# 30 Foreign UK Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond complicit in the perversion of justice?

James Ricketson

Europe Guest House

# 51, Street 136 Phnom Penh

+85517 898 361

jamesricketson@gmail.com

Phillip Hammond

Foreign Secretary

Parliamentary House of Commons

London SW1A                                                                                   

9^th November 2014

Dear Mr Hammond

Acting Director of Consular Services Ross Allen’s letter to me and my letter to yourself of 7^th Nov crossed each other in cyberspace – two ships in the night.

Mr Allen’s letter (published in its entirety below) is based on a lie – namely that Mr Fletcher’s passport did not come into the possession of the British Embassy in Thailand until July 2012. This is demonstrably untrue:

Consider this:

It is the morning of 4^th August 2010. David Fletcher, who has been in a Thai prison for 5 or so weeks (no charges laid), is due to fly back to the UK in a few hours. A friend has paid Mr Fletcher’s airfare but the flight arrangements have been made by the British Embassy in Thailand. Embassy staff are due to pick Mr Fletcher up at 9.30 to escort him to the airport. They do not turn up. Later in the day Mr Fletcher is informed that he is to be extradited to Cambodia.

My first question:

“When Kate Dufall, a member of Thai British Embassy staff, booked Mr Fletcher’s air ticket on 27^th or 28^th July 2010 where was Mr Fletcher’s passport?”

 If, as Ross Allen claims, Mr Fletcher’ passport only came into the possession of the British Embassy in July 2012, where was it on the morning of 4^th August 2010?

My second question:

“Were Embassy staff going to escort Mr Fletcher to the airport without being sure whether or not he was in possession of a valid passport? One that would enable him to clear Immigration in Thailand and clear Immigration in the UK when he arrived at Heathrow airport?”

No. Clearly, Embassy staff knew that Mr Fletcher had a valid passport on the morning of 4^th August 2010. And they knew where it was.

I am being somewhat pedantic in laying the facts out as I am here, and in asking the questions I am asking, because Ross Allen has, in his letter of 7^th Nov., given answers to questions that are designed to obfuscate and not clarify; answers provided in the hope that I (and others following this) will be sufficiently stupid not to notice the gaping holes in logic that Ross Allen indulges in.

Given that Mr Fletcher would not have been allowed to keep his passport in his Thai prison cell there are only two possible locations for his passport on 4^th August 2010:

(1) The British Embassy in Thailand

(2) With Thai prison authorities.

Is (2) the correct answer? If so, was it the intention of Embassy staff to pick up Mr Fletcher’s passport from the prison at the same time they picked up Mr Fletcher at 9.30 on 4^th August to drive him to the airport? If so, there will be a record within the FCO of a formal request to the Thai authorities to release Mr Fletcher’s passport to British Embassy staff on this day.

With the power of attorney given to me by Mr Fletcher I request that we be provided with a copy of any communication that occurred between the British Embassy in Thailand and Thai authorities between 27^th June 2010 and 4^th August 2010 regarding Mr Fletcher’s passport. The names of those involved in this communication can be redacted. They are not important at this point. What is important is obtaining a clear and concise record of where Mr Fletcher’s passport was physically located between these dates. It should be possible for the British Embassy to account for where Mr Fletcher’s passport was (r where the Embassy believed it to be) for every day between 27^th June 2010 and 31^st July 2012

Apropos (1), (and please excuse me for thinking like, acting like, a Police Prosecutor) let’s go back to the date of Mr Fletcher’s arrest on 27^th June 2010. Mr Fletcher claims that the Thai authorities took possession of his passport at the time of his arrest, on this day. This is what one would expect.

On 29^th June Mr Ray Keen, from the Thai British Embassy, visited Mr Fletcher in prison. According to Mr Fletcher, Mr Keen told him that he had no idea why Mr Fletcher had been arrested. No doubt there will be a record of Ray Keen’s visit of 29^th June and what was discussed between himself and Mr Fletcher.

