Wednesday, May 6, 2015

# 116 Cambodian British Embassy commits its latest lie about the destruction of David Fletcher's passport to an official document.





Phillip Hammond
Foreign Secretary
Parliamentary House of Commons
London
SW1A                        

6th May 2015                                                                          

Dear Mr Hammond

re David Fletcher’s passport

One day before an election that may well see you lose your job you will, of course,  be preoccupied with more important matters than the fate of the UK citizen your government has written off as expendable this past five years – Mr David Fletcher.

Yesterday, in prison, I met the Khmer gentleman who works for the British Embassy in Cambodia whom I met on my first visit last year – the man who took deep offence to my use of the ‘f’ word all those months ago. My use of this word led to some huffing and puffing on the part of FCO spin doctors regarding their duty of care to FCO staff. This same duty of care does not, alas, extend to citizens of the United Kingdom accused of crimes that they were physically incapable of committing.

I do not know this gentleman’s name but he seems to be a nice enough chap. He confirmed what has been obvious to Mr Fletcher for five years: the British Embassy will not lift a finger to assist him receive a fair trial – regardless of the cogent evidence the FCO has had in its possession for five years that Mr Fletcher is innocent of the crime of rape. The Embassy will not even send an observer to a trial, should Mr Fletcher be fortunate enough to eventually be granted one. The FCO has washed its hands. Well, almost. This Khmer gentleman from the Embassy also passed on the FCO’s wish to speak with Mr Fletcher’s lawyer! Why, one has to wonder!

The FCO’s decision to wash its hands in Mr Fletcher’s fate comes as no surprise. Indeed, in a way it is a relief to have had the FCO’s total lack of a duty of care for Mr Fletcher finally acknowledged by a member of Embassy staff.

I wonder if citizens of the UK travelling abroad realize that if they get into legal trouble their Embassy would not lift a finger to help them – regardless of the evidence of their innocence.


The purpose of the British Embassy visit today was to give Mr Fletcher a letter from the Embassy in Cambodia. This is a version of the letter that he has been asking for this past 6 months – evidence that the British Embassy willfully and knowingly destroyed evidence that it knew was vital to Mr Fletcher’s defense. Whilst this letter is demonstrably factually untrue, at least we now have in writing, with an official stamp, a document that attests to the blatant FCO lies told in relation to the fate of Mr Fletcher’s passport.

This 5th May letter seem to be a response to my letter of 27th. April 2015  which reads:

Dear Mr Hammond

I have managed to sort one tranche of the documents provided to Mr Fletcher by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office last week. Namely, pages 153 – 378.

There should be 225 pages in this tranche but there are 48 pages missing. The missing pages are:

165,166,167, 171,181,182,186,192, 193, 198, 200,203,206,207, 210, 211, 212, 219, 220, 223, 225,  226, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 251, 253, 254, 257, 258, 260, 300, 338, 351, 364, 365, 366, 368,

The following 12 pages have been effectively 100% redacted

256,272, 277, 285, 287, 292, 294, 304, 306, 315 362, 375

The total of missing or 100% redacted pages is 60 - roughly one quarter of the pages that should have been delivered to Mr Fletcher.

What possible reason could the Foreign & Commonwealth Office have for redacting 25% of correspondence between Mr Fletcher and members of FCO staff?

Could you please ask your staff to either (a) supply the missing pages or (b) explain why they have been omitted or redacted?

Today Mr Fletcher gave me a note that he wants to have passed on to those who have declared that they have evidence of his guilt of ‘grooming young girls’. As you know, it is not ‘grooming’ that Mr Fletcher was charged with but rape. However, these charges of alleged ‘grooming’ have, I believe, played a significant role in painting Mr Fletcher as someone who might have groomed young girls or would be capable of so doing.

Given the proximity of Mr Fletcher’s court appearance on 7th May he is, yet again, asking Action Pour les Enfants, SISHA, CEOP and Naly Pilorge at LICADHO to present their evidence of his ‘grooming’ to the court.

