Raja v Van Hoogstraten

This is the trial of the first stage (colloquially referred to as “the Preliminary Issue”) in four actions, three of which were commenced in the Queen’s Bench Division and later transferred to the Chancery Division (“the QB Actions”) and the fourth (referred to as “the Chancery Action”) commenced in the Chancery Division. The Preliminary Issue is an issue which arises in all four actions, namely whether Mr van Hoogstraten (who is a defendant in all four actions) was party to the murder of the late Mohammed Sabir Raja (“Mr Raja”). At a hearing on the 26^th January 2005, the trial date was fixed for the 14^th November 2005. This date had to be postponed one week because of belated applications by Mr van Hoogstraten and companies closely connected with him (“the Companies”) for the discharge of freezing orders granted in favour of the claimant in the Chancery Action which were heard and resolved by consent orders respectively on the 4^th and 9^th November 2005. The trial commenced on the 23^rd November 2005.

I should set out a brief account of the history of these proceedings. In the Chancery Action commenced on the 8^th October 1993 Mr Raja brought proceedings against (in particular) Mr van Hoogstraten, initially for an account, and later also for fraud. On the 2^nd July 1999 Mr Raja was murdered. On the 8^th November 1999 Mr A S Raja was appointed to represent the estate in the action. I shall refer to the claimant in the Chancery Action as “the Estate”.

Mr Knapp, Mr Croke and Mr van Hoogstraten were prosecuted for the murder of Mr Raja. On the 19^th July 2002 Mr Knapp and Mr Croke were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and on the 26^th October 2003 their applications to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal were dismissed. On the 26^th October 2005 their minimum sentences were set at 20 years. There is no further outstanding application on their part. On the 22^nd July 2002 Mr van Hoogstraten was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. On the 23^rd July 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction of Mr van Hoogstraten on the ground that the essential ingredients of joint enterprise and manslaughter (namely knowledge on the part of Mr van Hoogstraten that Mr Knapp and Mr Croke intended to visit Mr Raja armed with a gun) were neither alleged nor established and directed a retrial. On the 2^nd December 2003 Sir Stephen Mitchell quashed his re-indictment for manslaughter and on the 12^th December 2003 the Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown’s appeal.

In the Chancery Action on the 27^th August 2002 the Estate was granted a worldwide freezing order (“the Freezing Order”) against Mr van Hoogstraten and the Companies (which have very substantial assets) and this order was continued on the 10^th September 2002. The order contained a £5 million cap and provided that it should be released if Mr van Hoogstraten or the Companies provided security in the sum of £5 million. Mr van Hoogstraten says that in 2002 whilst in prison he twice tried to make applications to discharge the Freezing Order but for some reason (perhaps the loss of papers by the court) the applications did not come before the court. On the grounds of alleged non-compliance with court orders final judgment was entered against Mr van Hoogstraten and sequestrators were appointed of his assets and the assets of the Companies, but the Court of Appeal on the 11^th October 2004 allowed Mr van Hoogstraten’s appeal, set aside the judgment and discharged the sequestration order.

On the 20^th August 2002 Mr Raja’s widow as administratrix of Mr Raja’s estate and in her personal capacity and Waheed and Rizvan Raja (Mr Raja’s grandchildren) who were present at his home when the murder took place commenced the three QB Actions against Mr van Hoogstraten for damages in respect of the murder. I shall refer to the claimants in all four actions together as “the Claimants”.

In the Chancery Action the Estate argued that Mr van Hoogstraten’s Defence should be struck out on the ground that he was responsible for the death of Mr Raja, who was the claimant and principal witness against him. Thus, a common thread ran through all the actions, namely the question of Mr van Hoogstraten’s involvement in the murder.

On the 23^rd November 2004, on a hearing for directions, I made orders directed at resolving all outstanding issues relating to the sequestration. These orders provided for the taking of accounts and for the determination of the claim by Mr van Hoogstraten and the Companies against the Estate for the damages and loss allegedly caused by, and the costs and expenses of, the sequestration (“the Sequestration Claim”). In this regard at later hearings I directed that the sequestrators should release all (save one) of the sequestrated assets to Mr van Hoogstraten, that one property should stand as security for all sums due to, and all liabilities to third parties of, the sequestrators, that the accounts of the sequestrators should be taken by the Master, and that the Sequestration Claim should be heard in January 2006 after the conclusion of the Preliminary Issue.

On the 26^th January 2005 at a hearing attended by counsel for Mr van Hoogstraten and for the Claimants with the concurrence of counsel I gave directions for the transfer of the QB Actions to the Chancery Division and for the trial as the first stage in all four actions of the distinct issue whether Mr van Hoogstraten was party to the murder of Mr Raja (the Preliminary Issue). I gave trial directions and I directed that the trial should commence on the 14^th November 2005 with a time estimate of six weeks.

Mr van Hoogstraten did not attend that hearing. He took the greatest exception to the order made and since that date has made every effort to frustrate the direction for the trial of the Preliminary Issue at that early date. The position which thereafter he has adopted throughout the proceedings has been that he would abide by no timetable to which he did not agree (see e.g. paragraph 4 of my judgment dated the 29^th July 2005, Raja No 2) and indeed he has refused to abide by any trial direction (e.g. to provide a skeleton argument) or order (e.g. to make forthwith a payment for costs) which he does not like. At one stage he told me that no-one believed that the trial would commence in November 2005. He was however alone in that view.

His first step in his non-cooperation policy was to dismiss his counsel and solicitors and begin to act in person. The reason for this decision had nothing to do with any lack of access to funds. He is (as he has stated in numerous television interviews) enormously wealthy and has access to enormous funds, although since the date of a claim against him by the Inland Revenue in the 1970s resulting in a tax liability for over £3 million, (as he stated on various occasions and in particular in an interview in the Evening Standard of the 15^th June 1998) he has taken steps to “squirrel” his assets away. As he made clear to me, the decision to dismiss his counsel and solicitors was made because he saw it as to his advantage to act in person and he considered himself competent to do so. (His position on the need for legal representation later changed as it suited his purpose.) Whilst Mr van Hoogstraten has as his business address in England and as his address for the purpose of these proceedings the Courtlands Hotel, Hove (one of the seven hotels which he owns in Brighton and Hove) he has made his home in Zimbabwe where he is a very substantial landowner and investor and a friend of those in power. By his continual lengthy stays there without any legal representation in London and by making himself incommunicado in Zimbabwe he has deliberately made the conduct of proceedings difficult both for the Claimants and the court.

Mr van Hoogstraten made application to me on the 11^th February 2005 to discharge the order for directions made on the 26^th January 2005. I dismissed the application with costs and Mr van Hoogstraten did not appeal. In the course of the hearing I advised Mr van Hoogstraten that he should obtain legal representation and said that it was clear on the evidence that Mr van Hoogstraten had ample means to pay for legal representation and that any necessary authorisation of expenditure for this purpose under the Freezing Order would be available. When I asked Mr van Hoogstraten what money or assets he had in his own name he replied: “Relative peanuts, may be £2 or £3 million” (p.14 of transcript).

When I told Mr van Hoogstraten that he could sell any of his assets to raise the necessary funds, the following exchange took place:

This remained Mr van Hoogstraten’s position until October 2005. I repeatedly told Mr van Hoogstraten it was for him to make the application to vary or discharge the Freezing Order, but he refused to do so and the continued existence of the Freezing Order was a pretext for his refusal to obtain legal representation. He said at (at p.18)

In my judgment given on the application made on the 11^th February 2005 I stated my finding on the evidence before me that Mr van Hoogstraten had many millions of pounds: I referred to his admission of assets in his own name of £2-3 million and his refusal to realise any assets to pay for legal representation. I reminded him of the freedom which he had to apply for the discharge of the Freezing Order and warned that by acting in person he could not imperil the timetable for the trial of the Preliminary Issue.

A further case management conference took place on the 12^th May 2005. At this hearing (at p.31) I made clear again that Mr van Hoogstraten’s decision not to instruct lawyers would not operate as a passport to give him a greater range and freedom in relation to applications to the court; and when counsel for the Claimants made reference to Mr van Hoogstraten’s decision to act in person, Mr van Hoogstraten responded (at p.43): “I use lawyers for matters which do not require my input.”

When Mr van Hoogstraten sought to raise on the Preliminary Issue the question whether Mr Knapp and Mr Croke had indeed murdered Mr Raja, I asked whether it would be possible for him to instruct his former solicitors Janes. He replied “No, my Lord, I would rather deal with it myself. I do not want to involve [my solicitors] Janes for the simple reason that to instruct them in relation to these very complicated issues concerning the criminal trial would take me more time – I mean, I’ve got to do a double instruction then and it’s just going to take further time. I can deal with it myself quite adequately with Miss Jacobs [of the Crown Prosecution Service]. I know enough about the criminal law.” Lack of means did not enter into his decision. I made clear that the timetable stood irrespective of any lack of representation on his part (p.44). Mr van Hoogstraten (at p.43) told me that he was making an application to discharge the Freezing Order: it was being formulated. None was in fact forthcoming.

