# 56 CEOPS part of the conspiracy of silence surrounding the case of David Fletcher.

Debbie Chisholm

Press Officer

National Crime Agency

1-7 Old Queen Street

Westminster

London, SW1H 9HP

3^rd Dec 2014

Dear Debbie

It is now a month since I wrote my letter of 3^rd Nov to you (see below). I have not received acknowledgement of its receipt and nor have I received any answers from you to the various questions I asked.

Along with everyone else who played a role in the pursuit, prosecution and incarceration of Mr Fletcher for a crime he could not possibly have committed, CEOPS seems to feel no duty of care towards him or any obligation to be transparent and accountable.

As you will be well aware by now, the Phnom Penh Municipal Court, having promised David Fletcher a trial in a hearing on 27^th Oct, reneged on that promise on 20^th Nov. The APLE lawyer in court, representing Yang Dany (the virgin ‘rape victim’), opposed the proposition that Mr Fletcher was entitled to the fair trial offered to him three weeks earlier – despite her knowing (a) that her client’s hymen was intact after the alleged rapes, (b) that her client and her mother had confessed that no rapes occurred - to myself (on camera) and to two other journalists and (c) that her client had left the country and was not available to be cross-examined (had there been a trial) or to be questioned by the media about her confession.

Clearly, APLE had paid whatever money was required to the Phnom Penh Municipal Court judges to convince them to reverse their decision to allow Mr Fletcher a ‘re-trial’. If it had occurred, this would have been Mr Fletcher’s first trial, in reality – as you know.

Is Actions Pour les Enfants one of the partner agencies you refer to in your email of 31. Oct? If so, are you confident that APLE pursues its investigations and prosecutions in accordance with Cambodian law? Do you believe that APLE’s modus operandi respects the legal and human rights not just of men like David Fletcher but of the materially poor women, girls and families Samleang Siela convinces can make significant amounts of money by making false allegations? If CEOPS does have faith and confidence in APLE, how do you account for the fact that Samleang Siela has continued to pursue, defame and prosecute David Fletcher despite knowing that he could not have raped Yang Dany and her hymen have remained intact?

It would seem, from your lack of response to my letter of 3^rd Nov, that CEOPS is part of a conspiracy of silence – one that involves the Foreign & Commonwealth Office at every level - from Sue Bennett up through Ambassador Mark Kent, Nigel Eustace, Julian Blewett (and many others) to the Foreign Secretary, Mr Phillip Hammond.

It would seem that CEOPS, along with most of those to whom this letter is being copied, have no interest at all in Mr Fletcher’s fate. Regardless of the facts, of evidence or of the clear lack of due process, David Fletcher is expendable.

Whilst such lack of empathy might be understandable in the case of a man who had, in a properly constituted court of law, been convicted of rape. However, the lack of even the semblance of adherence to the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure should, in the moral universe I inhabit, lead to CEOPS (and others copied here) doing whatever they could to (at the very least) speak up in defense of Mr Fletcher’s right to a fair trial.

Your silence, along with the silence of most of those to whom this is being copied, renders CEOPS complicit in Mr Fletcher’s fate.

The abandonment of Mr Fletcher by CEOPS should stand as a lesson to all men from the United Kingdom who travel overseas in the belief that British Embassies in foreign countries will provide them with at least a modicum of assistance in the event that they find themselves caught up in a corrupt net such as the one represented by ALPLE, the Phnom Penh Municipal Court and others.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH CEOPS

Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre


33 Vauxhall Bridge Road


London

SW1V 2WG

United Kingdom

Dear CEOPS

re David John Fletcher

I am an Australian journalist and filmmaker investigating a case that CEOPS was involved with in 2009 and 2010. The matter concerns a man by the name of David John Fletcher, currently serving a 10 year jail sentence in Cambodia for the rape of a young woman by the name of Yang Dany in 2009.

It is clear from newspaper articles and court documents that CEOPS was involved in investigating claims made by Scott Neeson (the Cambodian Children’s Fund) and others that Mr Fletcher was ‘grooming’ young girls in 2009 and 2010.

