# 60 Evidence of CEOPS and British Embassy complicity in the pursuit, persecution and prosecution and incarceration of David Fletcher with the tacit approval of UK Foreign Secretary, Mr Phillip Hammond

Mr Phillip Hammond

Foreign Secretary

Parliamentary House of Commons

London SW1A                                                                                   

7^th   Dec. 2014

Dear Foreign Minister

My 25^th letter to you!

If nothing else, this and my previous 24 letters will preclude the possibility that you can, at some point in the future, pass the buck for your refusal to do anything to assist David Fletcher to someone else within your ministry; someone who will then be expected to fall on his/her sword in order to save your political skin.

Mr Fletcher has been visited again by the same lawyer who ‘represented’ him in court on 20^th Nov (the one who did not know on the day that Yang Dany was a woman!). She has, again, offered her services to represent him – telling him that he can appeal the decision of the judges in the Phnom Penh Municipal Court not to allow him the trial he was promised three weeks earlier. Whether this is simply an attempt on her part to extract money from Mr Fletcher Fletcher (money he does not have) or if he is legally able to appeal, I have no idea. And nor can I find out whilst I am in Australia.

In the event that Mr Fletcher is able to lodge an appeal there are two major obstacles:

(1) The prison refuses to allow documents to either enter or leave the prison – though I imagine an exception would be made for a lawyer.

(2) Mr Fletcher has no money to pay a lawyer to lodge an appeal for him.

The British Embassy could, of course, sort out this problem for Mr Fletcher, but it will not do so because, it will be argued, the Embassy cannot interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation etc. This is, as you know, nonsense. The British Embassies in Cambodia and Thailand both played significant roles, through their interference, in having Mr Fletcher jailed. This is not just conjecture. Take a look at the extracts of court documents I have appended to this letter as attachments. These documents, along with a mass of new material, came into my possession in the past few days.

Let’s start with the report dated 25^th June, 2010 – from the Department of Anti-Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection to H.E. General the National Police Chief.

Read under:

11. Suspected Activities in Cambodia:

4. A girl named Yang Dany described that in May 2010, Fletcher tried to get in touch with her and asked her to go sightseeing with him in Prey Veng province. She revealed that Fletcher was her boyfriend and that he had asked to marry her by offering her a dowry of $5,000. The man bought her glasses, plates and wardrobe.

Note, no mention of ‘rape’.  Note also the date – 25^th June – 15 months after the date of the alleged rapes in later court documents.

The request made by the ‘Department of Anti-Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection’ to the H.E General of the National Police on 25^th June 2010 reads as follows::

To continue to work with APLE to monitor the activities and locate victims for interviews to collect evidence against the suspect.

To work with the British Embassy and CEOP organization to collect additional related information and background of David John Fletcher.

Note the co-operation of the British Embassy in Cambodia, CEOP and Actions Pour les Enfants. Two days later David Fletcher was arrested in Thailand – 10 days before any charges against him had been laid by the Cambodian authorities!

Unless this court document is factually incorrect, in late June 2010 the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, through its Cambodian Embassy, was working with Actions Pour les Enfants.

Now have a look at the ‘Synthetic Report’ to the ‘Prosecutor at Phnom Penh Capital Court of First Instance’ of 7^th July 2010, sent by the ‘Department of Anti-Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection’.

Under 111 Investigation is written:

“…On March 12^th 2009 Fletcher lured her (Yang Dany) to visit his pub again. After arriving there, he told her that he would take her to have lunch outside. But they did not go. Instead, he grabbed her to his room upstairs. Inside the room, Fletcher laid her down on a bed, hugged and kissed her. Then he undressed her and continued kissing from her face to her hip. Se tried to tell Fletcher that she was only 16 years old, but he did not listen to her, and he undressed himself and inserted his penis into her vagina and raped her successfully (successful rape).

At the time this document this document was written David Fletcher had been in jail in Bangkok for 10 days. Was David Fletcher’s arrest in Thailand orchestrated by CEOPS, the British Embassies of Cambodia and Thailand, working in conjunction with Thai authorities? All the evidence suggests that this is the case though positive confirmation of this cannot be made until David Fletcher receives the documents he has requested (and which he has a right to) under FOI legislation. These are the documents that you have instructed your staff not to release to Mr Fletcher.

This is an extract from the medical report prepared by a doctor for the Phnom Penh Municipal Court after she had allegedly been 'brutally raped' twice.  It found that the 'victim's' hymen was intact; that she was a virgin. The judges argued that her hymen must have grown back!

