Adapted Imaginary Cross-Examination (Civil Suit)
All names given apart from that of the Plaintiff are fictitious.
Case Title: Richard James Noble Warren v. The Hellenic Republic
Court: Administrative Court of Athens, Greece (Imaginary Jurisdiction)
Presiding Judge: The Honorable Judge Elena Papadopoulou
Defence Lawyer (for State): Mr. Konstantinos Demetriou
Plaintiff’s Lawyer (Applicant): Ms. Sophia Nikolaidis
Witness: Mr. Apostolos Georgiou, Immigration Official, Heraklion Immigration Centre, Heraklion, Crete
Cross-Examination by Ms. Nikolaidis (Plaintiff’s Counsel)
I. Establishing Authority and Policy
Q: Mr. Georgiou, as a member of the Hellenic Immigration Department, you are trained extensively on Greek Law and International Maritime Law and Greek Residency Requirements, correct?
A: Yes, we receive training.
Q: That training explicitly covers the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the rights of individuals under International Law?
A: Yes, we are aware of international conventions.
Q: You were aware of the difference between individuals arriving by sea who express a fear of persecution and have a right to apply for asylum, and individuals
who have resided in Greece for a number of years and who do not require asylum, were you not?
A: We are aware of the difference.
Q: You are a state official acting under the authority of the Hellenic Republic during the time of my client’s detention and subsequent imprisonment?
A: Yes.
Q: And you were one of the officers handling the case of Mr Warren?
A: Yes.
Q: And were you responsible for the decisions made? – in particular I refer you to documents dated 26th September 2025 and 29th September 2025 Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F produced here in evidence, and handed to my client at the time of his detention at the Heraklion Police station?
A: Yes.
Q: I will be addressing the contents of these documents, but as I understand it, my client had no lawyer present since he had just been released from the prison Nea Alikarnassos in Heraklion Crete in the belief that he was free to return to his home. Why were the documents referred to written only in Greek?
A: There is no requirement to provide additional translations.
Q: Really? Mr Warren is a retired UK Citizen and 76 years old at the time of his detention: he can speak a little Greek, but he cannot read Greek and he made this clear at the time. Why did you not provide an English translation?
A: There is no requirement to provide additional translations.
Q: Really? Surely it is the right of every individual to have a translator or interpreter present and available? So it follows then that my client had no way of knowing at the time what he was charged with and the exact reasons for his immediate re-arrest and incarceration?
A: I followed the procedure I am trained to follow.
Q: Even though you would or should have been aware that my Client had no way of understanding why he had been imprisoned again?
A: He had the option to appoint a lawyer to represent him and translate the documents.
Q: He had just been released from one prison. He had very few clothes or personal possessions or access to his bank for funds, and was expecting to be returned to his home near Chania. How could he be expected to appoint and have a lawyer familiar with residency and immigration procedures present at such short notice?
A: That was not my concern.
Q: Obviously not….Was there any thought given to the age of my client, and his state of health?
A: I followed procedure.
Q: Did you know that apart from being 76 years old, Mr Warren was suffering from high blood pressure – Exhibit G – something that could have been easily checked from his medical records? The prison from which he had been released was supplying medication and he had visited Heraklion main hospital for tests a month previously?
A: No I was not aware of that.
Q: Not aware of that? Does not the age of the client and his state of health have a direct bearing on whatever punishment you decide to give out?
(Mr. Demetriou: Objection, argumentative.)
(Judge: Sustained.)
Q: I am sorry, Your Honour.
Q: Is it not normal practice in Greek Law for individuals over 75 years old to be given the option of Home Confinement rather than detention or imprisonment?
A: This is a Residency matter.
Q: So Greek Law does not apply? Would this not have been a more appropriate procedure to follow bearing in mind the age of Mr Warren?
II. The Detention/Imprisonment (Establishing Facts for Wrongful Imprisonment Claim)
Q: When a prisoner is released from a prison, in this case Nea Alikarnassos in Heraklion, the last part of the procedure is to take the prisoner to the nearest police station – in this case Heraklion Central Police station – for final clearances. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: During his initial interview at about 12 midday on Friday 26th September 2025, my client was asked for his Greek Residency Permit. Is that correct?
