PROCEDURE

The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 12 March 1999. It originated in an application (27052/95) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“the Government”) lodged with the Commission under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Eric Jasper, a British national, on 26 September 1994. The applicant is represented by Ms Mary Cunneen of Liberty. The Government of the United Kingdom are represented by their Agent, Mr Martin Eaton, Deputy Legal Adviser at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Commission's request referred to former Articles 44 and 48 and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (former Article 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 6 of the Convention.

In accordance with Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention and Rules 100 § 1 and 24 § 6 of the Rules of Court, a panel of the Grand Chamber of the Court decided on 31 March 1991 that the case should be examined by the Grand Chamber. On 1 April 1999 Mr L. Wildhaber, the President of the Court, acting under Rule 24 §§ 3-5 determined the composition of the Grand Chamber to include, ex officio, himself, and Mrs E. Palm, the Vice-President of the Court. The other members appointed to complete the Grand Chamber were Mr L. Ferrari Bravo, Mr L. Caflisch, Mr J.-P. Costa, Mr W. Fuhrmann, Mr K. Jungwiert, Mr M. Fischbach, Mr B. Zupančič, Mrs N. Vajić, Mr J. Hedigan, Mrs W. Thomassen, Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Mr T. Panţîru, Mr E. Levits and Mr K. Traja (Rule 24 § 3 and Rule 100 § 4). Sir Nicolas Bratza, the judge elected in respect of the United Kingdom and who should have participated pursuant to Article 27 § 2 of the Convention, could not take part in the consideration of the case since he had participated in the proceedings before the Commission (Rule 28 § 3). The Government appointed Sir John Laws to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1).

In accordance with the President's decision, a hearing of the case, jointly with application nos. 28901/95, Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom, and 29777/96, Fitt v. the United Kingdom, took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 20 October 1999. There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr M. Eaton, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Agent, Mr R. Cranston, Solicitor General, Mr J. Eadie, Barrister-at-law Counsel, Mr R. Heaton, Home Office, Ms G. Harrison, Home Office Mr C. Burke, Customs and Excise Ms F. Russell, Crown Prosecution Service Mr A. Chapman, Law Officer's Department, Advisers; (b) for the applicant Mr B. Emmerson, Barrister-at-law, Counsel, Ms M. Cunneen, Liberty, Ms P. Kaufman, Barrister-at-law, Mr S. Young, Barrister-at-law, Mr A. Master, Solicitor, Advisers. The Court heard addresses by Mr Cranston and Mr Emmerson and also their replies to questions put by several of its members.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

1. The alleged offence

At the time of the introduction of the application, the applicant was serving a prison sentence. The background to his conviction is as follows. On 30 June 1993 approximately three tonnes of cannabis resin was imported into the United Kingdom concealed in a consignment of frozen meat on a lorry travelling from Zeebrugge to Dover. There had been two previous importations of meat from the same consignor in May and early June 1993, both of which had been collected by a firm of hauliers called Davidsons. On this occasion, the meat was delivered to West Kent Cold Storage at Dunton Green, near Sevenoaks in Kent.

On 1 July 1993 Customs and Excise officers were keeping the applicant under observation. At approximately 6 a.m. he was followed from his home in Walthamstow, East London, to a lorry park at Beckton, where he collected an articulated lorry and refrigerated trailor which he had bought the previous month. He drove the lorry to West Kent Cold Storage, where he loaded the consignment of meat onto the lorry, and then drove on to a lock-up garage in Leytonstone, East London. He backed the trailor into the garage and drove away in his car. He made two brief visits to the garage during the morning, and then returned at approximately 1 p.m.

The applicant remained inside the garage for about five hours and was arrested just before 6 p.m. as he was leaving. The garage was searched. Six of the ten pallets of meat were still on the lorry in a frozen state, although the refrigerator motor was not operative. Four of the pallets, containing a large quantity of cannabis resin, had been opened and left to defrost in the unrefrigerated garage. The applicant told Customs officers that he worked as a haulage contractor and had not known that the meat contained cannabis.

