New litigation filed on behalf of Samantha Orobator

August 26, 2009

Image of Samantha Orobator

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday 26th August 2009

Reprieve and London solicitors Bindmans last night launched a two-pronged legal challenge to the imprisonment of Samantha Orobator by the British government following a disgraceful ‘show trial’ conviction in Laos.

Lawyers for 20-year-old Londoner, Samantha Orobator, have applied for both habeas corpus and judicial review of her continued detention, describing her Lao trial and resulting sentence as a ‘flagrant denial of justice’.

Arrested on a drugs charge in Laos in August 2008, Samantha was held for several months without access to lawyers and eventually ‘convicted’ at a very brief trial, at which she was prevented from presenting any kind of defence.

The Lao government consistently violated Samantha’s legal rights, including coercing her into signing statements by withholding her right to a trial, exploiting her vulnerability as a pregnant woman desperate to return to the UK and not allowing her confidential access to independent legal counsel.

A hearing of her case is expected to be held on Wednesday 1st September at the Royal Courts of Justice. Samantha will be represented by Bindmans and by Edward Fitzgerald QC.

Clare Algar, Executive Director or Reprieve, said: “As a vulnerable young woman far from home, Samantha was exploited by a government determined to convict her and uninterested in her defence. The Lao government’s handling of this case revealed their contempt for truth, decency and legal rights. We hope the British government recognises that Samantha’s life must not be thrown away simply to placate that regime.”

Rhona Friedman, Samantha’s solicitor at Bindmans, said: “Here we have a flagrant denial of justice to a British citizen abroad. Samantha was subjected to a sham legal process that makes a mockery of justice. The Lao conviction is manifestly unsafe and should not be recognised in this country.”

For more information please contact  Ally Corin at Bindmans A.Corin@bindmans.com 020 7833 7852.

Notes for Editors:

CASE BACKGROUND

1. The Lao legal process was a sham. The Lao government consistently violated Samantha’s rights at every level, including:

her right to a fair and just investigation; her right to consular access and assistance; her basic rights as a prisoner; her right to a fair trial; her right to return to the UK.

2. The Lao government forced Samantha and her family to make statements favourable to the Lao authorities before they would agree even to give her a show trial.

3. The trial was a farce, with a pre-determined outcome.

4. Samantha had a defence which was never investigated or advanced.

5. Everything that happened in Laos was involuntary and all the statements she was forced to sign about her pregnancy and other matters were coerced.

Legal representation, arrest, detention & fair trial issues

· Samantha was arrested on the 5th August 2008.

· There is not a British Embassy in Laos – and there should be. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office clearly needs additional funding.

