Friday, November 14, 2014

# 37 Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond no longer has the option of plausible deniability open to him


David Fletcher claims that he was not in Cambodia at the time of the alleged rapes – 15th and 22nd March 2009. The only evidence of this that would stand up in a Cambodian court is to be found in Mr Fletcher’s passport. The British Embassy in Bangkok, knowing this to be the case, destroyed Mr Fletcher’s passport without making photocopies of the pages that he needed to present a defense in court. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has now provided two different explanations as to why and how Mr Fletcher’s passport was destroyed. In one version it was a ‘mistake’ and in the other, in accordance with standard Embassy protocols. Neither version of what happened to the passport withstands scrutiny.


For anyone interested in how this matter has unfolded (and with the patience necessary!) should start at #1 and read through to # 37.

Phillip Hammond
Foreign Secretary
Parliamentary House of Commons
London SW1A                                                                                   

14th Nov. 2014

Dear Mr Hammond

Groundhog Day!

As I write to you yet again regarding the letter promised to Mr Fletcher re his passport, I might just as well repeat what I wrote on 27th Oct. - the day of Mr Fletcher’s last hearing:

Less than 48 hours before Mr Fletcher’s court hearing this afternoon, Conor Doherty confirmed that Mr Fletcher’s passport “was cancelled and destroyed by the British authorities” and that “we can write to confirm this.”

This morning I wrote the following to Nigel Eustace:

Dear Nigel

I wonder if you will be present at Mr Fletcher’s hearing at the Phnom Penh Municipal court this afternoon?

If so, I trust that you will bring with you a letter addressed to the judges explaining that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office accidentally sent Mr Fletcher’s valid passport to the UK, cancelled and then destroyed it!

As the Foreign & Commonwealth Office was well aware, at the time of this ‘accidental’ cancellation and destruction took place, Mr Fletcher’s contained relevant to his court case.

The proposition that the pages of Mr Fletcher’s passport were not photocopied prior to the series of accidents that led to its disappearance off the face of the planet beggars belief!

best wishes

Mr Eustace did not turn up at court and did not provide a letter for the court. Could you please provide a letter for Mr Fletcher’s next court appearance? Expressed in simple everyday words and not in impenetrable bureaucratese. Signed by yourself, please Mr Hammond.

18 days later, Mr Fletcher is still waiting for the letter promised by Conor Doherty one day short of 3 weeks ago. Is the lack of the promised letter an example of common and garden incompetence? Or is it because it has now dawned on the FCO that it has dug a hole for itself by allowing two different versions of what happened to Mr Fletchers passport to be put into writing?

The existence of these two versions, in conjunction with Sue Bennett’s refusal to release to Mr Fletcher any documents at all relating to the fate of his passport, should set alarm bells ringing in your office, Mr Hammond. Unless, of course, it is you who is instructing Ross Allen and other members of FCO staff to stonewall.

Will Mr Fletcher receive his promised letter before his trial on 20th Nov? Will any representatives of the UK Embassy be present to observe the court proceedings? Or has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office given up on even going through the motions of pretending that it has a duty of care in relation to this particular citizen of the United Kingdom?

The answers to these questions are obvious. The abandonment of Mr Fletcher and his very likely death in jail is a preferable outcome to releasing any documents that would reveal the role that Ambassador Mark Kent and others have played in in the pursuit and prosecution of a man who, on the basis of all the extant evidence, is innocent of the crime of rape.

It seems that the next chapter of this drama must, of necessity, take place in a court of law. The option of plausible deniability is no longer open to you, Mr Hammond.

best wishes

James Ricketson

No comments:

Post a Comment