Nguyen supporters lobby for his life

Reporter: Brendan Trembat, ABC News

ELEANOR HALL: Supporters of a convicted Australian drug smuggler Van Nguyen are still hopeful he can be spared the death penalty in Singapore.They’re using the media and international forums to urge the Singaporean authorities not to carry out the planned execution. But Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard is pessimistic about Van Nguyen’s prospects, saying he’s done everything he can do.This report from Brendan Trembath.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: It’s not over yet, says one of Van Nguyen’s most dedicated supporters, Singapore lawyer M Ravi. It’s a long shot but he says it’s worth appealing to the United Nations.

M RAVI: I am going to file a complaint to the United Nations, which is quite a slow mechanism, and they might not respond adequately before even the execution.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: He’s already petitioned the Singapore Government not to execute 25-year-old Van Nguyen who was convicted of drug smuggling last year and is due to be executed within weeks.

M RAVI: The Attorney-General is the person who advises the President and the Cabinet on the issue of clemency. Now, the Attorney-General is the person who actually prosecuted Van. How could he be advising the President on clemency, or the Cabinet for that matter on the issue of clemency? There is a clear breach of principles of natural justice, and this has been recognised by some of the Commonwealth countries as a clear breach.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: But Australian Prime Minister John Howard says hope is fading, especially now that Singapore has rejected an appeal for clemency.

JOHN HOWARD: If there are other opportunities that present themselves, I will take advantage of those.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: Speaking on Melbourne radio station 3AW, the Prime Minister has insisted he’s done everything he can.

JOHN HOWARD: Now, I believe that my personal views on this issue have been very strongly communicated to the Government of Singapore.

NEIL MITCHELL: Now firstly, the family and the lawyers are saying, what is now needed is a personal plea from you.

JOHN HOWARD: Well, I have had a meeting with the lawyer for the family, for the man, and he is fully aware of everything that I have done.

NEIL MITCHELL: Are you prepared to go further if necessary?

JOHN HOWARD: If there’s an opportunity, and if I believe it will help the man, I will. But I wouldn’t…

NEIL MITCHELL: Can’t you create that opportunity?

JOHN HOWARD: Beg your pardon?

NEIL MITCHELL: Can’t you create that opportunity by contacting them and saying, look, I feel very strongly about this person?

JOHN HOWARD: Neil, I have done what I can do, and my personal views are very well known to the Prime Minister of Singapore.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: Federal Opposition leader Kim Beazley largely agrees with the Prime Minister.

KIM BEAZLEY: We’re doing our level best. I don’t want to be critical of them here. They’ve fought on this too, we passed a motion through Parliament this week. We’ve done our best. Look, we’ve got to make absolutely clear to our kids if it’s not clear to them by now… you don’t, you go to Asia and you start importing drugs, getting yourselves involved with these people, you face some exceptional penalties.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: But Mr Beazley has told Sydney station 2GB there’s still good reason for the Singapore Government to reconsider its decision.

KIM BEAZLEY: The thing that I hope the Singaporean Government will take notice of is this – this bloke’s got a lot of information and would be a very good witness, or can put some of the Mr Bigs in the chokey, on the basis of the sort of advice that he’s able to give. So I hope the Singapore authorities let the young feller live. I hope that on principle, but I also hope it for the sake of a decent investigation into his principles.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: Singapore lawyer M Ravi will keep trying to convince the Singapore Government to change its mind.

M RAVI: They must understand that due process had not been followed and this is what I have been saying from the beginning to Amnesty International, as well as the Australian media.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: He’s an exception in a nation where most lawyers don’t challenge government decisions. The Law Society of Singapore did not return a call seeking a comment on the Van Nguyen case.

ELEANOR HALL: That report from Brendan Trembath.Van Nguyen’s lawyer Lex Lasry QC was not available for an interview. He was in court dealing with another matter. But he has repeatedly called on the Singapore Government to reverse its decision on the execution of the Australian man.

© 2005 Australian Broadcasting CorporationCopyright information

Nguyen could be spared, argues Singaporean lawyer

Reporter: Eleanor Hall, ABC News

ELEANOR HALL: A Singaporean lawyer who’s acted for two death row prisoners says while diplomatic channels have now closed for the Australian drug trafficker Van Nguyen, there is still hope he can be spared execution through a legal appeal.Mr M Ravi, a human rights lawyer who made Singapore’s death penalty a front-page issue when he represented a Singaporean athlete on death row, says while Van Nguyen has only about 10 days to go before he’s likely to be executed, that is time enough to lodge the appeal.And Mr Ravi says if it’s successful, the case could overthrow the death penalty in Singapore altogether.He spoke to me from Singapore earlier today.

ELEANOR HALL: Mr Ravi, do you think the Australian Government has done all it can to try to save Van Nguyen?

M RAVI: I think the Australian Government has tried its utmost at this point, but from now they have to realise that, and also the Australian public must realise that diplomatic channel has come to a dead-end, and we are looking at a prospective execution from the two cases I dealt with before – 11th of November must be the cut-off date that they must look at. There must be some timeframe they have to work, because execution takes place three weeks from the last date where announcement is made on the rejection of the clemency.But what is important right now is to exhaust other avenues that are available. One, the legal avenues are not closed. In particular, I would like to cite that the Court of Appeal in Van’s case, the court said that it is now open to an accused to show through experts and international law that a mandatory death sentence is cruel and inhuman punishment under customary international law. Therefore, there is light on this path, and this commentary was taken from one of the eminent former High Court judicial commissioner, as well as a senior counsel. The Court of Appeal has said very clearly that if you can show through international law that mandatory death sentence is cruel and inhuman, we will have judicial discretion and stave off the execution.

