|
Graham Cleghorn….victim
of injustice in |
|
|
Home > News
Reports > 2006 |
|
|
|
From: "Rudolf E. Knuchel" <rudolfknuchel@online.com.kh> Date: 6 June 2006 4:18:21 PM To: <Centre.Conops@dfat.gov.au>
In your Court
Proceeding Summary several important points have been omitted or overlooked. For the sake of
accuracy, Laura van der Eynde
the mother of Bart Lauwaert, has asked me to comment
on her behalf on your summary. Thank you. Rudolf E. Knuchel Hotelier EHL Siem Reap To Begin: - The appeal hearing
was not only for Bart Lauwaert but also for Clint Betteridge, the other
Australian National held in prison by the Australian Government for the last
3 years on grounds of legal wrangling over a possible extradition. - Your term of "victims"
used is wrong. May I remind that the 17 witnesses produced in the court were
"witnesses of the defense" and appeared on court orders issued by
the - Mr. Rudolf E.
Knuchel is not a friend of Mr. Bart Lauwaert. I am a
Hotelier, Dean of the Foreign community a Resident living and working in Siem
Reap for the last 16 years. I have never met Mr. Lauwaert prior to his arrest
and have been asked by his family to visit him periodically to ensure his
survival. I do this after having met with his family at our hotel for the
last three years on a totally volunteer basis. I am also in constant touch
with the family of - We had not arranged
but were forced to hire 10 Minutes prior to the appeal a translator in the
corridors of the appeal court and pay for it. You wrote earlier: ......A
consular officer and translator will attend the hearing on this
date..........end of quote. An appeal hearing for Mr Lauwaert
was heard at the Court of Appeal in 2. The chief judge asked the court
if there were representatives from the Australian Embassy present. We acknowledged
our presence and advised that we were at the court to observe the
proceedings. Comment by Rudolf Knuchel: Your First Secretary
omits the fact that he was addressed a total of three times during the
opening phase of the appeal. A. He was asked by the
presiding Judge after being informed that this appeal is also about Clint
Betteridge, whether the family and Clint Betteridge in custody by the
Australian Government has been informed about his appeal today?!? He said he
could not reply today. B. He was then asked by
the presiding judge whether Mr. Clint Betteridge has legal representation and
by who?!? He did not answer C. He was then asked by
the lawyer of Bart Lauwaert, Mr. Dy Borima whether the Australian Government
wishes him to be the court appointed lawyer for and on behalf of the
Australian Government. He declined. 3. The victims and their families
then entered the court. In total their were nine
victims present at the hearing and their ages ranged between 10 and 18 years
at the time the offences were committed. The presiding judge advised that the
victims were present to withdraw their complaints. Comment by Rudolf Knuchel: In total there where 17
sepinaes by the court and 17 witnesses were
present. (Not victims) 4. The chief judge asked the
victims whether they required a lawyer to represent them. All the victims
declined legal representation. When asked why, the victims replied that
they did not need one and just wanted to have Mr Lauwaert acquitted.
The chief judge asked the victims whether they had received money to
withdraw their complaints. All the victims advised that they did not receive
any money. The chief judge declared that as the victims had their parents
there to represent them there was no need for them to have legal representation.