A further hearing took place on the 12^th July 2005. The principal issue raised was whether on the Preliminary Issue Mr van Hoogstraten could (as he wished) challenge the correctness of the convictions of Mr Knapp and Mr Croke for murder. If he could, the trial of the Preliminary Issue would in all likelihood have had to be adjourned for a substantial period to enable the parties to prepare their cases on this new question. I held that by reason of their convictions and the absence of evidence of their innocence he could not do so and my judgment was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal on the 11^th October 2005. In my judgment on that application given on the 29^th July 2005 I said:

A further case management conference took place on the 6^th October 2005. In the course of that hearing, in the light of continuing repeated complaints by Mr van Hoogstraten about the Freezing Order, I told him that even in the busy period of final preparation for trial I would as an indulgence to him make time available to hear a belated application in respect of the Freezing Order if he or the Companies wished to make one, and he and the Companies decided to do so. On the 17^th October 2005 the Claimants’ solicitors wrote to Mr van Hoogstraten requesting him to state his proposals for the release of funds for the purpose of enabling him to obtain legal representation. Mr van Hoogstraten never replied. I heard the Companies’ application on the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th November 2005 when after hearing only part of the Companies’ opening (with my encouragement) a compromise was reached acceptable to both parties in respect of the period until after judgment on the Preliminary Issue. Mr van Hoogstraten’s application was heard on the 9^th November 2005 when (again with my encouragement) a like compromise was reached.

On the 9^th November 2005 Mr van Hoogstraten applied to adjourn the trial on four grounds.

The first ground was that there should be tried, at the same time as, or instead of, the issue as to his being party to the murder, the issue raised in the Chancery Action whether (as alleged by the Estate) Mr van Hoogstraten was dishonest in his dealings with Mr Raja.

The second ground put forward was that the Crown Prosecution Service had failed to produce documents which Mr van Hoogstraten said he required for the trial.

The third ground was that there were currently developments regarding Mr van Hoogstraten’s complaint about the police conduct relating to the prosecution of himself and Mr Knapp and Mr Croke, and that new evidence was becoming available concerning the correctness of the conviction of Mr Knapp and Mr Croke.

The fourth ground was that Mr van Hoogstraten intended to instruct solicitors and counsel and that they would require six to eight weeks to prepare for the trial.

On Friday the 11^th November 2005 I gave judgment (subject to one qualification) refusing his application. My one qualification related to Mr van Hoogstraten’s statement that he intended to instruct legal representatives. I stated that, if Mr van Hoogstraten did instruct legal representatives and if they applied to me for an extra week as needed for preparation for the trial of the Preliminary Issue, I would consider whether commencement of the trial should be delayed until the 28^th November 2005, but that the 21^st November 2005 would stand as the trial date unless and until that application was made and determined. I ordered Mr van Hoogstraten to pay the costs of the application on an indemnity basis. I refused permission to appeal and I abridged until noon on the 14^th November 2005 the time for applying to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. I informed Mr van Hoogstraten that, if he did apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, the Court of Appeal would hear the application on Tuesday the 15^th November 2005. Mr van Hoogstraten issued an application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal and the Court of Appeal directed that it should be heard on Tuesday the 15^th November 2005.

Two exchanges took place after I had left court on the 11^th November 2005. (1) The first was between Mr van Hoogstraten and my clerk and is recorded in a fax which my clerk sent to Mr van Hoogstraten on Monday the 14^th November 2005 in the following terms:

(2) The second exchange took place between Mr van Hoogstraten and two members of the public overheard by Ms Sally Collyer (the clerk to Mr Irvin, junior counsel for the Claimants) and reported by her to the Claimants’ solicitor Ms Hare. Paragraphs 6-8 of Ms Hare’s witness statement reads as follows:

I refer to both exchanges in my judgment Raja (No 5) given on the 23^rd November 2005 on the Estate’s successful application in the Chancery Action to reimpose the Freezing Order against Mr van Hoogstraten. Mr van Hoogstraten deliberately did not attend and was not represented at the hearing of the application. This application was made on the grounds that the consent order discharging the Freezing Order had been induced by misrepresentation by Mr van Hoogstraten as to his present state of intention to instruct counsel and solicitors to represent him at the trial of the Preliminary Issue and that there had been a material change of circumstances.

On Monday the 14^th November 2005 Mr van Hoogstraten wrote to the Court of Appeal requesting that the hearing of his application for permission to appeal on the 15^th November 2005 be postponed because he had gone abroad on urgent business. On the 14^th November 2005 Brooke LJ refused that request and the hearing of the application for permission came before the full court on the 15^th November 2005. Mr van Hoogstraten did not attend, but counsel for the Claimants did attend. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the application with Brooke LJ (in the leading judgment) terming it as an abuse of process.

Undeterred, on the 16^th November 2005 Mr van Hoogstraten by counsel again applied to me for an adjournment. I dismissed the application as hopeless and as an abuse of process. I refused permission to appeal. Mr van Hoogstraten on the 17^th November 2005 applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. Brooke LJ struck out the application for permission to appeal as an abuse of process.

The trial of the Preliminary Issue commenced on the 23^rd November 2005. Mr van Hoogstraten (as he had previously intimated to my clerk his intention to do so) deliberately absented himself and was not represented. He chose however to be represented by a solicitor whilst the trial was proceeding when he wished to raise an issue on the terms of the order re-imposing the Freezing Order and to be represented by counsel when a Case Management Conference took place in respect of the Sequestration Claim during the period that I reserved judgment on the Preliminary Issue.

Mr van Hoogstraten met Mr Knapp in 1969 or 1970 whilst both were serving a prison sentence at Wormwood Scrubs and also met there Mr Knapp’s parents when they visited Mr Knapp. Mr van Hoogstraten and Mr Knapp became friends in prison and closer friends when they were both released. Mr van Hoogstraten also became friends with Mr Knapp’s parents and in 1979 they sold their house and came to live in a cottage on Mr van Hoogstraten’s estate at High Cross and Mr Knapp’s father became the estate manager. When on later occasions Mr Knapp was again sent to prison, Mr van Hoogstraten and he remained friends and Mr van Hoogstraten visited Mr Knapp in prison once or twice a year, on occasion with Mr Knapp’s parents. On the 1^st February 1996 Mr van Hoogstraten told the police, when explaining his reasons for his visits to Mr Knapp, that he was Mr Knapp’s former employer and landlord: see letter dated the 1^st February 1996 from the Sussex Police to the West Mercia Constabulary (“the 1996 Letter”). The inference is that Mr van Hoogstraten provided (as he was well able to) work, money and accommodation to Mr Knapp during the periods that he was out of prison. The evidence before me is to the effect that during these periods Mr Knapp was Mr van Hoogstraten’s “lieutenant” and enforcer. During the later of these further periods of imprisonment Mr Knapp met in prison Mr Croke. They had it in common that they were both violent and dangerous thugs.

In 1973 after an investigation into his affairs by the Inland Revenue culminating in a payment of £3 million due to the Inland Revenue, Mr van Hoogstraten became a tax exile in Switzerland for three years.

Mr Raja first had dealings with Mr van Hoogstraten in or about 1988 when he began borrowing money from him to invest in property and giving to Mr van Hoogstraten as security for repayment charges over the properties which he owned. Their relations broke down in or about 1992 or 1993 when Mr Raja asked for an account and Mr van Hoogstraten declined to provide one. There followed a number of court proceedings brought by Mr Raja and his companies against Mr van Hoogstraten and his companies, all save one of which were commenced in the County Court. The exception was the Chancery Action. In the Chancery Action Mr Raja initially only claimed an account and ancillary relief, but on the 19^th June 1998 applied for permission to amend his claim to introduce a plea of fraud. On the 22^nd June 1998 Mr van Hoogstraten countered with an application to strike out the action. Both applications were heavily fought. The application to strike out was dismissed with costs at hearings on the 15^th October 1998 and the 15^th January 1999 and permission to amend was granted on Mr Raja’s application on the 22^nd April 1999 when he obtained an order for costs in respect of that application also. On the same day Mr Knapp was released from prison and Mr Croke was released on the 6^th May 1999. Mr Raja served his amended pleading on the 11^th May 1999. Time for service of Mr van Hoogstraten’s amended defence was deferred until after the hearing of Mr van Hoogstraten’s stated intended appeal against the order granting permission to amend. The appeal was not heard before Mr Raja’s murder on the 2^nd July 1999. Mr van Hoogstraten’s appeal was then abandoned. The amended defence was served on the 28^th April 2000.

