Drugs trial breached our human rights
THE OWNER and DJ of the Dance Academy are claiming a major drugs trial which put them both behind bars was a breach of their human rights.
Manoucehr Bahmanzadeh, 52, and DJ and general manager Tom Costelloe, 37, have launched a ground-breaking conviction challenge, arguing they were unfairly tried because they were not allowed to see undercover police officers giving evidence against them.
They appeared yesterday at the Royal Courts of Justice in London to challenge both their convictions and their sentences.
In July they were found guilty of allowing the drug Ecstasy to be sold in the popular Union Street venue.
Bahmanzadeh received a nine-year sentence while Costelloe was jailed for five years.
Undercover officers who monitored the club between December 2005 and May 2006 claimed dealing was "overt and blatant".
A large-scale raid by around 140 police officers in protective gear in May 2006 signalled the death of the dance club and the beginning of a tortuously long legal battle which is still ongoing.
While 16 drug-dealers were later prosecuted and jailed for their activities in the club, none of them received a sentence longer than either Bahmanzadeh or Costelloe. Police also admitted a number of dealers who had sold to undercover officers were never traced.
Some 21 undercover officers, who went into the club acting as punters to gather evidence on drug dealing, were key witnesses in the trial at Plymouth Crown Court but their identities were concealed from the defendants.
Now appeal lawyers acting for Bahmanzadeh and Costelloe claim the officers should never have been allowed to testify entirely anonymously.
The pair's lawyers say the trial judge's decision to allow the 21 "test purchase officers" 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 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.
He said: "The only complaint is that the officers were hidden from the defendants."
The case is considered of such importance it is being heard by a rarely-convened five-judge court, headed by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge.
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 – when the Dance Academy trial was already underway – following a House of Lords ruling suggesting no conviction would be considered "safe" if based primarily on anonymous testimony.
At trial, the pair'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 on 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 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, which is expected to last two days, continues today.
Related news:
Comments