PROCEDURE

The cases originated in two application (nos. 26766/05 and 2228/06) 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 a British national, Mr Imad Al-Khawaja (“the first applicant”), on 18 July 2005 and by an Iranian national, Mr Ali Tahery (“the second applicant”), on 23 May 2006.

The first applicant was represented by Mr A. Burcombe, a lawyer practising in London with Wells Burcombe LLP Solicitors, assisted by Mr J. Bennathan Q.C., counsel. The second applicant was represented by Mr M. Fisher, a lawyer practising in London with Peter Kandler and Co. Solicitors, assisted by Ms R. Trowler, counsel. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Grainger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The first applicant alleged that his trial for indecent assault had been unfair because one of the two women who made complaints against him died before the trial and her statement to the police was read to the jury. The second applicant alleged that his trial for wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm had been unfair because the statement of one witness who feared attending trial was read to the jury.

On 5 September 2006 the President of the Chamber within the Section to which the cases had been allocated decided to give notice of each application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of each application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

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

A hearing in both cases took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 8 January 2008 (Rule 59 § 3). There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr J. Grainger, Agent, Mr D. Perry QC, Counsel, Ms L. Clapinska, Mr S. Jones, Mr M. Lindley, Ms A. Sharif, Advisers; (b) for the applicant Mr J. Bennathan QC, Counsel for Mr Al-Khawaja, Ms R. Trowler, Counsel for Mr Tahery. The Court heard addresses by Mr Bennathan and Mr Perry and their answers to a question put by Judge Bratza.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES

A. Mr Al-Khawaja

The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Brighton.

While working as a consultant physician in the field of rehabilitative medicine, the applicant was charged on two counts of indecent assault on two female patients while they were allegedly under hypnosis. One of the complainants, S.T., committed suicide (taken to be unrelated to the assault) before the trial but, several months after the alleged assault, had made a statement to the police.

On 22 March 2004, a preliminary hearing was held to determine whether S.T.'s statement should be read to the jury. The judge stated that the contents of the statement were crucial to the prosecution on count one as there was no other direct evidence of what took place; “putting it bluntly, no statement, no count one.” The defence accepted that if the statement was read to the jury at trial they would be in a position to rebut it through the cross-examination of other witnesses and expose inconsistencies in their evidence. The judge considered that this represented a route by which S.T.'s statement and/or her credibility could be challenged; however, he went on to underline the importance of the need for the trial judge to give directions to the jury as to the status of the evidence. The judge allowed the evidence to be admitted at trial.

The jury heard evidence from a number of different witnesses and the defence were given the opportunity to cross-examine other witnesses who had produced similar fact evidence, including the second complainant who had produced supportive evidence. In his summing up, the trial judge directed the members of the jury, on two separate occasions, as to how they should regard the read statement of the deceased complainant. The judge stated in his summing up: “It is very important that you [the jury] bear in mind when considering her [S.T.'s] evidence that you have not seen her give evidence; you have not heard her give evidence; and you have not heard her evidence cross-examined [by applicant's counsel], who would undoubtedly have had a number of questions to put to her.”

The judge later stated: “...bear in mind...that this evidence was read to you. The allegation is completely denied...you must take that into account when considering her evidence.” On three occasions the jury asked for clarification of points raised in the read statement of S.T.

The applicant was convicted by a unanimous verdict on both counts of indecent assault. He was sentenced to a 15 month custodial sentence on the first count and a 12 month custodial sentence on the second count, to run consecutively.

The applicant appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal. The appeal centred on the pre-trial ruling to admit S.T.'s statement as evidence. It was also submitted that, in his summing up, the trial judge did not give adequate directions to the jury as to the consequential disadvantage of this evidence to the applicant.

