Using a prepared statement in police interview in a drugs conspiracy case

Our client was arrested in September 2009 along with, at that stage, five others. The police disclosed that they suspected him of being concerned in the supply of controlled drugs  namely cocaine, amphetamine and skunk cannabis between June and August 2009. There were surveillance observations of our client , and records of mobile telephone contact between him and other co-defendants at the relevant time. Written disclosure was given at the police station and the arrest  was clearly a part of a major investigation which had been in the making for some time. In fact, it later transpired that the investigation covered not only South Wales, but North Wales as well, and the case was eventually split in two, with the North Wales based defendants being dealt with by North Wales courts.

On our advice the client used a written statement setting out his response to the police allegations against him, giving an innocent and plausible explanation for them, and then he declined to further elaborate when questioned by the officers. This is a technique which is useful in certain circumstances, and can be very protective of the client’s position, but it is important to cover all the relevant points in the statement, and if neccessary to make a further written statement if further matters are disclosed during the interview.

In the event, the client was ultimately charged with conspiracy to supply controlled drugs, together with seven other persons. If convicted he was likely to get a substantial prison sentence.

The case came before the Crown Court in Swansea on 5th March 2010 and the client entered not guilty pleas. The court arranged a further hearing for a case review prior to the trial beginning, and at the review hearing on 25th June 2010 the prosecution conceded that there was insufficient evidence against the client . They had clearly been unable to gainsay the explanations given by the client in the police interviews, and so the crown dropped the case against him.