8.  On 3 February 1995 Mr David Beesley, store manager, was shot dead in the manager's office of a Kwik-Save supermarket in Greater Manchester. 9.  On 18 February 1995 the applicant and another man, by the name of Leroy Grant, were arrested on suspicion of having committed a robbery at the Late Saver shop, Cheadle. At the time, they were in possession of an 8-mm Beretta replica handgun. Charged in connection with this offence, Mr Grant admitted to the offence and several other late-night shop robberies. The applicant denied involvement in any of the offences. On or about 20 February 1995 an anonymous informant told the police that the applicant had been involved in the murder of David Beesley. 10.  On 20 February 1995 the applicant and Leroy Grant appeared in custody at the Stockport Magistrates' Court and were further remanded in custody to reappear on 23 February 1995. On 20 February 1995 Detective Chief Inspector Dunn requested permission for the cell and the visiting areas used by the applicant and Leroy Grant to be bugged with audio and video technology, alleging that all regular methods of investigation to identify David Beesley's murderer had failed. The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police granted authority on the same day for an unlimited period for both the police stations at Stockport and Cheadle Hulme. On 13 March 1995 similar authority was sought and obtained for the installation of a listening device with video system to be placed in the visiting area of Stretford police station, where the applicant was then held. 11.  On 8 March 1995 the applicant was arrested for the murder and questioned. In the interviews with the police which followed, the police told the applicant that he was not obliged to say anything. He availed himself of that right. 12.  During this time visits to the applicant by his female friend, J.N.S, were recorded on audio and videotape in the prison visiting area between 12 and 28 March 1995. The applicant and Leroy Grant were held for long periods in the same cell and recordings of their conversations were made from 20 February to 12 March 1995. 13.  On 23 March 1995 H. was brought to Stretford police station. H. was a long-standing police informant with a criminal record who had been arrested on 21 March 1995 for unrelated offences. He was placed in the applicant's cell for the purpose of eliciting information from the applicant. As asserted by the applicant, H. had every incentive to inform on him. Telephone conversations between H. and the police included comments by the police instructing H. to “push him for what you can” and disclosed evidence of concerted police coaching. After 20 April 1995 he associated regularly with the applicant who was remanded at Strangeways Prison. 14.  On 28 June 1995 the applicant was taken away from the prison to be interviewed by the police concerning the Kwik-Save robbery. He was attended and advised by his solicitor. During the course of the interview, the applicant was invited to comment on the recordings made in February and March 1995. He made no comment to any question. According to the applicant, he was interrogated at length by the police in an attempt to “rattle” or unsettle him, such that he would be more talkative and vulnerable to H. upon his return to the prison. H. had been fitted with recording devices. The recording thereby obtained was adduced in evidence at the applicant's trial. 15.  The applicant was interviewed again in the presence of his solicitor on 29 June and 26 July 1995 and remained silent when faced with the allegations. 16.  On 25 July 1995 H. made a 59- to 60-page witness statement detailing his conversations with the applicant and was released on bail on 4 August 1995. His sentence was postponed until after he had given evidence at the applicant's trial. The high point of H.'s evidence was the assertion that the applicant had admitted his presence at the murder scene. This asserted admission was not part of the recorded interview and was disputed. The thrust of the applicant's case was that he was discussing robberies and did not accede to H.'s efforts to channel their conversation into a discussion of the murder. The audio- and video-recordings (or transcripts thereof) were utilised in the trial of the applicant. No evidence, other than the alleged admissions, connected the applicant with the killing of Mr Beesley. 17.  In January 1998 the applicant's trial on one count of murder and a count of conspiracy to rob began before a jury. He was represented by leading counsel. 18.  During his trial, the applicant's counsel challenged the admissibility of extracts from covert audio- and video-recordings of conversations of the applicant with Leroy Grant and J.N.S., under sections 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). The judge concluded that there was evidence on the tapes from which the jury could infer that the applicant was involved in the events of 3 February 1995, and it was not so unreliable that it could not be left to the jury to assess for themselves. The judge also rejected the applicant's counsel's arguments under sections 76 and 78 of PACE that the evidence from H. was obtained by oppression or by such impropriety as to render it inadmissible. He considered that the use of an informant to talk and listen to the accused over a substantial period of time did not result in any unfairness to the accused. The fact that H. might be considered as having much to gain in giving evidence was also a matter to be left to the jury in their assessment of the reliability of his evidence. The evidence was accordingly admitted before the jury. The judge's ruling on the admissibility of the evidence was given on 26 January 1998, after a voir dire (submissions on a point of law in the absence of a jury) and consisted of a judgment of eighteen pages. 