On 4^th July, according to Mr Fletcher, Ray Keen came to visit him again. Mr Keen had Mr Fletcher’s passport in his hands and told him that the Embassy would take care of it until such time as his legal problems were resolved.

Is Mr Fletcher telling the truth about Ray Keen’s having his passport? Did Ray Keen tell Mr Fletcher that the Embassy would retain his passport for safe-keeping?

Could you please, Mr Hammond, ask Ray Keen if he had Mr Fletcher’s passport in his possession on 29^th June 2010. A ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ answer is all that is required at this point.

Again, there will be a record within the British Embassy in Bangkok of Mr Keen’s 29^th June visit, the purpose of it and what was discussed between himself and Mr Fletcher. This record will reveal the truth about what transpired (or did not transpire) during this encounter between Ray Keen and Mr Fletcher. And, regardless of what Ray Keen and David Fletcher discussed there will be a record of Mr Fletcher’s passport being in the care of the British Embassy if this was the case.

“Is there a record of Mr Fletcher’s passport being in the possession of the British Embassy in Thailand on 29^th June 2010?”

Could you please respond with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ to this simple question?

Given the lengths that Sue Bennett is going to not to provide any of the information requested by both myself and David Fletcher under FOI legislation, the question now, in Nov 2014, is whether she will release any documents at all relating to these visits and what was discussed? Copies of letters supposedly sent to David Fletcher by Mr Seedhouse? Copies of the many letters that David Fletcher has sent to the FCO and copies of which he was not able to make for himself in prison? I suspect that she will not, but will find some obscure clause within the FOI act to justify such extreme redaction.

She Bennett may, of course, insist that there is no record of what was discussed between David Fletcher and Ray Keen. If so, could you please ask her:

“Is there a record of the conversation that took place between David Fletcher and Ray Keen on 29^th June 2010 regarding Mr Fletcher’s passport?”

A ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ answer will suffice at this point.

“If Ray Keen did not have Mr Fletcher’s passport in his possession on 4^th July 2010, if it was not in the care of the British Embassy, where was it?”

Ambassador Mark Kent (or Ray Keen or Julian Blewett) might respond responds with, “We don’t know where Mr Fletcher’s passport was in July 2010.” If so, the question then arises:

“How did Mr Fletcher’s passport suddenly materialize later in the month such that Kate Dufall could book a ticket back to the UK for Mr Fletcher secure in the knowledge that he had a valid passport and would be able to clear Immigration in both Thailand and the UK?”

You see the problem here, Mr Hammond! One way or another the British Embassy in Thailand knew, on the morning of 4^th August 2010, that Mr Fletcher had a valid passport he could use in a few hours to clear Cambodian Immigration and, a dozen or so hours later, be admitted back into the UK.

Given this indisputable fact, how then can Ross Allen write, on 7^th Nov 2014:

“The Embassy in Bangkok cancelled Mr Fletcher’s passport on 31^st July 2012…Mr Fletcher’s passport was received at the British Embassy with no accompanying explanation. I am therefore satisfied that consular staff acted appropriately in cancelling the passport and returning it to HMPO.”

How can this statement of Ross Allen’s be reconciled with Pro Consul Tanida Apivisuttirux’s letter to Mr Fletcher dated 21^st Feb 2013 in which she writes:

Dear Mr Fletcher

Thank you very much for your two letters dated 28 Janurary 2013 separately addressed to me and Mr Blewett. Mr Blewett has asked me to reply to you on his behalf as I am your case manager.

As we agreed at our previous meeting, since your passport was cancelled due to the Embassy’s mistake…

Was the cancellation of Mr Fletcher’s passport a ‘mistake’ or were consular staff following correct procedure? Which version of the truth can be believed – Ross Allen’s or Tanida Apivisuttirux’s?

The answer to this question will be found in the documents that Mr Fletcher has requested through Freedom of Information relating to the fate of his passport – the documents that Sue Bennett seems determined not to provide him with! Who is instructing Sue Bennett to be obstructive? Does the order come from your own office?