After the breakdown of relations, Mr van Hoogstraten made threats against Mr Raja and Mr Raja became afraid of Mr van Hoogstraten. In June 1994 Mr Raja became sufficiently concerned for his safety to apply, in the course of an action brought by Donsland (one of his companies) against Mr van Hoogstraten in the Lambeth County Court, for an injunction restraining Mr van Hoogstraten from interfering with him or making threatening and abusive telephone calls or conspiring to cause him physical or psychological damage. In his affidavit in support Mr Raja gave evidence of abusive telephone calls and threats of violence by Mr van Hoogstraten. The court however refused him relief on the ground that such relief could not be sought by or granted to him personally in proceedings commenced by his company. In August 1998 Mr Raja made a complaint to the police charging Mr van Hoogstraten with fraud. Mr Raja’s grandson, Rizvan, in his statement given to the police soon after the murder, recalls a heated and angry telephone conversation in early 1999 between Mr Raja and Mr van Hoogstraten.

Mr van Hoogstraten visited Mr Knapp in prison on the 1^st and 7^th September 1998 and the 15^th March and 18^th April 1999 and wrote to Mr Knapp on the 10^th October and 16^th December 1998 and the 18^th and 24^th February and 18^th March 1999. Whilst in prison Mr Knapp wrote to Mr Croke on the 18^th September and 18^th November 1998 and the 24^th February 1999.

On Mr Knapp’s release from prison on the 22^nd April 1999 (which Mr van Hoogstraten recorded in his diaries as “Uncle Bob back”) he first stayed on Mr van Hoogstraten’s estate and later Mr van Hoogstraten found him a home at one of his companies’ properties, 33 Framfield Road Uckfield. According to Mr Knapp, Mr van Hoogstraten promised him a home at the boathouse on his estate when reconstruction work on it was completed. (According to the evidence of Mr van Hoogstraten at the criminal trial, the promise was that Mr Knapp could use the boathouse as an artist’s studio.) Mr van Hoogstraten also made a series of substantial payments of between £800 and £2,000 to Mr Knapp over the period after the murder of Mr Raja.

After having first for a period of two days staked out the house, on the 2^nd July 1999 Mr Knapp and Mr Croke at 10.15 a.m. went by van to Mr Raja’s home armed with a single barrel shotgun. Mr Raja, fearful of some attack instigated by Mr van Hoogstraten, went to the door armed with a knife. When Mr Raja opened the door, Mr Knapp and Mr Croke forced their way in and savagely attacked him. Mr Raja tried to defend himself. Mr Croke was cut and lost some blood. In the course of the struggle the shotgun was fired into the ceiling and Mr Raja was stabbed in the stomach and side five times. Mr Raja’s two grandchildren, who had been upstairs, ran downstairs and Mr Raja shouted to them: “They are Hoogstraten’s men and they have hit me”. He told them to call the police. Whilst they fled the scene to do so, one or other of Mr Knapp and Mr Croke reloaded the shotgun and shot Mr Raja in the head killing him. They did not steal anything and there is no reason to believe that they ever had anything in mind other than killing Mr Raja. Mr van Hoogstraten left England for Cannes later the same day and returned on the 6^th July 1999.

By the 7^th May 1999 Mr Knapp acquired a mobile telephone number 07930 278983. He rang the Courtlands Hotel on the 23^rd June 1999 at 16.29 for 53 seconds, the 7^th July 1999 at 16.05 for 1.18 minutes and the 9^th July 1999 at 16.49 for 47 seconds. These calls, and in particular the calls on the 7^th and 9^th July 1999, invited comment and explanation by Mr van Hoogstraten in his evidence in these proceedings.

On the 12^th October 1999 the BBC broadcast a reconstruction of the murder on its “Crimewatch” programme. The reconstruction deliberately gave the false impression that Mr Raja had been shot twice, once in the stomach and once in the head, which was how the media reported the murder.

Mr van Hoogstraten was interviewed about the murder on the 18^th November 1999. In the course of that interview Mr van Hoogstraten (significantly) volunteered the statement that he could not understand how the attackers had missed with their first shot.

Ms Tanaka Sali (“Ms Sali”), Mr van Hoogstraten’s girlfriend since October 1999, arrived in the United Kingdom in December 1999.

The inquest into Mr Raja’s death was held on the 30^th March 2000 when it was publicly revealed for the first time that Mr Raja had been stabbed.

Mr Knapp left for Eire in or about July 2000. Thereafter he continued to correspond with Mr van Hoogstraten.

On the 14^th November 2000 Mr Croke was arrested for a minor drug offence. After a mandatory DNA test, his blood was identified as matching the blood found at the scene of the murder. He was arrested on the charge of murder on the 27^th February 2001. Mr van Hoogstraten was re-interviewed by the police and charged with murder on the 24^th September 2001. He was granted bail. Mr Knapp returned from Eire the next day and he was also arrested and charged with murder. In March 2002 Ms Sali reported to the police assaults made upon her by Mr van Hoogstraten. His bail was revoked and he was remanded in custody.

The criminal trial commenced in April 2002. The principal witnesses against Mr van Hoogstraten on whose witness statements the police intended to rely were Ms Sali and his close business associate Mr Hamdan. Ms Sali however at the trial withdrew her witness statement and refused to give evidence and Mr Hamdan did not attend the trial. Their witness statements were accordingly inadmissible. Mr Knapp and Mr Croke were convicted of murder on the 19^th July 2002 and Mr van Hoogstraten was acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter on the 22^nd July 2002 and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. Mr van Hoogstraten was imprisoned, but on the 23^rd July 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed his conviction on grounds of a misdirection by the trial judge.

In September 2002 while Mr van Hoogstraten was in prison, Ms Sali appeared on a television programme. When asked why she had withdrawn her evidence at the criminal trial and thereby risked criminal proceedings she explained that she would rather be in prison than dead.

The question is raised as to the significance in law of the facts that in the criminal proceedings Mr Knapp and Mr Croke were convicted of murder and that Mr van Hoogstraten was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter, and that later his conviction of manslaughter was quashed on appeal.

Under section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 (“Section 11”) the convictions of Mr Knapp and Mr Croke are admissible in evidence in these proceedings for the purpose of proving that they committed that offence although they are not a party to these proceedings and they are to be taken as having committed that offence unless the contrary is proved. To rebut the presumption of guilt it is not sufficient to raise doubt or questions as to the correctness or otherwise of the trial process or the conviction. Mr van Hoogstraten has at no time begun to prove that Mr Knapp or Mr Croke did not murder Mr Raja and indeed could not (as he set out to do) even raise any doubt or question as to the correctness of their convictions. I accordingly held in my judgment Raja No 2 dated the 29^th July 2005, that the trial of the Preliminary Issue should proceed on the basis that Section 11 applied and that Mr Knapp and Mr Croke were to be taken in these proceedings as having committed the murder. My judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

I turn to the significance of the acquittal of Mr van Hoogstraten of murder and of his conviction (later quashed) of manslaughter.

In my judgment the acquittal of Mr van Hoogstraten of murder at the criminal trial in no way decides the outcome of the Preliminary Issue. There are very different considerations applicable on this civil trial to those applicable in the criminal trial. These include that:

the burden of proof on the part of the prosecution in the criminal trial was beyond reasonable doubt or to be sure; on this civil trial it is on the balance of probabilities, but having regard to the seriousness of the allegation against Mr van Hoogstraten in these proceedings the more cogent is the evidence that is required to overcome the unlikelihood of what is alleged and has to be proved against him to discharge the burden of proof: see Re H&R (Child Sexual Abuse Standard of Proof) [1996] 1 FLR 80 at 96 B-4 per Lord Nicholls and A Local Authority v. S, W and T by His Guardian [2004] EWHC 1270;

important evidence is admissible in this trial which was not admissible in the criminal trial, and in particular the witness statements of Mr Hamdan and Ms Sali and evidence as to the previous convictions of the three accused and their association in prison; and

Mr van Hoogstraten attended and gave evidence at the criminal trial, but has absented himself from this trial.