In addition, Customs officers found that the applicant's daughter had rented a safety deposit box on 19 March 1993, of which the applicant, using the name of “Eric Siggins” was an authorised signatory. Following the applicant's arrest on 5 August the box was searched and found to contain GBP 24,100 in cash and two passports bearing the applicant's photograph, the first in his true name and the second in the name of Eric Siggins. Also found in the box were two documents dated 30 June, the date of the applicant's arrest.

The applicant was charged with an offence of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of cannabis, and remanded for trial in the Southwark Crown Court.

2. The disclosure procedure at first instance

On 14 January 1994, shortly before the commencement of the trial, the prosecution made an ex parte application to the trial judge to withhold material in its possession on the grounds of public interest immunity. The defence were notified that an application was to be made, but were not informed of the category of material which the prosecution sought to withhold. They were given the opportunity to outline the defence case to the trial judge, namely that the applicant had collected the consignment of meat pursuant to instructions received by telephone the previous night, and had not been aware that the meat contained cannabis, and to request the judge to order disclosure of any evidence relating to these alleged facts. The trial judge examined the material in question and ruled that it should not be disclosed. The defence were not informed of the reasons for the judge's decision.

On 18 January 1994 the defence served the following written request on the prosecution: “9. The Crown are formally asked to indicate (a) in general whether there is unused material in connection with this case, apart from the subject-matter of the ex parte application to the Court on Friday 14 January 1994 ... which has not been disclosed and (b) in particular: (i) whether any listening device or telephone intercept was used, and whether there exists any resulting recording, note, memorandum, or other record; (ii) whether there exists any note, memorandum or other record of any interview with, or statement by any witness or potential witness in this case that has not already been disclosed; (iii) whether there exists any evidence ... of any observations on the lorry ... or on the premises of West Kent Cold Storage, and if not, whether any such observations were in fact carried out; (iv) whether there were any other observations carried out in connection with this enquiry that have not been disclosed; (v) whether any enquiries were made to trace the vehicles and/or drivers used for the first two Davidson and Sons collections from West Kent Cold Store, and if so, with what result; (vi) whether HM Customs and Excise acted in this enquiry on any 'information received' and if so, whether there exists any log, memorandum, or other record of any such information.”

Prosecution counsel provided the answer to questions 9(iii) and (vi), informing the defence that there had been no such observations and no “information received” from an informant, but declined to answer the remainder of the questions. The defence therefore applied to the trial judge for an order that the prosecution should provide the information requested. The application was heard on 24 January 1994, when prosecution counsel submitted: “I have refused and still refuse to answer the questions set out in ... paragraph 9 because I contend that I am not required to reveal to any person whether there has been any interception of communications under the [Interception of Communications] Act [see paragraphs 31-34 below]. If I answer the question at 9(a) or 9(b), I shall be answering that question which I am not required to answer. ... I am confident I have done what is required of me in respect of it. ... I take the view that were there to be any matter falling under the Interception of Communications Act it should not be the subject of any ex parte application ... .”

That position was upheld by the trial judge who, in his ruling of 24 January 1994, stated inter alia: “I cannot invite [prosecution counsel] ... to go behind the stand that he is taking, at this stage, where he takes the view that even an ex parte application is unnecessary, which is the way he looks at it. ... I think we have taken the matter as far as we can in that particular aspect. One is bound, because I have no power [to order] otherwise, to accept the situation as the prosecutor tells it to be.”

3. The trial

The applicant did not give evidence at his trial. The defence case was that he had no knowledge of the cannabis hidden in the consignment and was acting as an innocent haulier of the goods. He was attempting to establish a haulage business (“Ejay Couriers”) and had bought vehicles and hired the lock-up garage for that purpose. It was submitted on his behalf that in collecting the meat he had been acting pursuant to instructions from another firm of hauliers, as was shown by a note, found in the applicant's possession at the time of his arrest, on Ejay Couriers headed paper of a telephone call made by Davidsons (see paragraph 1 above) at 7.30 p.m. on 30 June 1993.

On 31 January 1994 the applicant was convicted of the offence charged and on 21 March 1994 he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.

