Interpol Lists Griffiths, Asks Police To Prepare Extradition

[Markham]

If the UK insists on having Griffiths trial on their soil, but is not willing to foot the bill to bring everyone over (which we already know they are not) then that sounds like they have put up an outrageous road block to justice, so if that comes to pass, as you say it will, then I believe the Philippines may respond by ejecting all their citizens, or at the very least making examples of the ones they already have in country, or it might get bad for all of us because of this one case. Be careful Mark and others what you ask for by Griffiths and the UK evading Philippine justice, be it even in a system we may not fully trust. None of us may like the backlash.

You appear to be assuming that the Cebu Prosecutors have a very strong case against Griffiths and Santos. I would suggest to you that the opposite is true. Even when the evidence is strong, as with the case of Gary McKinnon, automatic and quick extradition is not assured; the evidence against the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, however is not quite so clear cut. If a Mutual Legal Assistance request is made of the British Government, the investigating lawyers will look very carefully into all aspects of this case, including the investigation, right from its very outset. In other words, from 8th February onwards. In coming to a decision, one way or the other, they will consider

1. Is the evidence sufficient that, on the balance of probabilities, a conviction would result from a trial?
2. Will his human rights be broached? (They already have been, by a senior member of the prosecution team, who stated that Griffiths must prove his innocence)
3. Will he be treated humanely, fed and his medical needs provided by the State both before and after his trial - assuming he is found guilty? (Well arguably not since remand and sentenced prisoners are not always fed by the prison authorities; it is up to the families of those serving sentences to provide their food. Bella Santos' family visits Naga Jail every day to deliver her food.)
4. Will he be represented by competant defence counsel during his initial and any subsequent hearings (eg any appeals)? (He is represented but his ability to pay may be compromised.)
5. Will he receive a fair trial? (Arguably not since there's a clear requirement for him to prove innocence and not the State to prove guilt and the automatic discounting of alibi evidence.)
6. Will he receive a swift trial? (No he won't. Go to any Regional Trial Court and view the case lists for any given day and you'll see that there will be anything up to 20 cases due for hearing that day. His case will, if he's lucky, be listed once a month and for a maximum of 30-60 minutes. There's also a tendency for Judges to postpone hearings if witnesses fail to appear in court.)
7. Is there any likelihood of Griffiths being tried for other offences in addition to those listed in the MLA? (Unknown at this time but in view of the Porn possession charge being dropped against Santos, anything is possible.)

All seven conditions, which are contained in the UK/Philippine Extradition Treaty (and others), would need to be met in order to secure Griffiths. But, not necessarily because if the first condition passes - there is sufficient evidence - then his file would be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service which has a somewhat higher benchmark. Given the primacy of English Law for the major offence (ie murder) in this case, a decision not to prosecute would not automatically lead to him being extradited as the remaining conditions would also need to be met and satisfied. It may not be in the public interest to try him in the UK (ie too costly) but if the CPS wants him tried by an English court then that is what will happen. The British Government will also be aware of the plight of another UK national, Kevin Taylor, who has been imprisoned for coming-up three years awaiting trial. Read here about his plight and here's a first hand account by someone who visited him earlier this year. His case has been stalled several times because the prosecution witnesses failed to show. (So we don't go off-topic, I'm not asking for any comment or discussion, just that you read it.) If and when it is asked to do so, the British Government will asses the case on its merits and on the internationally agreed protocols (2 - 7 above) and make its decision accordingly. It is up to the Philippine authorities to play the game according to English rules and not vice versa. The UK Government does not yield to blackmail attempts, so any attempt to influence its decision with threats against UK citizens currently in the country may have far reaching and long lasting consequences.

Finally, lets put the shoe on the other foot, how would the UK feel if the opposite were true. I am sure there would be a public cry of indignation.

At the risk of incurring your wrath even further, I would venture to suggest that an exact parallel of the Griffiths/Santos case, but with countries reversed, would never happen given our policing codes of practice and our judicial system (see Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Home Office Guidelines and Crown Prosecution Service's "Code for Crown Prosecutors" and the CPS' "Legal Guidance" section). But if it did, then the British Government would put its case for the suspect and would accept the Department of Justice's decision. However, there would not, I am certain, be any hint of reprisals, official or otherwise, against the Filipino community in the UK - other than from the "rent-a-mouth" brigade but that would be short-lived and quite inconsequential. Mark Edited October 22, 2011 by Markham

[Mr Lee]

Thank you Mark, very detailed. :o added: I see the links do not work because they were probably to another forum, so since the rules of this forum is that Tom does not wish to have links to other forums, he set it up so they do not work. So if someone is interested in the story Mark posted about, I suggest they do a google search of the persons name and the word Philippines and it should come up with quite a bit of info. I made a new topic HERE if people wish to read about and discuss the other case.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Mr. Lee
add

[Garpo]

In the case of murder committed abroad, the UK does have the right to try the accused and has had that right since 1861. And, by the way, that right is recognised in international law. But let me ask you this: are you a parent?

