Prosecutors are supposed to be agents of the court. They are supposed to be trustworthy, and reliable. Our Criminal Justice System relies on their honesty and them doing the right thing. The courts have an overriding duty to promote justice and prevent injustice.
Addressing Mr Joel Smith KC during my evidence in chief at Westminster Magistrates Court on 11 September 2024, I said I was disadvantaged by not being provided with material I had requested from Spain (under Spain’s duty of Candour).
I said I would not get a fair hearing and was being denied the right to a fair trial because I didn’t have all the documents I needed (from Spain).
I asked Mr Smith was it possible I could have those documents. He replied “NO”
Spain had a duty of Candour to provide the material I had requested, which was also requested by my counsel Mr Mark Summers KC.
In reference to the information I had requested; on 28 June 2024, the CPS provided an advice to the Spanish authorities stating (relevant sections):
“You do not need to provide the above documents to the UK executing judicial authority. Instead, on your behalf, we propose to respond that any matters that Mr Blanchard wishes to pursue should be argued before a competent court in Spain which will determine his case in accordance with national law”
“However, given the unusual nature of the assertions that Mr Blanchard makes, and the vigour with which he pursues them, it would assist us to be in a position to confirm, if necessary, to the UK executing judicial authority that there is no substance to his allegations and that both we (the Crown Prosecution Service) and our client (the Central Investigation Court) are satisfied that there is nothing to disclose in surrender proceedings”
“However, we would be most grateful if you could confirm for the benefit of our court that there is nothing to bring to our attention (be it the items listed above, new material received subsequent to the previous proceedings in our court in June 2021, or anything else) so that we can give any necessary assurance to the UK executing judicial authority”
The CPS was deliberately perverting the course of Justice, because, the material request was relevant for the extradition proceedings before the UK Court, and not the Spanish Courts.
So the CPS, and anyone representing the CPS, is complicit in any unlawful actions resulting from prosecutorial misconduct.
Mark Summers KC, Skeleton Argument, before the court, dated 26 August 2024 states:-
The duty of candour applies tothese proceedings, not those in Spain: USA v Knowles [2007] 1 WLR 47 at 35; R (Gambrah) v CPS [2013] EWHC 4126. Its purpose is to protect the integrity of these proceedings, and not those in Spain.
The first ground for an abuse of process is “the right to a fair trial”.
I was horrified to learn that Mr Smith continued to represent the CPS in my case, knowing full well, that to do so, would violate the law and his code of professional conduct. To continue, in my opinion, and from my perspective, exposes Mr Smith as a truly unethical, and an immoral man.
Relevant to the material requested:
1: Exculpatory evidence is evidence, such as a statement, tending to excuse, justify, or absolve the alleged fault or guilt of a defendant. In other words, the evidence is favourable to the defendant.
2: Prosecutorial misconduct happens when in the course of their official duties a prosecutor violates a law or code of professional conduct.
3: Prosecutorial misconduct covers a wide variety of actions taken by a prosecutor that may impact one’s constitutional rights to a fair trial.
4: Prosecutorial misconduct may include “withholding material evidence”.
5: Prosecutorial misconduct is “an illegal act or failing to act”.
6: Prosecutorial misconduct is “using improper arguments”.
7: Prosecutorial misconduct distorts the truth-finding process and taints the credibility of the criminal justice system, including the outcomes they generate.
It doesn’t appear Spain asked for that advice, which makes it worse. In my opinion, it’s not an advice, it’s an instruction. It is Spain being told that their duty of candour applies in this case, but there is no obligation upon them to provide any documentation. It does not get round the fact that it exists.
Only by chance:
If Professor Jaime Campaner (a Spanish defence expert witness during the extradition proceedings) hadn’t discovered that advice, then the collusion between the CPS, Mr Joel Smith and the Spanish authorities would never have been exposed.