4. The appeal

The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, on the following grounds: “It was clear that not all unused material had been disclosed. ... In open court it was stated on behalf of the defendant that the unused material was of potential importance to his defence that he had no knowledge that drugs were to be or were concealed in the load he carried, and that he had received his instructions for the collection by telephone, in the course of his business as a haulier, very shortly before 1 July 1993. ... Any information therefore that might have led to his being able to confirm either the source or content of those instructions, as well as to trace those who had involved him in a smuggling enterprise was of obvious importance. The Crown had declined to answer the question whether any potentially relevant material, apart from the subject-matter of the ex parte application, had not been disclosed, on the grounds that to do so would reveal whether or not there had been a telephone intercept. It was plain from the course of the argument that the ex parte application had not dealt with any telephone intercept, since the Crown argued that this was the province solely of the prosecutor, and not that of the judge, a proposition based on R. v. Preston [see paragraph 34 below]. In these circumstances the defence were entitled to know at least the category of material with which that application did not deal. ... Furthermore, the Crown should have been called upon to justify, ex parte if necessary, the stance taken in relation to the other unused material. ... Since there must have been a reason for watching the defendant, which was explained neither by the evidence adduced, nor by that served but excluded by agreement, and since it was said that there was no informant involved in the case, there is a strong likelihood that disclosable information, bearing directly upon the defendant's case, was in the possession of the prosecution.”

On 13 February 1995, prior to the hearing of the appeal, defence counsel applied to the Court of Appeal for an order that the defence should be given a transcript of the ex parte hearing of 14 January 1994, to enable them to argue the non-disclosure as a ground of appeal. Defence counsel outlined the applicant's case, namely that the instructions for the collection of the load had been received by telephone very shortly before 1 July 1993, and submitted that any information that might be in the Crown's possession and which could, directly or indirectly, support the defence case, should have been disclosed.

The Court of Appeal, which had before it the transcript of the ex parte hearing of 14 January 1994 and the material which had been its subject-matter, declined to order the disclosure of either to the defence on the following grounds: “The application is made, correctly, on the ground that if the matters which emerged during the ex parte hearing are relevant, or likely to have been relevant, to the defence of Mr Jasper, he should be permitted to have sight of the ruling and the transcript of the proceedings which took place on that occasion. We have read the record and it seems ... that the learned judge ... knew precisely the scope of the application and listened with the greatest possible care to the matters which were placed before him. He tested those matters, and he came to the conclusion that the ruling which he made was appropriate in all the circumstances. It is abundantly clear from the transcript that he throughout was very careful to ensure and to explore whether the material was relevant, or likely to be relevant to the defence which had been indicated to him. In these circumstances, it is impossible for this court to say that the learned judge erred in principle in adopting the course that he did, or that the prosecution erred in principle and we see no ground to set aside the order that the learned judge made on that occasion.”