I trust that the relevant FCO staff are in the process of arranging for a letter that Mr Fletcher can produce in court on 7th May to the effect that his passport was destroyed by the FCO. For the purposes of this exercise it matters not at all whether or not the passport was destroyed by accident or on purpose.

best wishes

Consider now what I wrote to you on 16th Jan 2015 in relation to the conflicting stories circulating within the FCO regarding Mr Fletcher’s passport: 

Acting Director of Consular Services Ross Allen plays fast and loose with the truth in relation to the cancellation and destruction of Mr Fletcher’s passport.

This is now beyond dispute, based on documents that Mr Fletcher was provided with by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in December 2014.

Here is Mr  Ross Allen’s account of when and how Mr Fletcher’s passport came into the possession of the British Embassy in Thailand in July 2012:

“When a British passport is found and handed into an Embassy, the policy of Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO) is that the passport will not be returned to the holder because we do not know who has had possession of the passport in the intervening period. During this time the passport may have been tampered with, cloned or otherwise compromised and therefore have become a security risk. Mr Fletcher’s passport was received at the British Embassy with no accompanying explanation. I am therefore satisfied that consular staff acted appropriately in cancelling the passport and returning it to HMPO.”
How can this assertion of Ross Allen’s be reconciled with FCO documents that make it quite clear that Mr Fletcher’s passport was in the British Embassy’s possession on 28th July 2010 and 23rd may 2011. Two extracts:

28th July 2010

“Will take a/n’s passport to the IDC  tomorrow so that he can draw his money from the Western Union. Once we get hold on that amount the deportation will be in place. I am trying to find out about the flight cost and its availability and it is likely to be early next week.”

23rd May 2011

“I told Mr Fletcher that we were now holding his passport…”

The only way that Ross Allen’s account could be true is if, some time after 23rd May 2011, Mr Fletcher’s passport left the British Embassy in Thailand, was somehow lost, then “found and handed into” the embassy “with no accompanying explanation” a little over a year later! For this scenario to be credible, the following questions must be asked:

- Why, at some point after 23rd May 2011, did Mr Fletcher’s passport leave the embassy?

- Where was the passport sent? To whom?

When Mr Fletcher’s passport was “found and handed into” the British Embassy it was known to embassy staff that Mr Fletcher was in a Thai prison, that he was fighting an extradition order from Cambodia and that his passport contained evidence that he was not in Cambodia at the time of the alleged rapes – March 2009. This leads to the question:

- Who issued the order that Mr Fletcher’s passport be cancelled and then destroyed?

I doubt very much that the cancellation and destruction of a passport happens without someone quite senior within the embassy signing off on the process. Who was this person?

I suspect that the destruction of a passport would not happen without the knowledge of the Ambassador to Thailand. Is this so? If so, Ambassador Mark Kent knowingly destroyed evidence that Mr Fletcher required for his defense in court in Cambodia.

Justice demands that precisely what happened to Mr Fletcher’s passport be investigated by a body independent of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am not familiar enough with the British legal system to know what body should conduct such an investigation but I would have thought, at the very least, that the matter should be referred to the police – the destruction of evidence required by Mr Fletcher in his legal defense.

On reflection, there is one more way in which this strange sequence of events vis a vis Mr Fletcher’s passport could be explained. It is not particularly credible but it is as follows:

Some time after 23rd May 2011 Mr Fletcher’s passport was stolen from the British Embassy in Thailand. The passport was held by persons unknown until July 2012 when it was handed in to the Embassy by persons unknown.

Given that the FCO, at every level – including Ross Allen and yourself – refuse to account for the whereabouts of Mr Fletcher’s passport between May 2011 and July 2012 the possibility exists that the FCO, embarrassed by the theft of Mr Fletcher’s passport from the British Embassy, has spun a story to account for its disappearance that it has hoped would deflect any further questions. It has not. Through me, acting with Mr Fletcher’s power of attorney, I have continued to ask questions. The FCO’s response has been not only to refuse to recognize this power of attorney but to refuse to communicate with me in any way. The same has applied with the Ombudsman, whose office has also refused to communicate with me until recently. It then said that it would communicate with me if I redacted, on my blog, the names of those who had played a role in the denial to Mr Fletcher of justice and answers to questions.

