Mikhail Khodorkovsky Urges David Cameron To Confront Kremlin On Human Rights

Russia's most famous prisoner of conscience has spoken out from behind bars to urge David Cameron to confront the Kremlin on human rights issues when the Prime Minister visits Russia next week.












Mikhail Khodorkovsy, the former head of the Yukos oil company.

In written comments passed to The Daily Telegraph from his prison in northern Russia, Mikhail Khodorkovsky said Mr Cameron should use the fact that top Russian politicians bank, own property, and educate their children in the UK to pressure the Kremlin into becoming "a modern European state."

"I would hope that the British Prime Minister will directly raise questions of corruption and the judicial system in Russia with President (Dmitry) Medvedev," the 48-year-old oligarch-turned-political prisoner wrote.

"The UK could let Russia understand that a country with such widespread corruption, the only G8 country where there are political prisoners, cannot be a fully-fledged and all-round partner."

His mother, Marina Khodorkovskaya, went even further. In an interview, she urged Mr Cameron to deny entry to Russian officials involved in her son's case and to freeze their UK bank accounts.

Mr Cameron is due to make a flying visit to Moscow on Monday during which he is expected to meet Mr Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, the prime minister.

He will be the first British leader to visit Russia since Tony Blair five years ago, and the first since the 2006 poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian spy and Kremlin critic, in central London.

The Prime Minister is aware of Mr Khodorkovsky's fate which has become emblematic of Russia's heavily politicised and selective justice system.

Designated as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International, the former oil tycoon was Russia's richest man before he had a spectacular falling out with Mr Putin in 2003 over business and politics.

Arrested by masked men on an icy Siberian runway in his private jet that same year, he was later found guilty of fraud and given an eight year jail term after a trial that was widely viewed in the West as politically-motivated.

He spent much of that time in a grim Soviet-style labour camp 3,000 miles east of Moscow near China.

Yukos, his oil company, was swallowed up by the Kremlin while he languished behind bars, and in a second trial last year he was sentenced to a further six years in jail after being found guilty of the surreal charge of stealing oil from own company.

In his written comments from his jail in northern Russia, Mr Khodorkovsky said he wanted his own case to be a warning to British companies considering investing in Russia.

"It will be difficult for anyone to expect British companies to do serious business in Russia whilst entrepreneurs are factually subjected to a bureaucratic racket," he wrote.

Although Russia and the UK do in fact enjoy strong business links, political relations have stalled over differences on key foreign policy, security, business and rights issues.

Companies in the West are keen to tap into Russia's status as the world's biggest energy exporter but Russia's liberal opposition argues that Western politicians such as Mr Cameron need to keep reminding the Kremlin it must enact real democratic reforms if it wants large-scale investment.

Mr Khodorkovsky said he thought the UK could start by withholding the transfer of technology necessary for Russia's modernisation until the Kremlin changed course politically. He claimed that the UK had real clout with Russia.

"There is no question that such leverage does exist," he wrote. "The most influential people in Russia, those who in large measure determine the image and the fate of the country today, have vast business and personal interests in the UK. This applies also to a series of significant representatives of Vladimir Putin's team."

Speaking at a school outside Moscow that Mr Khodorkovsky originally set up for orphans, his mother Marina, 77, said she wanted Mr Cameron to raise her son's case with the Kremlin.

But she said she was looking for more that just rhetoric. "Words need to be backed with action," she said, urging the UK to impose visa and financial sanctions on Russian officials such as judges and prosecutors involved in her son's case.

"It is realistic and it would have an effect," she argued. "If the people in the second echelon of power beneath Putin understand that the higher-ups cannot protect them they will soon forget their loyalty to the system."

Clear-eyed despite her advanced years, she said that she feared that her son would not be released for as long as Mr Putin wielded influence in Russia. The Russian prime minister bore her son a personal grudge for publicly cutting across his political and business interests, she insisted.

"My aim is to live long enough to see my son freed," she said as tears formed in her eyes. "But I understand that the chances are getting less and less as I get older and older."

Met Police Considering More Riot Training

The Met Police is considering doubling the number of officers trained to deal with riots, its acting head has said.









Mayor Boris Johnson backed decisions by Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin.

Tim Godwin said the number of police given specialist "level 2" public order training could rise to 6,000.