All parents of the victims agreed to this. 5. The chief judge asked the
victims' parents whether they had received money to withdraw the charges. All
the parents advised that they had not received money and simply wanted to
withdraw the complaints. The chief judge asked why they wanted to withdraw
the complaints, to which the parents responded, so that Mr Lauwaert could be
acquitted. 6. The chief judge asked the
victims and their families if they wanted a closed hearing as the discussion
would be of an intimate nature. The victims and their families declined and
asked that it be an open hearing. 7. The chief judge then read out
the facts of the case as recorded at the trial in Siem Reap. This
included reading statements given by Mr Lauwaert and the victims. Mr Lauwaert
then replied by saying that he wanted to retract his statements as they were
taken without the presence of his lawyer and he did not thumbprint them. The
judges questioned Mr Lauwaert in some detail as to which statements he wished
to retract and why. Mr Lauwaert advised that he wanted to retract those
statements without a thumbprint. He advised the court that he was also
unhappy with the translator during his first trial, as he lacked
qualifications. The judges asked if the translator at the appeal was
qualified. The judges and Mr Lauwaert agreed that they were happy with the
translator. 8. Mr Lauwaert then gave testimony
as to the events leading up to his arrest. He stated that he only knew
three of the victims that were present and that he had employed them at
different times as housekeepers. 9. One judge then questioned Mr
Lauwaert about the evidence that was taken from his house. Mr Lauwaert
claimed that none of the evidence collected was his and that he had asked the
Australian Embassy and/or the AFP to perform forensic examinations on the
evidence. 10. Mr Lauwaert advised the court
that his statement taken in front of the investigating judge was taken
without his lawyer or a translator present and that he asked that the judge call
the Australian Embassy but he said no. Mr Lauwaert also advised the court
that he was not present at the time the evidence was collected from his house
and there were no photographs to prove that the evidence was found in his
home. Comment by Rudolf Knuchel: Article 20 of the UNTAC
law's first paragraph states: Searches must be conducted in the presence of the suspect
and two witnesses, preferably neighbors or owners of the building. Mr. Lauwaert right to
justice was clearly abused in this matter. 11. One of the judges advised the
court that the evidence collected was on display at the original trial and
during the trial it disappeared. The judge explained that the evidence was
found in the sewerage system at the court and that Mr Lauwaert was the only
person to use the toilets. The judge asked why Mr Lauwaert had tried to
dispose of the evidence if it wasn't his. Mr Lauwaert admitted to attempting
to dispose of the evidence because he was scared and confused at the time and
that he thought the trial judge was going to convict him on that evidence. Mr
Lauwaert claimed that the local police and the CWCC, a local NGO, were
involved in scams to extract money out of foreigners and that they had set
him up. 12. The judges then questioned the
victims and their families in depth as to why they wanted to withdraw their
complaints. The judges advised the families of the consequences of changing
their testimony and that it could include imprisonment and could lead to Mr
Lauwaert suing them for defamation and false imprisonment should his
conviction be overturned. The victims and their families advised that they
wished to withdraw their complaints. 13. The judges also questioned the
victims and their families regarding their dealings with the CWCC. One victim
advised she was told by a man from the CWCC what to say in her original
statement. One judge remarked that the statements given by the victims to the
police, the investigating judge and at the original trial were very specific
and were very similar. He said that he was surprised that the victims could
now not remember the statements they had given. He also remarked that
the initial statements by the victims to the police were given before any
involvement of the CWCC. 14. One judge asked one of the
victims why she was changing her testimony. She replied by saying that she
did not trust the CWCC and that they had kept her for six months and she was
not allowed to go anywhere. Some victims said the CWCC had lied to them in
failing to provide money for their testimony. Mr Lauwaert's lawyer did not
question any of the victims or their families. 15. Mr Lauwaert then made a
statement to the court saying he was innocent, had done nothing wrong and was
seeking justice not only for himself, but also the victims as they had been
deceived by the CWCC. Mr Lauwaert added that he had never broken the law or
been arrested before. 16. The judges asked the victims
and their families to reconfirm that they wished to withdraw their
complaints. All the victims and families confirmed this wish. 17. Mr Lauwaert's lawyer and the
prosecutor then gave their closing statements. Following the closing
statements, the chief judge advised the court that the verdict for this case
will be heard at 0730 on 9 June 2006. The hearing lasted three and a half
hours. Comment by Rudolf Knuchel: Madame the prosecutor
in her final statement stated: She will withdraw three
(3) of the previous accusations against Bart Lauwaert: Pimping, Rape,
Debauchery and only retain one (1) attempted rape. This was probably the
most significant line in the whole appeal who lasted
for more than three hours. 18. After the hearing, Mr Lauwaert
was interviewed for several minutes by the media covering the trial. 19. Following the hearing post
contacted the chief judge to enquire about appeals following the verdict. The
judge advised that Mr Lauwaert, the prosecutors
office and the victims are the only people than can appeal the verdict. Each
party has 60 days to lodge an appeal following delivery of the verdict. Comment by Rudolf Knuchel: The first Secretary of
the Australian Embassy visited the Judges Chambers for 20 Minutes after the
Appeal. The content of his discussion is unknown. He might wanted to know from the judges why the donated Australian
prison vans where not available to transport their Australian citizen? 20. Post also contacted the
director of PJ Prison in Comment by Rudolf Knuchel: The instructions to
return Mr. Bart Lauwaert to Siem Reap a clear, in writing and the Post has
been given a copy obtained from Mr. Lauwaerts
Lawyer. Report ends
|