A: Yes, that is standard procedure. He could not produce one.
Q: After legally and continuously living in Greece for five years, non-EU citizens can apply for a permanent residence permit. Mr Warren retired to Greece in 2012 and met all the criteria for a permanent residence permit, before Brexit occurred in 2019. Do you remember the reason given by my client for not having a Residency permit?
A: Yes. He said he was married to a Greek citizen.
Q: This answer would be a reasonable one, would it not? My client married a Greek citizen in 2015 and remains married to her in 2025 – 10 years?
A: The Residency rules have changed, and being married to a Greek citizen is no longer an acceptable reason for automatic rights of Residency in Greece.
Q: The Greek Laws change all the time, do they not? Common sense would surely dictate that being married to a Greek citizen would at the very least assist in the procedure?
(Mr. Demetriou [State Counsel]: Objection, The witness has no need to respond – conjecture…)
(Judge: Greek Law and the application of Common Sense is not on trial here.)
Q. Thank you for clearing that up, Your Honour. Let me re-phrase the question. My client may have been guilty of not keeping up with Greek Residency requirements,
but would you not agree that he made an honest mistake?
A: I follow procedure and Mr Warren had no valid Residency permit. And there were other reasons to detain him.
Q: Ah, yes, thank you for mentioning that. What were the other reasons?
A: He had three convictions, two for domestic violence and one for having a shotgun on his premises.
Q: So, just to be clear, on the basis of these convictions, you judged him to be – and I quote from your document dated 29th September 2025, Exhibit D in Greek – a “danger
to the people of Heraklion” and my client was a subject for immediate deportation?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: So why was he not immediately deported?
A: There was a problem with his Passport which had expired.
Q: Yes, and would you not agree that letting a passport expire is not a crime or in any way illegal.?
A: I would agree.
Q: Is it the case that without a valid passport, Mr Warren could not actually be deported?
A: Yes, that is correct
Q: So your solution – some would say punishment – was to lock up this “dangerous old man” until further notice until the appropriate travel documents could be obtained.
But there was no way Mr Warren could renew his passport if he was in “detention” was there? So in reality, he could have remained locked up indefinitely?
A: In principle, that is correct.
Q: Did Mr Warren appeal against the deportation? Do you remember the reasons?
A: Not as far as I am aware.
Q. Really? Let me refresh your memory. Mr Warren had made his life on Crete since leaving the UK retiring here in 2012, a life which would have been totally destroyed if an immediate deportation was enforced. The second reason he gave was his desire to clear his name and overturn the convictions you mention with a court appearance – effectively a re-trial – due in Chania on 21st October 2025 – please refer to Exhibit H. Do you remember those reasons?
A: Not specifically, no.
Q: Let me refresh your memory: my client’s lawyer at the time – a Mr Manolis Kritzsas, a lawyer based in Heraklion – was contacted by my client during his “interview” on 26th September 2025 and spoke to a member of your staff, specifically mentioning the upcoming retrial on 21st October 2025. Do you have a note of that conversation?
A: No
Q: And I thought all calls were recorded and all interviews transcribed? Is this correct?
A: It depends how busy we are at the time.
Q: So are you saying that there were no transcriptions or call recordings made for the interview of Mr Warren on 26th September 2025?
A: Not as such.
Q: I see. Let us now turn to the convictions upon which you based your decision to incarcerate Mr Warren, apparently a “danger to the public of Heraklion”. On 23rd August 2025, lawyers for my client made a successful application in the Court at Chania to annul the previous decisions/convictions, due to the fact that Mr Warren had not been properly summoned as all the relevant court documentation had never been received by my client as they had been sent to a previous residential address. Were you aware of this?
A: No
Q: You should have been aware, surely? Did you not check all the facts and the Court appearance dates for Mr Warren’s case?
A: Not specifically – we relied on police records.
Q. So you made your “deportation” decision based upon inaccurate information, without having checked if these “convictions” were actually safe?
A: I was doing my job based upon the evidence I had.
Q. Why was Mr Warren not allowed to attend the court in Chania on the 21st October 2025? A re-trial which would have given him the opportunity to quash these previous “convictions” on which you based your deportation decision and subsequent detention order?
