This British girl on drugs charge in Laos...

[Ponders]

She's been in prison since August but she is 5 months pregnant???

A bit more information would be helpful

"you are sent to prison as punishment not for punishment"

depending on where you are.in england your statement may be true but not in every country.

That's not a colonial hang-up; it's because the Death Row inmates tend to be less visually attractive--and older and male.

Not pretty young 20-year old females.

Did anyone hear on BBC news yesterday that the girl herself stated she had not been raped? There was perhaps some question as to whether she had been impregnated artificially, as the Laotian law will not carry out capital punishment on a pregnant woman, and this was one was to avoid the death penalty.

The report also stated that there was a fair chance she would be included in a prisoner exchange, and the laotian government were wishing the problem would just go away....

I personally do not agree with the death penalty - I think it diminishes those countries which use it. However, in most countries in SE Asia, the laws regarding drug smuggling are made plainly obvious, and anyone smuggling drugs in this region is an idiot.

Here news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8038112.stm

thanks dweezle

Couple of points that, to me, speak volumes in the above article:

"She does not deny she was a drugs mule, but says it was done under duress."
( think the term is 'creeping declaration', the majority of duress claims are over-turned by the court I beleive)

^she, herself, has said she was not raped.
...she is upset by the suggestion she was. There is also a scarcely believable story of her being deliberately and medically impregnated.^

She may never say what happened, but "a fling" is how it has been described here.
(sounds like a lovely girl).

So, OK, it was never a nice thought that she might have faced the death penalty but IMHO the evidence of her deliberate involvement is mounting up.
Didn't she start her journey in Amsterdam? Plenty of nice drug-mule recruiting types live there.....

this makes interesting reading

I get somewhat weary of these stories - poor little British innocent abroad ends up in jail facing some awful punishment whilst being held in terrible conditions prior to being put through some quasi-mediaeval show trial.

The parents at home wail about their sweet, loving and trusting son/ daughter who would never ever commit such an offence whilst the press either bang on about how outrageous it is that a British national be subjected to such barbarity and how we must bring them home forthwith for a fair British trial(right wing) or whimpers about human rights and wheels out rent-a-quotes from Liberty and Reprieve (left wing).

Unfortunately, in the vast majority of these situations it turns out that the person is guilty of the offence they're being charged with and, guess what, is therefore subject to the laws, prison and trial procedures of that country. Exactly the same as if a foreign national commits an offence over here. It seems somewhat unclear to me (to say the least) why being British should be some sort of mitigating point.

If, let's say, an Lilliputian national in Britain said "but back in Lilliput, we are never sent to prison for armed robbery, your laws are strange and barbaric", the British judiciary certainly wouldn't say "oohh, sorry, you're Lilliputian, I hadn't realised, just tootle off then and don't do it again". We, on the other hand, seem to have some concept that our citizens can sit outside other countries' judicial and penal systems if we don't really like them.

Well, except the US of course, where the government would extradite our kids to face the death penalty if they asked.

Cestlavie. We do not hand people over the US if they will face the death penalty BBC it would be against the European Convention on Human Rights. If we extradite to a country with the death penalty we have to obtain assurances that it will not be applied.

I agree that if you go to a country and break their law (assuming she did) then you have to face the consequences in that country and that your nationality should not create an exception to the law. However, that is not incompatible with also thinking that no state should allow anyone (whether rich, poor, native or foreign etc) to be on trial for their life without proper legal representation and a chance to defend themselves. A fair trial is a foundational human right wherever you are and whoever you are. I don't see anyone on this thread (though I've not been back over it to check) or in the news who has claimed that they way she has been treated is OK if you are Lao but not if you are British.

Catz: I was being facetious about the US as we seem very happy to extradite people to them under dubious circumstances (see Natwest 3 and that hacker who I forget the name of) whereas the US seems to forget its extradition obligations when it sees fit. Clearly we don't extradite to a country where the death penalty would be applied.

Whilst I wouldn't disagree that right to a fair trial is a fundamental human right, the point is that what constitutes a fair trial should be largely left to that country (unless of course it is a signatory to a specific convention or treaty such as the European Convention on Human Rights). That means they can choose the legal and trial process and what representation (if any) is provided. In this case, there is a specific legal and representation process. Just because we don't like it doesn't mean our citizens should be exempt from it.

