Print document
 3 of 94 
address, and they knew that he had two cars. The precise details they also knew.
On 7th August, the day before his arrest, Mr. McLeod went to the Bow Street Magistrates Court
and he obtained a search warrant - in fact it is three search warrants - on 7th August 1992, one to
search 48A Burton Road -----
JUSTICE BLOFELD: A detective constable was that?
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, a detective superintendent --- to enter and search 48A Burton Road, the
defendant’s address, and two vehicles which are specified, the Datsun Cherry motor vehicle and a
Peugeot as well. Your Lordship may feel, therefore, it is quite clear that, by the conclusion of 7th
August, police officers had reasonable grounds to suspect that he had committed the offence and,
furthermore, by the fact that they had taken out the search warrant as well to search the premises, it
was clear that the police in a very short time were likely or were in fact going to arrest this
defendant. Of course, once the arrest begins then, as is well known, the police would in fact have
had to caution him, remind him of his right to silence and all the other rights of which your Lordship
is well aware.
We submit to your Lordship that the telephone call which took place on 8th August, not very long
before his arrest, was in fact an attempt to obtain admissions which the police wished to obtain from
him. In particular, your Lordship will notice the particular matters so far as Viktor is concerned,
“Hello.” “I’m George speaking. I’m a colleague of your old friend Viktor. Do you remember him?”
“Yes.” That was a clear attempt to obtain an admission from this defendant that he knew this
person, “Old friend Viktor.”
My Lord, further in addition they went on and they said it was urgent that they, in fact, should speak
to him, and the police arranged a meet. Now this meant, therefore, that this was a naked attempt to
bypass the safeguards of the Act, and the police, who we submit were clearly and obviously going
to arrest him on that day or shortly thereafter, should have cautioned him before they asked this
question and any others. Therefore, we submit it was obtained in clear breach of the safeguards of
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
My Lord, further, so far as this is concerned, we submit that this was a trap set up by the police to
trap him into making these admissions. The police engineered the whole conversation and they
engineered all the action that took place. We submit that the police should not do that. It is not their
JUSTICE BLOFELD: Before you come on to the trap I am not quite clear I follow your first point.
On what basis do you say is the first ground that this should be excluded?
MR. TANSEY: The first basis is that this was an attempt to bypass PACE, that they should have
cautioned him.
JUSTICE BLOFELD: You are simply saying, in a broad brush approach, that it is unfair under
Section 78.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, yes. My first point is that it is unfair because they have obtained an
admission from this defendant in circumstances which they should not have done.
JUSTICE BLOFELD: Are you relying on the codes or just relying …?