8.  The applicant formerly managed “The Godfather Restaurant” in Newcastle upon Tyne, which was operated by a company of which the applicant was a director. Following an inquiry by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise in 1988 into the restaurant and the applicant, the company went into liquidation and ownership of the lease of the restaurant was transferred to a new company controlled by the applicant. However, the restaurant was run by a succession of management companies under short-term management contracts. The various companies were all registered for Value Added Tax (“VAT”) purposes but failed to make any VAT payments or returns to the Customs and Excise authorities. In addition, wages were paid to employees in cash and were not declared to the Inland Revenue. The resulting loss of VAT was assessed at approximately 460,000 pounds sterling (“GBP”) and the accumulated losses in respect of Income Tax and National Insurance contributions were assessed at GBP 360,000. In September 1994 the applicant was declared bankrupt as a result of civil proceedings brought by the Inland Revenue to recover unpaid tax. 9.  On 25 November 1994 the applicant was arrested and on 26 November 1994 charged with various offences of fraudulently evading VAT. He was remanded in custody. His applications for bail on 12 April 1995, 13 June 1995 and 7 December 1995 were refused. 10.  The applicant was granted legal aid on 1 March 1995. The legal aid order covered both the committal hearings and the actual trial. The applicant was represented throughout the proceedings by a Queen's Counsel (“QC”), who was also a Recorder, a very experienced junior counsel and two different firms of solicitors. 11.  On 3 March 1995 the Newcastle upon Tyne Magistrates' Court committed the applicant for trial before the Crown Court at Newcastle. 12.  Preliminary hearings were held on 10 April 1995 and 2 June 1995. At the hearing of 16 June 1995 the applicant was indicted with two others on two counts of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of VAT (between 22 May 1989 and 25 July 1994) and of taking steps with a view to the fraudulent evasion of VAT (between 25 July 1994 and 24 November 1994). The applicant pleaded not guilty. 13.  At none of these hearings did either the applicant or his legal team request the provision of an interpreter, nor suggest to the court that the applicant required the services of an interpreter. 14.  At the trial on 4 January 1996, the applicant, on the advice of counsel, changed his plea to guilty. He was also indicted on another count of cheating the public revenue and pleaded guilty to that charge too. The court was informed that the applicant disagreed on the quantum of the sums which formed the basis of the plea with the consequence that further discussion was needed on this matter with the prosecution. Defence counsel informed the court for the first time that the applicant had:
“considerable difficulty in communicating, save in very simple concepts, in English. Now for the purpose of consultation we can get by, but one of the difficulties is that his English is very poor and his Italian is very Southern”. 15.  Counsel invited the court to direct that an interpreter be present at the subsequent hearing, given that at either a hearing or indeed a plea:
“... certain complicated matters might well have to be put before the court, and which he should understand as they are being put”. 16.  The court granted this request and adjourned for reports to be written and for the parties to reach agreement on the issue of quantum, after convicting the applicant of all charges. 17.  At the following hearing concerning sentence held on 26 January 1996, the court noted that no professional interpreter was present despite its earlier direction. The applicant's counsel stated that:
“... it appears that no arrangements have been made, in which case I think that we shall have to make do and mend. It may require an occasional adjournment if something needs to be explained. It has been discussed extensively and obviously already with the [applicant] and, although he may not follow the detail of the proceedings, he certainly knows the outline of what the prosecution will say. I imagine that their case will very much follow the summary, and he knows the burden of what I intend to say.” 18.  The trial judge asked whether anyone in court who knew the applicant was fluent in both English and Italian and could provide interpretation for the applicant. The applicant's counsel, without consulting his client, pointed out that the applicant's brother was present, and the court agreed to make use of him, if need be. The applicant's brother was never requested to translate any statement during the course of the hearing. 19.  The applicant was sentenced to a total of four years' imprisonment and disqualified from being a company director for ten years. 20.  On 14 May 1996 the applicant applied to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division seeking leave to appeal against sentence. In his application, the applicant was represented by the same legal team that had defended him at trial. In a letter to the Court of Appeal, the applicant stated that he had been sentenced on the basis, which was incorrect, that he had pleaded guilty to frauds totalling GBP 800,000 and that the real amount of the fraud was GBP 140,000. The applicant did not maintain in his application that he had been unable to understand the proceedings at the trial or to communicate effectively in court; nor did he allege in his application that he should have been provided with the services of an interpreter. 