I will answer your question first. Yes I am a parent but this is not about me or you. It is about justice for the death of a young girl that was killed in the Philippines. Justice for her family and those people that live in the community that hope for justice so that their children will not also become victims. I do not question if the UK has the RIGHT to demand the trial be held in their country. But having the right does not always mean that it is the right (correct) thing to do. Many and probably all countries have laws or rights that are not agreed on by others. Just because a country can do something does not always mean that it is the right thing to do in every case. I honestly agree that there is not enough evidence to convict either Griffiths or Santos but that is just my opinion and I am certainly not in a position to really know for sure what evidence they do or do not have. Like almost everybody else on this forum, I only get my information from here and news media which in my experience is not reliable. I would hope that it is not the UK government and courts that decide if Griffiths is involved or not. Unless they are willing to pay the full bill of having every potential witness and the victims family who I feel have the right to be present during any trial. It sounds to me like what the UK is doing is saying we do not trust your system so you will have to bring your case to us because our system is so much better than yours. Maybe it is or maybe not. Might be better than Africa or the Philippines but is it any better than other first world countries? I hope this does not turn into a debate on which country is best to have a trial. Each and every country does and should have the right to their own system and I for one feel that a trial should be held in the country in which the crime was committed. We have to remember that a trial does not automatically mean guilt.

[Markham]

In the case of murder committed abroad, the UK does have the right to try the accused and has had that right since 1861. And, by the way, that right is recognised in international law. But let me ask you this: are you a parent?

I will answer your question first. Yes I am a parent but this is not about me or you. It is about justice for the death of a young girl that was killed in the Philippines. Justice for her family and those people that live in the community that hope for justice so that their children will not also become victims.

Okay, so you're a parent as am I and as is Renante Pique. Imagine for a moment that your six year old child does not return home from school as she normally does every other day. You'd probably do exactly what Renante Pique did which is to make inquiries of her friends and maybe also the school. Okay so far? But suppose those inquiries told you that your child was spotted getting into a strange car and waving good-bye to her three friends who were walking home with her. Would you wait some seventeen hours before reporting her missing to the Police? That, sir, is precisely what Renante Pique did. I will leave it at that. I am not making any judgement or criticism, merely relaying known fact.

I do not question if the UK has the RIGHT to demand the trial be held in their country. But having the right does not always mean that it is the right (correct) thing to do. Many and probably all countries have laws or rights that are not agreed on by others. Just because a country can do something does not always mean that it is the right thing to do in every case.

Laws are made by the Government of the day and by the consent of Parliament. Once enacted, they are law and must be obeyed by all (with the sole exception of the reigning monarch in whose name all our laws are made). You can not cherry-pick the bits you like and ignore those bits that are inconvenient. If the Government decides that a part of legislation needs to be changed to better cater for modern circumstance - which happens a lot - then it has to introduce a Bill which repeals those parts of existing laws it wishes to dispense with and often replaces them with new provisions. If you Google "Offences Against The Person Act, 1861" you will see that Section 9 of that Act was partially repealed by a much later piece of legislation, the "Criminal Law Act, 1967". However the provision that a person be tried in an English Court for the offence of manslaughter or murder committed abroad remains in Section 9.

I would hope that it is not the UK government and courts that decide if Griffiths is involved or not.

It is not a politician who decides if Griffiths has a case to answer but it is a senior minister - the Home Secretary - who ultimately decides if Griffiths is to be extradited or not. As I explained earlier, that decision doesn't simply rest with whether there is a legal case but on a number of additional factors as well. The Philippines knows this - or should do - as it signed the Extradition Treaty with the United Kingdom on the 18th September 2009 (however, the Treaty is not in force).

It sounds to me like what the UK is doing is saying we do not trust your system so you will have to bring your case to us because our system is so much better than yours.

It is not saying that at all. The same would apply if the alleged murder had been committed in the US. Or France. Or Japan.

I for one feel that a trial should be held in the country in which the crime was committed.