The Claimants sought in this trial to rely on the conviction by the jury of Mr van Hoogstraten of manslaughter as showing the jury’s view of his involvement in the murder of Mr Raja and contended that the significance of the conviction is not undermined by the quashing of the conviction because the conviction was quashed on what counsel referred to as technical legal grounds. In my judgment it is sufficient to rule out reliance for this or any relevant purpose on the conviction of Mr van Hoogstraten for manslaughter that under Section 11(a) a conviction is only made admissible in evidence if subsisting and that the conviction of Mr van Hoogstraten ceased to be subsisting when it was quashed. The Claimants contended that nonetheless the decision of the House of Lords in R v. Pendleton (Donald) [2001] UKHL 66 [2002] 1 WLR 72 (“Pendleton”) established that reliance could be placed on the jury’s verdict and it was possible to infer that the factual ingredients essential to prove guilt had been established to the satisfaction of the jury. Pendleton however was concerned, and concerned only, with the reliance that could be placed on the jury’s verdict and the inferences that could be drawn from it by the Court of Appeal on an appeal against that verdict.

One of the most significant features of the trial of the Preliminary Issue has been the non-attendance of Mr van Hoogstraten and the absence of any legal representation on his behalf notwithstanding his presence at the earlier stages of the proceedings prior to the trial. As I have recorded in earlier judgments, Mr van Hoogstraten has taken all steps available to him to prevent or delay the trial of the Preliminary Issue and, when that course failed, took the deliberate step of leaving the country ahead of the trial, of instructing no legal representative to appear for him at the trial and of giving notice that no judgment against him would ever be satisfied. He did so in the face of the express warning which I had given him that, if he did not attend the trial to give evidence, adverse inferences might be drawn against him.

Guidance on the consequence of the failure of a party to give evidence is afforded by the speech of Lord Mackay of Clashfern LC in R v. IRC ex p. T C Coombs & Co [1991] 2 AC 283 at 300:

There is a passage much to the same effect in the judgment of the Privy Council in Gibbs v. Rea [1998] AC 786 at 798. The Privy Council held that the failure of the defendant to give evidence did not give rise to any question of a shifting of the burden of proof:

In Secretary of State for Health v. C [2003] EWCA Civ 10, the Court of Appeal held that the absence of a defendant without any reason being given may entitle the tribunal to conclude that the defendant did not consider that his account would survive oral examination.

The non-attendance of Mr van Hoogstraten, who is the person best able to assist the court on the issues before the court, means that the court is deprived of this assistance.

The consequences of Mr van Hoogstraten’s non-attendance are threefold. The first is that, notwithstanding the fact that there are an abundance of questions which call for an answer by him and an abundance of actions on his part which call for an explanation, he has declined to provide the answer or explanation at this trial. The second is that the contents of Mr van Hoogstraten’s two brief and uninformative witness statements invite a host of questions but cannot be properly challenged or tested by the Claimants. The third is that Mr van Hoogstraten has not challenged or tested the evidence adduced against him.

Mr van Hoogstraten has given no reason for not attending the trial. There is no justification for Mr van Hoogstraten’s failure to give evidence and no credible explanation or reason other than a well-founded concern that his account would not survive oral examination. That this is the explanation is confirmed by a reading of the transcripts of his evidence at the criminal trial and a consideration of the evidence and questions which may be put to him at this trial, but which had to be withheld at the criminal trial before a jury. It may fairly be inferred that he ran scared of a repeat and worse performance. In the circumstances: (1) adverse inferences may be drawn from his failure to give evidence on the issues on which he might reasonably be expected to answer the case made against him; (2) statements in Mr van Hoogstraten’s witness statements in issue in this case which ought reasonably to be tested may carry little or no weight; (3) the unchallenged evidence against him may without more be accepted so long as it is credible; and (4) generally a prima facie case of responsibility for the murder on the part of Mr van Hoogstraten may be sufficient to establish his responsibility.

Mr van Hoogstraten has dispensed with the need of the Claimants to prove a limited number of facts by an admission of them: these admissions (to a large part) are reflected in the Chronology of Events. As regards the facts in issue, in view of the fact that Mr van Hoogstraten has not been represented and the very serious nature of the allegations against him the Claimants’ counsel have adopted the responsible course of making every effort to present a balanced picture of the evidence and have called six witnesses to confirm the evidence in their witness statements. This has enabled me to see them and question them and better evaluate their evidence, though the exercise of course is not a substitute for cross-examination. Beyond those witnesses the Claimants rely on the witness statements given in the criminal proceedings of Ms Sali and Mr Hamdan whom they have made every effort to call and whose absence at this trial (according to the evidence before me) is attributable to Mr van Hoogstraten and on the witness statements of a number of others whom it would serve no useful purpose to call to confirm their evidence. The Claimants also rely on transcripts of statements made by Mr van Hoogstraten in police interviews, in interviews on television and in the course of his evidence at the criminal trial and (to a much lesser degree) statements by him reported in newspaper interviews.

The characters and histories of Mr van Hoogstraten, Mr Knapp and Mr Croke and their propensities to violence are highly relevant not merely directly on the issue whether Mr van Hoogstraten was party to the murder, but also in understanding and forming a view as to the reasons for the attitude taken by witnesses to the prospect of giving evidence at the criminal trial and at this trial.

The previous convictions of Mr van Hoogstraten, Mr Knapp and Mr Croke could not be referred to at the criminal trial. They are relevant and can be referred to in this trial. I summarise them below.

Mr van Hoogstraten was first convicted in 1956, whilst a juvenile, on two counts of theft, given a conditional discharge and fined £1.12. He was convicted again in 1960 for being an accessory before the fact to burglary, and for handling stolen property. He was given two years’ probation and fined 75p. In 1965, he was fined £25 for dangerous driving, and again in 1967 he was fined a total of £32.50 for driving-related offences. He was convicted in 1967 of demanding money with menaces and causing criminal damage by explosion (relating to the procurement of the well-publicised grenade attack on a Jewish minister’s house), for which he was sentenced to four years imprisonment, and also of eight counts of dishonest handling, for which he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. He was released in 1972, and immediately upon his release he was arrested and subsequently convicted on two counts of corrupting a prison officer, for which he received a 15 month sentence. In 1974 he was convicted of two counts of forcible entry and one count of conspiracy to cause damage, and fined a total of £2,500. He was convicted in 1978 of breaching the peace and was bound over in the sum of £500 for 12 months, and in 1979 he was fined £100 for threatening a barrister in a courtroom, and another £100 for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. Later that year, he was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In 2000, he was fined £1,500 for contempt of court, in respect of his behaviour towards his own barrister in court.

Mr Knapp’s criminal record begins in 1963, when he was convicted on two counts of stealing and given 12 months’ probation. The next year he was convicted of housebreaking and stealing for which he was given another 12 months’ probation with a condition of residence at a mental hospital. In 1965 he was fined £6 for obtaining credit by fraud, and in 1966 he was convicted of stealing and attempted housebreaking and sentenced to Borstal training. The next year he was convicted of attempted housebreaking with intent and sentenced to six months’ detention in a young offenders’ institution. Later in 1967 he was convicted of housebreaking and office-breaking and sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment. In 1969 he was convicted of armed robbery, possessing a firearm with intent and receiving stolen goods and sentenced to five years. In 1974 he was sentenced to another five years for possessing a shortened shotgun and a revolver without licences and of attempted robbery. In 1979 he was convicted of theft, obtaining money by forgery and absconding from bail and sentenced to two years. In 1980 he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for two counts of burglary and theft. More recently, in 1987 he was given a 13 year sentence for armed robbery. He was released in January 1994 but in February 1995 he was given a 12 year sentence for armed robbery and using a firearm to resist arrest. He was released on the 22^nd April 1999.

Mr Croke also has a long criminal history. In 1977 he was convicted on two counts of theft, going equipped for theft and handling, and was given a three-month suspended sentence. In 1986 he pleaded guilty to armed robbery. In 1988, he was convicted of multiple counts of armed robbery and a charge of false imprisonment, and was given a 23 year sentence which was reduced to 20 years on appeal. He was released on the 6^th May 1999.

Amjad is the youngest of the three sons of Mr Raja and the only one who lives in this country. He states that in 1992 relations between Mr Raja and Mr van Hoogstraten broke down when Mr Raja asked for a statement of account and Mr van Hoogstraten declined to provide one and in consequence in 1993 Mr Raja stopped making any payments to Mr van Hoogstraten. This led Mr van Hoogstraten to threaten to go to Mr Raja’s office and “slap” him.

Amjad records a number of conversations with Mr van Hoogstraten. He records an occasion after Mr Raja had stopped payments when Mr van Hoogstraten telephoned Amjad and was very abusive and insulting about Mr Raja saying that he was a maggot and “he does not know what I am”. He records a conversation relating to a property (42 Mortimer Road) which he managed for Mr van Hoogstraten. When the tenant of that property failed to pay his rent, Mr van Hoogstraten said to him: “Why don’t you knife him, you will have to get your hands dirty some times”. When Amjad said that he wanted nothing of the sort, Mr van Hoogstraten said that, if Amjad did not want to do it, he could pay Mr van Hoogstraten and he would arrange it for him.