And he admitted the force made mistakes in the aftermath of the police shooting in Tottenham of a man whose death sparked last month's disturbances.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson defended police handling of the riots, saying the "crisis" caught everyone unawares.

Both men appeared before MPs on Tuesday to discuss the riots which spread across London.

Mr Godwin said with hindsight more officers would have been deployed on the streets after the shooting of Mark Duggan by police in Tottenham.

"The number of sites of disorder was something we hadn't experienced in the city before - and that did take us by surprise," he said.

He said with the benefit of hindsight he "wished he had had lots more police officers on duty on the Sunday and then into the Monday."

Mr Godwin defended the force's actions saying that decisions on tactics and numbers were taken on the basis of the best evidence available.

He said he wished he had more officers available by the third day of incidents - but nobody had foreseen "22 boroughs of serious disorder" driven by "copycat" criminality.

Regarding riot training, he said: "Looking ahead at what might come in the future, I think we're going to need to increase it."

He said that 43 of the force's officers had received commendations for their "extreme bravery" and 282 had been injured.

But Mr Godwin also rejected suggestions that his commanders had used the wrong tactics or were lacking specific tools, such as water cannon or baton rounds, also known as rubber bullets.



"We had a full range of tactics," he told MPs. "It was purely numbers [of officers] that was the inhibitor."

"Baton rounds were available but I think we would have been having a different conversation [if they had been used and people had been injured].

"I take pride in the fact that we filled up prison places instead of hospital beds, and I think that's the British way."

Mr Johnson declined to agree with the prime minister that police had got their tactics wrong.

The mayor said lessons could be learned with the benefit of hindsight - but disorder had been contained.

The mayor and the Met's acting chief echoed Justice Secretary Ken Clarke's views that the riots were the legacy of a broken penal system.

Mr Godwin told the committee: "I think this is a wake-up call for the criminal justice system.

"We have in London been seeking to speed up justice, make it more relevant, make it more relevant to communities, and that's something that we need to do.

"The amount of people who have previous convictions does pose questions for us."

UNIFORMED POLICE ON STREETS DURING LONDON RIOTS

* SAT 6 AUG: 3,000
* SUN 7 AUG: 3,000 (then upped to 4,200)
* MON 8 AUG: 6,000
* TUES 9 AUG: 16,000 (total on duty 24,300)
* Source: Met Police

Giving evidence to the Commons Home Affairs committee, Mr Johnson said that the Metropolitan Police and the city's authorities had been completely surprised by the scale of the disorder in August that spread from one incident in Tottenham to other boroughs.

"I think with 20/20 hindsight people may feel that it would have been wiser to upscale the police presence.

"But if you look overall at what the police did on [the first] night and on successive nights and what they are doing now … the riots were contained and there were remarkably few casualties"

During the emergency recall of Parliament last month, Prime Minister David Cameron told MPs that there had been far too few police on the streets and they had used the wrong tactics.

Asked by the committee if he agreed with the prime minister, Mr Johnson said: "It's self-evidence that there was a difficulty, a crisis, on the Sunday and Monday that caught everyone unawares."

Mr Johnson compared the scenes in London to those in Paris six years ago. He said that the police had to rely on emergency powers to restore order in the French capital - whereas the British approach had ended the disorder within a week.

The Metropolitan Police has told the committee in a letter that policing the disorder cost £74m and they now have 500 officers working on investigations.

The force also said that its commanders took the decisions to increase the number of officers deployed over the course of the disorder and later informed the home secretary and prime minister. The decision to increase numbers had been taken before police chiefs met ministers in an emergency Whitehall meeting.

Gangs

The MPs were hearing from the Mayor and police chiefs as new figures emerged about people who took part in the rioting and looting.

The Metropolitan Police says that the proportion of rioters with links to gangs has dropped from almost a third to 19%, almost certainly because detectives had arrested known suspects before targeting others filmed on CCTV.

Figures indicate that eight out of 10 offenders were known to the police and 75% of them had a criminal record.

In an article published in the Guardian on Tuesday morning, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke blamed the "broken penal system" for the riots.

He said the Ministry of Justice's latest statistics showed that the hardcore of those involved had previous convictions and the criminal justice system had failed to stop them reoffending.

