
001-106200_a8_em13
PERSON
QUASI
Mr T. Coolican
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e14
001-106200_a8_em14
LOC
NO_MASK
Birmingham
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a8_e15
001-106200_a8_em15
ORG
QUASI
Russell Jones and Walker Solicitors
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e16
001-106200_a8_em16
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e17
001-106200_a8_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Walton
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e18
001-106200_a8_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Ms H. Moynihan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e19
001-106200_a8_em19
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e20
001-106200_a8_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
23 April 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e21
001-106200_a8_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
2 October 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a8_e5
001-106200_a8_em22
PERSON
DIRECT
001-106200_a8_em5
Mr Ashendon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e22
001-106200_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e10
001-106200_a8_em24
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e23
001-106200_a8_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
2 April 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a8_e24
001-106200_a8_em26
MISC
QUASI
ecstasy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a8_e25
001-106200_a8_em27
MISC
QUASI
cannabis
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a8_e26
001-106200_a8_em28
MISC
QUASI
cocaine
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e27
001-106200_a8_em29
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs B
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-106200_a8_e28
001-106200_a8_em30
DEM
NO_MASK
ninety-seven years of age
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a8_e29
001-106200_a8_em31
PERSON
QUASI
B
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e29
001-106200_a8_em32
PERSON
QUASI
B
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e29
001-106200_a8_em33
PERSON
QUASI
B
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e24
001-106200_a8_em34
MISC
QUASI
ecstasy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e30
001-106200_a8_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
5 February 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e29
001-106200_a8_em36
PERSON
QUASI
B
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e31
001-106200_a8_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
14 February 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a8_e32
001-106200_a8_em38
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
GBP 100,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a8_e6
001-106200_a8_em39
PERSON
QUASI
001-106200_a8_em6
Ms Jones
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e33
001-106200_a8_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
1949
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e34
001-106200_a8_em41
LOC
QUASI
Stourton, West Midlands
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e35
001-106200_a8_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e36
001-106200_a8_em43
PERSON
QUASI
A.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e37
001-106200_a8_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
1 June 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e38
001-106200_a8_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
11 July 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e39
001-106200_a8_em46
DATETIME
QUASI
September 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e36
001-106200_a8_em47
PERSON
QUASI
A.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a8_e40
001-106200_a8_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
1 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e41
001-106200_a8_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
31 October 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e42
001-106200_a8_em50
DATETIME
QUASI
18 January 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-106200_a8_e43
001-106200_a8_em51
PERSON
QUASI
A.R
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e44
001-106200_a8_em52
PERSON
QUASI
C.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e45
001-106200_a8_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e46
001-106200_a8_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
11 July 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e36
001-106200_a8_em55
PERSON
QUASI
A.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e44
001-106200_a8_em56
PERSON
QUASI
C.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a8_e47
001-106200_a8_em57
PERSON
QUASI
M.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-106200_a8_e48
001-106200_a8_em58
PERSON
QUASI
S.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e47
001-106200_a8_em59
PERSON
QUASI
M.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a8_e48
001-106200_a8_em60
PERSON
QUASI
S.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e36
001-106200_a8_em61
PERSON
QUASI
A.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-106200_a8_e36
001-106200_a8_em62
PERSON
QUASI
A.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-106200_a8_e49
001-106200_a8_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
30 July 2007
Joe Anthony Ashendon
GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Joe Anthony Ashendon