On 6 September 2005 the appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal concluded on 3 November 2005 that the applicant's right to a fair trial had not been infringed. With regard to the admission in evidence of the statement of the deceased complainant, the court held that it was not necessarily incompatible with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d). Relying on Doorson v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑II p 66, the court held that admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter of domestic law. It then found: “Where a witness who is the sole witness of a crime has made a statement to be used in its prosecution and has since died, there may be a strong public interest in the admission of the statement in evidence so that the prosecution may proceed. That was the case here. That public interest must not be allowed to override the requirement that the defendant have a fair trial. Like the court in Sellick [see relevant domestic law below] we do not consider that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights requires the conclusion that in such circumstances the trial will be unfair. The provision in Article 6(3)(d) that a person charged shall be able to [have] the witnesses against him examined is one specific aspect of a fair trial: but if the opportunity is not provided, the question is 'whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way the evidence was taken, were fair' – Doorson, paragraph 19. This was not a case where the witness had absented himself, whether through fear or otherwise, or had required anonymity, or had exercised a right to keep silent. The reason was death, which has a finality which brings in considerations of its own, as has been indicated at the start of this paragraph.”

The court also considered that the applicant had been able to attack the accuracy of the deceased complainant's statement by exploring the inconsistencies between it and the evidence given by witnesses and experts. Turning to the issue of the trial judge's summing up, the court stated: “We consider that it would have been better if the judge had stated explicitly that the appellant was potentially disadvantaged by the absence of [S.T.] and that in consequence of the inability to cross-examine her and of the jury to see her, her evidence should carry less weight with them. Nonetheless, in the circumstances of this case it must have been wholly clear to the jury from the directions the judge did give, that this was the purpose of his remarks. We therefore consider that the jury were given an adequate direction as to the consequences of [S.T.'s] statement being in evidence in her absence, and that this is not a factor which might make the appellant's trial unfair and in breach of Article 6. We should also say that overall the evidence against the appellant was very strong. We were wholly unpersuaded that the verdicts were unsafe.”

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords but certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in the decision.

On 30 November 2005 the applicant petitioned the House of Lords on the point of law certified by the Court of Appeal. On 7 February 2005 the House of Lords refused the petition.

B. Mr Tahery

The applicant was born in 1975. On 19 May 2004 he was involved in a fight with S. during which it is alleged that the applicant stabbed S. three times in the back. The applicant was charged with wounding with intent and also with attempting to pervert the course of justice by telling the police that he had seen two black men stab S. When witnesses were questioned at the scene, no-one claimed to have seen the applicant stab S. Two days later, however, one of the witnesses, T., made a statement to police that he had seen the applicant stab S. In S.'s statement to the police, it is clear that he did not see who stabbed him. Both S. and T. were members of the Iranian community in London.

On 25 April 2005 the applicant's trial began at Blackfriars Crown Court. On 26 April (the second day of trial) the prosecution made an application for leave to read T.'s statement pursuant to section 116(2) (e) and (4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the “CJA 2003”). The prosecution argued under the CJA 2003 that T. was too fearful to attend trial before the jury and that he should qualify for special measures. The trial judge heard evidence from a police officer conducting the case who testified that the Iranian community was close-knit and that T.'s fear was genuine. The trial judge also heard evidence from T. himself who gave evidence to the judge from behind a screen. In ruling that leave should be given for the statement to be read to the jury, the trial judge stated: “I am satisfied in those circumstances upon the criminal standard of proof that this witness is genuinely in fear; and I base that not only on his oral testimony, but also upon my opportunity while he was in the witness box to observe him. I therefore have to look, having looked at the contents of the statement, to any risk its admission or exclusion will result in unfairness to any party to the proceedings. I am satisfied that there would be an unfairness caused by its exclusion; but I am equally satisfied that no unfairness would be caused by its admission. And in doing so, I have taken into account the words of the statute [Section 116 (2)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, see relevant domestic law below]; in particular how difficult it will be to challenge the statement if the relevant person does not give oral evidence. Challenge of a statement does not always come from cross-examination. Challenge of a statement can be caused by evidence given in rebuttal; by either the defendant, if he chooses to do so, or by any other bystander – and we know that there were some – who were on the street at that time. Consequently I am satisfied that the defendant's evidence, if he chooses to give it, would be sufficient to rebut and to challenge the evidence that is contained in that statement. I have further considered other relevant factors, and I have also offered to the witness whilst he was in the witness box behind screens the possibility of him giving evidence with the same special measures in place. He told me his position would not change; that he could not give evidence before a jury, and the reason that he could not was because he was in fear. Having taken all those matters into account in those circumstances, I am satisfied that this is the type of case which Parliament envisaged might require a statement to be read.”