A: We received no request for Mr Warren to attend that hearing.
Q: Really? Mr Kritzas – Mr Warren’s lawyer at the time – says that he had informed you, but that you or your department had turned down his request. Is that true?
A: Not to my knowledge.
III. Violations of International/Human Rights Law (The Core Claims)
Q: The action of detaining my client in a closed facility without judicial review violates specific EU Directives and the European Convention on Human Rights, does it not?
(Mr. Demetriou: Objection, calls for a legal conclusion from a lay witness.)
(Judge: Sustained. Rephrase the question, Ms. Nikolaidis.)
Q: Are you aware of the conditions and lack of facilities within the Detention Centre in the basement of the main Heraklion Police Station?
A: Yes.
Q: You could hardly have said “no” could you? Your offices are on the first floor of the same building, are they not? Have you actually stayed in one of the cells for a prolonged period?
(Mr. Demetriou [State Counsel]: Objection, The witness has no need to respond…)
(Judge: Where are you going with this line of questioning?.)
Q. Your Honour, I want to emphasize the extraordinary injustice perpetrated on my client, a 76 year old Englishman of good character with little knowledge of the Greek Language, who was unjustly imprisoned for a period between 26th September and 12th December 2025 in a wholly unsuitable detention facility, where his personal health and safety was at high risk and his personal possessions under direct threat, while outside, his life in Crete was being destroyed as a direct result of his detention.
Q: The detention centre in the basement of the police building is a detention centre, and not a prison, correct? And are you aware of the legal requirements for and the differences between a detention centre – or police holding cell – and a Prison?
A: Yes
Q: A prison has to meet certain standards in International Law and Human Rights legislation – for example, exercise areas. I am sure we can access some Guidelines if you wish. Are you familiar with the differences?
A: I am familiar.
Q: Good. Would you agree that a Holding Cell in a police station – and there are at least 11 holding cells in this particular building which can house up to 60 “detainees” in total – is intended for individuals awaiting criminal trial or held overnght for minor offences? It is by definition a temporary measure?
A: Yes I would agree.
Q. So days rather than months?
Q. I can see you have difficulty answering that question. So let me ask another question. Are you using this “temporary” facility for holding immigration “workers” and asylum seekers who either do not have or who have falsified their visas and/or other residency paperwork?
A: Yes, we do also detain these people.
Q: So this “facility” holds various criminals – drug abusers, drug dealers, drunkards, mental health cases and others awaiting trial – as well as a large number of desperate young men from various third world countries seeking asylum and/or residency permits, and with little or no money?
A: Yes
Q: Taking the second category – let’s call them “immigration seekers” – how long do they remain on average in this detention centre?
A: It depends on the individual and his circumstances.
Q: Is it not the case that individuals can be kept in this wholly unsuitable environment for three months and more?
A; The average detention is about 50 days.
Q: Yes – and there are cases of six months detention. Is this period of time in a wholly unsuitable environment against EU directives and International Law?
(Mr. Demetriou: Objection, calls for an opinion from a lay witness.)
(Judge: Sustained. Rephrase the question, Ms. Nikolaidis.)
Q: Of course, Your Honour. That would be something to be investigated outside of these proceedings. I understand that all inmates are searched before being processed into the cells: shoelaces and belts are removed, and all communication devices such as mobile phones and most other personal effects. Is that correct?
A: Yes, that is standard procedure.
Q: What communication channels are available to inmates?
A: There are payphones operated with phonecards for outgoing phone calls.
Q: And the phonecards need to be purchased? And the call rates to mobiles – even Greek mobiles – are expensive?
A: That is standard procedure in prisons.
Q: Is it not the case that many of the phones do not work, it is almost impossible to hear the other party, there is a long queue for working phones and calls are not private?
A: I am not sure about the condition of the payphones in that facility.
Q: And incoming calls are not allowed?
A: No, but lawyers can visit at any time.
Q: I imagine that very few of the immigration inmates can afford to hire a lawyer. So there is no access to the internet allowed and no way of getting any information apart from by using the payphones?