Let’s just presume, for argument’s sake, that both Julian Blewett and Tanida Apivisuttirux are mistaken in their assertion that Mr Fletcher’s passport was cancelled by mistake; that Ross Allen is right in asserting that consular staff acted appropriately in cancelling it – a deliberate act performed in accordance with established protocols.

In the context of his 7^th Nov 2014 letter  it seems Ross Allen is suggesting that Mr Fletcher’s passport arrived at the British Embassy some time in July 2012. Given that the British Embassy clearly knew the whereabouts of Mr Fletcher’s passport on 4^th August 2010, the question arises:

“How do Ross Allen and Ambassador Mark Kent account for the whereabouts of Mr Fletchers passport between August 2010 and July 2012. If it was not with the British Embassy, where was it?”

In order to exhaust all possible explanations (I am playing the pedantic Police Prosecutor here), let’s work on the presumption that on August 4^th 2010 Embassy staff were going to escort Mr Fletcher to Bangkok airport with no knowledge at all whether he had a valid passport. A far-fetched proposition that does not pass the laugh test but, allowing for the possibility of extreme incompetence on the part of Ambassador Mark Kent’s consular staff, a possibility to be entertained.

Two years later, Mr Fletcher’s passport suddenly, out of nowhere, with “…no accompanying explanation” arrives at the British Embassy in Bangkok? Did it arrive by courier? By post? Do valid UK passports often arrive at UK Embassies in this way?

No doubt the arrival of a valid UK passport under such circumstances will have been recorded in accordance with Embassy protocols. There will be a time of day, a date and the circumstances under which the Embassy came into possession of the passport.

The passport must have arrived on someone’s desk. And that someone must have logged the date of its arrival. Can you please provide Mr Fletcher with the exact date of his passport’s arrival and with a copy of whatever notes, memos were written at this time. For the time being the names of those involved can be redacted. They are not important. It is the time line that is important.

The person who took possession of Mr Fletcher’s passport must have been working in accordance with clearly laid out protocols. And the person dealing with the mysterious arrival of Mr Fletcher’s passport must surely have been answerable to someone higher up within the Embassy hierarchy!

Given that Mr Fletcher was incarcerated in a Thai prison in July 2012, at the time of the mysterious arrival of his passport,  and writing innumerable letters to the British Embassy, it is hard to imagine that whoever found his passport on his or her desk was unaware of his situation; unaware that Mr Fletcher had informed Embassy staff on many occasions prior to July 2012 that he was not in Cambodia at the time of the alleged rapes (March 2009) and that his passport contained evidence of this.

Perhaps the person who was tasked with processing Mr Fletcher’s passport was new on the job and had no idea who Mr Fletcher was. Unlikely, but not impossible. If so, surely he or she would surely:

(1) Type the words David John Fletcher into the Embassy computer and hence discover that he was in a Thai prison and/or

(2) Ask his or her superior what to do with the passport.

Given that the passport was valid and that Mr Fletcher was still in Thailand the person processing it must surely have referred questions relating to the passport further up the bureaucratic ladder. And, given that Mr Fletcher required his passport for his defense in court, as senior Embassy staff were well aware, it is hard to imagine that the mysterious appearance of Mr Fletcher’s passport  in July 2012 was not brought to the attention of Ambassador Mark Kent! Or is the business of cancelling valid passports left to FCO employees further down the bureaucratic ladder with Ambassador Mark Kent being kept in the dark?

If, as Julian Blewett and Tanida Apivisuttirux state, the cancellation of the passport was a ‘mistake’, this could let Ambassador Mark Kent off the hook. “Good heavens,” he might say, “I had no idea Mr Fletcher’s passport had been cancelled by mistake.” The ‘mistake’ explanation does not let Ross Allen off the hook, however. His letter to me of 7^th Nov is based on a lie and he should be sacked for lying.

Whether the cancellation of Mr Fletcher’s passport was a ‘mistake’ or not the question of whether or not to cancel the passport must have led to a memo or two; to an email or two; to conversations between Embassy staff. These will be on record and, on Mr Fletcher’s behalf, I request that we be provided with copies of these. The names of those involved can be redacted. They are not important at this point.

