Friday, January 9, 2015

# 78 Matt Harland's survey (part #2) of the human and legal rights of prisoners detained at Prey Sar prison

Survey headlines

The following headline statistics have been drawn from the raw data.
A full breakdown of each answer and the raw data is also provided separately.

Arrest and police detention

This section covers the period of time spent in holding and intervews at the police station.

The survey shows that 100% of prisoners did were not explained their basic rights by the police and that in 90% of cases, the police abused their position for financial gain, either through theft or extortion.

The data shows that 39% of detainees were denied their right to a lawyer after 24 hours, and that during this time, 86% were forced to thumbprint documents that they did not understand and 28% said that police altered official documents.

Lawyers

The survey demonstrates that 7% of foreign prisoners did not have a lawyer, 33% of lawyers were introduced by police and 58% decided to replace their first choice.

The average number of lawyers retained is 2, the highest is 6 and the lowest zero.

59% said that their lawyer cheated them or their family, only 27% of lawyers shared any type of defence plan and 70% failed to meet their clients before or after their trial.

Of court appointed lawyers, 100% failed to meet with their client at Prey Sar.

A number of detainees stated that their lawyers appeared reluctant or frightened to say anything at court - though this was not a survey question.

First Court interviews

This section covers the procedural interviews which must happen between the time of arrest and remand to Prey Sar.

31% were not interviewed by a prosecutor, 41% were not interviewed by an investigating judge, 41% had no lawyer representation during one or both of these interviews.

90% did not receive their minimum right to receive their charges in a language which they understand.

Of the prisoners surveyed, not a single person knew of a prisoner found "not guilty".

First Court trial

Of the prisoners who attended court, 93% were denied the minimum right to cross examine (in person or by lawyer) prosecution witnesses.
78% of prisoners were not allowed to present their version of events, 96% were not allowed to respond to prosecution testimony / evidence.

Only 48% received a written verdict (all commented on the effort or cost needed to receive this document).

Of convicted prisoners, not a single person received their combined minimum rights, which is the legal definition of a fair trial.

Home government

Only 11% of trials were observed by an embassy in full, though 8% didn't know if an embassy representative was present.

Only 3% said that their embassy explained the trial process or promoted their minimum rights.

79% had a cause to raise a complaint through their embassy, 71% said that their embassy had not received their complaint and just 3% said they had received some assistance.

31% believed that their government had a part in the case against them.

NGO involvement

Of those questioned, 48% said that a NGO was involved in the prosecution of their case, these were all charges relating to underage human trafficking offences.

The survey showed that 79% (minimum) - 93% of underage plaintiffs were held in NGO custody and that 86% - 93% of plaintiffs could have been coerced by NGO's.

During the trial, 50% said that the NGO focused more on money and compensation, than they did on evidence.

Class action

66% said that they would be willing to testify in a class action against Cambodian authorities.


January 8th 2015

Survey results and examples of responses

This is a detailed breakdown of each question, with some added examples of the actual experience of some prisoners.

Were you allowed to immediately contact your embassy?

(SW) No. Not until I reached Prey Sar, four days after my arrest.

Yes - 25%, No - 75%

Did police explain your rights and the police process?

Everyone stated no.

(UK) when I asked for a lawyer, the police told me "you have no rights".

No - 100%

Did police charge for services such as a translator?

The majority questioned, cited a version of "a police volunteer or a local school teacher attended. I was asked to pay him. His name was not recorded, his qualifications never seen."

Yes 41%, No 55%

After 24 hours, were you allowed to contact a choice of lawyer?

(UK) No. The police contacted one lawyer, named Teng Meng Y. I am convinced he was part of the police / NGO scam, he was only interested in money.

(Anon) No, only after 72 hours

Yes - 39%, No - 61%

Did police take property or money (excluding evidence)?

(Germany) Yes, they took everything.

(UK) The chief of police took $400 from my landlady during a "police search", leaving my family homeless.

(UK) The police stole my motorcycle, even though it was manufactured two years after the alleged offence.

(Bangladesh) the police took $14,000 from my bank account.

(USA) the police took me back to my sealed apartment to collect my bank cards, they were only interested in money.

Yes - 90%, No - 10%

Were you punished or tortured during police questioning?

