Portuguese Trial by Media – Graham Mitchell and the EAW.
The foetid waters surrounding the European Arrest Warrant for ‘First Degree Murder’ issued in respect of Graham Mitchell grow murkier by the minute.
Late last night I received an e-mail from a prominent Portuguese journalist asking for my help to contact Graham Mitchell, it contained some potentially very interesting information. I picked up the phone to Graham straight away, and to my surprise, the self-same e-mail had just popped into his inbox. That might seem difficult – for there are two Graham Mitchell’s in his home town, and there are also two Graham Mitchell’s who are prominent photographers. Even so, her e-mail had neatly proved that there was absolutely no difficulty for anyone in Portugal to get in touch with the right Graham Mitchell in minutes, yes? He’s not hard to find.
We had been puzzled yesterday by a slightly misleading item on the BBC News page which stated as ‘fact’ some information they had come by via a freelance journalist in Portugal.
Photographer Graham Mitchell, 49, from Kent, faces a retrial following his arrest on a European Arrest Warrant.
Portugal’s Supreme Court quashed his acquittal in 1996.
It didn’t say ‘we believe’, or even ‘we have been told’, although it did go on to say they had been speaking to ‘an official’ in ‘Portugal’s Supreme Judicial Council’. This was news to Graham and to his legal team, who had been unable to find anyone to speak to them officially and tell them why they wanted Graham back in Portugal. Officially, Graham and his lawyers are still in the dark; unofficially, they have now been told via the media that his acquittal was ‘quashed’ and he had been a ‘fugitive’ from a proposed ‘retrial’ since 1996.
Assuming that information is true. It hasn’t come through any recognised legal channels though I have no reason to doubt the veracity of that particular BBC reporters word.
I have also discovered that in the past week, Mr Jorling’s lawyer has been busy supplying the media with up to date photographs of his client – so he apparently had been informed of what was going on.
This is the story which is proposed to be run in the Portuguese press next week.
It would, if true, explain why we had not been able to find any evidence of an appeal. There hasn’t been an appeal. A quashed conviction is a different animal. We still don’t know whether this speculated ‘retrial’ has been held, with Graham in absentia, or whether it is proposed to be held at some time in the future. The mysterious ‘official’ at Portugal’s Supreme Judicial Council apparently hadn’t thought to inform the press of that minor detail. As of an hour ago, Graham’s legal team were still waiting for any information.
Now my Portuguese journalistic contact is keen to enlist my help in tracing Mr Warren Tozer – she had better keep watching this blog, because if I find Mr Tozer, you will read about it here first, I promise you. Not in a Portuguese newspaper, nor on the BBC site. But the fact that she is searching for Mr Tozer is interesting, for it suggests that the Portuguese Police, who had taken 17 years to find a 6′ Scots Guardsman who had very publicly been in the same place all along – to wit, her e-mail – had also failed to find Mr Tozer. Certainly she seems to be of the opinion that no EAW has been issued for him. Which is hardly surprising, since all the information we have is that he left Europe many years ago, and indeed one line of enquiry that I am following up is that he may no longer be alive – and thus no longer be available as the only other witness for Mr Mitchell’s defence.
Where does that leave us? It seems that thanks to the curious belief of the European Commission that all legal systems in Europe are fair and equal, and thus in the words of Nick Clegg, the European Arrest Warrant is ‘essential’, we have a Briton who has been cleared of an offence in Portugal due to lack of identification as to even having been at the scene, told he is free to leave the country, who is expected to stand trial near 20 years later on a serious offence, without the benefit of having events fresh in his mind, and without his co-accused who is also his principal witness.
At least, that is the theory now exercising Graham’s fevered mind – or it may all be codswallop and the press may be fed another version by this time next week.
Why are the media being fed information which is being withheld from the accused? Is this the Portuguese idea of a fair trial?
If the Portuguese authorities wish to communicate with the legal team of Mr Graham Mitchell, they will find them where they have always been: http://www.fairtrials.net/
It is about time one of our parliamentarians sat up and took notice of what is going on here.
A BBC interview with Graham can be found here.
March 22, 2012 at 16:33
-
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or
possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other
way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so,
except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the
land.”
Magna Carta, Chapter 29.
Just sayin’
- March 22, 2012 at 16:45
-
Just received the official English translation of the Supreme court
ruling which has caused all the trouble – am digesting it now. Its a
complete farce.
