Peter Laking - Vietnam

April 06

Update as of June 2007:

Peter Laking has been waiting for news of his trial since April 2006. During this time he has suffered a stroke. Whilst in recovery, he was told that his trial would start on 23 April 2007. This was postponed at the last minute. The trial finally started on 12th June 2007 only to be adjourned for reinvestigation once more, as the prosecution had no evidence to support their charges.

---

Peter Laking is a 58 year old British national from West Sussex who, together with his business partner Sean McCormack (also British), moved to Vietnam to start up a quarrying business in 1993. Two wealthy Irish businessmen, one of whom was a long-time friend of Mr McCormack’s, asked to join them in business and eventually the four men invested in further projects. The two Irishmen, still based in Ireland, left the day-to-day running of the business to Laking and McCormack but continued to visit Vietnam regularly. At first things ran smoothly but the relationship deteriorated as the four men began to have disagreements of a personal nature during the late 1990’s.

In June 2002 a row erupted over ownership of a quarry; the 2 Irishmen claimed that Laking and McCormack had sold a jointly-owned quarry 2 years previously without their knowledge. Both parties instructed solicitors. Laking and McCormack instructed their lawyers that the quarry had been sold before the Irishmen had bought into the company. The proceeds of sale had been used to clear a loan they had taken out for their original investment in that quarry.

The 2 Irishmen lodged a civil claim against Laking and McCormack in the British High Court in August 2002. Two British legal firms took up the battle on behalf of the respective parties and the high court claim in the UK was subsequently dropped when no supporting evidence was produced by the claimants.

On 22 August 2002 the Vietnamese Ministry of Public Security received a letter from the Irishmen making a formal complaint against Laking and McCormack. The accusations of fraud were exactly the same as those specified in the British High Court case which had been dropped due to lack of evidence.

A full police enquiry subsequently took place during which Laking and McCormack were prevented from leaving the country. They were both summoned for questioning and gave their full co-operation, answering all questions and presenting supporting evidence. After approximately 3 months the investigation was closed and Laking and McCormack were allowed to return home in time for Christmas 2002.

Both men returned to Vietnam in January 2003/4. McCormack claims that he was harassed and undermined by police and employees of the two Irishmen until eventually, fearing for his life, he left everything he owned in Vietnam in May 2003 to return to the UK. Laking returned to Vietnam after checking with the Vietnamese Authorities that there were no outstanding charges against him. However, on his arrival at the airport in Vietnam on 16 May 2004, he was stopped and held for questioning.

He was held for hours without being informed of his rights and without access to a lawyer or a representative of the British Government. Without being able to speak to a lawyer or anyone at the British Consulate during the night, he returned the next morning (Sunday) at 9am as instructed and was repetitively questioned throughout the day.

Statements were all in Vietnamese with any translation being only verbal. That night he was taken to the tiny prison cell where he was spent the next 13 months, sleeping on a tiled floor with a Vietnamese prisoner who spoke no English. He was given no explanation of what was to happen to him. He was charged with 2 counts of fraudulently taking over property; a charge which carries the death penalty.

Ten days after his arrest and imprisonment, the 2 Irishmen were allowed to visit Laking with their lawyer and his team of staff. In fact, Laking received 4 such visits. He was coerced into signing over all of his Vietnamese assets to the 2 Irishmen, even though these assets were worth a lot more than the sum in dispute. He was told that in return, the charges would be dropped and he would be released from prison. At this stage, Laking had still been denied access to anyone other than the investigating officers in his case. He had been locked in his cell with the lights on for 24 hours a day, sleeping on the floor with no idea of even what time it was and he was severely disorientated. He agreed to sign but he made it clear that he was only doing so because he had no other option and that his signing was not in any way an admission of guilt.

When a lawyer was eventually appointed, Laking was given only limited access to him and was never allowed to see him without the police being present. Because of this he decided to write down his account. However, because he had no access to a pen or paper he had to inform the prison guards as to why he needed this and they insisted that he give the writing to them so that the police could check it before handing it to his lawyer. The police did not pass it on to his lawyer despite protests from Laking, his lawyer and the British Consul.

In January 2005 the trial against Laking finally started. Court translators had to be dismissed after complaints by the British Consulate that Laking was not receiving a fair trial because of the inept quality of translation. It later transpired that both interpreters were employees of the firm of lawyers representing the 2 Irishmen. Furthermore, one of the translators had in fact been present at each of the 4 meetings held in the prison with the Irishmen.

At the trial Mr Laking requested access to his defence papers but this was ignored and the chairman of the Board of Judges continually refused to let his lawyer present documents to the court that supported his defence.

The trial was adjourned on 20 January 2005 for further investigation. His case was raised by Minister Douglas Alexander on 22 March 2005 when he met with the President of the National Assembly in Vietnam but no further progress was made.

Meanwhile, Laking’s lawyer tried to pressurise him into signing an agreement that he could be released on bail for a sum of money that would be confiscated if he was found guilty. Laking refused. He was finally released from prison on bail of US$75,000 in June 2005, without his passport and under surety by a Vietnamese friend that he would reside at her family home pending retrial. One of the conditions of his bail is that he is not allowed to discuss his case with anyone except his lawyer.

Charges of breach of trust have now been added.

The trial has been delayed to the extent that now, at the end of April 2006, almost 2 years after his arrest, Mr Laking is still waiting. 

Fair Trial Issues

1. Mr Laking did not have any access to a lawyer for a period of 4 months.
2. He was not allowed to communicate with his lawyer in private nor was his right for privileged correspondence with his lawyer upheld.
3. The authorities had confiscated documents, which are essential for Peter Laking’s defence and have withheld them ever since.
4. He was forced to sign documents in Vietnamese language, which he did not understand.
5. He was coerced in signing over his assets to the claimants, while imprisoned.
6. The claimants were allowed to intimidate him on 4 occasions during his imprisonment.
7. The Interpreters on the first day of his trial were supplied by the legal representatives of the claimants and deeply biased.
8. Despite the fact that the further investigation, which the court ordered in January 2005, did not lead to any new evidence, Peter is still waiting to appear in court again, a violation of his right to be tried without undue delay;