{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02063983488132095, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005847953216374269, 'mean_word_length': 4.874747474747474, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
European Court of Human Rights

The applicants had been convicted of illegally importing 18 kg of cocaine (with a street value of £2-3 million) into Heathrow Airport. At the trial. which started in May 199 L the prosecution case was that one of the applicants had organised the importation, using a third party (who was acquitted at the trial) as a courier; and that he had instructed a fourth man, who was accompanied by the second applicant as a 'minder', to collect the courier's suitcase at Heathrow. The applicants had been under surveillance, and the prosecution case relied largely on the accounts given by customs officers of what they had observed. The defence case was that the first applicant was a jewel trader who was attempting to secure delivery of a consignment of jewellery from another trader, named Rudi Steiner, and that Steiner had defaulted on delivery on a number of occasions. It was suggested that Steiner was an informant for Customs and Excise, who had implicated the applicants falsely in the importation of the cocaine in order to avoid repaying his debt and to avoid being discredited in the jewel-trading community for his default. The prosecution refused either to confirm or deny the involvement of an informer, and no evidence relating to an informer or to Rudi Steiner was served on the defence or put before the judge. In spring 1994, over two years after their conviction, the applicants learned of the existence of a document, 'the Mato Grosso Report', concerning investigation into drug trafficking between Brazil and Europe. The report mentioned Rudi Steiner, describing him as a regular informer for, amongst others, the Brazilian police. He was said to have an interest in stolen jewels and to be concerned in the traffic from Brazil to Europe of large quantities of cocaine, which he was apparently able freely to obtain from the Brazilian police. Upon receipt of a copy of the report, the prosecution declined to confirm or deny its authenticity or the truth of its contents, and repeated their earlier assertion that there was no undisclosed material relevant to the issues at trial. The applicants sought leave to appeal on the basis, inter alia, (1) that the Mato Grosso report supported their claim of Steiner's involvement with law enforcement agents, such that the jury, and indeed the judge should have had this evidence before them; and (2) that the prosecution had failed to discharge its disclosure obligations in respect of the evidence concerning Steiner, such that the convictions would be rendered unsafe. The prosecution eventually, in October 1995, conceded to the defence that there had in fact been unused material which remained undisclosed. Subsequently, an ex parte application was made to the Court of Appeal by the prosecution, who wished to withhold the material on the grounds of public interest immunity. Although the defence objected to