And if we were genuinely concerned about the parlous state of the Laotian judicial system, we should be taking action about it regardless of whether a British citizen was involved.

I agree all is not rosy in our extradition agreement with the US.

I also agree that there can be different models of what constitutes a fair trial according to the country in question. However, that does not mean that all choices a country might make are beyond our criticism just because it meets standards that country considers to be fair. Now my only knowledge of the Lao judicial system comes from the press and google so it may well be wrong! However, if a country holds capital trials in secret often without lawyers and even then only allows the lawyer to see the client a few days before the trial or even on the day of the trial itself then I cannot see how it can possibly be described as fair. There is simply no time to put together a case, trace witnesses, find evidence etc. It does not seem to be aimed at finding the truth which is presumably the touchstone of a fair trial. Laos is a poor communist state and so it is difficult to suggest that the population have approved this model in any meaningful sense.

This case has highlighted the shortcomings in the Lao system to the wider world so may be helpful for that. I would imagine that at least some of the people on the 'this is shocking' side of this debate are members of Amnesty etc or otherwise give money, time or expertise to questions of international justice and human rights standards and are concerned with the rights of people of whatever nationality. I don't see anyone suggesting that this is only a cause for concern if a Brit is involved. Though, of course, what outsiders can achieve may be limited.

I'm not disagreeing that the Laotian system of justice does not deliver a fair trial by modern British standards. It doesn't. But equally it doesn't obviously violate it provided the judge is competent and impartial (and there is nothing to suggest he won't be) and representation is provided to the defendant.

Whether it's in private is irrelevant (even in the UK a variety of trials are in camera, and many more are in other countries); whether the evidence is all gathered by the state is irrelevant (it is on a de facto basis in the UK anyway); the time limit is arguable but that alone hardly stops it being a fair trial - in the UK, barristers regularly only receive case information on the days running up to the trial.

My point is that no, clearly the judicial system (and penal system) over there isn't as we'd expect in Britain. But it provided the death penalty won't be enforced (which it hasn't been since 1998 and has been explicitly said it won't in this case) I don't see why we should be interfering in another state's affairs on the basis of this case.

I'm fed up with these cases, every time some Aussie druggie gets arrested in Bali the result is a barrage of anti-Indonesian racism, international diplomatic incidents, etc.

If these people would learn that it's not all community service and out in six months on remand in other countries, perhaps we wouldn't need to bully sovereign nations over their right to prosecute people committing crimes in their country.

Well I'm not sure we are interfering in another state's affairs. I think they are worried about the potential effect on tourist dollars! Making representations to them is hardly interfering in their affairs, states do that on behalf of their nationals all of the time. Laos can take it or leave it, it looks as if they are quite relieved to have a potential solution so will take it (i.e. a prisoner swap). Any bullying seems to have come from the press reaction and the potential tourism impact.

I'm not sure that I know enough about the Lao justice system to have a sensible debate about it and there are few reliable sources online to even confirm basic information. I don't know how judges are appointed in the one party communist state and so couldn't comment on their likely impartiality. Whether it is secret is relevant - secrecy allows partiality and injustice to grow unchecked. Of course it might nevertheless be fair but the conditions are provided for unfairness to flourish and these is no way of knowing whether it has done. I know that the UK is increasingly allowing secret trials. At no point have I suggested that all British trials meet fair standards or that Britain is the benchmark against which all else should be measured.

Barristers here may only be appointed shortly before a trial but solicitors are there from the start giving legal advice, preparing the groundwork of the defence and gathering any additional evidence. Apparently very few defendants actually receive a lawyer and 'lawyer' often means an unqualified party member (though this is from the US library of Congress not sure how true/impartial) so hardly conducive to thorough representation.

Anyway I absolutely agree that when you commit a crime in another country (assuming she has) you have to accept the system of that country. Nevertheless I remain concerned about the fairness of that system. To be quite honest I don't think I have enough reliable information to say more than that.