Amjad records a conversation in March or April 1999 at an auction at the Connaught Rooms in Holborn, London with Mr Hamdan and Mr van Hoogstraten. The conversation related to a leasehold flat owned by Mr Raja, which was in the basement of a building (6 Brunswick Square) of which Mr Hamdan owned the freehold. Mr Hamdan was anxious to purchase the flat and Mr Raja was reluctant to sell. Amjad asked Mr Hamdan whether Mr Raja was being “a thorn in your butt” and, when Mr Hamdan said yes, Mr van Hoogstraten said: “We pick thorns who are a pain and we break them”. He then turned to Mr Hamdan: “Why don’t you flood the place, why do you put up with this nonsense?”. Amjad said (truthfully) that Mr Hamdan had already done that. Mr van Hoogstraten nodded his head and said angrily: “I don’t know why he puts up with this nonsense”. He also heard Mr van Hoogstraten boast that: (1) he had kidnapped his accountant in broad daylight in North Street, Brighton, taken him in the boot of his Rolls Royce to France and kept him in a basement flat to work for him there; and (2) he had sent people to take off the roof of a property when the tenant refused to move out.

Amjad recalls that in 1997 Mr Raja went to the police alleging fraud by Mr van Hoogstraten and that at that time and in 1999 when Mr Raja raised the allegation of fraud in the Chancery Action, Mr Raja felt threatened by Mr van Hoogstraten and warned his family to take care, and that over the weekend before his murder, Mr Raja was very stressed, worried and depressed and the only possible cause for this state of mind was Mr van Hoogstraten.

Mr Fairburn, a legal executive employed by Healys, the solicitors for Mr Raja, his companies and the Claimants, gave evidence of a large number of conversations with Mr Raja in which Mr Raja told him that Mr van Hoogstraten had threatened him with physical violence. He recounted what Mr van Hoogstraten told him that he had done to his accountant Mr Harris: he had kidnapped him in the boot of Mr Harris’s Rolls Royce and taken him to France. Mr Fairburn discussed the threats and risks which Mr Raja faced from Mr van Hoogstraten (in particular) on the 25^th March 1999 (prior to the inclusion of the plea of fraud in his case on the 22^nd April 1999) and the increase in risk arising from the proposed new allegation of fraud. Mr Fairburn advised that in the circumstances it was unwise to plead fraud. Mr Raja was worried, but felt that he had a good case in fraud and that he should take the risk.

Mr Lightfoot, until recently a solicitor employed by Healys having the conduct of the Chancery Action and employed by the Serious Fraud Office gave evidence of the history of the Chancery Action and in particular of the introduction of the plea of fraud into the action.

DI Sladen was one of the main investigating officers into the murder of Mr Raja. In his evidence, which confirmed (amongst other documents) his witness statement and elaborated on it, DI Sladen stated that: (1) in the two or three days before the murder two men dressed as jobbing gardeners and a distinctive white transit van were spotted in and around the vicinity of Mr Raja’s home; (2) Mr Raja was killed by a combination of multiple stab wounds in the stomach and side followed by a single shot from a single barrelled shotgun to the head. At some point a shotgun was fired into the ceiling; (3) the murderers made their getaway in the transit van which was later found abandoned and burnt out. The fire ensured that no fingerprints or DNA evidence could be collected from the van; (4) the police deliberately withheld from the public until trial the fact that the first shot from the gun had been fired into the ceiling and this information was only made available to Mr van Hoogstraten after he had been charged on the 24^th September 2001 and the prosecution had made the papers in the case available to him. Yet when interviewed under caution on the 18^th November 1999 Mr van Hoogstraten made the comment: “How did they miss him the first time?”; (5) the police investigation revealed no direct connection between Mr Croke and Mr Raja; and (6) there was no evidence (as suggested by Mr van Hoogstraten) that the attack was a bungled robbery rather than, or anything other than, an organised “hit”. The investigation revealed that there was no link (as suggested by Mr van Hoogstraten) between the murder and Mr Hamdan or indeed anyone else other than the three persons charged.

Mr Absolon took a three year lease of the ground floor office at 33 Framfield Road, Uckfield on the 3^rd November 1997. The freeholder was Mr van Hoogstraten (using the name Hamilton). Mr Absolon gave evidence that Mr Knapp moved into a flat at the property at the end of June or the beginning of July 1999 under the name of Pierson. Mr Knapp told him that he was a personal friend of Mr van Hoogstraten and looked upon him as a brother, that he was staying there rent-free until the boathouse at High Cross was ready for him, that he was a caretaker, collected rents and did odd jobs for Mr van Hoogstraten and that he had changed his name by deed poll from Knapp (in which he held a bank account) to Pierson (in which he did not). Mr Absolon gave evidence that Mr van Hoogstraten (under the name of N von Hessen) paid by cheque the sum of £228.27 due to Mr Absolon from Mr Knapp. Mr Absolon also gave evidence that Mr Knapp was arrested about May 2000 for the theft of pot plants and shortly after left the flat for good.

Mr Browne was the one witness called by the Claimants in respect of whose evidence I have any reservations. Mr Browne qualified as an architect whilst employed by Mr van Hoogstraten and worked for him from about 1980 until 2002 in England and Zimbabwe. His roles included that of architect of Hamilton Palace (a massive construction costing many millions of pounds and still uncompleted) on the High Cross Estate and the person responsible for property management (including all dealings with tenants). Between 1988 and 1999 he was Mr van Hoogstraten’s right hand man.

Mr Browne provided three witness statements for the prosecution at the criminal trial and those witness statements and the transcript of his evidence at the criminal trial stand as his evidence in chief at this trial. Mr Browne told me in his oral evidence that after the quashing of Mr van Hoogstraten’s conviction the question arose whether he should give evidence at the proposed subsequent retrial. He was to be the primary witness for the prosecution at the retrial since it was clear that Mr Hamdan and Ms Sali would not give evidence for the prosecution. Mr Browne was however anxious about this role and most particularly fearful at being seen by Mr van Hoogstraten as assuming this role willingly. He told me that for this reason he himself prepared a press release designed for the consumption of Mr van Hoogstraten in which he repudiated the contents of his earlier evidence and protested the innocence of Mr van Hoogstraten. Nonetheless in a further draft witness statement which he did not intend Mr van Hoogstraten to see and in his oral evidence he reaffirmed the contents of the earlier statements and the transcript and elaborated on it in his oral evidence.

I accept his evidence that the repudiation of his earlier evidence was on account of fear of retribution against him and those around him by Mr van Hoogstraten and that he later became willing to stand by that earlier evidence because, with the lapse of time, that fear has evaporated. I am troubled that his evidence relating to the activities of Mr Knapp in dealing with tenants of Mr van Hoogstraten has been watered down by concern as to his own role and responsibility in using Mr Knapp as an “enforcer” and Mr Knapp’s strong arm tactics. Notwithstanding this concern and the press release I do accept his evidence to the effect that:

Mr Knapp was Mr van Hoogstraten’s enforcer;

Mr van Hoogstraten and Mr Knapp were very close in the 1980s and Mr Knapp said that he would “stop a bullet” (i.e. do anything) to protect Mr van Hoogstraten;

Mr van Hoogstraten told him that for Mr Raja to allege fraud against him in the Chancery Action was a wicked thing to do;

Mr van Hoogstraten threatened to kill people and to take a contract out to kill Mr Browne and that anyone who crossed him would get done (though apparently he heard no such threats against Mr Raja);

in respect of a leaseholder of a property which he owned (10 Gwendwyr Road, London) Mr van Hoogstraten said that he would get rid of her and “that it would be a mugging that went wrong but it wouldn’t be”;

on Mr Knapp’s release from prison in April 1999 Mr van Hoogstraten gave Mr Knapp the role of looking after security at High Cross and told Mr Browne that he intended Mr Knapp to occupy the boathouse at High Cross when works on it were completed;

Mr van Hoogstraten told him that he was the caretaker of Mr Knapp’s money as he was a spendthrift, and rationed it out to him;

Mr van Hoogstraten spoke to him of methods of intimidation; and

(verifying a passage in the transcript of his evidence at the criminal trial), Mr van Hoogstraten would use Mr Knapp, described as “a big man with a forceful character” and “a forceful presence”, to “dissuade” people (tenants and others) from causing problems.

Mr Browne also told me (and I accept his evidence): (1) that the “falling out between Mr van Hoogstraten and Mr Knapp was bizarre” and “did not hold up to any test of truth”; and (2) that Mr van Hoogstraten used Mr Knapp to “discourage” a Mr Roach from stealing rent and that after a “discussion” between Mr Roach and Mr Knapp Mr Roach was not seen again.

