Written question asked by Andrew Mackinlay (Labour) on Monday, 13 November 2000, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Monday, 27 November 2000. It was answered by Ross Cranston (Labour) on Monday, 27 November 2000 on behalf of the Solicitor General.

Solicitor-General

Question: To ask the Solicitor General, for what reasons the trial of Mr Mikhail Karacostas and his associates were not proceeded with.

Answer: Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Solicitor-General for what reasons the trial of Mr. Mikhail Karacostas and his associates were not proceeded with. [138759] The Solicitor-General: At a pre-trial hearing in May 1999 new evidence emerged which showed that some of the evidence upon which the prosecution relied was suspect. In particular, it emerged for the first time that an informant had had a closer association with one of Mr. Karocostas's fellow defendants than had been previously realised. Further, it soon became apparent that this informant together with a journalist may have incited this defendant to take part in the alleged crimes with a view to entrapping him. In the light of these revelations, prosecuting Counsel advised the Crown Prosecution Service that it would be difficult for the prosecution to succeed as the credibility of the prosecution case had been severely damaged. The Crown Prosecution Service accepted this advice and the prosecution was discontinued.

Secondary information