Multiple standards by UK authorities

This official complaint demonstrates the multiple standards, which are unlawfully employed by the British Embassy in Phnom Penh and the FCO in London.

The following examples show that there are one set of rules for British tourists who are presumed innocent, and another set for British nationals accused of a crime, who should also be presumed innocent.

Police corruption
The Crown publication “Support for British nationals abroad” and the FCO website, details the process for British victims of crime, who are asked for corrupt payments by police in Cambodia.

The website states that British authorities will raise cases of police extortion to local authorities.

A British victim of crime is of course, presumed innocent, as are any British nationals accused of a crime – International law states this and there should be no reason for discrimination between a victim of crime and a suspect.

In 2010, Matt Harland made official complaints to the embassy and FCO, which detailed police extortion and theft by the Chief of Anti Human Trafficking Police. Matt Harland included detailed testimony and where to obtain supporting evidence of this corruption.

British authorities did nothing to support Matt Harland’s complaint.

This is unlawful discrimination.

Court corruption
In the same complaint, Matt Harland raised the fact that the First Court had demanded a corrupt payment of $15,000 in exchange for a fair trial.

In his complaint, Matt Harland simply requested a new judge and a fair trial – a request supported in principle by local law.

The embassy did nothing to support the accused, Matt Harland.

This is unlawful discrimination.

Court process
British authorities have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Phnom Penh, supporting the fundamental trial rights of a small number of Khmer nationals. No doubt there are checks and measures in place to ensure this foreign aid isn’t wasted.

Embassy court notes obtained through Freedom of Information show that the trial of Matt Harland was manifestly unfair.

The embassy have done nothing to support the trial rights of Matt Harland and ceased observing and recording the court proceedings.

Complaints procedure
The Crown publication “Support for British nationals abroad”, details the official FCO complaints procedure, which is available to any British national.

However, British authorities made the decision (supported by Hugo Swire MP), that the accused, Matt Harland, was not to be supplied with required writing materials – denying him equal access to the complaints procedure.

This is unlawful discrimination.

Presumed guilty
These examples of multiple standards by British authorities are evidence that the FCO and British Embassy have presumed that Matt Harland is guilty of a crime for which there is no evidence.

This is unlawful.

The Human Rights Act ’98 states that the accused has the right to be presumed innocent by British authorities and that British authorities should act in a manner which is compatible with this right.

British authorities are in violation of the HRA’98.

The accused, Matt Harland, should have equal access to the services of British authorities in the same way as a British victim of crime in Cambodia.

British authorities have unfairly discriminated against Matt Harland and denied him of his fundamental rights, through both action and inaction.

Complaint to the FCO
This complaint is directed to the FCO Director of Consular Services, who has 20 working days to respond;

1 – why does Matt Harland have unequal access to consular services relating to police extortion?

2 – why does Matt Harland have unequal access to consular services relating to attempted court extortion?

3 – why will the FCO support trial process at the Khmer Rouge tribunal, but not support the minimum trial rights of Matt Harland?

4 – Matt Harland is accused of a child sex crime, does the FCO believe that Matt Harland has fewer rights than those suspected of genocide?

5 – why would the FCO and the British embassy refuse to provide writing materials to Matt Harland, denying him access to official complaints procedures?

6 – The FCO and Hugo Swire MP decided that writing materials are “not essential for health and wellbeing”, while an embassy supply of coffee is permitted – how did the FCO reach this decision?

7 – why do British authorities clearly discriminate between a British victim of crime and a British national accused of a crime, when both are presumed innocent?

8 – all that Matt Harland is requesting is the simple right to a fair trial, will the FCO support this fundamental right?

9 – Matt Harland has been illegally detained, without a trial by definition, for four years and seven months. When will the FCO take this situation seriously?

10 – The victims of the alleged crimes by Matt Harland, have never attended court and have also been denied their right to explain the alleged events. Will the FCO promote the rights of the alleged victims to also seek justice?

Please respond to Matt Harland direct, within 20 working days.

One thought on “Multiple standards by UK authorities

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s