[I know, it’s Sunday, but I only just thought of the pun, and I can’t keep that back for another five days]. A correspondent pointed me towards R v Farooqi 2013 a few weeks back, and I found it very entertaining, but never thought I’d have a family law hook to hang it on – now I do, so thank you to the President for introducing me to a genuinely new experience – being pleased about something written in the View from the President.
If you yourself made it to the end of the View from the President Part Seven,
you will have seen the President discuss a criminal case, and as we know, there is quite a lot of “cross-pollination” between Views from the President and judicial decisions made by the President. They flow into one another, so expect to see this find its way into a decision in due course.
If you are like me, you will have written numerous times in your notes of someone else’s cross-examination “Submissions” (possibly adding an exclamation point, or tutting audibly). I for one, am hoping that we end up in the sort of law court we all day-dreamed of whilst slogging through land law and easements – of hopping up like a Jack-in-the-Box to shout “Objection” and “I move that that remark be stricken from the record” during your opponents questions , perhaps ending up with wearing a white suit and a bootlace tie, whilst pacing around the Courtroom during cross-examination and speaking in a Louisiana accent.
What is this Farooqi case all about then? Other than allowing me to make a cheap pun (and many would say that that were reason itself to admire the case)
Well, it involves an appeal from a criminal case involving suspected terrorist activities, and the arrests were made largely as a result of intelligence gathered by undercover policemen (a topical issue for discussion, I wish I were a criminal lawyer so I could talk about it more in-depth). In essence, the problem in the case was the attempt by one defence counsel to run a defence of entrapment, which for complex reasons beyond the scope of this blog, wasn’t really open as a defence. [I should point out, to be fair to counsel who is being criticised here, that the fundamental nature of the defence was that it had been the undercover officers who had made all the running, so there was a fine line to be trod about making that defence and running a defence of entrapment – it’s not a line I would have been able to tread so it has to be bourne in mind that this was a very difficult situation]
This led to these sorts of exchanges :-
(a) “Q. Well, what I suggest to you is this: that from at least mid January 2009, that that was your style? That you were trying to take advantage of Munir Farooqi’s good nature, so that you could do him harm by attempting to trick him into committing an offence. Is that right?
A. No, sir, it’s completely incorrect. I was playing the part of a role that I had been asked to do so, that had been authorised by a senior officer, and one of my objectives was to play the part of a vulnerable person with low social ties, and I did that throughout the course of the operation.
Q. And I suggest that in pursuit of conviction, while you have been in that witness box, it has been your purpose to deceive the jury by painting a false picture of your relationship with Mr. Farooqi. You have lied in short, is that correct?
A. It’s certainly not the case. I have sworn an oath. I am a professional undercover law enforcement operative, and in doing so, I have answered every question which I believe to be correct, which I have signed a statement to that effect.
Q. You are a professional law enforcement undercover officer?
A. I am a police officer. I am a professional police officer, yes.
Q. Yes, you are a professional liar, putting it bluntly?
A. I use tactics as such as an undercover law enforcement operative to carry out my role. Yes, I do lie in the role of an undercover law enforcement operative, but on this occasion I have sworn the oath and I have answered every question which I believe to be correct.
Q. So you deny both propositions I have been putting to you, that you have been attempting to trick him and that you have been lying on oath, so therefore I had better prove those propositions”
(b) “Q. And over the next eight months you were going to encourage him at every opportunity to talk about his experience in Afghanistan, were you not?
A. No, sir, and I didn’t.
Q. And you and Simon were going to play word games with a man who was ignorant of the fact that he was in peril, in order to trick him to giving you some encouragement by way of document, advice or assistance?
A. I can only answer for myself, sir. I can’t answer for another undercover law enforcement operative, but in answer to your question, that’s no.
Q. And the purpose of that was to enable you to arrest him?”
(c) “Q: Now earlier on in my cross-examination of you, I drew your attention to the fact that some people feign difficulties, so that they can assault, rob or rape people who come to their assistance. What I am suggesting to you is you feigned inadequacy, in order that you could steal from Mr. Farooqi, in order that you could steal his liberty. Is that not right?
A. No, it isn’t, sir”
(d) “Q. And what I am suggesting to you is whether or not he was sending people or engineering for people to go abroad to participate in violent conflict, was a matter of no interest to you in late January of 2009. In late January of 2009 you were hell bent on tricking this man into committing an offence?..