Given the FCO’s refusal to acknowledge who was responsible for the decision to cancel Mr Fletcher’s passport in July 2012, (by mistake or in accordance with protocols) Mr Fletcher is left with one of two options:

(1) Obtain answers to this and many other questions relating his passport by reviewing the documents he has requested of Sue Bennett through FOI.

(2) Commence legal proceedings against the Foreign & Commonwealth Office of a kind that will force the FCO to produce all documents relating to the fate of Mr Fletcher’s passport between late July 2010 and its cancellation on 31st July 2012.

Sue Bennett has clearly been instructed to be as obstructive as she possibly can be and not provide Mr Fletcher with the documents he has requested.  If she persists with this obstructive behavior Mr Fletcher will be left with no choice but seek answers to his questions through British courts. Spin of the kind written by Sue Bennett and Ross Allen will not wash in a court of law. The question will be asked: “Why on earth can the fate of Mr Fletcher’s passport, whilst in the hands of the British Embassy in Thailand, not be made available to him?”

In the meantime, Ross Allen, knowing full well that his letter to me of 7^th Nov is based on a lie, has made a feeble attempt to silence me, to stop me asking questions such as the ones I am asking here, using one of two tactics.

(1) The first is to refuse to communicate with me any longer:

“I regret that I have no option but to advise you that we will not respond further to your letters, emails or telephone calls unless you bright to our attention any new and relevant information which has not already been outlined in your previous correspondence.”

This is a tried and true (and tiresome) tactic employed by bureaucrats the world over when asked questions they do not want to answer. So, playing this particular bureaucratic game by the rules as laid out by Ross Allen the ‘new and relevant information’ I am presenting here takes the form of a question:

“Which version of the truth about how and why Mr Fletcher’s passport was cancelled do you, Mr Hammond, accept to be true? Ross Allen’s or Julian Blewett and Tanida Apivisuttirux’s? Was it a ‘mistake’ or were consular staff following correct protocols?”

The cancellation of Mr Fletcher’s passport cannot simultaneously be both a mistake and deliberate, though a spin doctor with greater skills than Ross Allen might be able to turn this particular sow’s ear into a silk purse! (A search back through old episodes of “Yes Prime Minister” would undoubtedly lead to a clever line by Sir Humphrey to explain how a mistake and a deliberate act can be one and the same!)

(2) Ross Allen’s other tactic – equally tiresome – is to threaten me:

“I understand that you were abusive and aggressive to consular staff in Phnom Penh during their visit to Mr Fletcher on 8^th Sept 2014 and such behaviour is not acceptable. Our customer charter asks that you treat our staff with respect and that if you are abusive we may refuse to help you. We are seeking advice on whether your actions might be deemed to be an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act of 1997 and the Malicious Communication Act 1988. This is not acceptable and has caused distress to staff members. The FCO has a duty of care to its staff and we do not accept abusive or threatening behaviour.”

Ross Allen’s assertions here are nonsense. He has no intention of taking legal action against me. This is just bureaucratic bullying and posturing on Ross’ part. Does he really think that such a tactic would work?

Given that I am writing a book about all this, and that my blog constitutes a first rough draft, it is worth taking a closer look at what Ross Allen is actually saying here.

Firstly, Allen’s use of the expression ‘I understand’ is classic bureaucratese. It is used by men and women of Ross Allen’s ilk to place whatever assertion they like on record but leave themselves some ‘wriggle room’ if challenged with facts that repudiate their assertions.

The ‘Get-Out-Of-Jail’ card for bureaucrats such as Mr Allen caught out lying is: “It was my understanding but it seems that I may have been misinformed  by….” – thus passing the buck to someone else. Mr Allen has bought himself a ‘Get-Out-Of-Jail’ card of sorts and no doubt if you were to question him on what he ‘understands’ he would refer you to the consular employee who was ‘distressed’. That these consular employees have placed my conversation with them on record is strongly suggestive that the same applies in the case of Mr Fletcher’s conversations with Ray Keen re his passport. British bureaucracy being what it is it is hard to imagine that any detail, particularly when passports are involved, goes unrecorded.