The Claimants rely on witness statements made in the criminal proceedings by two witnesses whom they wished to call but who have not attended because of the actions or threats of Mr van Hoogstraten.

Ms Sali has been Mr van Hoogstraten’s girlfriend since October 1999. She split up from him in March 2002 after he twice violently assaulted her and she then made a complaint to the police. On the 28^th March 2002 she made two witness statements in the criminal proceedings. She later resumed her relationship with Mr van Hoogstraten, withdrew her evidence and refused to be a witness at the criminal trial. She was not willing to explain why. But in an interview in the television programme “Real Crime – Britain’s Richest Killer” broadcast in September 2002 (while Mr van Hoogstraten was in prison) she was asked about the risk of her refusal to give evidence constituting the offence of perverting the course of justice. She replied that she would rather go to prison than end up dead and that Mr van Hoogstraten had it in him to have her killed.

The Claimants issued a witness summons against her but Ms Sali ceased to reside at the Courtlands Hotel in Hove where she had previously resided and only Mr van Hoogstraten knew where she was. The Claimants’ solicitors wrote to him requesting him to tell them her whereabouts: Mr van Hoogstraten failed even to reply. In her witness statements Ms Sali said that: (1) everyone (including Mr van Hoogstraten’s children) called Mr Knapp “Uncle Bob”; (2) when she first met Mr Knapp at the Courtlands Hotel on the first day she arrived in the United Kingdom from Zimbabwe in December 1999 Mr van Hoogstraten whispered to her that: “He’s one of my hit-men”; and later said that Mr Knapp was “good at his job”; (3) Mr Knapp was at Mr van Hoogstraten’s Christmas party later that month while living on his estate at High Cross and on five occasions she saw him going for walks alone with Mr van Hoogstraten; (4) in 2000 because, or on the pretext that, he had stolen from the estate Mr Knapp went to live in Eire; (5) Mr van Hoogstraten and Mr Knapp continued to correspond by letter after Mr Knapp moved to Eire. The letters from Mr van Hoogstraten were addressed to “Sally” at a post box in Eire. Their letters appeared to her however to be in code. For example there was a reference to “Our Friend” which in 2000 Mr van Hoogstraten explained referred to the late Mr Raja; (6) Mr van Hoogstraten told her some three months after his arrest that on the occasion of the murder a shotgun was fired into the ceiling; (7) Mr van Hoogstraten kept a lot of press cuttings which all related to Mr Raja; (8) Mr van Hoogstraten said that Mr Raja owed him money and called him “a dirt bag”; (9) when Ms Sali asked Mr van Hoogstraten if he had killed Mr Raja he replied: “Some things I cannot tell you for your own protection”; (10) Mr van Hoogstraten said to her that Mr Hamdan (who was then due to give evidence against Mr van Hoogstraten at the criminal trial) was a grass and as good as dead; and (11) he told her that: (a) he had kidnapped his accountant and taken him to France, kept him prisoner for a year and would have killed him but for a priest calling the police; and (b) he had “kneecapped people, put acid in their faces and shot them in the head”.

Ms Sali’s evidence is credible and indeed is in accord with the other evidence before me. Notwithstanding the refusal of Ms Sali to give evidence at the criminal trial, which she satisfactorily explained in the television interview, and her absence from this trial which is likewise explicable, I think that in the absence of explanation or rebuttal by Mr van Hoogstraten I can and should give credence and weight to her evidence.

Mr Hamdan, who comes from Lebanon, has been an associate of Mr van Hoogstraten since 1987. He had dealings in property on his own account but he would also front purchases for Mr van Hoogstraten (e.g. the purchase of the Imperial Hotel, Hove). Mr Hamdan gave a statement to the police to assist the investigation into the murder of Mr Raja: he was firmly of the view that Mr van Hoogstraten was responsible. But he provided the statement on the basis that it would not be disclosed to Mr van Hoogstraten, of whom he was afraid. The judge at the criminal trial ordered its disclosure, and this led Mr Hamdan to lose all confidence in the police. The Claimants have made every effort to serve a witness summons on him, but cannot make contact with him. The reason is plainly that he is unwilling to give evidence because he feels threatened and intimidated by Mr van Hoogstraten. (Ms Hare in her seventh witness statement sets out the attempts to serve Mr Hamdan and records a statement he made to her expressing his unwillingness to give evidence because of his fear of Mr van Hoogstraten.)

Mr Hamdan’s witness statement is to the effect that: (1) on a visit to High Cross Mr van Hoogstraten told Mr Hamdan that Mr Knapp was one of his lieutenants; (2) at a meeting with Mr Raja Mr van Hoogstraten suddenly raised his voice and said that “he would not trust Mr Raja to go to the toilet in his house without expecting to lose his girlfriend’s jewellery and telling Mr Raja that, if he was not careful, he would get a bullet in his head”; (3) in the summer of 1998 Mr van Hoogstraten asked him if he knew someone from Lebanon who could kill both Mr Raja and a barrister with whom he had fallen out. He asked on later occasions how far Mr Hamdan was progressing his search and in the autumn of 1998 gave to Mr Hamdan press photographs of the barrister and Mr Raja with a circle around their heads and with an arrow to the side with their names and addresses. He said that he wanted Mr Hamdan to find the people to get rid of the two because he did not want to use his own people. Mr van Hoogstraten again in March or April 1999 asked Mr Hamdan if he had found anybody to “get rid” of Mr Raja; (4) Mr van Hoogstraten often boasted of violent acts which he had arranged and of planning robberies carried out by Mr Knapp; and (5) after the murder of Mr Raja Mr van Hoogstraten repeatedly asked him about the significance of DNA evidence.

Mr Hamdan refers to one incident in early July 1999 which requires full and separate treatment. Shortly before he left for Cannes on the day of the murder of Mr Raja, Mr van Hoogstraten asked Mr Hamdan whether he had yet agreed to sell his property in Brunswick Square, Hove where Mr Raja retained and refused to sell the flat in his ownership. Mr Hamdan said that he had not yet exchanged contracts. Mr van Hoogstraten then told him not to sell. He added: “I am not saying anything about Brunswick Square in case anyone is listening and wait until I come back”. The following Monday morning Mr van Hoogstraten’s solicitor Mr Englehart made a telephone call to Mr Hamdan informing him of Mr Raja’s murder. When a few days later Mr van Hoogstraten returned to England, he boasted about what had happened to Mr Raja and said that he was not going to put up with any more “court nonsense”, and that if he had any aggravation, that event was the guide to what he would do. He said that Mr Hamdan would now get the flat at Brunswick Square for nothing, and that when Amjad contacted him he would do a deal to settle the civil action at 10p to the pound, and if Amjad would not agree he would ensure that Amjad got the same treatment.

In all the circumstances though Mr Hamdan did not attend the criminal trial or this trial, in the absence of rebuttal or explanation by Mr van Hoogstraten I think that I can and should give weight to his evidence which is credible.

DI Walker, who was the Deputy Senior Investigating Officer in the investigation into the murder of Mr Raja, confirmed that after the post mortem on Mr Raja on the 3^rd July 1999 a policy decision was taken to withhold the information that Mr Raja had stab wounds and that the impression should be given that he was shot twice to ensure that any future confessions or accounts by possible suspects could be properly tested; that it was widely reported in the local and national press that Mr Raja had been shot once in the head and once in the stomach; and that the reconstruction in Crimewatch was specifically filmed to give that impression. (It does give that impression.) The first time that it was publicly revealed that Mr Raja was stabbed was at the inquest at Croydon Coroner’s Court on the 3^rd March 2000. Mr van Hoogstraten had his first opportunity to discover the fact that the first shot had missed Mr Raja (if he did not know it already) after he had been charged and the prosecution disclosed the material on the 24^th September 2001.

There are a number of further witness statements where there was no occasion to call the maker. These included statements of: (1) Rizvan and Waheed Raja (Mr Raja’s grandchildren) who were present in his house when the murder took place which give accounts of what happened and Mr Raja’s dying statement to them: “They are Hoogstraten’s men: they have hit me”; (2) Ms Patricia Hare, a legal executive employed by Healys who gives evidence of the efforts made in vain to obtain the attendance at the trial as witnesses of Ms Sali and Mr Hamdan; and (3) a number of police and prison officers and employees of Barclays Bank and of Cheltenham & Gloucester Plc who (with the documentation they produce) establish the payments made by Mr van Hoogstraten to Knapp and the telephone calls between Mr van Hoogstraten, Knapp and Croke and their prison records.