ELEANOR HALL: So what do you think the Australian Government should be doing in this light then?

M RAVI: What the Australian Government should do is that… ask what they can do is that to appeal to his advanced counsel to instruct the counsel in Singapore – and I am prepared to do this matter pro-bono, that I’ve always done – or any other lawyers whom they think deem fit to canvas this point. So therefore, there’s a resumé and case law have already developed in this point, and this can be canvassed before the court. In fact, that could be a first case of, you know, the first case to begin and end to the death penalty in Singapore. There’s a brilliant window of opportunity opened there. I don’t know why the lawyers are not using this.

ELEANOR HALL: Now, you’ve also made your own appeal to the President of Singapore. You raise the case of a British man extradited to Singapore from Australia. Why is this case relevant?

M RAVI: This case is relevant because what we have been arguing for in Singapore is the courts should have judicial discretion, you know, in death sentences.You know, in this instance, in particular, that executive discretion had been exercised, ie. the Singapore Government even before the case had commenced in the court, I mean McCrea’s case of…

ELEANOR HALL: This is the British man?

M RAVI: British man, British national, who was resident or illegal immigrant in Australia, the Singapore Government had given an undertaking that they will grant basically clemency, even before the case had gone to the courts, and even before the clemency had been formally submitted. If they could give executive discretion could be exercised, why are they, why the same is not applied to Van? Therefore, he is prejudicially treated.

ELEANOR HALL: Now, what response have you received from the President to your appeal?

M RAVI: The President has not written to me, and the last two occasions when I’ve written similar petitions to the President, the President has just one-liner say that, you know, we do not accede to your request, full-stop.

ELEANOR HALL: If the President has so far not responded, what course of action will you now take?

M RAVI: What I would like the Australian community to do right now is to approach United Nations and file a complaint with the UN rapporteur for extra-judicial and summary executions, and asking the Singapore Government – the UN can ask the Singapore Government to stave off the execution, pending an inquiry into this matter, before it’s too late.

ELEANOR HALL: Why would the Singaporean Government listen to Australia or any other member of the international community making that point, when its argument is that it weighs the rights of the prisoner against the rights of the Singaporean community?

M RAVI: Because there is already a movement forward towards this process, and given the fact that Caribbean lawyers from London have gone into Commonwealth countries and abolished death penalty through this kind of legal arguments and all that, why don’t we look at all these avenues?Of course, this is normal process should be exhausted. But what is very important is the other avenues, which seemingly seems to not to get addressed by the Australian media or the Australian Government. I don’t understand why.

ELEANOR HALL: Now, you’ve acted for two death row prisoners…

M RAVI: Right.

ELEANOR HALL: … What’s it like for these people waiting on death row?

M RAVI: Ah… it’s um, extremely excruciating an experience, because in particular the fact that the last day of the week they will give a letter on the Monday saying that, you know, from Tuesday to Thursday, preceding the execution on Friday that you can visit, you know, from nine o’clock to five o’clock, and also the letter also has a line that says that please make the funeral arrangements, necessary funeral arrangements on Friday, failing which the state will conduct its state funeral. So having that letter and receiving it in a very nonchalant or blasé way the prison authorities usually treat these matters, so having taken that and going and visiting the prisoners, it’s very, very inhumane and very painful.

ELEANOR HALL: Now, Mr Ravi, at this stage, how do you rate the Australian prisoner Van Nguyen’s chances of survival?

M RAVI: Diplomatic channels are completely closed at this moment. It’s come to a dead-end. One has not, one must not delude oneself. I think if all the other avenues that I have stated, the legal avenues as well as the International Court of Justice, as well as the United Nations process, should kick off, and if this kicks off, I think he has a good chance, I would say.

ELEANOR HALL: And that’s Singaporean human rights lawyer, Mr M Ravi.

© 2005 Australian Broadcasting CorporationCopyright information:

http://abc.net.au/common/copyrigh.htmPrivacy information: http://abc.net.au/privacy.htm

Petition to President of Singapore

The Honourable Excellency
The Elected President
Republic of Singapore
c/o Istana Singapore
Office of the Elected President of the Republic of Singapore
Orchard Road
URGENT
BY FAX & BY HAND
Fax: 67353135Singapore 238823

27th October 2005

Dear Sir,

REQUEST TO CONVENE A CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL UNDER ARTICLE 100 OF THE CONSTITUION OF SINGAPORE
NGUYEN TUONG VAN – CONDEMNED PRISIONER NO. 856

It is noted with regret that the Honourable Elected President had turned down the petition for clemency for the above mentioned Australian citizen. As a private citizen of Singapore, I humbly appeal and urge Your Excellency to accede to my request to convene a Constitutional Tribunal under Article 100 of the Constitution on an urgent basis. This request is made in view of contravention of Articles 9 and 12 of the Constitution and the breach of the principle of natural justice under Article 22(p) of the said Constitution.

This letter is written under the locus standi of a private concerned Singapore citizen. Your Excellency’s order for a Constitutional Tribunal to be convened would be greatly appreciated.

The grounds for the Constitutional Tribunal to be convened are set out in the press release and annexed herewith :

a) To satisfy that the due process is complied with;

b) That there is a contravention of the Articles of the Constitution as mentioned above;

c) That the condemned prisoner had been unfairly and preducially treated compared to a British national (Mc Crea) who was extradited to Singapore from Australia and suffers discrimination before our Constitution;

d) The clemency petition be reconsidered.

As the matter is of great urgency I would be obliged if Your Excellency would reply by Monday, 31st October 2005.
Yours faithfully,

M. Ravi