As for Mr Allen’s “our customer charter asks that you treat our staff with respect” I am not a customer of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, as Mr Allen would be well aware. This is both second-rate bullying and second-rate spin doctoring!

The notion that I may have committed an offence under the “Protection from Harassment Act of 1997 and the Malicious Communication Act 1988” is the stuff of comedy. Alas, Ross Allen is serious here and seems to harbor the hope that a threat such as this one will have me quaking in my boots – as opposed to trying to resist the temptation to write “Yes Prime Minister” style dialogue by way of a response! (I will resist, but it is not easy!)

As for my having caused ‘distress to staff members’, what about the distress caused to Mr Fletcher by the British Embassy’s refusal to provide him with any assistance at all this past four and a half years? Especially when Ambassador Mark Kent and senior staff members at the Thai and Cambodian British Embassies have known since Sept 2010 that the alleged rape victim remained a virgin after the rapes; that Ambassador Mark Kent et al have known, since Mr Fletcher’s passport first came into the possession of the British Embassy in Thailand, that he was not in Cambodia at the time of the alleged rapes?

Ross Allen’s assertion that the FCO has a duty of care to its staff is fair enough, but why does this duty of care not extend to a citizen of the United Kingdom – of which Mr Fletcher is one – serving a 10 year jail sentence for having raped a young woman whose hymen remained intact despite the ‘brutal rape’? And who, Ambassador Mark Kent has known since at least July 2012 was not in Cambodia at the time of the alleged rapes? If CEOPS had done its job properly its investigators would have discovered (a) that David Fletcher did not meet Yang Dany until 2010 (a year after the alleged rapes) and that the location at which the rapes are alleged to have occurred (Rick’s Bar) did not exist until Nov 2009.

The truth of the matter is that when the consular staff arrived at the prison, unannounced, Mr Fletcher and I were in the midst of  conversation about his situation. This was my first meeting with him and I had lots of questions. The consular staff sat at an adjacent table in the visiting areas but were invited by Mr Fletcher and myself to join us. We hoped that they might be able to answer some of the questions I had. It quickly became apparent that they would answer no questions at all; that their sole reason for being there was so that the British Embassy could claim that it was providing Mr Fletcher with ‘consular support’ whilst doing absolutely nothing to support him.

Despite his frustration with this state of affairs, Mr Fletcher was unfailingly polite. I was less so – especially when I asked the consular staff to leave us so that I could continue my conversation with Mr Fletcher. They refused to leave. A somewhat heated conversation ensued and, I freely admit, I used some language of the kind frequently used in prime time TV shows when children are viewing and which seems to cause them no undue distress. The expression I used, quite specifically was, “Fuck off.” If these two words cause distress to consular staff whilst visiting a prison in Cambodia I would suggest that they are in the wrong job.

The notion that I was behaving threateningly, in a prison, surrounded by prison guards, does not pass the laugh test Mr Hammond.

Sue Bennett cannot and will not release the documents that Mr Fletcher has asked for and is entitled to because these would reveal the truth about what happened with Mr Fletcher’s passport and the truth is the last thing that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office wants to see the light of day.

Sue Bennett will, no doubt, provide some bureaucratic explanation as to why certain documents cannot be released to Mr Fletcher, along with an invitation to complain to the Ombudsman etc. I fully expect such a letter from Sue Bennett in the near future.  And the Ombudsman, being but a seemingly unbiased and neutral observer, will (must?) eventually provide his/her own reasons why Sue Bennett is under no obligation to provide any of the documents Mr Fletcher has asked for. This is the way the system works, creating the illusion of transparency and accountability whilst the Ross Allens of the world place in record whatever nonsense they like in their attempts to conceal the truth.