Q. What, and we can trust you, can we?
A. Er, yes, fully.
Q. A professional liar?
A. Erm, I am not a professional liar.
Q. Right. Now I think we agree that you do tell lies professionally when you are engaged as an undercover officer?
Q. You were cynically exploiting the death of that man, in order to excite either hostile feelings or hostile words against the police, were you not?
Q. So that it might be deployed later in evidence?
Q. And it is as an example of many examples of how poisonous and devious you can be, seeking out your aims?
“Q: Well, you say to respect people’s human rights, but you never had any right to enter his premises, did you?
A. Er, yes, I did.
Q. How so?
A. He invited me in.
Q. He never invited you in?
A. I think you will find the first time I ever met Munir on the 4th of January, he invited me to come to his house for something to eat. He wrote his address down, he give me his telephone number.
Q. No, no, no, no, he never invited you?
A. He did.
Q. He invited the person you were pretending to be?
A. Which is me.
Q. He invited the person that was interested in Islam in.
J: Mr. McNulty.
LM: He invited the person who had a history of alcohol abuse in?
J: Mr. McNulty.
LM: My Lord. He never invited you in?
A. Erm, I was portraying to be a normal member of the public. If it wasn’t me that Munir had invited in and radicalised and encouraged to go and fight Jihad, it would have been another vulnerable member of the public from Manchester, so in respect of me attending his address, I feel that my main hope is that I have stopped a vulnerable individual from Manchester being radicalised by Munir and others.
Q. But you never believed for one second that if he knew who you really were you would be invited to his premises, did you?
A. Of course not.
A. If I told him I was a police officer, he definitely wouldn’t have invited me.
AE QC: My Lord.
AE QC: My learned friend is misleading the jury about the law again.
AE QC: Because what he is implying from his position as Counsel in his question is that the fact that the officer was going under an assumed alias, means that the invitation which was extended to him did not create a right to enter, and that is, I am afraid, not the law.
J: Of course. It —
AE QC: I am sorry about that, but it is just not.
J: Mr. McNulty, more than one member of the jury was actually shaking his or her head whilst you took this point.
LM: Well, let us see.
J: Mr. McNulty, I am not going to permit it. It is a complete waste of time. It is ill conceived in law, and please move on. He was perfectly entitled to enter those premises. Any suggestion that he was not is wrong in law.
LM: Well, then I suggest as a matter of fact you were no different to the man that pretends to come to read the gas meter, who is really there to steal the old lady’s pension?
J: No, Mr. McNulty. Mr. McNulty, that is exactly the same proposition put in a different way. He was entitled to enter those premises, and that is the end of the matter.
I don’t think I’ve ever enjoyed a sentence in a judgment (though the “finders-keepers” exchange in the Richard II burial judicial review comes close) as much as the Judge here saying “More than one member of the jury was actually shaking his head whilst you took this point”
And culminating in this, during defence submission – I didn’t think the suggestion was “thinly veiled” at all – it was pretty out and out.
Mr McNulty’s closing speech
“After all when you meet with a salesman , he does not start off his sales patter by insulting you but…that does not mean what he is selling you is worth anything.”
- Secondly, from the outset Mr McNulty attacked the motives of the Crown and others concerned with the case and encouraged the view that the Crown was a politically motivated witch hunt. The judge and the Crown were depicted as the agents of a repressive state: the purpose of the Crown was to stifle Farooqi’s right to free speech. Other parties who did not agree with his approach, and their counsel were accused of sucking up to the Crown and the court.
- Thirdly, Mr McNulty misrepresented the evidence on a number of occasions. He repeatedly gave evidence himself on behalf of Farooqi, which was later summarised by the trial judge, and to which we refer later in this judgment. He made significant allegations that should have been but were not put to witnesses in cross-examination, in particular that the evidence against Malik had been contrived because the police had no evidence that Farooqi had influenced anyone except the undercover officers. This led to a number of interventions from the judge on the first afternoon, (at the end of which Mr Edis raised the propriety of Mr McNulty’s suggestion of judicial bias) and then again on 18th August when the judge said; “You are giving evidence that could have been given by your client and it must stop”. “This cannot continue.”
- At the end of Mr McNulty’s speech, Crown counsel gave notice that they were considering making an application to discharge the jury. The judge responded that he was not surprised, and that he had been considering the possibility of doing so of his own motion. The court then adjourned whilst the Crown considered its position.