On 28 March 1995 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. The first ground of appeal, namely the non-disclosure of relevant evidence, was rejected in the following terms: “The first [ground of appeal] ... related to matters to which the label 'unused material' is commonly given in these courts. It concerned the natural and proper desire of those instructed on behalf of the appellant to make sure, in so far as they could, that no documents or leads of any other sort existed which the Crown ought, as a matter of duty, to disclose to the defence if there was a real or a possible or more than a fanciful chance that disclosure of those documents or those leads might assist the defence. ... There is no suggestion, nor any ground for a suggestion, that the Crown were in any way in dereliction of their duty of good faith in making disclosure of anything that ought properly to be disclosed.” The court continued: “This was a case of enormous strength so far as the prosecution were concerned. The appellant had been caught red handed with a huge amount of cannabis resin. He was exercising a proprietorial form of control over the packages. He was unloading them and opening them up. By opening them he was allowing what were ostensibly their sole contents to defreeze, with a risk (to put it no higher) of their becoming valueless. He was not the consignee of the meat. [He] neither called nor gave evidence. That, of course, was his right, as the jury were ... directed, but it had the result that the jury were without any explanation whatsoever as to what, on his case, he was about. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see what other inference than that he was indeed guilty of the offence charged any reasonable jury could have reached. We dismiss this appeal.”
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e1
001-58495_a8_em1
DATETIME
QUASI
12 March 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e2
001-58495_a8_em2
CODE
DIRECT
27052/95
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e3
001-58495_a8_em3
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e4
001-58495_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Eric Jasper
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e5
001-58495_a8_em5
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e6
001-58495_a8_em6
DATETIME
QUASI
26 September 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e7
001-58495_a8_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Mary Cunneen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e8
001-58495_a8_em8
ORG
QUASI
Liberty
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58495_a8_e9
001-58495_a8_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
Government of the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e10
001-58495_a8_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Martin Eaton
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e11
001-58495_a8_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e12
001-58495_a8_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e13
001-58495_a8_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
31 March 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e14
001-58495_a8_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
1 April 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e15
001-58495_a8_em15
PERSON
QUASI
Mr L. Wildhaber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e16
001-58495_a8_em16
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs E. Palm
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e17
001-58495_a8_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Mr L. Ferrari Bravo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e18
001-58495_a8_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Mr L. Caflisch
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e19
001-58495_a8_em19
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J.-P. Costa
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e20
001-58495_a8_em20
PERSON
QUASI
Mr W. Fuhrmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e21
001-58495_a8_em21
PERSON
QUASI
Mr K. Jungwiert
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e22
001-58495_a8_em22
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Fischbach
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e23
001-58495_a8_em23
PERSON
QUASI
Mr B. Zupančič
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e24
001-58495_a8_em24
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs N. Vajić
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e25
001-58495_a8_em25
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Hedigan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e26
001-58495_a8_em26
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs W. Thomassen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e27
001-58495_a8_em27
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e28
001-58495_a8_em28
PERSON
QUASI
Mr T. Panţîru
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e29
001-58495_a8_em29
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E. Levits
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e30
001-58495_a8_em30
PERSON
QUASI
Mr K. Traja
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e31
001-58495_a8_em31
PERSON
QUASI
Sir Nicolas Bratza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e12
001-58495_a8_em32
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e32
001-58495_a8_em33
PERSON
QUASI
Sir John Laws
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e33
001-58495_a8_em34
CODE
NO_MASK
28901/95
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e34
001-58495_a8_em35
MISC
NO_MASK
Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e35
001-58495_a8_em36
CODE
NO_MASK
29777/96
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e36
001-58495_a8_em37
MISC
NO_MASK
Fitt v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58495_a8_e37
001-58495_a8_em38
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e38
001-58495_a8_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
20 October 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e39
001-58495_a8_em40
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Eaton
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e11
001-58495_a8_em41
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e40
001-58495_a8_em42
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Cranston
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e41
001-58495_a8_em43
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Eadie
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e42
001-58495_a8_em44
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Heaton
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e43
001-58495_a8_em45
ORG
NO_MASK
Home Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e44
001-58495_a8_em46
PERSON
QUASI
Ms G. Harrison
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e43
001-58495_a8_em47
ORG
NO_MASK
Home Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e45
001-58495_a8_em48
PERSON
QUASI
Mr C. Burke
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e46
001-58495_a8_em49
ORG
NO_MASK
Customs and Excise
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e47
001-58495_a8_em50
PERSON
QUASI
Ms F. Russell
