GB - Lee, R. v

J U D G M E N T (Approved)

1. PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION: As long ago as 13th March 2007, in the Crown Court at Inner London before His Honour Judge Issard-Davies and a jury, this applicant was convicted by a majority of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs namely cocaine, contrary section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. He was subsequently sentenced to 22 years' imprisonment less time spent on remand. He now seeks, out of time, to appeal against conviction, having been refused leave so to do by the single judge.

2. At this stage, the applicant is represented by Mr Andrew Trollope QC and Mr Andrew Frymann, in place of Mr Bernard Richmond QC and Miss Hay who represented him at trial.

3. One of the points taken by Mr Trollope concerns the admissibility of intercept evidence. That consists of telephone calls between the applicant and others. The judge, summing-up the case to the subject jury said this:

"I have to tell you members of the jury, you probably know as a result of English law had those telephone calls been intercepted in England the law would have prevented their evidential use in court. That law is the subject of some controversy at the moment but they were not. They were intercepted in Holland and so you have them in evidence and they are none the worse for that."

In providing that direction the judge was clearly affected by the decisions of R v Aujla [1998] 2 Cr App R 16, affirmed in R v P [2002] 1 AC 146 .

4. Mr Trollope in his skeleton submissions argues that the evidence of the intercepted telephone conversations should not have been admitted. He relies in that regard on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which he contends makes it clear.

5. In that regard the CPS responding to the notice of appeal said in relation to evidence:

"It consists of recorded telephone conversations that were taped by the Dutch police in Holland. The evidence consists of conversations between James Lee and his Dutch contact about the importation of a large consignment of cocaine. The recordings were fully available to the defence who accepted they were conversations between James Lee and Dutchman. The defence attempted to argue the conversations were not about cocaine."

6. Mr Trollope seeks to argue that the summary provided by the judge was clearly mistaken and that the intercepts, whether or not recorded in Holland, must have involved an invasion of the telecommunication system in this country. If that is right, they n

J U D G M E N T (Approved)

2. At this stage, the applicant is represented by Mr Andrew Trollope QC and Mr Andrew Frymann, in place of Mr Bernard Richmond QC and Miss Hay who represented him at trial.

In providing that direction the judge was clearly affected by the decisions of R v Aujla [1998] 2 Cr App R 16, affirmed in R v P [2002] 1 AC 146 .

5. In that regard the CPS responding to the notice of appeal said in relation to evidence:

Lee, R. v

Areas of Law