Miliband Goes For His Clause 4 Moment

Ed Miliband is set to try to implement the first major change to Labour's founding principles for 17 years at this year's party conference.












In a move with strong echoes of Tony Blair's Clause Four campaign, when he scrapped the party's commitment to nationalising industry, Mr Miliband will insert a clause that brands Labour "a force for social justice".

Early reports of the document suggest there will also be a subtle but potentially important change in the party's organisational structure – Clause One.

Instead of aiming "to organise and maintain in parliament and in the country a political Labour party", the party will "bring together members and supporters who share its values to develop policies, make communities stronger through collective action and support, and promote the election of Labour representatives at all levels of the democratic process".

While the change sounds bureaucratic, it could herald wide-ranging alteration to the way the party operates. Mr Miliband hopes to introduce new categories of members, salvage Labour's economic prospects and encourage community organising.

The idea, originally proposed by Peter Hain, chair of the national policy forum, could see a registered supporters network bring in people who are non-partymembers who are willing to work on single-issue campaigns, such as local service cuts.

It could also ensure MPs demonstrate engagement with constituents via their candidate contract and trigger a wave of community campaign training.

Members of the public could also register as supporters, rather than members, and have a say in choosing party leaders. Such a move would replicate David Cameron's moves towards local primaries, by giving non-party supporters a say in which candidates are selected.

The proposals are particularly interesting, given that David Miliband had planned to reword Clause One if he became party leader.

They could anger union supporters, however, given they are already wary of the new Labour leader after he mooted plans to reduce their voting influence at party conferences.

Faster Justice Does Not Have To Be Worse

The very public dispute between Eoin McLennan-Murray, of the Prison Governors' Association, and John Thornhill, of the Magistrates' Association, betrays the sectional interests of both sides.









John Thornhill of the Magistrates Association denied the judiciary were politically pressured.

Mr Thornhill maintains that magistrates' courts have done a stellar job in the wake of the riots and suggests lessons for the future. Mr McLennan-Murray, whose members have to cope with the consequences of the courts' decisions, says magistrates have indulged in a sentencing "feeding frenzy", pandering to popular emotion.

As a newspaper, we share Mr McLennan-Murray's qualms about the speed with which justice is being dispensed and the rate of imprisonment. We also ask whether custodial sentences are the best way of punishing rioters and, indeed, whether magistrates are on top form at, say, 2am. Justice Ministry figures show that almost 70 per cent of those brought to courts since the riots have been given jail sentences or remanded in custody; the figure for 2010 was 10 per cent. This is a big difference, even if some harsher sentences are already being reversed on appeal.

But Mr Thornhill has a point that should not be ignored, just because other questions are raised. In three weeks, magistrates have heard several thousand cases, by dint of working longer hours and requiring greater efficiency from all concerned. Yes, there have been problems – missing papers, poorly briefed lawyers and absent probation officers – but these, regrettably, are not unusual.

Against that, there have also been benefits in accelerating the process: events were still fresh in everyone's memory and the link between offence and court, often blurred by delay, was clear. Here, Mr Thornhill is right. Extraordinary circumstances have shown how the ordinary could be radically improved.

New Libya May Refuse To Extradite Yvonne Fletcher Murder Suspect

Diplomat suspected of killing police officer in 1984 at London embassy could escape extradition, but might be tried in Libya.












Police officers try to revive PC Yvonne Fletcher after she was shot outside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984 during an anti-Gaddafi protest. Libyan officials say the suspect might not be extradited.

The justice minister of the Libyan rebels' National Transitional Council (NTC) said on Friday a post-Gaddafi government would "not give any Libyan citizen to the west", in an apparent blow to British hopes of putting on trial the suspected killer of Yvonne Fletcher, the police officer shot dead 27 years ago outside the Libyan embassy.

Mohammed al-Alagi also ruled out the return to the UK of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing but released in 2009 on compassionate grounds.

"Al-Megrahi has already been judged once and he will not be judged again," he told journalists in Tripoli. "We do not hand over Libyan citizens, [Muammar] Gaddafi does."

Alagi added: "We will not give any Libyan citizen to the west," a comment that appeared to rule out the extradition of the man suspected of shooting Fletcher in 1984.