21.  Leave to appeal was refused by the Single Judge on 3 May 1996 and by the full Court of Appeal on 15 July 1996. 22.  On 2 September 1996 the applicant sought advice from the President of the Law Society on what action to take against his defence lawyers but did not receive any reply. 23.  On 3 September 1996 the applicant wrote to the Home Secretary, admitting that he had not declared GBP 2,000 per week for staff wages due to the recession, and claiming that the real amount of the fraud was GBP 140,000 and not GBP 800,000. He further complained that his counsel had failed to secure him the services of an interpreter at the trial on 26 January 1996 and that this was of “paramount importance” for the purposes of the plea in mitigation. The applicant further observed that his QC had misled the trial court by stating that his brother would be able to act as a translator, when his brother was unable either to speak or write in English. 24.  The Home Secretary forwarded the applicant's case to the Criminal Case Review Commission (“the Commission”). The applicant himself applied to the Commission, claiming inter alia that his lawyers should not have allowed him to plead guilty to the GBP 800,000 fraud, as he had only intended to accept guilt in respect of GBP 140,000. Furthermore, his lawyers had failed to ensure the presence of an interpreter both at conferences in preparation for the trial and in court. He maintained that his brother did not speak English well enough and that he had not understood the charges or the legal process. He complained about his counsel, who, he claimed, did not understand Italian but nevertheless did not insist on an interpreter being present at conferences; renounced the presence of a professional interpreter in court; did not understand the case; told him to plead guilty only at the trial, without explaining the consequences to him in detail and gave the court the wrong information that the applicant had accepted liability in respect of the total amount. 25.  The Commission noted that it had interviewed the applicant via an Italian interpreter and that it was apparent from telephone conversations between the applicant and the Commission that he did not have a very good command of English. The Commission observed that the applicant's solicitor and counsel at trial did not accept that he lacked understanding either of the language or of the nature of the case against him. However, the Commission went on to note, inter alia, that
a)in the course of the proceedings the applicant's solicitor had stated in counsel's brief that the applicant “has a grasp of English but is not very easily understood. At times, he says he wants an interpreter”;
b)the trial judge had seen fit to order the presence of an interpreter;
c)on appeal, the applicant's junior counsel had informed the court that the applicant did not have much of a command of English;
d)the applicant's counsel told the Commission that he would have wanted an interpreter present had there been a trial on the basis of a not guilty plea. 26.  The Commission accepted that the applicant would have been able to understand the generality of the prosecution case but expressed the view that an interpreter ought to have been present when the prosecution case was explained to the applicant by his own representatives, given the complex nature of the evidence. Furthermore, he should have had the benefit of an interpreter when it came to considering the matter of changing his plea to guilty. 27.  The Commission also accepted that the applicant's brother was not an adequate interpreter, but considered that the lack of an interpreter at the trial was “of much less significance than it was at the earlier stage”. Further, the Commission found that too little time had been spent by the applicant's lawyers explaining the case to him. 28.  The Commission concluded that there were grounds for finding that the plea was uninformed in that the applicant had not fully understood the nature of the case to which he was pleading, partly because of his inadequate understanding of the language, and because of the inadequate explanation of the case given to him by his legal representatives. 29.  However, the Commission noted that the Court of Appeal no longer had the power to allow an appeal against conviction if it did not think the conviction was unsafe but was dissatisfied in some way with the trial process, since there was no longer room for the separate notion of an “unsatisfactory” conviction. In the view of the Commission, whilst the applicant's conviction was arguably unsatisfactory, it could not be said to be unsafe. Since the Commission did not consider that there was a real possibility that, if referred to the Court of Appeal, the conviction and sentence would not be upheld, it decided not to make such reference. 30.  In the meantime, the applicant was released from prison on licence on 25 November 1996.