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e48
001-58495_a8_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Prosecution Service
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e49
001-58495_a8_em52
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Chapman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e50
001-58495_a8_em53
PERSON
QUASI
Mr B. Emmerson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e51
001-58495_a8_em54
PERSON
QUASI
Ms M. Cunneen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58495_a8_e8
001-58495_a8_em55
ORG
QUASI
Liberty
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e52
001-58495_a8_em56
PERSON
QUASI
Ms P. Kaufman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e53
001-58495_a8_em57
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Young
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e54
001-58495_a8_em58
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Master
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e55
001-58495_a8_em59
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Cranston
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e56
001-58495_a8_em60
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Emmerson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e57
001-58495_a8_em61
DATETIME
QUASI
30 June 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e58
001-58495_a8_em62
QUANTITY
QUASI
three tonnes
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e12
001-58495_a8_em63
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e59
001-58495_a8_em64
LOC
QUASI
Zeebrugge
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e60
001-58495_a8_em65
LOC
QUASI
Dover
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e61
001-58495_a8_em66
DATETIME
QUASI
May
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e62
001-58495_a8_em67
DATETIME
QUASI
June 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e63
001-58495_a8_em68
ORG
QUASI
Davidsons
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58495_a8_e64
001-58495_a8_em69
ORG
QUASI
West Kent Cold Storage
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58495_a8_e65
001-58495_a8_em70
LOC
QUASI
Dunton Green
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e66
001-58495_a8_em71
LOC
QUASI
Sevenoaks
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e67
001-58495_a8_em72
LOC
QUASI
Kent
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e68
001-58495_a8_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e46
001-58495_a8_em74
ORG
NO_MASK
Customs and Excise
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e69
001-58495_a8_em75
DATETIME
NO_MASK
6 a.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e70
001-58495_a8_em76
LOC
QUASI
Walthamstow, East London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e71
001-58495_a8_em77
LOC
QUASI
Beckton
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e64
001-58495_a8_em78
ORG
QUASI
West Kent Cold Storage
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e72
001-58495_a8_em79
LOC
QUASI
Leytonstone, East London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e73
001-58495_a8_em80
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1 p.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e74
001-58495_a8_em81
DATETIME
NO_MASK
five hours
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e75
001-58495_a8_em82
DATETIME
NO_MASK
6 p.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e76
001-58495_a8_em83
ORG
NO_MASK
Customs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e76
001-58495_a8_em84
ORG
NO_MASK
Customs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e77
001-58495_a8_em85
DATETIME
QUASI
19 March 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e78
001-58495_a8_em86
PERSON
QUASI
Eric Siggins
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e79
001-58495_a8_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
5 August
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e80
001-58495_a8_em88
QUANTITY
QUASI
GBP 24,100
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e78
001-58495_a8_em89
PERSON
QUASI
Eric Siggins
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e81
001-58495_a8_em90
DATETIME
QUASI
30 June
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e82
001-58495_a8_em91
ORG
QUASI
Southwark Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e83
001-58495_a8_em92
DATETIME
QUASI
14 January 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e84
001-58495_a8_em93
DATETIME
QUASI
18 January 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e85
001-58495_a8_em94
DATETIME
QUASI
Friday 14 January 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58495_a8_e64
001-58495_a8_em95
ORG
QUASI
West Kent Cold Storage
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e86
001-58495_a8_em96
ORG
QUASI
Davidson and Sons
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e87
001-58495_a8_em97
ORG
QUASI
West Kent Cold Store
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e88
001-58495_a8_em98
ORG
QUASI
HM Customs and Excise
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e89
001-58495_a8_em99
DATETIME
QUASI
24 January 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e89
001-58495_a8_em100
DATETIME
QUASI
24 January 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58495_a8_e90
001-58495_a8_em101
ORG
QUASI
Ejay Couriers
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e90
001-58495_a8_em102
ORG
QUASI
Ejay Couriers
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e63
001-58495_a8_em103
ORG
QUASI
Davidsons
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e91
001-58495_a8_em104
DATETIME
NO_MASK
7.30 p.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e57
001-58495_a8_em105
DATETIME
QUASI
30 June 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e92
001-58495_a8_em106
DATETIME
QUASI
31 January 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e93
001-58495_a8_em107
DATETIME
QUASI
21 March 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e94
001-58495_a8_em108
DATETIME
QUASI
ten years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e95
001-58495_a8_em109
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e68
001-58495_a8_em110
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58495_a8_e96
001-58495_a8_em111
MISC
NO_MASK
R. v. Preston
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e97
001-58495_a8_em112
DATETIME
QUASI
13 February 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e95
001-58495_a8_em113
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e83
001-58495_a8_em114
DATETIME
QUASI
14 January 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e68
001-58495_a8_em115
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e95
001-58495_a8_em116
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e83
001-58495_a8_em117
DATETIME
QUASI
14 January 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e4
001-58495_a8_em118
PERSON
DIRECT
001-58495_a8_em4
Mr Jasper
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58495_a8_e98
001-58495_a8_em119
DATETIME
QUASI
28 March 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58495_a8_e95
001-58495_a8_em120
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
Eric Jasper
GBR
GRANDCHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Eric Jasper