20 December, 2009

Her Excellency the Ambassador of the Republic of Hungary

The Hungarian Embassy

35 Eaton Place

London

SW1X 8BY

Re. Michael Turner, of The Castle Inn, 63 East Street, Corfe Castle, Wareham, Dorset

Thank you for your letter of 16 December.

I appreciate the effort you have taken to respond to the points I raised in my letter to you of 4 December. However, I should like to respond in kind, as there are many discrepancies, points of law, and inaccuracies which I must highlight.

I have numbered your paragraphs 1 -10, in order to make it easier for us both to understand each other.

I should like to add that many points I have raised follow a visit to Hungary by Michael’s father, Mark, who visited his son in your notorious prison.

1. PP2

We claim that both Michael and his colleague Jason McGoldrick are being held in jail without charge. You ‘assure’ me this is not the case. You add: “There might be some misunderstanding which I will try and clarify”.

We now have it both in writing and on BBC tape from Michael’s Hungarian lawyer, Dr Andras Pakay, that the two men are indeed in jail WITHOUT charge, and he should know.

2. PP3

You then explain the legal procedures and rulings which saw both men extradited to Hungary. In our view, and the view of the men’s London barrister, Hugh O’Donoghue, the extradition law has been misinterpreted after incorrect evidence was presented to the High Court by the Hungarian authorities.

If Mr Justice Collins had been aware the two men were going to be detained, without charge, they would not have been sent to Hungary in the first place.

You say: “The criminal procedure against Mr Turner and Mr McGoldrick for the offence of fraud is in the INVESTIGATION phase, the results of which will determine whether Mr Turner and Mr McGoldrick will have to stand trial”.

Mr O’Donoghue argued this very point in court and I’d like to refer to the transcript of Mr Collins’s summing up.

Mr Collins told the court that in each case the warrant indicates: “This warrant has been issued by a competent judicial authority. I request that the person mentioned below be arrested and surrendered for the purposes of conducting a criminal PROSECUTION or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.”

He goes on: “In fact, this was not a sentence case, but was an accusation case. Perhaps it is unfortunate that the wording was not adapted, but it is important to note that the warrant makes clear that the judicial body that issued it was well aware that the arrest and surrender was for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution.

“That is of importance because one of the points taken by Mr O’Donoghue is that the warrant does make clear whether the stage had been reached of accusation as opposed to investigation and there is, he asserts, a breach of the provisions of the 2003 Act in section 2, in the failure to make clear that it is indeed an accusation, as opposed to an investigation, case.”

Mr Collins adds later: “The whole system is based upon that trust”.

And, Mr Collins continues: “Article 1 of the Framework Decision provides by paragraph 1: ‘The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order’

“Thus it is made clear that it must ONLY be for the purpose of conducting a criminal PROSECUTION. That is set out, as I have already indicated, at the outset of this warrant and that amounts to what, in our language, can be described as an accusation, ie that he is to be tried for an offence or for offences.”

A little bit later, Mr Collins refers back to this term ‘accusation’.

He says: “The fact that the word ‘accusation’ or ‘accuse’ is not contained in it is nothing to the point, provided that it is clear that it is indeed an accusation, as opposed to MERELY INVESTIGATION.”

To any reasonable person, these parts of the transcript indicate that Mr Collins felt comfortable that the case against both Michael and Jason had reached the ‘prosecution’ stage and not the ‘investigation’ one. The former warranted extradition, the latter did not.

We now have more than sufficient evidence to prove that the case is still very much at the ‘investigation’ stage, and that both Michael and Jason should not be in jail.

3. PP4

You say that the decision to detain Michael and Jason “has been taken by the Court”. And that “… remanding them in custody corresponds to the British authorities’ identical practice towards foreign suspects”.

On your first point, this decision has been taken behind closed doors, with no press, jury or lawyers from either side being present. This is NOT British practice.

And the fact the men “have no residence in Hungary” is not a reason to lock them up. To begin with, they have both shown total integrity by handing themselves over to the Hungarian authorities on 2 November. Secondly, these men have families, and were prosecutions brought provision would be made to rent a flat in Budapest during the trial.