The police interviewed Mr van Hoogstraten regarding the murder on the 18^th November 1999 and the 17^th July 2001. On the 18^th November 1999 he told the police that someone had videoed the Crimewatch programme about the murder for him and the programme was a joke (p.80). Mr van Hoogstraten later returned to the topic and asked whether the programme gave an accurate account of what happened, and, when told that it did, responded: “But when they went there, how did they miss him the first time?” (p.112). In the interview on the 17^th July 2001 Mr van Hoogstraten said that he became friends with Mr Knapp when they met in Wormwood Scrubs in 1970 and became closer friends when they were both released (pp.149-150).

I have been shown videos and read the transcripts of a series of television programmes about Mr van Hoogstraten in which he has made statements relevant to the issues in this action.

In this programme the following exchange took place:

In the course of the programme Mr van Hoogstraten stated that he was worth over £100 million and that he had a few violent associates. Mr David Harris, Mr van Hoogstraten’s former accountant (in an interview filmed whilst Mr van Hoogstraten was present and visibly enjoying himself) told how Mr van Hoogstraten, believing Mr Harris to have stolen money from him in 1971, with a couple of henchmen kidnapped him, bundled him into the boot of Mr Harris’s Rolls Royce, took him to Paris to pay off a vast debt far greater than was actually owed, severely beat him and kept him there for a substantial period, threatening to kill him or a member of his family if he returned to England. (In his cross-examination at the criminal trial Mr van Hoogstraten admitted that he had himself beaten up Mr Harris.) Mr Harris based on his experience of Mr van Hoogstraten described Mr van Hoogstraten as “a ruthless man”. Mr van Hoogstraten said that he did not like tenants whom he termed “scumbags” and that to obtain the increase in value of properties with vacant possession it was worth “sending someone round to bump the [tenant] off”; that he had spat at a tenant who asserted her right to use a garden; and that a landlord was entitled by any means to take back his property if he wanted to.

In his interview on this programme Mr van Hoogstraten stated: (1) “I go for direct personal retribution”; and (2) threatened to “bang” or “thump” the interviewer if she continued to ask about politics in Zimbabwe.

In this interview Mr van Hoogstraten accepted that it was quite possible that associates of his were some of the most vindictive and evil people that the Metropolitan Police had come across. (He accepted the truth of this fact in his cross-examination at the criminal trial.)

Mr van Hoogstraten in the course of his interview made plain: (1) the highest priority he places on saving and accumulating (rather than spending) money and the extreme measures he takes to save even pennies; (2) that he keeps everything close to his chest, with nothing in writing and no records of anything. When he does keep files of documents they are kept in places which cannot be found; (3) that people who dealt with him knew that he was a lender of last resort, that he wants his money back promptly and that it was particularly expensive for the borrower if there was a default; (4) that if a tenant defaulted beyond the commencement of legal proceedings “something else would happen”; (5) that he was the richest man in Zimbabwe; and (6) that he was an expert at arranging things (and by that he meant exacting retribution) by remote control.

Mr van Hoogstraten gave evidence and was cross-examined at the criminal trial. In his evidence in chief on the 10^th June 2002 he stated that: (1) “whatever money one has is never enough” (p.4E); (2) he first met Mr Raja in 1987 and Mr Raja requested loans (p.13-4). Their relations changed in 1991 when Mr Raja did not repay the loans (p.16F); (3) “I don’t believe that Mohammed and I ever had a cross word with each other at any time” (p.36A-B); (4) the allegation of fraud in the Chancery Action was unimportant (p.39F); and (5) and his relationship with Mr Raja stayed the same from the day they met (p.47B).

His examination in chief continued on the 11^th June 2002. He there referred to the loans of sums of £2,000 and £1,000 to Knapp and that on the 7^th November 2000 the sum outstanding was £6,000 (p.24-36) and said that by reason of a burglary at High Cross in the summer of 2000 he told Knapp on his only visit to the Courtlands Hotel that he did not want to see him again (pages 52-3) and Knapp of his own free will went to Eire.

His cross examination began on the 12^th June 2002 in which he said that: (1) he referred to Mr Raja as a maggot because he was annoyed with him (p.13); (2) his relationship with Mr Raja deteriorated after Mr van Hoogstraten repossessed properties belonging to Mr Raja (p.37) and he did no more business with him after 1993 (p.41); (3) he thought in 1992 that Mr Raja was defrauding him (p.60); (4) that in all the years he did not have a problem dealing with Mr Raja (p.100).

The cross-examination continued on the 14^th June 2002. In his evidence Mr van Hoogstraten said that: (1) his categorisation of tenants as scumbags was of tenants who resented landlords who did not buy them out (p.79); (2) the proceedings brought against him by the barrister upset Mr van Hoogstraten (p.91E) and occasioned him to say that he was going to get him fixed (p.99). The proceedings were settled on or about the 25^th March 1999 (p.92); (3) Mr Raja did commit fraud in his mortgage application (p.103); (4) he had written a letter dated the 29^th December 1995 (“the 1995 Letter”) to a firm of solicitors acting for the Bradford & Bingley BS stating that Mr Raja was a major fraudster and offering to pay the costs of bankruptcy proceedings against “this worthless scoundrel to put an end to his reign of fraud” (p.107-8); (5) at an earlier stage during the criminal prosecution he had told the court:

In the course of his cross-examination on the 17^th June 2002 Mr van Hoogstraten conceded that the Crimewatch programme may have been intended to convey the idea that the first shot had hit Mr Raja, but that he had not been “taken in by it” (p.110).

In an interview in the Evening Standard of the 7^th March 1979, Mr van Hoogstraten told the interviewer: “It is very much in my interest to be regarded as a crazy, dangerous thug. No-one dares waste my time, which makes for better business. Everyone knows, if they cross me, they will be dealt with”. And Mr Knapp said: “There’s nothing I would not do to protect Mr Hoogstraten. I would stop a bullet for him and do anything he asked of me. So be careful”. In an interview with Paul Bracchi, the Chief reporter of another newspaper published on the 19^th August 1992, Mr van Hoogstraten said that he had put out a warrant for the extermination of one associate who crossed him and that: “he became a liability so he had to go”. In an interview with David Millward of the Daily Telegraph published on the 24^th August 1992 Mr van Hoogstraten stated that anybody who causes him any kind of personal hardship does not get away with it: they may get away with it for a time, but “he dealt with people in cold blood, not hot blood”. In an interview with a newspaper published on the 11^th June 2000 he stated that he occasionally did something “a bit naughty” which he explained as meaning that: “I exact retribution. I try to make the punishment fit the crime”.

Mr van Hoogstraten has made two witness statements on the Preliminary Issue both of which are short and less than informative.

In his first, dated the 24^th May 2005, he stated (in paragraph 6) that Mr Raja was a serial fraudster and (in the Chancery Action) a perjurer; (in paragraph 7) that he never had any cross words or actions with Mr Raja:

He also stated (in paragraph 8) that Mr Raja was involved in very acrimonious disputes with Mr Hamdan who made direct and indirect threats against him and caused arson attacks and criminal damage to his flat at 6 Brunswick Square; (in paragraph 9) that he had no knowledge of Mr Croke or his family before meeting him whilst on remand in Belmarsh Prison after Mr Raja’s death; (in paragraph 10) that at no time had Mr Knapp been employed by him in any capacity; (in paragraph 10) that at no time prior to 2000 did he regard the Chancery Action as anything other than a minor irritation and a source of some amusement; (in paragraph 12) that he did not employ men to stake Mr Raja’s home with the intention of frightening or killing him; (in paragraph 13) that what lay behind Mr Raja’s death was some dishonest activity which Mr Raja was not prepared to disclose to the police; and (in paragraph 14) that the allegations against him are a cynical opportunistic dishonest attempt to make a gain at his expense.

In his second witness statement dated the 8^th October 2005 he added: (1) (in paragraph 6) that he had known Mr Knapp for some 35 years through Mr Knapp’s parents; (2) (in paragraph 7) that from around 1980 Mr Knapp assisted his father as site manager of his estate at High Cross. Paragraphs 8-13 read as follows:

He goes on in paragraphs 17-20 to allege (without any particularisation or supporting evidence) that his prosecution and conviction were attributable to corruption on the part of the jury and trial judge.

