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