  • For three months, Samantha was denied the forms that would allow Reprieve to assist her, and even after she had signed them and asked for Reprieve’s help, they were not given to Reprieve until January 2009, five months after she was arrested.
  • No headway had been made in Samantha’s case at the time that Reprieve got involved in the case. This was partly because the UK did not have an Embassy in Laos, and partly because the Lao government paid no heed to what the British asked (e.g. providing Samantha with a lawyer).
  • When Reprieve finally got authorisation, we went immediately into action to try to protect her basic human rights. The timing was already urgent due to her pregnancy, the fact that she had never seen a lawyer and the looming death penalty.
  • Samantha was never allowed to meet in private her lawyer, embassy staff or Reprieve counsel Anna Morris. Each meeting was attended by numerous Lao officials.
  • Prison conditions in Phonthong prison are appalling for anyone, but in particular a pregnant woman. Samantha and the baby’s nutritional requirements have undoubtedly not been met, not to mention the total lack of pre-natal care.
  • During her time in prison, Samantha was interviewed by the Lao police, prosecutors, arresting officers and judge. Neither a defence lawyer nor any representative from the British High Commission was present for any of these meetings.
  • No trial date had been set, and no meaningful proceedings had taken place, before Reprieve raised the stakes on the issues.
  • Reprieve was careful never to say she had been raped, but did raise the question of how she became pregnant. The swirling rumours that followed led to the Lao government starting a witch hunt.
  • Before Reprieve lawyer Anna Morris left the UK, Reprieve secured permission from the Lao Government for Anna to have three days of confidential legal visits with Samantha.
  • Anna flew to Vientiane, but the visits were cancelled without explanation on her arrival and the trial was moved forward; initially to the day before Anna was scheduled to arrive.
  • The Lao lawyer wanted to be paid money to help Anna get any right of access to Samantha. This would be considered highly unethical for a British lawyer, as the process of “double dipping” – being court appointed or legal aid, and at the same time taking private payment.
  • Eventually, as a result of this and all other pressure put on the Lao government to allow proper legal visitation, Anna Morris was only allowed to see Samantha in a room with no less than 10 Lao officials present. At no time was she allowed to speak to her in private. This was strictly forbidden.
  • During this meeting, a list of written answers Samantha had prepared to given to her by Reprieve regarding her welfare and treatment in prison were snatched by Lao officials when Samantha attempted to hand them to Anna.
  • During her detention, Samantha was continually threatened with the death penalty, despite the fact that Lao Penal Law Article 32 forbids the imposition of the death penalty on a pregnant woman.
  • Samantha was forced to sign numerous conflicting statements about the father of her baby. She was instructed to sign one of these statements in front of Anna Morris and a representative of the British Embassy, but Anna was not allowed to see the statement or review it with Samantha.
  • Samantha was told that the trial would not take place until she signed these statements, and was threatened that the death penalty would remain an option unless she signed. If the trial had been delayed until after she had given birth then there would have been nothing to prevent the Lao court from imposing the death penalty. This was a very real threat being made to her: sign the statements or we delay the trial and you will get the death penalty.
  • Samantha was not appointed a lawyer until 6 May 2009, after sustained pressure from Reprieve. The Lao-appointed lawyer never spoke to Samantha alone, did not take any witness statements, make any investigations or commission any expert reports.

At the trial:

  • Samantha was not asked to enter a plea;
  • She was only questioned by the prosecution, not by the defence;
  • No witnesses were called to give evidence except Samantha;
  • Samantha was made to stand for 30-35 minutes whilst she gave evidence;
  • The prosecution lawyer asked the court to still give her the death penalty because she only became pregnant to avoid it, and she had brought bad media coverage;
  • The defence spoke for only 20 minutes;
  • The judges took only 30 minutes to reach a verdict and to decide what sentence to impose.
  • After the trial, Samantha immediately waived all Lao appeals, which she had to do in order to be eligible to transfer under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement. Had she appealed, she might have faced a death sentence on appeal, she would not have received due process, and she would have had to give birth to her child in Laos.
  • There was an unnecessary delay following the trial before a “Memorandum of Understanding” was signed between the governments. When the Lao government were asked about the delay, they claimed that Samantha was exploring the possibility of an appeal. This is not true. However there was a public statement to this effect from her Lao lawyer that was directly against her wishes, and that appeared to have been an attempt to sabotage her ability to transfer back to the UK and raise the political stakes.

REPRIEVE

Reprieve, a legal action charity, uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantánamo Bay. Reprieve investigates, litigates and educates, working on the frontline, to provide legal support to prisoners unable to pay for it themselves. Reprieve promotes the rule of law around the world, securing each person’s right to a fair trial and saving lives. Clive Stafford Smith is the founder of Reprieve and has spent 25 years working on behalf of people facing the death penalty in the USA.

Reprieve’s current casework involves representing 33 prisoners in the US prison at Guantánamo Bay, working on behalf of prisoners facing the death penalty, and conducting ongoing investigations into the rendition and the secret detention of ‘ghost prisoners’ in the so-called ‘war on terror.’

Reprieve
PO Box 52742
London EC4P 4WS
Tel: 020 7353 4640
Fax: 020 7353 4641
Email: info@reprieve.org.uk
Website: www.reprieve.org.uk

Reprieve is a charitable company limited by guarantee; Registered Charity No. 1114900, Registered Company No. 5777831 (England)
Registered Office: 2-6 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6YH;
Chair: Lord Bingham; Patrons: Alan Bennett, Julie Christie, Martha Lane Fox, Gordon Roddick, Jon Snow, Marina Warner