- March 22, 2012 at 17:44
-
Farce doesn’t begin to describe it Anna. Many thanks for this.
-
March 22, 2012 at 13:50
-
…unofficially, they have now been told via the media that his acquittal was
‘quashed’ and he had been a ‘fugitive’ from a proposed ‘retrial’ since
1996.
___________________________
UK courts won’t buy that and nor, by the provisions of EAW will they be
obliged to.
Graham has made no attempt to disguise his identity or his whereabouts and
the Portuguese are getting their excuses in early.
The precedence for this is the Deborah Dark case, where Spain and Britain
both refused to extradite her to France on grounds of the passage of time that
had elapsed since the first proceedings that gave rise to the issuing of the
EAW.
-
March 22, 2012 at 13:57
- March 22, 2012 at 07:38
-
I find it hugely comforting that at least the political bloggers are wide
awake, even if it appears to me that the media, politicians and the UK justice
system might be asleep on the job.
-
March 22, 2012 at 06:34
-
I think it is time this extradition treaty was scrapped. There is no
possibility of a fair trial here, and double jeopardy is a grave
injustice.
-
March 22, 2012 at 14:13
-
The double jeopardy argument I looked at more closely. It seems that
‘double jeopardy’ only applies when both the highest court in the land (of
whichever country) has finally acquitted someone and no new evidence has
come to light. But it seems that judgments of higher courts can overrule
judgments (including acquittals) of lower courts and that counts as all part
of a single, continuous, ongoing process, not as ‘double jeopardy’.
Same in this country now, I presume, after the retrial and conviction of
the murderers of Stephen Lawrence.
But I think passage of time might be very much key and central to
Graham’s defence …
-
March 21, 2012 at 19:47
-
It does make some sort of weird sense, but it does not explain why Portugal
has taken so long to find Graham Mitchell, or even actually look for him,
until now.
So I am sticking to my Sour Grapes opinion.
- March 21, 2012 at 19:06
-
Well this looks like an almighty judicial cock-up.
It seems that the original trial was nullified in 1996, as there were
errors in the testimony of some of the witnesses, after an appeal by Herr
Joerling and his lawyers and a retrial ordered by the Supreme Court.
An
arrest warrant was issued in 1998 and AGAIN in 2008.
Eventually this desperate fugitive was unearthed in his lair in a remote
part of England, where Mr Mitchell had assumed the identity “Graham Mitchell”
and worked as a photographer for a shadowy secret organisation known only as
“the BBC”.
(OK I made the last bit up ).
- March 21, 2012 at 19:26
-
Its better than that Ottokring – a Portuguese friend is translating it
not as an error in the testimony of the witnesses but an error in the judges
summing up – the judges thought that Mitchell and Tozer were innocent, but
screwed up her Judgment leaving the door open for the verdict to be set
aside and a retrial ordered – but no one bothered to tell Graham!
I have the transcript here – but its in Portuguese and I’m reserving my
opinion until Graham’s lawyers have had it formally translated and read over
by a Portuguese lawyer. I was planning to keep quiet until then but you lot
are so sharp eyed – you might as well have the link to the proper judgment.
-
March 21, 2012 at 19:57
-
Well, running the judgement through google translate doesn’t help much
in understanding it. Best wait for proper translation and explanation.
- March 21, 2012 at
20:13
-
Yep, and run it by a Portuguese lawyer too…crown prosecution service
are welcome to upload it from here though, a lot quicker than the
official channels!
- March 21, 2012 at 20:45
-
Anna, First of all thanks for this and everything else you and
yours have done.
The fact that a blogger can get documentation which has a direct
bearing on my life and that of my family, before the authorities is
astonishing.
- March 21, 2012 at 20:35
-
Oh yeah, there were errors in the testimony of some witnesses all right.
One of the star prosecution witnesses gave evidence in court that he saw the
victim punched over a wall. He also mentioned that a glass was involved in
the assault. He claimed that we checked the victim was dead before running
away laughing. Fast forward until a few days after the not guilty verdict.
The same witness was tracked down and interviewed by the BBC. Presumably
sensing something was not right, the BBC covertly recorded the conversation.
During the conversation, the witness is asked to repeat what he saw. His
account of the events was now very different. He now maintains that what he
saw was an accident.
This recording is available on the BBC Panorama footage, filmed during
the trial. It is important that everyone remembers that all of the trial was
filmed. All of it!!!