In my judgment very little (if any) weight can be given to the evidence of Mr van Hoogstraten on matters in issue in these proceedings, not merely because by his absence he has prevented it from being tested, but because it is unparticularised, unsupported by other evidence and (in many critical respects) inconsistent with other more credible evidence. Mr van Hoogstraten has demonstrated in this case that he is a person ready to make the wildest allegations without foundation in order to excuse himself from blame. His unparticularised and unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty against Mr Raja ought never to have been made. His statements relating to his good relationship with Mr Raja and his attitude to the Chancery Action are plainly false in respect of the period after 1992 when they fell out over the state of account between them and litigation commenced. I refer in particular to the evidence of Amjad, Mr Hamdan and Ms Sali and the 1995 Letter. Mr van Hoogstraten says that he was never fond of Mr Knapp and was concerned that he should not have contact with his children. But the relationship of Mr Knapp (“Uncle Bob”) to Mr van Hoogstraten and his family remained at all times very close both before and after the murder. I refer in particular to the evidence of Ms Sali and Mr Browne. Mr van Hoogstraten states that he never directly or indirectly employed Mr Knapp, but this is directly contrary to what he told the Prison Governor on his application for permission to visit him as a previous employer: see the 1996 Letter. Mr van Hoogstraten has tried to create the impression of a distance between them but this “distance” appears to me (as it appeared to Mr Browne) to be false and manufactured and his evidence to that effect does not accord with the evidence of the continuing close relationship between them, the continuing provision of accommodation and financial support whilst Mr Knapp remained in this country, their continuing correspondence after Mr Knapp left for Eire and Mr Knapp’s prompt return here when Mr van Hoogstraten was arrested

I turn now to the question whether Mr van Hoogstraten played a part, and if so, what part in the murder of Mr Raja.

Mr van Hoogstraten says that he had no motive for wanting Mr Raja murdered, that the litigation was a source of amusement and that the sum at issue was to him and a man of his wealth “relative peanuts”. But it is plain that the claims made by Mr Raja against him in the Chancery Action angered Mr van Hoogstraten and his anger was aggravated by the addition of the claim in fraud. The action threatened to open up to public scrutiny his business methods and his dealings with Mr Raja and Mr Raja’s properties. He was not used to being thwarted. And the sum at stake was substantial running into millions of pounds and Mr van Hoogstraten viewed the saving and accumulation of money as the highest priority: he had a miser’s attitude to “unnecessary” expenditure and an obsession with the recovery by any means of what he considered was due to him and belonged to him. The existence of the proceedings was sufficient to induce him to write the 1995 Letter, to make threats against Mr Raja and repeatedly to ask Mr Hamdan to find a hit-man from Lebanon. From Mr Hamdan’s evidence it is clear that Mr van Hoogstraten’s expectation was that, if he killed Mr Raja who was pursuing the Chancery Action relentlessly against him, Mr Raja’s family would settle all outstanding claims on terms highly favourable to Mr van Hoogstraten.

Mr van Hoogstraten was a man who when thwarted (as he has admitted) can become very, very angry. He has convictions for violence and (as he has made plain in the television interviews and to Amjad) has no compunction against using violence to achieve his ends (e.g. knifing a tenant and beating up his accountant). He has proudly acknowledged on television that he associates with violent criminals and to Ms Sali that Mr Knapp (a man he has described in these proceedings as a thug and “low life”) is his “hit-man” and to Mr Hamdan that he is his lieutenant. He has publicly stated that in dealing with people who get in his way he goes for direct retribution. Mr Browne, who for many years knew Mr van Hoogstraten and his ways, described him as having a psychopathic personality. In question is Mr van Hoogstraten’s character and propensity to use violence and not his reputation. Accordingly the suggestion by Mr van Hoogstraten that his reputation is the product of a media campaign to demonise him is irrelevant. But the suggestion is also groundless. His reputation is very much his own deliberate creation, as is apparent from the television and newspaper interviews.

The murder of Mr Raja has the hallmarks of a contract killing by Mr Knapp and Mr Croke. Mr Knapp and Mr Croke had no relationship or dealing with Mr Raja. After staking out Mr Raja’s home and assuring themselves that he was at home, they murdered him in daylight in cold blood. There was no evidence of the killing being a botched robbery or having any other purpose.

The police investigated whether any person other than Mr van Hoogstraten might have a motive to murder Mr Raja and could have been involved in the murder and ruled this out. There is no evidence of any such motive or involvement.

Mr van Hoogstraten made threats against Mr Raja including a threat to shoot him. The threats were such as to frighten Mr Raja: (1) sufficiently to make an (unsuccessful) application for an injunction; (2) to discuss with his solicitor whether he should refrain from alleging fraud against Mr van Hoogstraten lest this aggravate the situation; (3) to warn his family against the dangers posed by Mr van Hoogstraten; (4) to take a knife in his hand when he opened the door to the murderers; and (5) to say after he had been stabbed that the murderers were “Hoogstraten’s men”.

The evidence of Mr Hamdan establishes that Mr van Hoogstraten first unsuccessfully tried to recruit killers of Mr Raja from Lebanon through Mr Hamdan. When this fell through, the murder was committed by Mr van Hoogstraten’s “hit- man” Mr Knapp together with his associate Mr Croke. The evidence conclusively points to the recruitment of Mr Knapp for this purpose:

Mr Knapp was Mr van Hoogstraten’s long standing friend and hit-man who would do anything Mr van Hoogstraten asked of him;

there is no basis for the suggestion that anyone else can have recruited them;

Mr van Hoogstraten provided a home for Mr Knapp first at his own home and from June 1999 at 33 Framfield Road and promised him the boathouse on his estate when works on it were completed; and he also made to him a series of payments. The payments would appear to be the return for his services: their description as loans scarcely bears scrutiny, for Mr Knapp cannot have been an acceptable credit risk on any ordinary (let alone Mr van Hoogstraten’s high) standards and he accepted in cross-examination in the criminal proceedings that he never seriously expected them to be repaid. Rather Mr van Hoogstraten was acting (as he told Mr Browne) as “caretaker” of monies earned by Mr Knapp.

Mr Knapp’s departure to Eire in 2000 is to be explained as referable to a desire to protect Mr van Hoogstraten by removing Mr Knapp from the scene and disguising the reasons for his going abroad. The impression that there had been a breakdown in relations between them over thefts by Mr Knapp was false. The relationship continued as before. (As Ms Sali pointed out in her evidence Mr van Hoogstraten is not the sort of man who relies on the police when he has a problem.) Mr Knapp returned to this country as soon as Mr van Hoogstraten was charged;

Mr van Hoogstraten’s response to the inquiry by Ms Sali whether he was involved in the murder and his anxious questioning of Mr Hamdan about DNA evidence point to his involvement in the murder;

Mr Hamdan’s conversations with Mr van Hoogstraten about 6 Brunswick Square shortly before the murder and shortly after the murder afford strong evidence that Mr van Hoogstraten knew before he went to Cannes of the pending murder and of its intended impact on dealings with Mr Raja and (after his return) of the pleasure he took in the murder and the benefits to be obtained from it and of his intention to repeat the exercise if necessary;

at his first interview by the police, referring to the Crimewatch reconstruction of the murder, Mr van Hoogstraten commented that he did not understand how the attackers could have missed Mr Raja with their first shot. The reconstruction did not afford any basis for the suggestion that the first shot had missed (as suggested by Mr van Hoogstraten in his explanation of this statement). At the time he can only have known that the first shot missed if informed of it by Mr Knapp or Mr Croke.

I am satisfied that the recruitment of the two thugs was for the purpose of murdering Mr Raja and not merely frightening or hurting him. The use of two violent thugs armed with a shotgun was more than was needed to frighten or injure him. The second shot was deliberately aimed at killing him. Mr Raja had at all times shown himself resilient, ready to resist threats and to complain to the police. Nothing less than murder would rid Mr van Hoogstraten of this thorn in his flesh. He requested Mr Hamdan to recruit a killer. When Mr Hamdan did not oblige he recruited Mr Knapp. Mr van Hoogstraten boasted about the murder to Mr Hamdan after it occurred and threatened a repeat if aggravated in the future. He clearly recruited the thugs to “break” the thorn and resolve for good his problems with Mr Raja.

I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, (and indeed if it were necessary beyond reasonable doubt), taking full account of the seriousness of the allegations against him, that Mr van Hoogstraten recruited two highly dangerous thugs, Mr Knapp and Mr Croke, to murder Mr Raja in order to halt the prosecution of the Chancery Action by Mr Raja against him and then to obtain the release or settlement of Mr Raja’s claims against Mr van Hoogstraten on terms highly favourable to Mr van Hoogstraten. The evidence pointing to this conclusion is overwhelming. It would have been sufficient for this purpose even if Mr van Hoogstraten had good and sufficient reasons for not attending the trial. The conclusion is the stronger in the absence of any such reason. Only by presenting compelling evidence to the contrary could Mr van Hoogstraten have had any real prospect of persuading the court to decide otherwise. Perhaps wisely he did not even attempt to do so. His purpose in murdering Mr Raja has not been achieved because (contrary to his expectations) Mr Raja’s family have been as resilient as was Mr Raja in his lifetime in standing up to Mr van Hoogstraten.