Under these circumstances Mr Fletcher has little option but, through me with his power of attorney, to ask the UK police to commence an investigation into how his passport was stolen from the British Embassy.

On my return to Australia I will make contact with the relevant UK police and ask them to investigate impartially.

I hope, in the next few days, that the United Kingdom acquires a Foreign Secretary committed to transparency, accountability and the provision of a duty of care to UK citizens who find themselves in a legal quandary in a country in which there is little or no commitment to the rule of law.

best wishes

James Ricketson

25 comments:

  1. What a surprise it must be to ALL British citizens and passport holders, that the once mighty British Empire will do nothing to help its citizens (unless you count helping to frame them), if they are unjustly accused, unjustly arrested and extradited, unjustly tried and sentenced, unjustly held in prison for a crime that they couldn't have committed.

    This pledge of 'nothing to help', is the same thing that they have to the British woman sentenced to death in Indonesia.

    Must give these Brits the same look as an impotent man talking with a beautiful hot young lady, knowing he has only a flaccid dick in his pants.

    Oh, the mighty third world justice system has your rights as a British citizen TRUMPED! I hope you are sufficiently embarrassed of your government!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you expect the British Govt help every British Citizen overseas who are arrested, tried and convicted wrongly but according to local domestic law? Do you think that the 'mighty British Govt' is above the rule of law in these countries? If he wanted the protection of the British Govt, he should have stayed in the UK. Oh wait....I forgot if he stayed in the UK he wouldn't be able to surround himself with children given that he is on the sexual offences register for having sex with a minor. I'm all for the defendant having a fair trial - just as I want all defendants in Cambodia to receive a fair and just trial but just because this man happens to have the good fortune of growing up overseas and the choice to move to the developing world, don't be naive enough to think it is the duty of his country to protect him if he is arrested, charged and in-prisoned in what is and alway has been a troubled legal system. Additionally, please remember that the British Govt has put pressure on Indonesia to stop that particular death sentence from being carried out and that hundreds of British Citizens who chose to live abroad face these same issues and that consular assistance is provided to the same extent it has been provided to DF.

      Delete
  2. Ricketson - the only thing you have done by constantly sending emails and letters to the UK and other parties is slam the nails into Fletchers coffin. Yu must of missed the primary school that taught us diplomacy and speaking nicely to people when you want something - not constantly blasting them with the type of letters you have sent above. Its very obvious that you have picked up on Fletcher and other cases simply because you want to use them to boost your blog and Google standing.

    You are a disgrace!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 7.17, to whom or what am a disgrace?

      To the profession of journalist? To the calling of advocacy?

      If you read through the first letters I write to Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond you will find that they were very polite. I was asking questions. These were either ignored or I was provided with answers that were demonstrably lies.

      When I pointed out (using evidence) that I had been lied to, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office informed me that it would no longer communicate with me. The same applied for the Ombudsman - the office of which I asked to investigate the lies. An extraordinary state of affairs - the Office of the Ombudsman taking its cue from the very body (the FCO) it was asked to investigate.

      I have no idea what my 'standing' with google might be and nor do I care. Actually, I don't even know what it means!

      Quite apart from having a commitment to transparency and accountability my letters to Phillip Hammond have also been an electronic 'paper tail.' It will not be possible for Mr Hammond or anyone else at the FCO to declare, at some point in the future, that they had not seen or read my letters.

      Why is this relevant? Because if Mr Fletcher leaves jail alive, having been found not guilty by a properly constituted court, he will be suing the Foreign & Commonwealth Office for having perverted the courts of justice by destroying evidence (his passport) that the FCO knew to be relevant to his case. The same applies for Scott Neeson. He will be sued for defamation.

      It may be, of course, that Mr Fletcher is never given a fair trial; that he dies in jail. Should this occur I will, at least, have a clear conscience - knowing that I did all I could to help secure him a fair trial.

      There is one interesting implication in your comment that is worthy of comment. You presume that if only I was nice to the UK authorities the outcome of Mr Fletcher's legal conundrum might be different. Are you suggesting that if only I was nice to the FCO it would apply pressure on the Cambodian government to give Mr Fletcher a fair trial?

