R E G I N A V KENNETH NOYE ANNEX TO APPLICATION TO THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT Studio Legale Internazionale, Via Tommaso Salvini 15, 00197 Roma, Italy TEL +44 7766 732099 FAX +39 06 80692652 pnazionale@tiscali.it www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com Avv. Giovanni Di Stefano 27 August 2003 R. v Kenneth Noye Pursuant to a request made by the Applicant to the Crown Prosecution Service on the 23rd June 2003, the Crown Prosecution Service forwarded a copy of the Custody Record of the Applicant. The submission made on behalf of the Applicant included a statement made to the press by the investigating officer that had this Applicant remained within the jurisdiction, he may have faced a charge other than Murder. A copy of the Custody Record is attached. The Commission’s attention is drawn to the first page and specifically “Reason for Arrest”. It is to be noted that the said reason for arrest is not solely one of murder but “Murder/Attempt Murder”. It is known that the Applicant was extradited from Spain on a charge of murder. It is thus evidently clear that prior to the extradition request presented to any foreign Authorities, it would require the existence of an Arrest Warrant which, in itself, would have underlying information. It is understood, although those submitting this Application have never been given access to any of the documentation within the said extradition, that the reasons for the extradition request under the Convention for European Extradition 1957 specified murder. With the statement made to the media by the investigating officer clearly indicating that had this Appellant remained within the jurisdiction he would have invariably been charged with a lesser offence, the very entry in the Custody Record for reasons for arrest including “Attempt Murder” must be necessarily significant and require the appropriate explanations. The Applicant was extradited on the 20th May 1999 and arrested within the jurisdiction at 1730 hours. The Applicant arrived at the Dartford Police Station at 1837. The Commission’s attention is also drawn to the section “Reason for Detention” on the first page. It carries a paragraph as follows “I have considered the evidence and now have reasonable grounds to believe that your detention is necessary because”. It is noted that there is no reason given on the detention being necessary. The implication is very clear. However, when one couples the reasons for detention and the omissions in such with the reasons for arrest for Murder/Attempt Murder and then the statement to the Daily Express of the investigating officer that had this Applicant stayed within the jurisdiction he would have faced a lesser charge, the whole question of disclosures certainly is important. This Applicant arrived at the station at 1837. As is evident from Page 2, on the 21st May 1999 at 1230, this Applicant was required to sign three major legal rights. The first deals with the rights that the Applicant has been provided with a written Notice setting out the very rights and entitlements referred to. The second is the right that a certain person be informed of the Applicant’s arrest and the third that the Applicant has been informed that he may speak to a solicitor on the telephone or any person free of charge and names the solicitor concerned. In this case the solicitor was Mr. Henry Milner. The Commission’s attention is drawn to the date of that document being 21.05.1999 at 1230. However, if one considers the third document, being the Charge Sheet, the document suggests that this Applicant was charged with Murder on 20.05.1999 at 1932, some 1 hour and 5 minutes after his arrival at the police station and before the legal rights having been administered. This would invariably be a violation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It is noted however that whilst this Applicant was quite ready and willing to sign the Custody Record/Legal Rights on the 21st May 1999 at 1230, a similar document dated 20.05.1999 at 1846 stated that this Applicant declined to sign. The Commission need to consider these matters with some seriousness. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that no such request was made on the 20 May 1999 at 1847 and that this document was inserted when it had been realised that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act had not been complied with. The Commission are also requested to consider Page 3 of the Custody Record log and specifically the time of 1934 on the 20th May 1999. The entry states “DP provided with charge sheet and cautioned by DI Gabriel”. The Commission will note that it is a different time from the time specified and does not specifically state that the Applicant was charged. It only confirms that a Charge Sheet was provided. It would be extremely irregular for a detained person to be charged without, first and foremost, having consulted a legal representative. On the 21st May 1999 at 0855 the Applicant was visited by DI Gabriel to confirm “DP’s understanding of the date change on charge sheet” and at 0941 this Applicant was, as per the Custody Record Log, “reminded of his rights to free legal advice”. At 1223, according to the Custody Record Log at Page 8 and 9, the police asked whether this Applicant was willing to take part in a recorded interview which is quite astounding in itself and confirms yet again that, notwithstanding a supposed charge of murder, the question of a lower charge may well have been predominantly in the minds of those prosecuting. It is outside the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, save under extremely exceptional circumstances, that once a charge has been formulated, any type of interview occurring unless those interviews are on matters other than those relating to the charge, is precluded. What is more concerning is that nowhere within the Custody Record Log is there an entry at 1230 on the 21.05.1999 regarding the document signed by this Applicant and that a document as important as a Custody Record/Legal Rights Notice, it would have been included in the Custody Record Log. At 1650, this Applicant was removed from police custody and conveyed to Dartford Magistrates Court. The Custody Record gives some considerable cause for concern. The most important and predominantly vital element is to establish precisely when, and indeed if, this Applicant was ever properly charged and whether he was informed of his rights. It also raises serious concerns as to the charge per se. The submission is that the appropriate charge should have been an offence lower than that of murder. Attached to these submissions are :- 1.The Sunday Express April 20th 2003 article written by Hilary Douglas. 2.The Commission’s attention is drawn to the second paragraph. 3.The Custody Record. 4.The Commission’s attention is drawn in accordance with the supplemental representations made. 5.The three cases cited of Wade, McSween and Law. 6. 7. 8. 9.Avv. Giovanni Di Stefano 10.27 August 2003 11. 12.