Most Europeans responded "no", but the first African response was "yes of course".

(SW) during questions, the police hit me with a baton and tightened the handcuffs, each time I gave a wrong answer.

(SW) I could hear my girlfriend screaming from the room next door, she was forced to make a false statement.

(Anon) my family were taken to a secret NGO location and held for three months.

Yes - 14%, No - 86%

Did police alter documents? (Control question)

Comment : the majority responded correctly, either no, or that they could not know - positive responses were generally well qualified.

(UK) the police told me the court would impound my motorcycle, they forced me to sell the bike at a huge loss and they altered the sale date, to the day before my arrest.

Yes - 28%, No - 31%, Unknown - 41%

Did police force you to sign documents you didn't understand?

There were several variations of the same experiences;

"I was asked to thumbprint blank documents, my lawyer or translator assured me this was normal."

"I was asked to sign documents which I could not varify"

The reasons for this was "embarrassment", "stress", "shock", "advice from police translator or lawyer" and the general willingness to be forthcoming and cooperative.

Yes - 86%, No - 14%

Did police introduce or influence your first choice of lawyer?

(UK) Teng Meng Y just appeared at the court during questioning

(Anon) my first lawyer was brought by police, everyone assured me that he was an expert and I was told that the plaintiffs had made similar false complaints before (a lie) - it was all a scam.

Yes - 33%, no - 67%

Did your lawyer explain the process?

(Anon) his only concern was collecting his fee, he never once discussed the process.

Yes - 7%, no - 93%

Did your lawyer charge extra for basics?

(Anon) He claimed that the court charged him extra for copying my case file, I was also charged extra for bringing a defence witness for questioning.

Yes - 46%, no - 54%

Did your lawyer lie to you about the expected outcome?

(Anon) He repeatedly assured me that I had nothing to worry about, all routine, will be released by the weekend - then I was taken to Prey Sar and I never saw him again.

Yes - 60%, no - 40%

Did you replace your first lawyer?

(Anon) I had no choice, he lied to me, then disappeared and I had no idea what was going on outside Prey Sar.

Yes - 58%, no - 42%

Did your lawyer produce a defence document / plan for court?

Comment : many commented that their lawyer had no defence plan and were either very passive or did nothing at court.

Yes - 27%, no - 73%

In total, how many lawyers have you retained?

Comment : many lawyers claim additional qualifications (such as advisor to the Prime Minister), yet there is no access to authority or evidence to show that they are in fact qualified lawyers.

(SW) I had intervewed 19 lawyers, then decided to represent myself.

(UK) The respected lawyers on embassy lists are just not available or interested in criminal work, we are left with a choice of middle men and con artists.

The average is 2, the highest 6, the lowest 0

Did what was said in court reflect the judgement?

(Spain) The Cambodian government pathologist reported to the court that the cause of death was a drug overdose, not murder.

The verdict found me guilty of murder.

(AUS & UK) the prosecutor had "no case" and "no questions", but I was still found guilty.

(UK) after a few minutes, the judge (nodding and smiling) cut me short, the prosecutor had no questions, the trial lasted only 46 minutes - including translation.
I was found guilty, with no witnesses or evidence presented.

(KH/USA) I was arrested for collecting the car of an arrested man at the police station. The prosecutor agreed that I had nothing to do with the underlying crimes, yet I was sentenced to 25 years.

Yes - 8%, no - 77%, unknown - 15%

Have any lawyers cheated you, or your family?

(UK) A lawyer named Teng Meng Y took $5,000 for my case, and then phoned my wife to get more money.

(UK) My first lawyer took $2,000 during police detention, telling me that I would be released by the end of the week - I didn't see or hear from him for six months and was forced to hire another lawyer.

Yes - 59%, no - 41%

Did your lawyer attempt to extort money for the police?

(SW) My friend gave my lawyer $200 for me, he gave $100 to the police, who gave me a 3,000r Khmer hamburger.

(UK) No, my lawyer was only looking out for himself.

Yes - 23%, no - 77%

Has your lawyer failed to meet with you before or after a trial?

(UK) Every one of my four lawyers has failed to meet with me after hearings. After years, I still have not received my Appeal Court and Supreme Court verdicts.