19.  In his summing-up to the jury on 10 and 11 February 1998, the trial judge gave directions on the way in which the jury should assess the reliability of the disputed evidence. He told them that they were to judge whether the police had deliberately wound up the applicant during the interview on 28 June 1995 and how to approach the evidence put forward by H.:
“So at the end of the day with regard to H. you have his evidence about the conversations that he had with [the applicant] and what [the applicant] said. You have the tape recordings of the conversations on 28 June when H. had been wired up, between [the applicant] and H., and you have the transcripts of the conversations between H. and the police. I suggest ... that you approach the evidence of H. with the very greatest caution and care. He is a professional criminal. He behaved, and has behaved as he acknowledged, dishonestly and criminally for years. He saw the likelihood of advantage to himself, both in terms of bail and in the sentence that he was likely to receive. You have heard that he has not yet been sentenced on matters for which he was in custody in early 1995. The defence say if you consider the whole picture you simply cannot rely upon H.; quite unsafe to do so. The prosecution say the contents of the tapes of 28 June can be relied on and are consistent with what H. says [the applicant] had said to him previously, before he, H., was wired up. Of course tapes of ... conversations cannot possibly constitute any independent confirmation of what H. says about what [the applicant] had said to him previously, because, and you will understand the logic of that, the information is all coming from one source, namely H. and the witness cannot strengthen his own evidence essentially by repetition.
So, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of the day how do you regard H.? Was he or may he have been lying, or are you sure that he was telling the truth? If you are sure, for example, in relation to things said on the tapes of 28 June or other aspects of H.'s evidence that his evidence is true, that [the applicant] did say a number of things, what do those things mean? Do they point to his guilt, to his presence at Kwik-Save on 3 February 1995, or are they capable of meaning something else? ...” 20.  The judge also directed the jury concerning the possible drawing of inferences from the applicant's silence in police interview on 28 and 29 June and 26 July 1995, pursuant to section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. He reminded the jury that the defence had contended that the applicant's silence had been adopted on legal advice because of the view that oppressive interrogation techniques were being used. 21.  On 17 February 1998, after the jury had deliberated for a total of twenty-one and a half hours, the applicant was convicted of murder before the Crown Court at Manchester by a majority of ten to two and sentenced to life imprisonment. The applicant thereafter lodged a notice of appeal, asserting, inter alia, that the judge ought to have excluded evidence of the audio- and video-recordings of his conversations with Leroy Grant and J.N.S. and the evidence put forward by H. He also argued that the judge had erred in his directions as to the circumstances in which the jury could draw inferences from the applicant's failure to respond to police questions in interviews of 28 and 29 June, when the police strategy was to “spook” the applicant into a state of garrulousness when he returned to prison, where he had a conversation with H. 22.  On 31 July 1998 he was refused leave to appeal against his conviction by a single judge. His renewed application was refused by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on 18 January 1999, after a hearing at which he was represented by leading counsel. In the court's judgment of that date, Lord Justice Rose found that the trial judge gave a very careful and impeccable ruling as regards the admissibility of the tapes and evidence put forward by H. and that he had considered all the matters which he should have considered and had not considered any matter which he ought not to have considered. There was no basis for holding that the exercise of his discretion had been so flawed that the Court of Appeal should intervene. In so far as the applicant complained that the judge should have warned the jury not to take into account the applicant's failure to answer police questioning in the light of the police strategy to “spook” him, Lord Justice Rose found that the judge had given an entirely appropriate direction to the jury in the circumstances of the case.