But it was exposed for all to see:
Prosecutorial misconduct by the CPS (and Mr Joel Smith KC) relates directly to the central issues regarding the non-disclosure of material from the Spanish authorities; and the impact it had of denying me the right to a fair trial in the extradition proceedings, which is a breach of my constitutional rights to a fair trial in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
PAUL W D BLANCHARD
18 October 2024
The CPS was deliberately perverting the course of Justice
Keith Wood – Lewis Nedas LawAnd what does Paul Blanchard’s former lawyer Keith Wood say about Prosecutorial Misconduct, the Crown Prosecution Service, and Joel Smith KC?
On 28th June 2024, the CPS advised Spain not to disclose documents requested by Paul Blanchard’s defence team for his extradition trial listed for 9th to 12th September 2024 [under Spain’s duty of candour].
What the CPS advice said:-
“You do NOT need to provide the above documents to the UK executing judicial authority”
And the implied motive [because] …”It would assist us”
Concerned his trial had been sabotaged by corrupt CPS officials, Paul Blanchard met Keith Wood in conference on 17th September 2024.
Keith Wood:
“If I could use an analogy, it is the CPS telling Spain not to open the filing cabinet, because if you do, there may find material that helps the defence, so don’t open the filing cabinet. It doesn’t appear that Spain asked for the advice, which makes it worse. It’s not an advice, it’s an instruction”. Joel Smith he said, “had hijacked the extradition hearing, and that I was being denied the right to have evidence before the court that supports my case”, adding, “It was designed to prevent any evidence favourable to my defence from coming into court. Why else was that advice written”
“He [Joel Smith KC] had never challenged the transcripts with the police officers, and never challenged your meetings with the cops, nor the armed protection”
Paul Blanchard said he had asked Joel Smith during his evidence if he could have the documents he had requested from Spain. Keith Wood interrupted, saying he [Joel Smith KC] had replied: – “NO”.
In subsequent correspondence Mr Wood makes it abundantly clear:-
And:
And:
The Garzon Dossier
On 24 October 2006, Spanish Judge Saniago Pedraz Gomez made the following ruling in regard to “The Garzon Dossier” a document lodged by Paul Blanchard in the Spanish Court on 17 October 2006: –
The Garzon Dossier mapped-out Paul Blanchard’s account of his undercover role as an agent for the Spanish Security Services. It included multiple transcripts of covert tape recorded conversations between Paul and agents Munoz and Esteban from Spain’s General Intelligence Unit. The recordings confirm he provided intelligence prior to the Madrid and London bombings that may have averted those atrocities. The evidence contained is compelling and irrefutable.
That report was the principal document requested by Mark Summers KC under Spain’s duty of candour. The report if disclosed, would substantiate the contents of the Garzon dossier, and establish that Paul Blanchard was innocent; yet on the advice of The UK Crown Prosecution Service – it was withheld, being the same report requested by Paul during his evidence, but refused by Joel Smith KC.
The report from the district attorney’s department on the contents of the Garzon dossier will never see the light of day. Paul was innocent and had to be silenced, so, the CPS resorted to “perverting the course of justice” and advised Spain not to disclose any documents requested by the defence.
At a conference before Paul’s extradition hearing he met Keith Wood to discuss the merits of his defence against extradition. They also discussed how Paul had been charged and convicted in the UK for the events he was monitoring on behalf of Spain, who had refused to confirm his covert role has a participating informant. Keith had scrutinised every page and word of the Garzon dossier and was confident that Mark Summers KC would rely on the reports none disclosure, and hold the CPS, and Joel Smith KC to account for Prosecutorial misconduct. Keith Wood does not mince his words:-
Keith Wood knows Paul’s case inside out. An experience lawyer with decades of defending serious organised crime and serious fraud cases; Keith Wood places his reputation on the line.
Holding The Garzon Dossier in his hand during the conference; Keith turned to Paul and said:-
Prosecutorial misconduct by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in an extradition case can provide grounds to challenge or appeal an extradition warrant. Extradition proceedings must adhere to strict legal standards to ensure fairness and justice. If misconduct by prosecutors undermines these standards, it can significantly affect the validity of the extradition process.