I have not been able to find evidence in any court documents that Mr Fletcher had been grooming young girls. Nor have I been able to find any report written by CEOPS containing evidence either of ‘grooming’ or of rape. It would seem, unless there are documents missing from the court file, that CEOPS did not, in the course of its investigations, find any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Mr Fletcher. Am I correct in making this assumption?

I am currently writing a book and making a film about this case and would appreciate any information you can provide me with regarding CEOPS involvement in it. As you will appreciate, it is imperative that both my book and my documentary be factually accurate.

Hi James,

Thank you for your recent letter.

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Command of the UK's National Crime Agency is aware of a British national being convicted of child sexual abuse offences in Cambodia, but the detail and nature of the offences that led to his conviction are a matter for the local law enforcement.

The CEOP Command works closely with national and international law enforcement agencies, providing specialist expertise and support in relation to complex child sexual abuse investigations. However, we do not comment on investigations that are led by partner agencies.

Hope this is helpful.

Debbie

Debbie Chisholm

Press Officer

National Crime Agency

1-7 Old Queen Street

Westminster

London, SW1H 9HP

3^rd Nov 2014

Dear Debbie

re David John Fletcher

Your email of 31^st. Oct, far from being helpful, raises more questions:

“What are the names of the ‘partner agencies’ that led CEOPS investigation into Mr Fletcher?”

Is CEOPS happy with the way in which these ‘partner’ agencies’ have used the results of CEOPS’ investigations in legal proceedings?

These questions are pertinent both to Mr Fletcher’s forthcoming court case and to my own desire, as a journalist/writer and documentary filmmaker, to be in possession of as many verifiable facts as possible regarding this matter; to give all involved an opportunity to present their side of the story.

CEOPS investigators came to Cambodia in 2010 with the express intention of investigating allegations made by Scott Neeson that Mr Fletcher was ‘grooming’ young girls. In none of the court documents can I find any reference to CEOPS having uncovered evidence of Mr Fletcher’s being guilty of doing so. This leads me to believe that CEOPS did not find anything illegal or untoward about Mr Fletcher’s behavior towards young girls. Is this correct?

As CEOPS is well aware, Mr Fletcher was not charged in Cambodia with ‘grooming’ but with rape. As CEOPS is also aware (and has been since September 2010) the ‘rape victim’ was found by an examining doctor to be a virgin after the rape. And, as CEOPS is also now aware, the ‘victim’ has recently admitted, both to my camera and to other journalists, that no rape took place.

Whilst evidence pertaining to ‘grooming’ was not, in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, admissible in Mr Fletcher’s secret rape trial, Scott Neeson’s allegations (not backed up by any hard evidence) were aired in court and these played a role in the judges finding Mr Fletcher guilty of rape! (If you trace Scott Neeson’s allegations back, you will find that they begin with Peter Hogan, the owner of a Cambodian blog by the name of Khmer440; they began with a man who, by his own admission, spent 4 years pursuing Mr Fletcher with the intention of having him imprisoned.)

If CEOPS is in possession of evidence that Mr Fletcher was guilty of ‘grooming’ (or of any other offence against children) he should be charged with such offenses. He has not been. In flying all the way to Cambodia to investigate Mr Fletcher, and making your investigation publicly known to Peter Hogan, CEOPS cast a shadow of doubt over his behavior – raising in the minds of the general public the legitimate question: “Why else, readers of Andrew Drummond’s June 2010 article would quite legitimately ask, would CEOPS be in Cambodia investigating Mr Fletcher if there was nothing to investigate?”

The appropriate course of action for CEOPS to have taken, once it had completed its investigations in June 2010, would have been to announce: (a) We have found no evidence of Mr Fletcher’s guilt or (b) We have provided the Cambodian authorities with the results of our investigations.

Perhaps this is what you mean with your reference to ‘partner agencies’. If (b) be the case, the question arises:

“Is CEOPS happy with the way in which these ‘partner agencies’ have used the results of its investigations to have Mr Fletcher imprisoned for 10 years for rape?”

I am trying to place CEOPS’ involvement in a time line, Debbie, and I hope you can help me.