But to ensure the men could be detained, your authorities have made over-inflated claims of what the men might do if they were not locked up. When you read what these are below, you will realise exactly what I am talking about.

The claims are that the men could (a) intimidate witnesses (b) interfere with the evidence (c) re-commit the same crime and (d) commit other crimes requiring detention. We both know that all these are ridiculous.

4. PP5

You say the co-operation between Hungary and the UK has been “mutually satisfying for the past years”. Can I point out that until your country joined the EU in 2004 these extradition laws did not apply. They are still very new and clearly misunderstood. In the past, to win an extradition case, the prosecuting country had to produce evidence before any extradition took place.

You state that questioning this case in the way we are doing reflects badly on both the Hungarian and English courts. I disagree. The English courts have simply ‘trusted’ what they were told by the Hungarian authorities and acted accordingly.

5. PP6

I am grateful you have investigated the conditions the two men are being held in. However, I am not reassured by your point that “… I am satisfied that they have not received treatment nor are held in conditions that are worse than those for anyone remanded in custody in Hungary”.

This is another point which is deeply unsatisfactory. Just because the conditions meet your country’s standards does not mean they anywhere near match ours. And the evidence we have from both Michael and Dr Pakay supports this.

Being held in a small cell – measuring an estimated 11’ x 20’ – with three other men, for 23 hours a day, on a poor and unsustainable diet, is not proper practice. Michael has lost considerable weight and is worried about muscle loss due to this poor diet. In addition, Michael reports that the other prisoners – many of Romany origin – are verbally abused regularly by the guards, to the point he feels he has to report it to the outside world. I don’t think any of this amounts to parity with the UK, do you?

In addition, one of the men sharing Michael’s cell has been in jail, without charge, for two years. This hardly gives us confidence.

And we are reliably informed that relations see their loved ones so little – once a month for an hour - that they queue up outside the prison at certain times to wave coloured material at the windows in order to communicate. I don’t think this equates to the UK, or the rest of the EU, either, do you?

6. PP7     

You state that the men “… are not affected by any discriminatory measure”. Yes, they are. They do not speak the same language, are not familiar with your protocols and customs and are appalled by the ‘racism’ of the guards towards the other prisoners, as I have already mentioned.

7. PP8

You claim that on their arrival in Hungary the prisoners had their rights explained to them, “… including on the rules of keeping in touch with their family”.

At Gatwick airport on 2 November Karen Morrisey, from Hungarian Interpol, reassured the two men, in front of the Press, that they would be given access to a phone on their arrival.

The opposite occurred. The men were held incommunicado at a police station for three days before being moved to prison. They made repeated requests to call home or the Consulate, both of which were denied them. Again, I don’t think this equates with our system here, do you?

8. PP9

Yes, both men have now been visited by the British embassy’s consular service. But not before Dr Pakay had to launch an investigation to discover where the two men were being held at the outset.

So far as complaints are concerned, I wonder how the investigation is going into the theft of Mr McGoldricks’ spectacles and watch? As he lost both these items while in his cell, I can only assume such an investigation would be relatively easy?

9. PP10

Finally, you appreciate what a “shock” all this must be to the families. This is no shock at all. They have fought extradition for a year through the British courts, and they have spoken, and continue to speak, to lawyers, MPs, MEPs, human rights’ groups, et al to win their children’s release.

The only shock, if that is the right word, is the injustice which is being carried out on two men, who should not be in jail at all.

We shall continue for as long as it takes to fight this extradition, spreading the word as far and as wide as we can. I very much hope you will look at this most urgently and encourage your government to repatriate these men immediately while their ‘investigation’ into these alleged offences goes on.

I can assure you, that once – and if – a charge/s are brought, the two men will return to Hungary to face them. They have already more than proved their integrity by handing themselves over on 2 November. Now is the time for your country to ‘trust’ the system, which currently is being misunderstood and at worst manipulated.

Just signing a document does not give Hungary parity with the UK. Your country has a choice to make and that’s whether you are prepared to take a leap of faith and bring your judicial system up to a standard expected of an EU member.

You will see I am sending a copy of this letter to our Prime Minister, who both Mark and I have already written to.

I much look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely

RG Drax