-
March 21, 2012 at 21:35
-
Graham. sub paras 3 & 4 my friend. I have correspondence from the
Procurator Fiscal in Inverness stating that they were unable to progress a
complaint I made six months ago about a crime that occurred in 1996 due to
the passage of time. I can forward it to you if you want as I think your’s
will be blown out under undue delay.
The ECHR – Article 5 – Right to liberty and security’
1. Everyone
has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived
of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a
procedure prescribed by law:
a. the lawful detention of a person after
conviction by a competent court;
b. the lawful arrest or detention of a
person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to
secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
c. the
lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of
bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion
of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered
necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having
done so;
d. the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of
educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of
bringing him before the competent legal authority;
e. the lawful
detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious
diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or
vagrants;
f. the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his
effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against
whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or
extradition.
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in
a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any
charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with
the provisions of paragraph 1.c of this article shall be brought promptly
before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial
power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to
release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear
for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or
detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of
his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered
if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of
arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article
shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
- March 21, 2012 at 17:54
-
I have been keeping up with events on this and I am still concerned that
something of the original charge may have been ‘lost in translation’ and that
what Mr. Mitchell is actually charged with is some form of attempted murder,
rather than the full offence – which in this instance would appear to be
impossible, given the obvious health of the victim.
Either way, it is an utter farce, but I am concerned. Clearly Mr. Jorling
met with some form of violent assault nearly 20 years ago – or at least it
appears so, from the facts known to Mr. Mitchell, unless there is an otherwise
innocent explanation for his injuries.
Mr. Mitchell appears to rely for his alibi upon a co-accused – a man whom
it is proving difficult to track down and may be no longer with us…
Other than his protestation of innocence – he maintains he did not commit
the crime he appears to have little or no corroboration of this fact, other
than the fact that he should, in the normal course of events, be innocent,
until proven guilty – but we are dealing with Portugese justice here.
I am sure those who believe in such legal presumptions (i.e. that one may
confidently rely upon them) may have an issue over this observation but… Being
forced to rely on such a legal presumption would do nothing for my confidence,
if faced with being extradited to a foreign country, accused of a crime I was
sure I did not commit.
Let us hope that it is all an almighty S.N.A.F.U. on the part of the
Portugese and that this will all be sorted out without Mr. Mitchell being
dragged off for a foreign holiday he could well do without.
- March 21, 2012 at 17:34
-
Anna, wonderful reporting. I’d like to say I could help but I don’t think I
can apart from wishing all involved the very best of luck…and, of course,
Graham Mitchell.
-
March 21, 2012 at 17:13
-
Don’t worry about it. When Mr. Mitchell is locked up in Portugal for a
Crime he obviously didn’t commit, then our wonderful Government can bleat
about it in The House, which is all they did for Michael Cook.
But there
will be a bit more of a ruckus about it this time around. The People have had
just about enough of this.
- March 21, 2012 at 17:09
-
Who is Graham’s mp and shouldn’t they be tearing up trees to get this
ridiculous situation dealt with?
And on this basis shouldn’t everyone report random Portuguese officials to
the police in the uk saying that “I am sure I saw them involved in x assault
last Saturday” because obviously the uk police will issue an EAW and they will
present themselves to a uk police station forthwith……… They might realise the
stupidity of it all then!
- March 21, 2012 at 16:10
-
The fundamental issue is that the portugese legal system does not have the
kinds of checks and balances our system has and yet the UK had signed up to an
extradition process that does not allow for any interrogation of another EU
country’s’ system. Presumably the odd mis-carriage of justice caused by
throwing one of our citizens into a legal system we would not tolerate here is
a price worth paying for the increased efficiency.
Mmmm, let me just have a think about that……..
- March 21, 2012 at 15:50
-
This is a debacle.
Someone has made a really stupid mistake or some prosecutor in Portugal is
trying to make their career out of this somehow.
- March 21, 2012 at 15:09
-
Is there some spectacularly inept arse-covering going on in the deep
recesses of the Portugese legal system following their spectacular own goal of
trying to arrest a man for the murder of someone still with us?
- March 21, 2012 at 15:49
-
I imagined that the mistake on the warrant would have been the sort of
technicality that would see the case thrown out. This is not the case
apparently. I must watch too much TV. It does raise the question in my mind
at least that ‘If the Portuguese can’t even get the wording on a EAW right,
what else will they get wrong if a re-trial were to be ordered’?
{ 24 comments }