5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and is currently detained in the Gdańsk Detention Centre. 6.  On 29 May 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed a robbery and the murder of a taxi driver. 7.  On 30 May 2003 the Braniewo District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand. The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and the high probability that a heavy sentence would be imposed on him. The court further considered that there was a risk that the applicant might interfere with the course of proceedings and bring pressure to bear on witnesses. 8.  On 26 August and 25 November 2003 and 23 January 2004 the Elbląg Regional Court prolonged the detention on remand of the applicant and his co-accused. The court found that the grounds previously invoked were still valid and that only the applicant’s detention would secure the proper conduct of the investigation. 9.  On 16 March 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Elbląg Regional Court. 10.  Subsequently, his pre-trial detention was prolonged by the same court on 26 March and 6 July 2004. The court, in addition to the grounds invoked previously, found that the applicant did not have a permanent place of residence in Poland; therefore, there was a risk that he might go into hiding. 11.  At the hearings held on 18 November 2004 and 25 March 2005 the applicant’s detention on remand was further prolonged. The court briefly stated that the grounds previously given for his detention were still relevant and that there were no grounds favouring his release. 12.  Subsequently, as the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time-limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Regional Court made applications to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal asking for the applicant’s detention to be prolonged beyond that term. 13.  On 19 May 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) granted the request and prolonged the applicant’s detention. The court particularly relied on the complexity of the proceedings which had made it impossible for the court to finish the trial. 14.  On 30 June 2005 the Elbląg Regional Court convicted the applicant and his co‑accused and sentenced them to 25 years’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. 15.  On 21 December 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case. On the same day, the appeal court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand. 16.  On 7 March 2006 his pre-trial detention was further prolonged. The court admitted that the applicant had been detained for a rather lengthy period. However, it did not contravene the requirements of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention as the grounds for keeping the applicant in detention remained relevant and the courts had been diligent in examining the case. 17.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was prolonged at the hearing held on 22 September 2006. The trial court reiterated the grounds given previously: the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, the probability that a severe sentence would be imposed on him and the risk that he might try to influence witnesses or otherwise interfere with the proper course of the proceedings. 18.  At the hearing held on 28 December 2006 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention, finding that it had been necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings given the risk that a severe sentence would be imposed on both of the accused. 19.  The applicant lodged appeals against almost every one of the decisions prolonging his detention on remand but they were dismissed by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. 20.  On 30 April 2007 the Elbląg Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal. 21.  On 28 December 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned judgment. It remitted the case to the Elbląg Regional Court. The court further prolonged the applicant’s detention until 28 June 2008. In addition to the grounds invoked previously, the court found that the applicant and the second co-accused had made an attempt to contact each other illegally and to exchange information about the trial which justified the finding that he might interfere with the proper course of the proceedings. Moreover, the court established that the co‑accused had contacted the witnesses through other persons. 22.  The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 15 January 2008. 23.  The applicant remains in detention pending trial.