(UK) the court appointed lawyer has never met with me, he hasn't been briefed, he doesn't speak English and he cannot possibly follow my instructions.

Yes - 70%, no - 30%

Were you interviewed by an Investigating Judge?

(UK) No. I was interviewed by an assistant, no older than 18, in a busy court corridor. This boy decided my future.

Comment : many recalled only one interview, but didn't know if this was a prosecutor or investigating judge. This indicates a possible error of +/- 20% as neither the courts nor the lawyer explained the legal process - the potential error only applies to two questions.

Yes - 59%, no - 41% (possible error +/- 20%)

Were you interviewed by a prosecutor?

Comment : many recalled only one interview, but didn't know if this was a prosecutor or investigating judge. This indicates a possible error of +/- 20% as neither the courts nor the lawyer explained the legal process - the potential error only applies to two questions.

Yes - 66%, no - 31%, unknown 3% (possible error+/- 20%)

Was your lawyer present during interviews?

(UK) My lawyer left for a hearing before my meeting with the prosecutor and was on his phone during the entire investigation interview.

Yes - 59%, no - 41%

Were you asked to pay money to the court?

(UK) Before my hearing the presiding judge (name removed) demanded $15,000 through my lawyer for a "reduced sentence", I refused, requesting only a fair trial. The response,  "a fair trial would cost $15,000".
Authorities refused to investigate, and refused to replace the judge as per criminal code.

Yes - 31%, no - 69%

Did you receive your charges in a language you can understand?

(Bangladesh) I have never received any charges.

(UK) the total number of Khmer documents received, would have cost $1,500 in translation - I was never able to identify the charges, if I received them.

Yes - 10%, no - 90%

Were you, or a lawyer, permitted to cross examine prosecution witnesses?

(UK) There was never a single prosecution witness in any of the three courts, only a NGO (APLE) lawyer - who I was not allowed to question.

(D) I wasn't even allowed in the court room.

Yes - 7%, no - 93%

Were you permitted to present your version of events (your defence) to the court?

(Africa) I wasn't allowed to talk, only to confirm my name.

(D) I was not even allowed into the court room.

(UK) I have a great deal of evidence in my defence, but I have never been allowed to present this to any court.

Yes - 22%, no - 78%

Were you able to respond to evidence/testimony presented by the prosecution?

(UK) A lawyer for the NGO, APLE, said that I was abusing children in Cambodia, in 2004. The court would not allow me to object, nor to present evidence (from immigration) that I first arrived in Cambodia in the year 2006. The court just didn't want to hear my testimony, my embassy also reported "the court didn't want to hear..."

Yes - 4%, no - 96%

Were you provided with a competent interpreter?

(UK) I had to pay for an interpreter, but I learnt later from embassy records that the Judge, Kor Vandy, manipulated my interpreter, stopping her from translating fairly.
While she may have been competent, the court didn't allow her to perform her duty - I was denied the right to "free use of an interpreter".

Yes - 33%, no - 63%, unknown - 4%

Did you have to pay for your interpreter?

I paid $200 to a Khmer Rouge Tribunal translator, who was moonlighting at the First Court.

Yes - 65%, no - 35%

Have you received your written verdict?

(UK) I received my first court verdict (from the UK government), only after a long Freedom of Information process. I have never received my appeal or supreme court verdicts. I am lead to feel that I am regarded as "vexatious" for requesting the reasoning behind why I am in prison.

(USA) Its not only a problem getting your verdict, I had to pay for this, then pay again for translation, and then again to appeal against the decision.

Yes - 48%, no - 52%

Were you charged a "fee" for any court documents?

(Anon) I was charged $50 by the prison for my appeal paperwork, which should have cost around 15,000r.

Yes - 46%, no - 50%, unknown - 4%

Did your embassy explain the legal process?

(UK) My embassy only gave me a list of commercial lawyers and a paperback crime novel.

Yes - 3%, no - 97%

Have you had cause to complain to your government about the legal process?

Yes - 79%, no - 21%

Has your government accepted or received your complaint?

Yes - 16%, no - 71%, unknown 13%

Did your government offer any assistance towards a fair trial?

(UK) My embassy brought me a Crown Publication leaflet called "In prison abroad" and the FCO publication "Support for British nationals abroad", but only after 830 days of imprisonment.

