A convicted murderer who claims he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice is seeking to overturn a ban on secret evidence about the security services being disclosed to European judges.
The supreme court’s hearing of the unprecedented case of Wang Yam could add to the strain on the UK’s relationship with the European court of human rights (ECHR).
Yam, a financial trader who fled to Britain following the Tiananmen Square protests, was convicted in January 2009 of battering to death the retired photographer and writer Allan Chappelow at his home in Hampstead, north London.
Most of the Old Bailey trial was heard behind closed doors on the grounds of national security. Yam had been arrested in Switzerland after credit cards belonging to Chappelow were traced to the Chinese dissident.
In letters to the Guardian, Yam has claimed he became involved with criminal gangsters and that they gave him the stolen cards and cheques. He maintains he was unaware of Chappelow’s murder at the time he was handling the stolen cards.
Yam’s lawyers are preparing an application to ECHR on the basis that holding parts of the case in secret was a breach of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European convention on human rights. It is believed to be the first time UK government lawyers have succeeded in preventing evidence being shown to the court in Strasbourg.
The original trial judge, Mr Justice Ouseley, last year ruled that: “[The ECHR’s] judges and staff owe no allegiance to the crown. They do not apply UK domestic law. The various protected interests cannot be explained without risk of harm to those interests.”
On 16 June the supreme court announced that it would hear the challenge because of the importance of the issue. The court said the question to be considered is “whether there is a power under the common law or under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 to prevent an individual from placing material before the European court of human rights”. The case is likely to be heard later this year.
The election of a Conservative majority government which has pledged to cut the link between Strasbourg and the UK’s courts, adds a further dimension to the case.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission, which does have power to see secret evidence withheld on grounds of national security, has been examining Yam’s case for over a year.
The entire defence case at the murder trial at the Old Bailey was held in private following a request from the then home secretary, Jacqui Smith. The Guardian was among the media organisations that unsuccessfully challenged the judge’s decision.
Last year, one of Britain’s most senior legal figures entered the debate in a most unconventional way. In an article for the London Review of Books, Lord Phillips, the now retired first president of the supreme court, wrote that his daily cycle ride took him past Chappelow’s house in Hampstead, north London.
He recalled the murder and trial, adding: “Very unusually, a large part of his trial was held in camera, because apparently Wang Yam had some link with the security services, which he wished to rely on by way of defence.”
The fact that such a respected legal figure as Phillips has introduced into the public arena a “link with the security services” is seen as shedding fresh light on the case. There is no shortage of internet speculation about the reasons for the gagging order.
Yam, grandson of one of Chairman Mao’s top comrades, wrote to the Guardian last year to protest his innocence. “I believe the only way to my freedom is [to] let public ... know what is my defence and what I had done in full picture. No cover-up,” he said. In light of the Guardian report, two witnesses came forward earlier this year with information about the case. Part of Yam’s legal argument was that because his trial had not been reported, potential witnesses had not come forward.
The allegation against Yam was that he stole Chappelow’s mail and probably battered him to death after being discovered by him. Yam claimed the murder was carried out by a gang he had infiltrated.
One potential witness told the Guardian: “I lived a few doors down from [Chappelow’s house] back in 2006. The following February, [when Yam was already in custody] I was in our house and heard a rustling in our porch. I opened the door to find a man with a knife going through our post. He pointed the knife at me and I shut the door ... He said if I called the police he would kill them.”
The neighbour did call the police, who advised him to change his bank details. “It is clear to me that there was a violent person or gang operating in the street and the lack of police interest was very bizarre.”
The media was warned not even to speculate as to why the secrecy order was made, and for this reason we are still unable to report the defence case at the trial.
In a first trial, in 2008, for which the jury all had to receive security clearance, Yam was convicted of the theft and fraud offences and jailed for four and a half years, but the jury could not agree on the murder charge.
At a second trial he was convicted and jailed for life in 2009 with a recommendation that he serve a minimum of 20 years.