At some point in June 2010 CEOPS completed its investigation into allegations that Mr Fletcher had ‘groomed’ young girls. CEOPS had not come to Cambodia to investigate allegations that Mr Fletcher had raped Yang Dany. Indeed, at the time CEOPS completed its investigations (June 2010) no such allegation had yet been made. It was not until after Mr Fletcher had left Cambodia that the rape allegations were made.

Shortly after their return to the UK (June 2010), CEOPS investigators familiar with the case would have learned that Mr Fletcher had been charged with rape. Given that there had been no talk of rape a few weeks earlier, surely this must have caught their attention and made them wonder how this rape allegation could come out of the blue as it did, after they had left the country. And by September 2010, when a doctor’s report was prepared for the court, these same CEOPS operatives would have become aware that Yang Dany remained a virgin after her rape. Did no alarm bells ring for these CEOPS investigators? Did it not occur to them that Mr Fletcher may have been set up on fake rape charges to extort money from him? The CEOPS investigators could not fail to be aware that Cambodia is amongst the most corrupt countries in the world!

“Did CEOPS, in September 2010, ask any questions of its ‘partner agencies’ in Cambodia regarding Yang Dany’s intact hymen after her alleged rape?”

“If so, did CEOPS accept the proposition, endorsed by the judges in the secret trial, that Yang Dany’s hymen must have grown back?”

If CEOPS does not accept the ‘hymen-grown-back’ explanation for Yang Dany’s remaining a virgin after her rape:

“Has CEOPS made any representations at all to its ‘partner agencies’ – asking for more information? Particularly now that Yan Dany has admitted that no rape took place?”

Or has CEOPS washed its hands in the investigation and is prepared to see Mr Fletcher die in jail on the basis of evidence that would not stand up in any court of law in any country that actually abided by the rule of law?

By now, I think you will agree, CEOPS had been identified in a very public manner as being very much involved in both the investigation into Mr Fletcher’s activities in Cambodia and his conviction for rape. Refusing to answer any questions at all is not, from a moral point of view, an option.

Whilst I am primarily concerned with Mr Fletcher’s right to a fair trial, I am also interested (as both a journalist/writer and filmmaker) in the question of his ‘grooming’ of young girls. If he has done so, if there is evidence that he has done so, he should be charged with this offence.

This brings me back to my original question:

“Does CEOPS have any evidence at all that Mr Fletcher is guilty of ‘grooming’?”

If you simply refuse to answer this question, as I suspect will be the case, this will leave Mr Fletcher in a no-man’s land vis a vis his guilt or innocence. Some readers and viewers will conclude that CEOPS must have evidence of his guilt. Others will conclude that CEOPS found nothing and draw their own conclusions from CEOPS’ silence, in Nov 2014 - now that Yang Dany’s post-rape virginity and her denial that any rape took place are in the public arena.

One last question:

“If CEOPS found no evidence that Mr Fletcher was guilty of ‘grooming’, will CEOPS testify to this effect at Mr Fletcher’s forthcoming trial?”

I passed your email on to Mr Fletcher. He wrote an email back to me, asking that I pass it on to you. It reads:

Dear Debbie,

A recent communication from CEOPS to Mr James Ricketson has come to my attention that suggests and implies you have evidence of unsavoury acts with children by myself.

I officially request from CEOPS, as my right under the F.O.I. act that you supply me with copies of all documents you hold pertaining to me.

I attach a copy of my drivers licence as I.D. and i am very sure you are aware i am known by the the British Embassy in Phnom Penh. I do not have a valid passport as this was destroyed ' by mistake' by the fco in Bangkok,  according to their unsubstanciated explanation.

Furthermore, i request a fully itemised receipt and the return of my personal property that was in store and stolen in Phnom Penh in 2010 by CEOPS personell.

I also request the percentage of funding you receive from the fco, as an ngo this information should be freely available to the public.

This letter, your reply, or lack of may be published.

Regards,

David John Fletcher.

On a final note on my return to the UK i shall be paying CEOPS a visit for an explanation of their agenda.

I have attached a copy of a document signed by David Fletcher giving me the right to ask questions on his behalf. My question is: “What must Mr Fletcher do to make an FOI request to obtain copies of documents relating to his ‘grooming’ of girls held by CEOPS and relating to his forthcoming court case.”

best wishes

James Ricketson