Grounds to Appeal an Extradition Warrant Due to Prosecutorial Misconduct
1. Abuse of Process:
• Definition: An abuse of process occurs when it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite a person due to serious misconduct by the prosecuting authority.
• Application: If the CPS has engaged in actions that manipulate or misuse the court’s procedures—such as withholding exculpatory evidence, misleading the court, or violating legal obligations—the defence can argue that extradition should be barred on these grounds.
• Legal Basis: Courts have an inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of their processes. In extradition cases, this principle is recognized under Section 79 of the Extradition Act 2003, which allows for discharge if extradition would be unjust or oppressive.
2. Human Rights Considerations:
• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Under the Human Rights Act 1998, UK courts must ensure that extradition does not violate the individual’s rights.
• Right to a Fair Trial (Article 6): Prosecutorial misconduct may infringe on the right to a fair trial. If extradition would result in a trial compromised by such misconduct, this can be a ground to appeal the warrant.
• Risk of Injustice: Demonstrating that misconduct has created a substantial risk of injustice can support arguments against extradition.
3. Procedural Irregularities:
• Legal Requirements: Extradition proceedings must comply with procedural standards set out in the Extradition Act 2003 and relevant case law.
• Effect of Misconduct: Actions like failing to disclose evidence or providing false information can lead to procedural defects, making the warrant invalid.
4. Reliability of Evidence:
• Evidential Challenges: If prosecutorial misconduct affects the credibility or admissibility of key evidence, this can undermine the case for extradition.
• Judicial Scrutiny: Courts may scrutinize the evidence more closely if misconduct is alleged, potentially leading to the refusal of the extradition request.
Possible Outcomes
1. Discharge from Extradition:
• Court Decision: The judge may order a discharge if satisfied that extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to prosecutorial misconduct.
• Finality: This can effectively end the extradition proceedings unless appealed by the requesting state.
2. Adjournment or Stay of Proceedings:
• Further Investigation: The court may pause proceedings to allow for investigation into the misconduct allegations.
• Remedies: This can provide time for corrective actions, such as disclosure of withheld evidence.
3. Appeals and Higher Court Review:
• Appeal Rights: Both the defence and prosecution have rights to appeal decisions in extradition cases.
• Judicial Review: Misconduct issues can be brought before higher courts for review, potentially overturning previous decisions.
Process to Challenge the Extradition Warrant
1. Raise the Issue Early:
• Initial Hearing: Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct should be raised at the earliest opportunity during extradition hearings in the magistrates’ court.
• Evidence Submission: Present any evidence supporting the misconduct claim to the court.
2. Legal Arguments:
• Abuse of Process Application: Submit a formal application arguing that the proceedings should be stayed due to misconduct.
• Human Rights Grounds: Argue that extradition would violate ECHR rights, particularly the right to a fair trial.
3. Appeal Procedures:
• Time Limits: Appeals must be filed within strict deadlines (usually within 7 days of the extradition order).
• High Court Appeal: If extradition is ordered despite misconduct claims, appeal to the High Court under Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003.
Considerations
• Evidence Requirements:
• Burden of Proof: The defence bears the burden of proving prosecutorial misconduct.
• Standard of Proof: Must demonstrate that misconduct has occurred and has a significant impact on the fairness of proceedings.
• Legal Representation:
• Specialist Advice: Extradition law is complex; engaging a solicitor or barrister experienced in extradition and criminal law is crucial.
• Funding: Legal aid may be available for those who cannot afford representation.
• International Relations:
• Diplomatic Sensitivities: Extradition involves international cooperation; courts may consider the implications of refusing extradition on misconduct grounds.
Conclusion
Prosecutorial misconduct by the CPS in an extradition case can indeed provide cause to appeal the extradition warrant. Allegations of such misconduct are serious and can lead to the extradition being halted if they undermine the integrity of the legal process or violate the individual’s rights. It is essential to act promptly, gather substantial evidence, and seek expert legal assistance to effectively challenge the warrant on these grounds.