The next date to appear in this document, entered into evidence in Mr Fletcher’s secret trial, is July 12, five days after this document was supposedly written. I quote:

“On July 12 2010, her mother (Kheang Sekun) sued David John Fletvher to Department of Anti-Human Trafficking of the Ministry of interior. She said she never knew that Fletcher had raped her daughter. She was seeking justice for her daughter and her family. She was claiming for compensation for her daughter’s and her family’s reputation….”

Let’s look at these dates again. In a report supposedly written 7^th July 2010 a reference is made to events that occurred 5 days later on 12^th July 2010.

This is by no means the only problem we have with dates. In subsequent court documents the date of the first rape is amended from 12^th March 2009 to 15^th March 2009. The 12^th March 2010 is a Thursday. The 15^th is a Sunday.

I will leave my speculations  as to why this change in date was made as it is not particularly relevant to the main thrust of this letter – which is to point out to you, Mr Foreign Secretary, that the British Embassies of Cambodia and Thailand and CEOPS were all involved, it seems, in arranging for Mr Fletcher to be arrested in Thailand 10 or so days before any criminal charges had been made against him in Cambodia.

Whether my supposition is correct or incorrect there will be a paper trail and there will be many within the British Embassies of both Thailand and Cambodia who will have been privy to what took place in both Embassies between 25^th June and 7^th July 2010 – a 13 day period in which David Fletcher was transformed from a man who asked Yang Dany to go to Prey Veng with him, bought her glasses, plates and wardrobe to a rapist. Given that both Yang Dany and David Fletcher deny that he offered her $5,000 as a dowry I think this part of the story can be taken with a huge grain of salt. Regardless, there is no mention of any rape on 25^th June and there is on 7^th July. How and why did this occur? This is what courts are for – to ask such questions. Of course, if the court does not want such questions asked, a trial can be held in secret; or a trial can not be held at all. And if the FCO does not want such questions asked it can, as it is, refuse to release any documents under FOI, that point to FCO complicity in Mr Fletcher’s arrest, incarceration and deportation from Thailand to Cambodia.

Copies of the communications between the two British Embassies and CEOPS between 25^th June and 7^th July are amongst the many documents that Mr Fletcher has sought to acquire under FOI legislation. Sue Bennett admitted that she had these documents 6^th Oct 2014 and yet Mr Fletcher has yet to receive any of them.  The longer Ms Bennett stalls, the more reasons she comes up with for not providing the documents within the time frame specified by FOI legislation, the more it looks as though there is a deliberate attempt on the part of the FCO to hide from Mr Fletcher (and myself) just what role the Embassies and CEOPS played in his arrest in Thailand – 10 days before any charges had been laid.

The answer that a clever FCO lawyer would come up with would be, “Mr Fletcher was arrested in Thailand for a breach of Thai immigration rules.” In fact, David Fletcher was found not guilty of having committed any crime in Thailand, eventually, but this point is moot. He had travelled in and out of Thailand several times without incident. Why did the police arrest him this time? Why did the police who arrested him tell him that they were taking him to the British Embassy and then take him to jail instead?

The question arises, or should arise:

“Who called the Thai authorities and arranged for David Fletcher to be arrested?”

All the circumstantial evidence points to someone within either the British Embassy in Thailand or in Cambodia.

Circumstantial evidence, of course, carries little weight in a properly constituted court of law. This is why it is important to gain access to any and all documents relating to communications between the Embassies and CEOPS during the 13 days between 25^th June and 7^th July. And, of course, all communications relating to Mr Fletcher’s imminent departure to the UK on 4^th August 2010 – travelling on a passport in the British Embassy’s possession; a passport that then passed out of the British Embassies possession, only to reappear in July 2013.

In a properly constituted court of law in the United Kingdom I now have enough evidence to present a very strong case that two British Ambassadors (to Cambodia and Thailand), have been engaged, along with CEOPS, in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in Cambodia. This has resulted in an innocent man, David Fletcher, being sentenced to 10 years in jail for ‘brutally raping’ a young woman whose hymen remained intact and who denies that any rape took place. By ignoring my correspondence, by instructing your staff not to release documents Mr Fletcher is entitled to under FOI legislation, you have become complicit, Mr Hammond, in the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

best wishes

James Ricketson

That David Fletcher should be holding the hand of a young girl at the Phnom Penh rubbish dump is seen by many as proof positive that he must be a pedophile.