Print document
 4 of 94 
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, yes. I was going to refer your Lordship to the authority.
JUSTICE BLOFELD: I will come back to that. I have got the point thank you. Trapped then was
your second one.
MR. TANSEY: Well, if I can assist your Lordship ------
JUSTICE BLOFELD: Do not let me take you out of the way you want to do it, Mr. Tansey. I just
want to be certain I can follow you.
MR. TANSEY: That was the first proposition. This was a naked attempt to bypass the safeguards
of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. My Lord, the second one was, and it goes with it of
course, is it was a trap and it was engineered from the outset to the end by the police, and
everything that took place was at the instigation of the police.
They rang him up. They lied to him in the telephone call. They said; “I am George speaking.” That
clearly was a lie. “I am a colleague of your old friend Viktor.” That was clearly a lie. So they lied to
him as to who they were and as to the purpose of the call. They then initiated what flows from that.
It is the police who say, an MI5 officer I believe, “It is very urgent for me to talk to you.” They
suggest to him exactly what happens. So, throughout the whole of the conversation, as your
Lordship will note, all this defendant said was “Hello,” “Yes,” “Okay,” “Yeah,” and “Bye.”
Everything that occurred was brought about by the specific actions of the police.
We submit that that was done as a way to trap him to make an admission so far as knowing this
person, Viktor, was concerned. We submit that the police should not do that, especially in these
circumstances when they have reasonable grounds to suspect him of having committed an offence.
The proper procedure for the police to follow is, if they are not going to arrest him there and then, to
observe him. To watch him. If necessary, to tap his telephone, as they may have powers under the
Act and especially in the light of the information they may have received. They then arrest and
question him in the proper way and then search him. We submit that what the police have done here
is improper. They have sought to gain an unfair advantage in circumstances which the law does not
My Lord, if I therefore come then to the law in question upon which we rely. My Lord, it is in the
code where a caution must be given. My Lord, I am using the actual code itself. If I may just read it
to your Lordship. It is Code C:10 (a). When a caution must be given.
JUSTICE BLOFELD: C:10 (a). I am sure it is in Archbold somewhere.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, it is Volume 1 of Archbold, page 1799.
JUSTICE BLOFELD: Thank you, yes.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, it is at the bottom of that page:
“A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence must be cautioned before any questions
about it, (or further questions if it is his answers to previous questions that provide grounds for
suspicion) are put to him for the purpose of obtaining evidence which may be given to a court in a
prosecution. He therefore need not be cautioned if the questions are put for other purposes, for
example, to establish his identity or his ownership of any vehicle or the need to search him in the
exercise of powers of stop and search.”