Dance Academy duo launch ground breaking court appeal

Two men jailed for permitting the "rampant" sale of ecstasy at a Plymouth nightclub today mounted a ground-breaking conviction challenge - pressing claims that their trial was unfair because key prosecution witnesses were "hidden from the defence".

Manoucehr Bahmanzadeh, 52, and Tom Patrick Costelloe, 37, respective owner and manager of Union Street's Dance Academy nighspot, were convicted of allowing the supply of Class A drugs on the premises after standing trial at Plymouth Crown Court in July this year.

Manoucehr_Bahmanzdeh-and-Tom-Costelloe

Bahmanzadeh was jailed for nine years for permitting the "rampant and blatant" supply of drugs at his club, which allegedly earned him up to £2m a year at its zenith. Costelloe, from Honiton, received a five-year term.

Undercover officers who monitored the former club between December 2005 and May 2006 claimed dealing was "overt and blatant".

And matters came to a head in May 2006 when 140 riot police stormed the club using a battering ram. Sixteen drug dealers were later prosecuted and jailed for their activities in the club.

Both men claimed they did their utmost to stamp out dealing on the premises, steadfastly denying allowing the sale of drugs at the Dance Academy.

Their case reached London's Appeal Court today as they challenged their convictions on grounds that 21 undercover officers should not have been allowed to testify entirely anonymously.

The case is considered of such importance that it is being heard by a rarely-convened five-judge court, headed by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge.

The pair's lawyers say the trial judge's decision to allow the 21 "test purchase officers" - who posed as punters - to testify anonymously was a breach of the duo's fundamental rights to a fair trial, as safeguarded by Article Six of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Presenting the case, Costelloe's QC, Alan Newman, said that the officers were hidden behind a screen which masked them from both defendants and from the public.

They were, however, visible to judge, jury and trial barristers.

The QC said the defence had no quarrel with the officers' real names being concealed, nor was there any complaint about the witnesses being hidden from the public gallery.

"The only complaint is that the officers were hidden from the defendants," he said.

The two men's cases are being heard alongside five other appeals which all raise similar issues about Crown witnesses being granted the cloak of anonymity.

The issue came under the spotlight in June following a House of Lords ruling suggesting that no conviction would be considered "safe" if based primarily on anonymous testimony.

At trial, the duo's lawyers had asked for them to be permitted to see the faces of the detectives testifying against them in light of the House of Lords judgement. But that application was turned down by the trial judge.

Anonymous testimony is permitted in certain circumstances under the 2008 Criminal Evidence Act which allows judges to make "witness anonymity orders".

Addressing the facts of the case, Mr Newman said there was ample evidence that many clubbers would have purchased and consumed ecstasy tablets before entering the Dance Academy.

He added that much of the prosecution hinged around whether the duo "turned a blind eye" to dealing or - as they claimed - adopted a "zero tolerance" policy.

The test purchase officers' evidence was "decisive", the QC argued, and it was vital that Costelloe should have the right to see those accusing him.

There was no hint of gangland associations in the case,Mr Newman told the court, and therefore no compelling reason to shield the officers from the two defendants.

The hearing of the appeals continues and is expected to last two days.