A: No
Q: If an inmate does not have an immigration lawyer appointed to assist him, how can he find out any information about his own case? Can he request a meeting with
an immigration officer and how would he do that?
A; Yes, he can always request a meeting through the police officers on duty at the time.
Q: Really? Is it not true that the police officers have many other duties, and requests from inmates for help and information have a very low priority?
A: I cannot comment on the system in operation at this police station.
Q: I am glad that you have clarified that. One of the documents that you supplied my client at the very beginning of his confinement was a one page document – actually printed in English. We have the document as Exhibits E and F, if you need to refer to it. Amongst other information, this document has a space available for the name of the liaison officer appointed to provide information on individual cases. Why was this space left blank, with no liaison details?
A: I cannot comment on that.
Q: According to my client, who checked with other inmates, none of the corresponding documents had a name supplied. When my client mentioned this to one of the
police officers, there was a certain amount of laughter generated. Is it not the truth that any communication between your office and prisoners is almost impossible
and strictly discouraged?
A: I cannot comment. We always communicate with any lawyers appointed.
Q: Let me summarise. Any inmate who cannot afford the services of an immigration lawyer – always assuming that it would be posssible in any event to organise this by using a Payphone – is devoid of any method of communication, apart from the Payphone (if working) and is wholly dependant on the goodwill of the police officers on duty at the time. Obtaining any information about particular cases is next to impossible. Would that be a fair summary?
A: I cannot comment on the attitude and helpfulness or otherwise of the police officers on duty.
Q. Within this “facility”, there are no tables and chairs, no seating areas, the only “private” area for an inmate is his concrete bed with a thin mattress and any blankets that can be obtained, this bed being less than one meter from the adjoining bed. There is no privacy whatsoever, and conversations can be heard throughout the cells. The noise generated is unbearably loud and can continue from early morning to 2 or 3 am every day. Fights constantly break out and money and possessions are stolen regularly since there is no privacy between cells and the police are not minded to intervene. Sometimes cells are locked for many hours, which means that my elderly client had to perform his ablutions into empty bottles. Toilets – when available and clean – are the most basic and there is no hot water. Are any of these facts inaccurate?
A: I have no comment.
Q: In that case, I will assume that you accept the deplorable conditions under which my client was forced to exist for 11 weeks during which time he knew that his life in Crete – built up over 13 years – was being destroyed. On 17th November 2025, Mr Warren, in desperation, wrote out a complaint in longhand, and a few days later managed to get the document sent to the email address appearing at the bottom of this document (Exhibit J). Can you confirm whether you or your department received this complaint?
A: I cannot confirm this.
Q: Well, let’s assume that somebody did receive it. Did this have any bearing on his release some weeks later?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: I want to try and understand why you thought it was “appropriate” to incarcerate Mr Warren in this detention centre – for 11 weeks as it turned out rather than indefinitely – as opposed to the obvious humane and sensible decision of home confinement or to let him go with a warning that he could face deportation if his application for residency failed. I believe that prison (rather than a detention centre) was not an option as technically he had committed no crime – is that correct?
A: Yes – he could not be sent to prison.
Q: And since you wanted to deport him, he was hardly a “flight risk” was he, without a valid passport?
A: No
Q: So your reason for detaining him in this inhumane facility was that you considered him to be a danger to the “people of Heraklion”? Even though he had been released from prison following his trial at the Chania Court on 24th September 2025? Do you think he would have been released if the Judge in Chania thought him to be a “danger to the public”?
A: That was my assessment.
Q: So without any direct knowledge of the charges which Mr Warren faced – and was subsequently acquitted from by re-trial on February 10th 2026 where the sentence was reduced to a suspended sentence only – and which he should have been able to attend much earlier on October 21st 2025) – at the Chania Court of instance, you thought that you knew better than the presiding judges on the Chania Court circuit?
A: No comment.
Q: Mr Warren is – or was – a respected member of his community, he did not need to work and he was not looking for a job, having supported the Greek economy for many
years, he was 76 years old and not in the best of health. Please explain why he was incarcerated with a large number of aggressive young men in their 20s from third world countries, who had nothing in common with my client, and unlike my client, had nothing to lose? They had taken the risk of falsifying papers and/or had made an illegal entry into Greece, since they were looking for a new life and new opportunities?