T.'s witness statement was then read to the jury in his absence. The applicant also gave evidence. The judge, in his summing up, warned the jury about the danger of relying on the evidence of T. He stated: “That evidence, as you know, was read to you under the provisions that allow a witness who is frightened, it is not a question of nerves it is a question of fright, fear, for his statement to be read to you but you must be careful as to how you treat it. It is right, as has been pointed out by the defence, that they were deprived of an opportunity to test that evidence under cross-examination. It is right also that you did not have the advantage of seeing the witness and his demeanour in Court...You must ask yourselves 'can we rely upon this statement? Is it a statement which we find convincing?' It is only if you are satisfied so that you are sure that what is in the statement has accurately depicted what happened that night and what the witness saw, that you could rely upon it. That goes for any witness. It is only if you find that the evidence is compelling and satisfies you so that you are sure that you act upon it. So you must always ask yourselves 'is the statement he made reliable?' You must bear in mind also, importantly, that it is agreed and acknowledged that it is not the defendant who is responsible for putting the witness in fear.” On 29 April 2005, the applicant was convicted by a majority verdict, principally of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and later sentenced to nine years' imprisonment to be served concurrently with a term of fifteen months' imprisonment for doing an act intended to pervert the course of justice.

The applicant's appeal was referred directly before the full Court of Appeal. The applicant argued that the inability to cross-examine T. infringed his right to a fair trial. The appeal judges were satisfied that if they were to refuse leave, under the CJA 2003, to have T.'s statement read at trial there would be unfairness to the prosecution and that, were they to grant it, there would be no unfairness to the applicant. The Court of Appeal acknowledged, however, that the Crown accepted that T.'s statement was “both important and probative of a major issue in the case...and had it not been admitted the prospect of a conviction would have receded and that of an acquittal advanced.” The court upheld the reasoning at first instance, stating that there was available not only cross-examination of other prosecution witnesses but also evidence from the applicant himself and the potential for evidence from other bystanders in order to prevent unfairness. It was also stated that the trial judge had explicitly warned the jury in detail as to how they should treat this evidence and properly directed them as to how they should consider it in reaching their verdict. Although the applicant maintained that even a proper direction by the judge could not cure the unfairness, the Court of Appeal held that the jury was informed of all matters necessary to its decision-making process. The applicant's sentence was reduced to seven years' imprisonment. Leave to appeal on conviction was refused on 24 January 2006.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e1
001-90781_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
26766/05
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e2
001-90781_a8_em2
CODE
QUASI
2228/06
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90781_a8_e3
001-90781_a8_em3
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e4
001-90781_a8_em4
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e5
001-90781_a8_em5
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Imad Al-Khawaja
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e6
001-90781_a8_em6
DATETIME
QUASI
18 July 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e7
001-90781_a8_em7
DEM
QUASI
Iranian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e8
001-90781_a8_em8
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Ali Tahery
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e9
001-90781_a8_em9
DATETIME
QUASI
23 May 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e10
001-90781_a8_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Burcombe
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e11
001-90781_a8_em11
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e12
001-90781_a8_em12
ORG
QUASI
Wells Burcombe LLP Solicitors
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e13
001-90781_a8_em13
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Bennathan Q.C.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e14
001-90781_a8_em14
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Fisher
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e11
001-90781_a8_em15
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e15
001-90781_a8_em16
PERSON
QUASI
Peter Kandler
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e16
001-90781_a8_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Ms R. Trowler
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e17
001-90781_a8_em18
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e18
001-90781_a8_em19
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Grainger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e19
001-90781_a8_em20
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-90781_a8_e20
001-90781_a8_em21
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e21
001-90781_a8_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
8 January 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e18
001-90781_a8_em23
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Grainger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e22
001-90781_a8_em24
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Perry QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e23
001-90781_a8_em25
PERSON
QUASI
Ms L. Clapinska
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e24
001-90781_a8_em26
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Jones
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e25
001-90781_a8_em27
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Lindley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e26
001-90781_a8_em28
PERSON
QUASI
Ms A. Sharif
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e27
001-90781_a8_em29
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Bennathan QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e28
001-90781_a8_em30
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Al-Khawaja
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e16
001-90781_a8_em31
PERSON
QUASI
Ms R. Trowler
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e29
001-90781_a8_em32