In the highly likely event that Mr Fletcher is provided with none of the documents he has requested, in the highly likely event that you, Mr Hammond, will not answer any of the questions I have asked in this and other letters, Mr Fletcher will be left with no choice but to commence legal proceedings  in the United Kingdom that will force the FCO to release documents pertaining to the fate of his passport. Whilst the FCO can try to spin its way out of answering questions (as it is) this option will not be available in a court of law when the people responsible for this spin are under oath and obliged to tell the truth.

Mr Allen’s assertion that Mr Fletcher’s passport only came into the possession of the British Embassy in July 2010 is a lie. Given that you cannot, by now, be unaware of this matter, I have to presume (and I think readers of my blog would be entitled to presume) that you have given Ross Allen your tacit approval to tell whatever lie is necessary to stop me asking questions in a public forum that the FCO cannot answer honestly without various people – including Ambassador Mark Kent and yourself – winding up with a lot of egg on their faces.

The longer this goes on, with no answers to legitimate questions re Mr Fletcher’s passport, to more it seems that the truth is being covered up by various people in high places – up to and including yourself.

I eagerly await a letter with your signature on it, Mr Hammond, with answers to questions and not yet another letter from a spin doctor such as Ross Allen that fails to answer questions honestly or even with a modicum of credibility.

If Ross Allen is lying when he writes that Mr Fletcher’s passport came into the possession of the British Embassy in Thailand in July 2012 (and all the evidence suggests that he is) he should be sacked. And if Ross Allen has been instructed to lie by yourself, you should resign as Foreign Minister for having been involved in the perversion of justice.

yours sincerely

James Ricketson

Mr Ross Allen’s letter of:

7 November 2014

Dear Mr Ricketson,

Thank you for your emails sent between 15 September and 31 October 2014 about Mr David Fletcher’s imprisonment in Cambodia and his dissatisfaction with the consular service provided to him by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

You may be aware of previous correspondence that the Director Consular Services and consular colleagues in London, Thailand and Cambodia have had with Mr Fletcher since his arrest in 2010. In your email of 27 October 2014, you asked a number of specific questions relating to the cancellation of Mr Fletcher’s passport by the British Embassy in Bangkok. I would like to take this opportunity to address those questions directly, which I am able to do as Mr Fletcher has provided his consent for the release of his personal information.

1.          On what date did the British Embassy cancel Mr Fletcher’s passport? 
The Embassy in Bangkok cancelled Mr Fletcher’s passport on 31 July 2012.

2.         Why did the British Embassy cancel Mr Fletcher’s passport? 
When a British passport is found and handed into an Embassy, the policy of Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO) is that the passport will not be returned to the holder because we do not know who has had possession of the passport in the intervening period. During this time the passport may have been tampered with, cloned or otherwise compromised and therefore have become a security risk. Mr Fletcher’s passport was received at the British Embassy with no accompanying explanation. I am therefore satisfied that consular staff acted appropriately in cancelling the passport and returning it to HMPO.

3.Who made the decision to cancel Mr Fletcher’s passport? 
A member of the Notarial Section at the British Embassy in Bangkok made the decision to cancel the passport in line with HMPO policy.

4.Was Mr Fletcher’s cancelled passport then destroyed? 
Yes, I can confirm that Mr Fletcher’s passport was cancelled on receipt at HMPO.

5.If so, why was the passport destroyed? 
HMPO do not as a matter of course retain cancelled passports. There was no ongoing investigation relating to the passport so it was destroyed in line with HMPO guidance.

6.Who was responsible for the destruction of Mr Fletcher’s passport? HMPO destroyed Mr Fletcher’s passport in line with their guidance.

7.If both the cancellation of the passport were accidental, why was Mr Fletcher not provided, immediately, with a new passport free of charge? 
The passport was not cancelled accidentally. We informed Mr Fletcher during a prison visit in December 2012 that he was able to apply for an Emergency Travel Document should he need to travel urgently.

