TIME EXPOSURE Slit,—There are various questions arising from your article
and Mr. Vance's letter. In Mr. Vance's case, the Consul-General in Paris was not informed that any charge was being brought against a British sub- ject. Nor was he concerned in the process of identi- fication and thus had no control over the use made of the passport photograph supplied by the British Government.
While I am convinced of the need for international police co-operation, little is known about the work- ings of Interpol. It appears that our police may be acting on behalf of foreign police in ways which are in conflict with British methods of investigation, identification and justice. Such practices are clearly contrary to the interests of the individual and seem to by-pass completely some of the functions of our overseas representatives.
Similarly, while there is liaison between police forces there should equally be liaison on the legal side. Apparently while the British police help in the preparation of the case against an accused, French courts do not recognise communications from British solicitors on the ground that they have no status in French law. Here again, surely the Consular service should be used to ensure that the rights of British citizens are protected?
Finally, there is the question of costs. For most people the costs of defence would be prohibitive. Charges preferred in foreign countries necessitate higher defence costs, yet there is no legal certificate available from our courts and there seem to be no comparable arrangements made for obtaining legal aid—or adequate costs—in France.
These are questions which go beyond the case of Mr. Vance and the French judicial system.-- Yours faithfully,
MARTIN ENNALS
General Secretary National Council for Civil Liberties 293 New Kings Road, SW6
Previous page
