![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tuesday, June 2, 1998 Published at 21:19 GMT 22:19 UK UK £100m drug smuggler's appeal fails ![]() Warren's empire included "hard" and "soft" drugs Interpol's former "Target One" Curtis Warren has lost his appeal in Holland against a 12-year sentence for masterminding a £100 million scheme to flood Britain with heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and cannabis. After the hearing at the appeal court in the Hague, Warren's lawyer, Han Jahae, said there would now be an appeal to the Dutch Supreme Court - and to the European Court of Human Rights if that failed. Second time lucky for police Warren's conviction last June was the final chapter in a long-running Anglo-Dutch operation to smash a drugs ring smuggling vast quantities of drugs into Europe, mostly from South America.
The operation suffered a setback in 1993 when Warren was acquitted of £150m cocaine smuggling charges. He reportedly told customs officers after that hearing: "I am going off to spend my millions and there is nothing you can do about it."
That trial heard that Warren ran his drugs empire from his homes in Liverpool and Amsterdam. The case followed the arrest of Warren, and six others in a raid on Rotterdam docks. The raid netted £75m worth of Colombian cocaine stashed in a container which the gang had offloaded from a Venezuelan freighter Investigators acting with the help of intelligence from British police had tracked the container from the ship to a warehouse near the Hague. Follow-up raids in Rotterdam and Amsterdam uncovered caches of hand grenades and automatic weapons as well as more drugs which included 1,500kg of heroin and 50kg of ecstasy - a haul worth about £100m. 'Tainted evidence' claims rejected Warren's appeal was based on claims that telephone taps used by police in his British home to gather evidence against him were illegal under Dutch law. Mr Jahae argued that the facts shared between the UK and Dutch authorities when they cooperated in the drugs swoop were "tainted". However, this arguement was rejected by the appeal court. |
UK Contents
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||