The times of publication
on this blog are Unites States Times – at least 12 hours behind Cambodia times.
This is being published at 11 am, Friday 29th Jan Cambodia time – 6 hours
before Mr Fletcher’s deadline to submit papers to the Supreme Court.
Phillip Hammond
Foreign Secretary
Parliamentary House of Commons
London
SW1A
29th Jan 2016
Dear Mr Hammond
Only a few hours
remain before Mr Fletcher must deliver the relevant papers to the Supreme
Court. If he fails to meet the deadline he will have missed his last
opportunity of a fair trial and will die in jail.
With Mr
Fletcher’s death the FCO’s role in his pursuit and prosecution, in particular
the destruction of his passport, will be of little interest to anyone. This seems
to be the Foreign & Commonwealth Office’s preferred outcome. And the FCO is
not alone. Naly Pilorge, Scott Neeson and others who would be embarrassed (to
say the least) if Mr Fletcher were to receive a fair trial and certain truths
revealed, will breathe a sign of relief.
The FCO’s
treatment of Mr Fletcher has not only revealed your callous disregard for the
legal and human rights of a citizen of the United Kingdom, it has also laid
bare the UK’s hypocrisy when it comes to human rights.
Consider this,
published by the British Embassy in Phnom Penh just 8 days ago, on 21st
Jan:
Call for bids: 2016/17 Magna
Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy
The British Embassy is pleased to
announce that we are now accepting bids for new project concepts for Cambodia
under the FCO’s Magna Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy.
The Magna Carta Fund for Human
Rights and Democracy, previously known as The Human Rights and Democracy
Programme, is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s strategic programme
dedicated to the UK’s global human rights and democracy work.
Through targeted projects overseas,
it supports the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the
rule of law. It aims to further British interests by supporting high-impact
projects which promote institution-building, target universal issues and the
underlying causes of human rights problems.
The programme invites proposals
that support:
- Democratic values and the rule of law;
- The rules-based international order; and
- Human rights for a stable world
2016-17 bidding round in Cambodia
We are looking for creative and
original project ideas, for innovative activities that will have the greatest
impact on improving human rights in Cambodia.
We are less interested in
proposals which focus purely on seminars, workshops or the production of
research reports as ends in themselves. Instead, proposals should include
action-oriented ideas which will bring about concrete outcomes.
This reads well. Yes, there have
been enough seminars, workshops and research reports. Now is a time for action;
for the FCO to demonstrate that it is committed to action in the real world and
not merely the mouthing of well worn platitudes.
Is there a lesson to be learnt
from the shoddy way in which the FCO has dealt with Mr Fletcher’s case?
Imagine if the FCO had decided,
at any time in the past five years, to take an interest in the human and legal
rights of Mr Fletcher; his right to a fair trial.
Yes, I do understand that the
British Embassy (regardless of what goes on behind the scenes in the real world
of international diplomacy) cannot be seen to be trying to interfere in the
administration of the Cambodian justice. However, the Embassy could have sent a
representative to Mr Fletcher’s in camera (secret) trial back in 2011 and
observed. The FCO could have noted in a published report, in the most
diplomatically way necessary or appropriate, that there were aspects of the way
in Mr Fletcher’s secret trial was conducted that were of concern to the UK
government. The Embassy’s ‘concerns’ could have been in the public arena.
The same applies with subsequent
court appearances of Mr Fletcher in which it has been blindingly obvious to
anyone in attendance that the Cambodian Code of Criminal procedure was not
adhered to.
Being a witness to and
acknowledging breaches of human and legal rights is a necessary first step in
the improvement of those rights in a country like Cambodia. If there is no
witness (and there very often isn’t) the courts can behave as they like or as
they have been instructed, with no fear of exposure.
When the judges look out into the
court room and see that there is no representative of the British Embassy
present, they know full well that the UK government does not care about the
fate of one of its citizens and can deliver whatever form of justice they
choose – regardless of Cambodian law. In
short, if the judges wish to abrogate pretty well every part of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, they know that the UK Embassy will say nothing.
Impunity will continue to inform
the decisions made by judges for as long as there are no witnesses to their
actions.
It is now too late for the FCO to
help Mr Fletcher. However, the next time a British citizen finds himself (or
herself) in Mr Fletcher’s position, denied a fair trial, the very least the FCO
could do would be to monitor their progress through the court and to keep track
of how the case is dealt with by the Cambodian judiciary. The mere presence of
such a person could have a positive impact on the administration of justice.
Perhaps the FCO could spend some
of the money earmarked for human rights work on employing an Ombudsman-like
observer who could keep track of cases such as Mr Fletcher’s (and Matt
Harland’s), merely reporting the facts. Call this small NGO ‘Court Watch’ or
something along these lines. Court Watch’s role would merely be to bear witness
to what takes place in court – not just in the case of UK citizens but of Cambodians
also who get caught up in a corrupt judicial system.
The role of Court Watch would not
be to advocate; merely to report; to see to it that all facts relevant to cases
it reports on are made available to anyone who is interested. In one of Mr
Fletcher’s hearings, for instance, there was only one journalist present (no-one
from the British Embassy) and no record was made of the proceedings by the
court. In this instance, the judges adjourned for 15 minutes and returned with
a six page summation of the case that had clearly been written before the court
proceedings commenced. There will be no independent record of this having taken
place. And there should be – not just for Mr Fletcher but for others denied
natural justice.
Court Watch’s should not include
any interpretation of the facts. Its role would merely be to observe and record
impartially.
This is, of course, a part of the
media’s role, but realistically it is simply not possible for newspapers to put
in the time and effort necessary to track any more than a small number of cases
of interest.
What I have suggested in broad
brushstrokes here would not amount to interference.
I would like to add, having
observed the Cambodian judiciary fairly closely this past 15 months in the case
of Mr Fletcher, that it seems there are two diametrically opposed forces in
operation. On the hand hand there are those within the system who want to see
it reformed. On the other there are those who do not want the status quo to change
as this would impact in a negative way on their income and lifestyle. And for
certain NGOs reform of the judiciary would make it much more difficult for them
manipulate the judiciary to their own advantage.
In as quiet, subtle and
diplomatically appropriate way, Court Watch (of some similar body) could be
cheering from the sidelines as improvements are made and, through the mere
publication of facts relating to cases, be admonishing those who wish to retain
the status quo.
best wishes
James Ricketson
