Case No. UKUT-00448-(IAC)

[2009] EWCA Civ 222. Delivering the main judgment of the Court, Sedley LJ adverted to the witness statement of Detective Chief Inspector Dingemans, who had been a Case Officer in the police investigation operation stimulated by the assassination. Reference was made in particular to a passage in his statement relating to evidence recovered during a search of the Appellant’s home – the letters of introduction, a fax, shipping orders, records of banking and money transfers in particular. Sedley LJ observed in this context, at [54]: “ The Appellant was interviewed under caution about this and much else. On the advice of his solicitor, who was present throughout, he answered some questions and declined to answer others. ” Next, he noted that while the transcripts of interviews had formed part of the evidence before the AIT, the latter “ derived no assistance from them ”. He continued, at [55]: “ For reasons to which I will be coming, it is not necessary to say more about the Dingemans ’ statement than that the desirability of seeing and evaluating primary material in preference to secondary accounts of it grows in proportion to the damaging effects of the latter … The preferable course was for the AIT to be shown the documentary material supporting the allegation, to hear what each side said about it, to consider anything relevant the Appellant had said (or, if the circumstances permitted an adverse inference to be drawn, declined to say) about it at interview and to make up its own mind about it. ” The “ primary material ” was not, however, adduced. 16.At [67] Sedley LJ returned to the issue of the police interviews: “ The record shows that, although initially his solicitor spoke for him and [the Appellant] declined to answer questions because of the generality of the investigation, as time went by