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Tahery
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e27
001-90781_a8_em33
PERSON
QUASI
001-90781_a8_em29
Mr Bennathan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e22
001-90781_a8_em34
PERSON
QUASI
001-90781_a8_em24
Mr Perry
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e30
001-90781_a8_em35
PERSON
QUASI
Judge Bratza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90781_a8_e28
001-90781_a8_em36
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Al-Khawaja
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e31
001-90781_a8_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
1956
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e32
001-90781_a8_em38
LOC
QUASI
Brighton
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90781_a8_e33
001-90781_a8_em39
DEM
QUASI
consultant physician
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90781_a8_e34
001-90781_a8_em40
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
two counts
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-90781_a8_e35
001-90781_a8_em41
PERSON
QUASI
S.T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e36
001-90781_a8_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
22 March 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e35
001-90781_a8_em43
PERSON
QUASI
S.T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e35
001-90781_a8_em44
PERSON
QUASI
S.T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e35
001-90781_a8_em45
PERSON
QUASI
S.T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e35
001-90781_a8_em46
PERSON
QUASI
S.T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e37
001-90781_a8_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
15 month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e38
001-90781_a8_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
12 month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e39
001-90781_a8_em49
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e35
001-90781_a8_em50
PERSON
QUASI
S.T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e40
001-90781_a8_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
6 September 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e39
001-90781_a8_em52
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e41
001-90781_a8_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
3 November 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90781_a8_e42
001-90781_a8_em54
MISC
NO_MASK
Doorson v. the Netherlands
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e43
001-90781_a8_em55
DATETIME
QUASI
26 March 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e35
001-90781_a8_em56
PERSON
QUASI
S.T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e35
001-90781_a8_em57
PERSON
QUASI
S.T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e39
001-90781_a8_em58
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e44
001-90781_a8_em59
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e45
001-90781_a8_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
30 November 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e44
001-90781_a8_em61
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e39
001-90781_a8_em62
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e46
001-90781_a8_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
7 February 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e44
001-90781_a8_em64
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90781_a8_e29
001-90781_a8_em65
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Tahery
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e47
001-90781_a8_em66
DATETIME
QUASI
1975
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e48
001-90781_a8_em67
DATETIME
QUASI
19 May 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90781_a8_e49
001-90781_a8_em68
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e49
001-90781_a8_em69
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e49
001-90781_a8_em70
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e49
001-90781_a8_em71
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90781_a8_e50
001-90781_a8_em72
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Two days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-90781_a8_e51
001-90781_a8_em73
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e49
001-90781_a8_em74
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-90781_a8_e49
001-90781_a8_em75
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e49
001-90781_a8_em76
PERSON
QUASI
S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e51
001-90781_a8_em77
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e7
001-90781_a8_em78
DEM
QUASI
Iranian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e11
001-90781_a8_em79
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e52
001-90781_a8_em80
DATETIME
QUASI
25 April 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e53
001-90781_a8_em81
ORG
QUASI
Blackfriars Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e54
001-90781_a8_em82
DATETIME
QUASI
26 April
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-90781_a8_e51
001-90781_a8_em83
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e51
001-90781_a8_em84
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e7
001-90781_a8_em85
DEM
QUASI
Iranian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e51
001-90781_a8_em86
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e51
001-90781_a8_em87
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e51
001-90781_a8_em88
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e51
001-90781_a8_em89
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e55
001-90781_a8_em90
DATETIME
QUASI
29 April 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90781_a8_e56
001-90781_a8_em91
DATETIME
QUASI
nine years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90781_a8_e57
001-90781_a8_em92
DATETIME
QUASI
fifteen months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90781_a8_e39
001-90781_a8_em93
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90781_a8_e51
001-90781_a8_em94
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e51
001-90781_a8_em95
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e39
001-90781_a8_em96
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e51
001-90781_a8_em97
PERSON
QUASI
T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e39
001-90781_a8_em98
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90781_a8_e58
001-90781_a8_em99
DATETIME
QUASI
seven years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90781_a8_e59
001-90781_a8_em100
DATETIME
QUASI
24 January 2006
Imad Al-Khawaja
GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Imad Al-Khawaja