8.It is the normal custom in the UK, when a passport is cancelled, that the corners and the front page are removed. Why was this procedure not adhered to but, it seems, the entire passport destroyed? 
Where a passport is cancelled it is done so both electronically and physically in line with international practice. The passport is cancelled in the passport records system and the corners are cut on the book. The cutting of the corners upon expiry of the passport or death of the holder is so that the book can be returned but from immediate sight shows that it is no longer valid. Where a passport has been returned as lost or stolen it is destroyed in line with HMPO guidance as they cannot be certain

as to the nature of its use when out of the holder’s possession. When a passport is handed in to an Embassy overseas (i.e. the recovery of a passport assumed lost or stolen, or which has otherwise been in the hands of a third party), it is immediately cancelled on the passport database and then returned to HMPO for destruction.

9.Is it legal for any person, including those working within a British Embassy, to destroy the passport of a British citizen? 
Passports remain the property of HM Government who can either request their return and if returned make a decision to cancel them. I am satisfied that staff followed the correct procedure.

10.         Before the British Embassy decided to destroy Mr Fletcher’s passport, were the pages within it photocopied? The dates of Mr Fletcher’s travels in and out of both Thailand and Cambodia up to and including the dates of the alleged rapes is relevant to his legal position vis a vis the Phnom Penh Municipal court. 
No they were not. There is no requirement to photocopy the pages of a passport which has been cancelled and which will be returned to HMPO.

11.Given the seriousness of the charges laid against Mr Fletcher and the relevance of the dates of his travel in and out of both Cambodia and Thailand it is hard to imagine that copies of the pages of his passport were not made prior to its destruction. Will Mr Fletcher be provided with copies of these pages?

The passport has been destroyed by HMPO and we are unable to provide copies of the pages.

You also raised the Mr Fletcher’s outstanding subject access request which is being considered under the Data Protection Act 1998. We are corresponding directly with Mr Fletcher about this and have kept him informed of our current progress and when we expect to complete this.

I have tried to address your questions as directly as possible. While I appreciate that these answers may not be what you were hoping for, I hope that I have been able to provide answers to the specific points that you have raised on behalf of Mr Fletcher.

In line with our customer charter, our staff have tried to stay professional, non-judgemental, polite and helpful in their dealings with Mr Fletcher. However, the volume and frequency of correspondence from you is such that it has been excessive and at times inappropriate. I understand that you were abusive and aggressive to consular staff in Phnom Penh during their visit to Mr Fletcher on 08 September 2014 and such behaviour is not acceptable.

Our customer charter asks that you treat our staff with respect and that if you are abusive we may refuse to help you. We are seeking advice on whether your actions might be deemed to be an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Malicious Communication Act 1988. This is not acceptable and has caused distress to staff members. The FCO has a duty of care to its staff and we will not accept abusive or threatening behaviour.

Between 17 September and 30 October 2014, you sent 13 separate emails to the Foreign Secretary which repeated your communications to Consular Staff and have been widely copied to a number of organisations and individuals. We responded to your first five letters in an email from Conor Doherty on 30 September setting out our position on the points you raised.

In addition between 15 September and 31 October 2014, you sent 25 separate emails to consular staff at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Such a large and frequent amount of repetitive correspondence prevents consular staff from carrying out their normal duties and, as such, I regret that I have no option but to advise you that we will not respond further to your letters, emails or telephone calls unless you bring to our attention any new and relevant information which has not already been outlined in your previous correspondence.

In the absence of this, your written communication will not be acknowledged. Should you contact any member of staff by telephone, they will terminate the conversation if you insist on discussing the same issues.

In summary, unless you have any new information to bring to our attention, the FCO will no longer enter into any future correspondence with you about Mr Fletcher’s case following this issue of this letter.

In her letter of 19 August, Joanna Roper, Director Consular Services, explained to Mr Fletcher that if he is not satisfied with her response to his complaints, it remains open to him to write to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I therefore consider this complaint to be closed and we will not respond further on this matter unless Mr Fletcher brings to our attention any new and relevant information. The Ombudsman can be reached at:

Millbank Tower
Millbank
London SW1P 4QP
Email: phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk

Yours sincerely,

ROSS ALLEN
Acting Director Consular Services