      Delete
    2. The sad reality if that both the FCO and British Embassy are useless, either incapable or ill-intentioned. If you Brits in Cambodia feel safe, you should rethink your vulnerability. You have no protection from people like Scott Neeson, APLE, and the Cambodian justice system. Better hope that no one makes false accusations about you.

      Delete
  3. One thing is certain. Scott Neeson, Thierry Darnaudet, Samleang Seila and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be doing all they can to see to it that david Fletcher dies in jail. The alternative could be very embarrassing and expensive for them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Haven't they already done everything they can to see that David Fletcher dies in jail?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed they have. Some have done so in an overt way and some in a covert way. And yet others have done so by turning a blind eye, However, there is not much more they can do so David Fletcher has hit rock bottom and the only way now is up.

      I am cautiously confident that the Minister of Justice will allow Mr Fletcher to have a fair trial. If such a trial is not 'interfered' with, David Fletcher will walk from court a free man on the basis of indisputable evidence.

      Delete
    2. Don't be so melodramatic. Why do you think the British Govt would risk that much on having Fletcher killed?! You are too far into this fantasy to even think in a balanced, rational, methodical manner. You and your whacked up following are only damaging his cause by not verifying fact and/or placing 'fact' in a way that suits your story.

      Delete
    3. Who said anything about the British government killing David Fletcher?

      Delete
    4. The person who wrote they above - fair to assume that they = British Govt given the topic of your post and the previous comments?

      Delete
  5. The British Government (or most of it) does not consider to really be a part of Europe (rather leaning to the US). The country however still is part of the European Union and therefore responsable for any human rights abuse originating by any of it's members.

    The European Court of Justice may be the next logical step to bring David Fletcher's and Matt Harland's case forward.

    http://www.justice.eu/

    The case can be forwarded via the e-justice system of the European Union

    https://e-justice.europa.eu/home.do?action=home&plang=en

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? But Cambodia isn't in the EU. What argument can you use to say that the UK is more leaning to the US then the EU?!

      The ECJ won't have anything to do with this case as it is a Cambodian case. In regards to human rights, maybe the ECHR will look at it. But probably not as the case is in Cambodia.

      On the other hand, if you think the British Govt is responsible for abusing DF's human rights maybe you'd stand a chance. Only issue is that it isn't the British Govt abusing his rights, is it?

      Delete
  6. I must congratulate you James on how you have provided an overview of David Fletcher’s case and shown the world that the FCO has a lot to answer for.

    Given that a passport is a legal UK document I have no doubt in my mind that that the international branch inside of the U.K. Police / (Scotland Yard) would have to take up an investigation of the kind you propose.

    The FCO and members of the UK govt stonewalling you in every way in your requests to obtain explanations on the destruction of David Fletcher’s passport, and other pertinent questions you have asked, is a typical Government tactic that I have encountered over the years.

    Govt’s will lie till they are blue in the face to cover their own ass and we all know that. The only way you are going to prove wrong doing is to get Mr Fletcher out of his present environment and out of the country via legal means. If that can be accomplished you then have a wonderful chance to bring all parties responsible for his long incarceration to justice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .There will be quite a few people who, for different reasons, will be hoping that David Fletcher does not get a fair trial and that he dies in jail.

      The fat lady has not sung yet!

      Delete
    2. This is a crazy statement. How would the British Police investigate this if David Fletcher was transferred outside of Cambodia?

      Delete
  7. Do the election results mean that we'll have to look at this ugly prick Hammond longer?

    ReplyDelete
  8. the NEWS speaks for itself. US Passport holder and CNRP female Icon Mu Sochua is continuing her opposition against the NGO Law which may be directed by the US Embassy in Phnom Penh which uses the CNRP to get a Regime Change that would be in favour of US Interests in Cambodia (like building a Naval Base).

    https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/secret-draft-of-ngo-law-arrives-at-council-of-ministers-83402/

    https://www.cambodiadaily.com/opinion/proposed-ngo-law-is-a-main-test-for-culture-of-dialogue-83119/

    ReplyDelete
  9. This Saga reminds me of the destruction of the Snowden Files that the
    Guardian Newspaper in the UK kept on it's hard disks and refused to hand
    over to the British Government.