A: This decision was made based upon the evidence we had at the time.
Q: Before summing up, I would like to know why Mr Warren was eventually released – Exhibit I dated 12th December. I put it to you that it was as a result of his e-mailed complaint dated 17th November and the realisation that a grave miscarriage of justice had occurred – would you agree?
A: I cannot comment on the reasons for his release.
Q: Let me assist you. According to this document, my client was released pursuant to “paragraph 2 of Article 10 of Law 5226/2025” – is this correct?
A: Yes
Q: Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic (ΕΦΗΜΕΡΙΔΑ ΤΗΣ ΚΥΒΕΡΝΗΣΕΩΣ) document – states: “The police authorities responsible for the execution of the return decision may, by their reasoned decision, postpone the removal for a reasonable period of time, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case and in particular:
a) when there are proven serious health problems of the person concerned
circumstances that make immediate removal disproportionate or dangerous,
b) the impossibility of immediate removal, due to the objective impossibility
of establishing identity and
c) for technical reasons, such as the lack of means of transport.”
Which of these special circumstances applied to Mr Warren?
A: I cannot comment.
Q: Let me help you – it was either on (a) Health grounds, (b) Establishing Identity or (c) Lack of transport. (b) and (c) would seem to be not relevant to Mr Warren, which leaves only his health as the official reason for his release. Would you agree?
A: No comment
Q: If the pre-existing health of my client was the reason for his release, why was he detained in the first instance and made to spend 11 weeks in this hell-hole of a Detention Centre?
(Mr. Demetriou: Objection, badgering the witness.)
(Judge: Sustained.)
Q: Moving on, Your Honour. The release document handed to Mr Warren (Exhibit I dated 12th December) orders Mr Warren to “remain at the address he will responsibly declare to the Heraklion Immigration Directorate (Υ.Δ.Ε.Ε.)” But Mr Warren explained to the immigration official delivering this document that he had no current address as a direct result of his prolonged detainment. The additional time he was incarcerated resulted in his eviction from his rented home in Xirosterni, the loss of many of his personal possessions and the destruction of his private life. Why was he not then detained further for being unable to comply with this “order”, as clearly required in the release document?
A: I cannot comment on that.
Q: I would like to bring to the Court’s attention the Legal Case referred to as B.F. v. Greece (2025): A European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment establishing that Greek police stations are “by nature unsuitable for long-term detention” due to lack of basic amenities and outdoor access. Could it be that the Greek Immigration authorities had finally realised – although it took them the best part of two months – that a serious miscarriage of justice had occurred which necessitated Mr Warren’s immediate release?
IV. Conclusion
Q: My client was 76 years old at the time of his confinement, and suffering from high blood pressure, which would be exacerbated by further imprisonment. It was not necessary to incarcerate him in a facility which is totally unsuitable – if not illegal – under international law. Surely the correct and reasonable thing to have done was what you did 11 weeks later – give him six months to sort out his residency status?
A: I followed procedure.
Q: You followed procedure? Was this not a complete abuse of your power? Did you not appreciate the irreversible damage this imprisonment would do to his life in Crete?
A: This was not my concern.
Q: Did you really believe that an old man would be a “danger to the people of Heraklion”
A: That was what I believed.
Q: Is it not the case that you and your department acted with no regard to my client’s human rights and your decision to incarcerate him in a totally unsuitable facility was wholly inappropriate and was based upon incorrect information? You were negligent and unprofessional and more interested in punishing an old man from the UK who you believed to be guilty of the ridiculous and biased domestic violence legislation in Greece, where women can make any sort of unsubstantiated claim against men.
You also failed to follow international law regarding his human rights and you took no account of his age and state of health and the likelihood of bullying and harassment and threats to his personal safety in this wholly unsuitable and dangerous “detention facility”. Thanks to you and your department, he has suffered huge amounts of stress, his life in Crete has needlessly been destroyed, he has lost a substantial amount of money by the forced sale of those personal possessions that remain, and his reputation has also been destroyed.
A: I followed my orders and training as best I could.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Georgiou. No further questions, Your Honor.