So you would voice objection if the US decided to try an American accused of committing a crime against children whilst in another country? It is not just the UK which has legislative provisions to enable it to try those of its citizens who commit certain offences whilst abroad. Mark Edited October 22, 2011 by Markham

[Mr Lee]

So you would voice objection if the US decided to try an American accused of committing a crime against children whilst in another country? It is not just the UK which has legislative provisions to enable it to try those of its citizens who commit certain offences whilst abroad. Mark

The US allowed that soldier to be tried in the Philippine courts but kept him in jail in the US Embassy during his appeal process.

[Garpo]

In the case of murder committed abroad, the UK does have the right to try the accused and has had that right since 1861. And, by the way, that right is recognised in international law. But let me ask you this: are you a parent?

I will answer your question first. Yes I am a parent but this is not about me or you. It is about justice for the death of a young girl that was killed in the Philippines. Justice for her family and those people that live in the community that hope for justice so that their children will not also become victims.

Okay, so you're a parent as am I and as is Renante Pique. Imagine for a moment that your six year old child does not return home from school as she normally does every other day. You'd probably do exactly what Renante Pique did which is to make inquiries of her friends and maybe also the school. Okay so far? But suppose those inquiries told you that your child was spotted getting into a strange car and waving good-bye to her three friends who were walking home with her. Would you wait some seventeen hours before reporting her missing to the Police? That, sir, is precisely what Renante Pique did. I will leave it at that. I am not making any judgement or criticism, merely relaying known fact.

I do not question if the UK has the RIGHT to demand the trial be held in their country. But having the right does not always mean that it is the right (correct) thing to do. Many and probably all countries have laws or rights that are not agreed on by others. Just because a country can do something does not always mean that it is the right thing to do in every case.

Laws are made by the Government of the day and by the consent of Parliament. Once enacted, they are law and must be obeyed by all (with the sole exception of the reigning monarch in whose name all our laws are made). You can not cherry-pick the bits you like and ignore those bits that are inconvenient. If the Government decides that a part of legislation needs to be changed to better cater for modern circumstance - which happens a lot - then it has to introduce a Bill which repeals those parts of existing laws it wishes to dispense with and often replaces them with new provisions. If you Google "Offences Against The Person Act, 1861" you will see that Section 9 of that Act was partially repealed by a much later piece of legislation, the "Criminal Law Act, 1967". However the provision that a person be tried in an English Court for the offence of manslaughter or murder committed abroad remains in Section 9.

I would hope that it is not the UK government and courts that decide if Griffiths is involved or not.

It is not a politician who decides if Griffiths has a case to answer but it is a senior minister - the Home Secretary - who ultimately decides if Griffiths is to be extradited or not. As I explained earlier, that decision doesn't simply rest with whether there is a legal case but on a number of additional factors as well. The Philippines knows this - or should do - as it signed the Extradition Treaty with the United Kingdom on the 18th September 2009 (however, the Treaty is not in force).

It sounds to me like what the UK is doing is saying we do not trust your system so you will have to bring your case to us because our system is so much better than yours.

It is not saying that at all. The same would apply if the alleged murder had been committed in the US. Or France. Or Japan.

I for one feel that a trial should be held in the country in which the crime was committed.

So you would voice objection if the US decided to try an American accused of committing a crime against children whilst in another country? It is not just the UK which has legislative provisions to enable it to try those of its citizens who commit certain offences whilst abroad. Mark

Mark, So what are you trying say? What is your point? What facts of the case do you have that nobody else has? None of your questions or comments have anything to do with the meaning of my post and while I will be happy to reply to your questions my way of pm, I don't feel this thread of the forum is the correct place.

[FlyAway]

So you would voice objection if the US decided to try an American accused of committing a crime against children whilst in another country? It is not just the UK which has legislative provisions to enable it to try those of its citizens who commit certain offences whilst abroad. Mark

The US allowed that soldier to be tried in the Philippine courts but kept him in jail in the US Embassy during his appeal process.

I do believe the US soldier incident Mr. Lee mentions falls under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). The US has been trying and convicting many US citizens that go overseas with the intent to commit certain offenses. Most recent I can think of was the guy from Florida conspiring with a Filipina mother for her two young girls. He got fined and locked up for a long time, did not hear of much of anything happening to her afterwards. An instructor I had for employment law was appointed to a Superior Court Judge position a few years ago. One of the hardest things for people to understand is the mindset of a judge. They do not serve the people or the state. They serve the Law. Politics and Emotions are some of the most difficult things for a judge deal with. We can disagree with the way things are currently being said and handled. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the legislature that writes the laws. If you are not a citizen of the country then plain and simple you are SOL. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse anywhere I have seen. Unfair? Maybe yes, maybe no. Up to a non biased judge or jury if applicable to determine.