Yes - 3%, no - 90%, unknown 7%

Did your embassy attend your first court hearing in full?

(UK) my embassy recorded a number of procedural issues and "unprofessional conduct" at the First Court but then stopped observations. This was only revealed via Freedom of Information.

Yes - 11%, no - 81%, unknown 8%

Did authorities from your country interfere with proceedings?

(AUS) In a letter, Authorities from my country asked for a eight year sentence.

(UK) I was tortured by a senior British police officer, named Jim Gamble, at the Prey Sar hospital, six days before my hearing. Nobody will accept my complaints of mistreatment and his perverting the course of justice, I cannot access the Khmer justice system.

(UK) British police took part in a prejudicial TV show, featuring the disgraced NGO, AFESIP. British pre-trial detainees were tricked into taking part.

Yes - 30%, no - 56%, unknown - 14%

Did your government have a part in the case against you?

(UK) In violation of data protection laws, the British CEOP, sent unsupported "intelligence" from the NGO, APLE. The source (APLE) was rated, "unreliable" the intelligence marked, "cannot be judged". The data even included my (incorrect) passport number, a very basic but flawed item of "intelligence".
The NGO, APLE quoted from this British document in court, UK authorities were not available for cross examination.

(UK) FOI revealed that the British embassy was in email contact with the NGO, APLE.

Yes - 31%, no - 62%, unknown 6%

Has your government promoted your minimum trial rights?

(UK) My government policy is to promote the rights of any UK citizens accused abroad, yet, after recording an unfair start to my trial, they have done nothing and ceased observations.

(UK) They have made donations to the prosecution NGO APLE and they recently made a $500,000 donation to the Khmer Rouge Tribunal.

Yes - 3%, no - 97%

Does your case involve a underage sex allegation?

Yes - 48%, no 52%

Is a NGO involved in your case?

Yes - 48%, no 52%

Were plaintiffs in your case held in NGO custody?

(UK) It seems a little suspicious to keep plaintiffs in "protected custody" when the accused is already in pre-trial detention. Who decides that the best place for a child is away from their families?

Comment : in a corrupt system, where donations and compensation are at stake, this can only be a means to control and coerce alleged victims, and to control the release of information to the press.

Yes - 79%, no 7%, unknown 14%

Were you allowed to cross examine underage witnesses?

(UK) the witnesses were in NGO custody, but at each of the three courts, APLE claimed that the witnesses were sick and could not attend. I have never seen a single witness at court.

Comment : the majority of plaintiffs are kept under the control (not the protection) of NGO's, who stand to profit from their actions. If this were about "justice" - 100% would testify in court and genuine cases would still raise donor funds.

Yes - 16%, no - 71%, unknown 13%

Could underage witnesses have been coerced or threatened by NGO's in your case?

(G) Definitely!

(USA) People from APLE travelled to the alleged victims commune and offered cash to people who were willing to offer testimony.

(NZ) The NGO threatened my family with imprisonment unless they testified against me.

(Anon) while in APLE custody, alleged victims were physically punished for preying.

(UK) APLE seemed to control all the "victims", press releases and who attended (or didn't attend) the court.

Comment : despite all the available technology and best practice, interviews are still not recorded and plaintiffs are rarely cross examined.

Yes - 86%, no 7%, unknown 7%

Did the NGO focus on money during your hearing?

(Anon) during the hearing, APLE lawyers were interested only in compensation, not evidence. Eventually the whole court was distracted by how much I was willing or able to pay the alleged victims.

Comment : there is a definite conflict of interests when a NGO detains "victims" whose testimony will have an impact on future cash donations.

Yes - 50%, no - 36%, unknown 14%

Was the NGO seeking compensation?

(UK) the only part of the two plaintiffs statements which did not conflict was "I claim $3,000 compensation"

Yes - 75%, no - 25%

Were witnesses in NGO custody when they made statements against you?

(Anon) my 23 year old wife was detained for three months by AFESIP.

Comment : in a corrupt system, the potential for false statements must increase when children, NGO captivity, donor funding and compensation are a factor.

Yes - 75%, no - 12%, unknown 13%

January 8th 2015

No comments:

Post a Comment