R v R v James Lee

Factual and Procedural Background

On 13th March 2007, at Inner London Crown Court, the Appellant was convicted of conspiring with Defendant A and others unknown on or before 26th January 2006 to supply approximately 49.7 kilos of cocaine. The Appellant was sentenced to 22 years imprisonment on 19th March 2007. Defendant A had pleaded guilty earlier and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. Defendant B, tried alongside the Appellant, was acquitted.

On 9th July 2007, the single judge refused the Appellant leave to appeal against sentence. On 4th June 2009, the Appellant instructed new solicitors and on 16th January 2013, nearly six years late, sought leave to appeal against conviction on various grounds drafted by Attorney A and Attorney B. This application was refused by the single judge.

On 22nd July 2014, the application was renewed before the court by Attorney A and Attorney B on the same extensive grounds. During submissions about the admissibility of intercept evidence, it became clear further information was needed, leading to an adjournment. Additional written materials were supplied, including notes from Counsel C who represented the Appellant at trial, and further submissions from Attorneys A and B, as well as from Counsel D representing the prosecution.

At the adjourned hearing, Attorney B appeared alone and made oral submissions focusing on the intercept evidence issue. Counsel D also made submissions. The court announced that the application for leave to appeal would be refused, with reasons to be provided in writing.

Prior to 26th January 2006, the Appellant and Defendant A were under police surveillance in the United Kingdom, while two Dutch nationals, Witness A and Witness B, were under surveillance in the Netherlands. Telephone intercept evidence collected in the Netherlands established contact between the Appellant and these Dutch nationals. Calls were intercepted in the Netherlands and transcripts were read to the jury. On 26th January 2006, UK police seized the cocaine and arrested the parties involved.

The prosecution case was circumstantial, relying on intercepted calls referencing "50 bits" worth 29,750 per item, telephone contact between the Appellant and Defendant A on the day of the seizure, evidence from Defendant B denying knowledge of the drugs, discovery of a list with names and numbers linked to the phones of the Appellant and Defendant A, and the Appellant's lifestyle inconsistent with declared income. The Appellant's defence denied involvement, asserting that intercepted calls concerned legitimate business dealings unrelated to drugs.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the intercept evidence obtained in the Netherlands was admissible in the United Kingdom, particularly in light of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Section 78).
2. Whether the lack of disclosure regarding the prosecution and acquittal of the Dutch nationals (Witness A and Witness B) undermined the fairness of the trial.
3. Whether evidence relating to events on 7th December 2005 was irrelevant and improperly admitted.
4. Whether evidence concerning the Appellant's lifestyle and business dealings was improperly admitted to suggest involvement in drug dealing.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The intercept evidence should have been excluded as it was obtained in contravention of RIPA or should have been excluded under the judge's discretion pursuant to Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
• The prosecution failed to disclose material information about the Dutch nationals' prosecutions and acquittals, which could have undermined the intercept evidence and justified an adjournment or exclusion of evidence.
• The evidence relating to events on 7th December 2005 was irrelevant and should not have been admitted.
• The evidence about the Appellant's lifestyle and business dealings was prejudicial and improperly used to suggest guilt.

Respondent's Arguments

• The intercept evidence was lawfully obtained in the Netherlands under appropriate Dutch authority and was admissible in UK courts, supported by precedent.
• Disclosure to the defence included relevant material, such as letters of request and statements from Dutch authorities, and the defence chose not to challenge admissibility.
• The acquittals of the Dutch nationals did not undermine the prosecution's case against the Appellant, as the indictment alleged conspiracy with others including named co-conspirators.
• The judge properly directed the jury on the limited probative value of the 7th December evidence and on the proper use of lifestyle evidence, ensuring no prejudice.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the intercept evidence issue, noting that the telephone calls were physically intercepted in the Netherlands under lawful Dutch authority, supported by letters of request and a statement from a Dutch official presented at trial. The court rejected the submission that RIPA precluded admissibility because RIPA applies only to interceptions within the United Kingdom.

The court relied on established authority, particularly the decisions in Aujla and R v P, which held that foreign-obtained intercept evidence lawfully gathered under foreign jurisdiction is admissible in UK courts and that exclusion under Section 78 is discretionary and not warranted absent specific prejudice. The court found the trial judge correctly exercised discretion in admitting the intercept evidence.

Regarding disclosure, the court found that the defence was aware of ongoing proceedings against the Dutch nationals and that the acquittals did not necessarily undermine the prosecution's case against the Appellant, who was charged with conspiracy with named co-conspirators. The court held that the lack of full disclosure about the outcomes of the Dutch prosecutions did not constitute an arguable ground of appeal.

The court accepted that the trial judge properly directed the jury on the limited probative value of the evidence related to events on 7th December 2005 and on the Appellant's lifestyle evidence, ensuring that the jury understood such evidence was not proof of guilt but only relevant if linked to drug dealing.

The court also noted the significant and unexplained delay in bringing the appeal application, which independently justified refusal.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the Appellant's applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction.

The direct effect of this decision is that the conviction and sentence stand as determined at trial and on initial appeal refusal. The court did not find any arguable grounds of appeal on the merits nor procedural irregularities warranting reconsideration. No new precedent was established, and the decision reinforces the established principles regarding the admissibility of foreign intercept evidence and the exercise of judicial discretion under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.