    The destruction of David Fletcher's Passport served no other interest
    that to cover up a scam led by the British Embassy and the FCO.

    One should watch Orson Wells 1984 Movie in that perspective and find
    that as in the movie facts and people were removed not only from
    official files but newspapers, too. The person that was no longer on the
    "citizen list" simply disappeared from any record as it never existed.
    That is exactly the same recepy the British Government excercises on the
    David Fletcher case.

    In tight coordination with the 5eyes States the British Government seems
    to now be working on a program of how to get rid of the thorn in their
    thighs: James Ricketson.

    But James Ricketson is a person that cannot be corrupted so what to do ?
    Poison him, getting him hit by a car and make it look like a traffic
    accident, down the plane he is travelling on ? I am certain that a
    number of people at the FCO and for that matter at Cambodia's NGO World
    are seriously looking for such a "WAY OUT".

    Human rights have become a "worthless phrase" like the one which is used
    on a can of beans "healthy".

    Being in Asia i hope that all those involved getting David Fletcher a
    fair trial should get what they deserve: A BAD KARMA ! May they roast in
    hell.

    The results of the UK election show that the Mass is stupid and ignorant
    and perhaps too busy to make ends meet. The EVIL is still in power and
    we won't see any change - not that there would have been any change if
    in fact the opposition would have won. Politicians are similar to Pimps
    and once in position have only one aim, to get as much money out of
    their position as they can.

    any hope ?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/michael-gove-justice-chief-cabinet-conservatives-election

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really, the British Govt has covered up the destruction of this passport? Why? What interest? National Security? Reputation?

      Delete
    2. No, the reason why the British govt destroyed Mr Fletcher's passport is this: The British Embassy in Thailand payed a proactive role in arranging for the arrest of Mr Fletcher in Thailand. Embassy staff did so because they believed two things: (1) That David Fletcher had been 'grooming' young girls and (2) That he had raped Yang Dany.

      Embassy staff believed (1) because they had been primed to believe it by Scott Neeson and by the scuttlebutt spread on Khmer440 by Peter Hogan. Embassy staff believed (2) because a couple of days earlier Yang Dany's mother, having been told she could get $30,000 in compensation if she accused Mr Fletcher of rape, had laid charges.

      In ways that are not worth going into here, the British Embassy in Thailand then co-operated with the Thai police in having Mr Fletcher arrested. On the basis of the evidence the Embassy had been presented with this was not an unreasonable proposition.

      However, the British Embassy, in possession of Mr Fletcher's passport, eventually became aware of a problem. On the dates that the rapes had allegedly occurred Mr Fletcher had not been in Cambodia.

      At this point no-one at the Embassy knew that Yang Dany was still a virgin (though they would find out soon) but they had Mr Fletcher's criminal record and Scott Neeson's 'grooming' allegations to go on.

      Having played a significant role in Mr Fletcher's arrest, the British Embassy was confronted by two options now: (1) Make public the fact that Mr Fletcher was not even in Cambodia at the time of the alleged rapes and (2) Destroy the evidence that he was not in the country - namely, Mr Fletcher's passport.

      The Embassy chose (2).

      I can only speculate as to why but I suspect that it was just to cover up the fact that the Embassy had jumped the gun in taking part in Mr Fletcher's arrest in Bangkok. Given his prior statutory rape conviction and Scott Neeson's 'grooming' allegations it seems that the Embassy decided that he was an unsavoury character and deserved to be in jail even if he was not guilty of rape.

      So, there was no conspiracy to 'get' Fletcher, as far as I can tell. There was a common and garden fuck-up (assisting the Thai police on the basis of not very much) - followed by a cover-up.

      You will remember Watergate. A common and garden break-in of no real consequence - followed by a cover-up. It was the cover-up that sunk Nixon, not the break-in.

      Now, in May 2015, there are so many people within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who are complicit in the cover-up (including Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond) that the FCO is confronted with a dilemma: If Mr Fletcher receives a fair trial in Cambodia (in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure) and is found to be innocent, there will be egg on the faces of a lot of people - up to and including Phillip Hammond.

      Perhaps I am being overly optimistic but I believe that the Minister of Justice will ask the court to grant Mr Fletcher a fair trial. Given that APLE's star witness, Yang Dany, is now in China (thanks to APLE) and given that it is now well known that she remained a virgin after the alleged rapes, the chances of Mr Fletcher walking from court an innocent man are pretty good.

      The British government still has one card up its sleeve and may well play it. In anticipation of this, Mr Fletcher also has one card up his sleeve that may, or may not, trump the British government.

      Watch this space.

      Delete
    3. Understood. Playing devil's advocate, I understand a lot of serious crime including the sexual exploitation of children takes place by British Nationals in Thailand. Why would the British Embassy in Thailand place so much in attention in David Fletcher given that the alleged crime took place in Cambodia? Seems quite risky if there was potential to turn into a big scandal/ cover up, especially given the amount of publicity given to this case and his popularity in Phnom Penh.

      Also, what evidence do you have that APLE placed the victim in China? I've been following your blog a while and would like it if you could take the time to reference a post with this in? If it is only the word of Yang Danny then it shouldn't be treated as good evidence given the amount of pressure given to her from various problems and mainly the fact that you keep stating that she had lied in her original statement that had Fletcher deported in the first place. I hope the victim gets the re-trial but not sure there is such an extravagant scandal to be had here.

      Also, just for reference why did David Fletcher go to Thailand where he was inevitably arrested?

      Delete
  10. Is it true that Nigel Eustace has sought refuge in the British Embassy to protect him from his angry wife?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Stop smoking drugs Tom Selig - what a load of fucking dribble. Comparing Fletcher to Snowden - so typical of your moron status.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dear Devil's Advocate,

    In fact the Thai officials took very little interest in David Fletcher first up. They arrested him as a result of a request made by the British Embassy – senior members of which believed that he was guilty of rape.

    When the Thai authorities realized what was going on, they were about to let Fletcher go when an order came ‘from above’ not to do so. Precisely how and why this happened I can only conjecture.

    I don’t think that there was ever any real chance of Mr Fletcher’s case being a ‘big scandal’.

    Yang Dany goes to China, Here are some facts:

    (1) Yang Dany and her mother, Sekun, tell me, two weeks or so before they are due in court, that APLE has instructed them not to attend.
    (2) On two visits to Yang Dany and Sekun’s home it is apparent that they are very very poor. Neither mother nor daughter has a job.
    (3) Two weeks later Sekun announces that Yang Dany has gone to China. She tells me also that APLE has instructed her not to speak with me or anyone in the media.
    (4) Some questions arise: (1) How did Yang Dany manage to get a passport so quickly? Who paid for it? (2) If Yang Dany had no passport did she enter China illegally? Was she trafficked?
    (5) Sekun is moved from the home I visited in by APLE and given a new place to live in where she cannot be found by me or anyone else in the media. Despite this, she tells an intermediary that APLE has given her money and that Yang Dany will never come back to Cambodia.

    There have been some new developments since then but these are best kept for Mr Fletcher’s trial – if he should ever be granted one.

    Mr Fletcher had planned to leave Cambodia before Andrew Drummond’s article came out. There were a few reasons. One was that he was sick of the scuttlebutt perpetrated by Peter Hogan on Khmer440 and the way in which this had resulted in four separate investigations into his activities – none of which, incidentally, turned up any evidence of wrong-doing on his part. The other, more immediate, was that he was attacked, along with a woman fiend, in his bar and suffered an injury to his ear that rendered him partially deaf. I have spoken with the Khmer woman who was not only present for the attack but who was herself attacked. She works in a bank.

    There is no extravagant scandal here. A man was charged with a crime and denied a trial. He has been in jail for 5 years and is entitled to a trial. Any ‘scandal’ that might accrue to the case would come from the fact that the British Embassy in Thailand destroyed Mr Fletcher’s passport knowing full well that it6 contained evidence that he was not in Cambodia at the time he allegedly raped Yang Dany – a rape that she insists did not occur and which the doctor’s report says did not occur.

    ReplyDelete