Earlier on Sunday, the foreign secretary, William Hague, played down suggestions that the NTC would not work with British officials in their the hunt for her killer. He said: "When chairman [Mustafa Abdel] Jalil … was with us in London in May he committed himself and the council to co-operating fully with the British government on this issue."

Hague was responding to a report in the Sunday Times that quoted two NTC officials saying nobody would be sent to the UK to face trial for Fletcher's killing.

"Libya has never extradited or handed over its citizens to a foreign country. We shall continue with this principle," said Hassan al-Sagheer, a member of the NTC.

Another NTC member, Fawzi al-Ali, was quoted as saying: "According to our laws, no one can be handed over unless there are special agreements to do so."

A spokeswoman for the Foreign Office said that, at present, Libyan law prohibits the extradition of its own citizens. It does, however, allow for its nationals to be tried in Libya for crimes committed overseas.

Guma el-Gamaty, the NTC's UK co-ordinator, took part in the anti-Gaddafi protest that Fletcher was policing when she was shot.

He distanced himself from the views expressed by Sagheer and others, insisting on Sunday that it was too early to draw any conclusions. "Nobody can rule out anything at the moment; the possibility [of a British trial] is there," he said. "But first of all investigations need to be concluded. Somebody has to be identified as the killer … Obviously everyone wants justice; it's just a matter of when and how and whether the actual killer has been identified."

Gamaty added that, as with the Fletcher case, the issue of an eventual return to Scottish jail for Megrahi was "a decision for a future Libyan government". The whereabouts of Megrahi, who was given a hero's welcome when he returned to Libya two years ago, are unknown.

No one has ever been charged for killing Fletcher, who was 25 when officials inside the Libyan embassy opened fire on the anti-Gaddafi protesters outside.

Embassy staff were subsequently allowed to leave Britain, but diplomatic ties with Libya were severed.

Those seeking justice for Fletcher, however, were given a boost on Friday when it emerged that the Crown Prosecution Service had heard a witness account that identified a junior diplomat, Abdulmagid Salah Ameri, as the possible gunman.

On Saturday, the international development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, said the emergence of a new suspect would be raised with the NTC. The government would, he said, be pursuing the case "in every way we can".

The Law Is 'Avin A Laugh – But The Joke Is On Britain

Europe's stand on human rights is too often a kick in the gut for the victims of crime.












Justice for all? Philip Lawrence (left) and his killer, Learco Chindamo.

'They drive me mad, too.” That’s what the Prime Minister told me in a more innocent time, before the riots. Back in April, I was sitting in Number 10, reading him a list of the human rights abuses that drive the public to despair. I don’t mean abuses under the Human Rights Act 1998. I mean abuses of the rights of humans whose children have been mown down by foreign drivers with no licence, humans whose husbands have been stabbed to death. Humans still astounded by grief who have to attend a British court and hear a judge tell them that the conscienceless wretch who extinguished their happiness cannot be deported post haste or hurled, preferably, over the white cliffs of Dover. No, the wretch must be allowed to remain in our country because they have the right to “a family life”.

I keep a shoebox stuffed with newspaper cuttings about such cases. They bring to mind the Ricky Gervais catchphrase, “Are you ’avin a laugh?” On Saturday, I added another surreal snippet to the pile. The Court of Appeal in its wisdom had just torn up powers that allowed judges to ban convicted paedophiles from unfettered access to their children. Apparently, the paedophile’s right to a family life must be taken into account, even if the kids in question fear Dad’s tread at the bedroom door. Are their honours ’avin a laugh?

Our judges’ ever-widening definition of what constitutes “family life” almost dislocated my jaw recently when a Bolivian immigrant escaped deportation because he owned a pet cat with his girlfriend. We cannot know the name of the moggy, let alone the Bolivian, but Judge Judith Gleeson joked that the cat “need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice”. Was she ’avin a laugh?

Here’s another. In a landmark ruling, Strasbourg judges decided that two Somali men, who had abused our hospitality by robbery, drug dealing and threats to kill, could not be deported because there was a possibility they might face “ill treatment” at home. Remember the case of Mustafa Jama who was was convicted for his part, along with two other Somalians, in the murder of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky in November 2005? Jama, who had previous convictions for robbery and burglary, had been considered for deportation shortly before that tragic shooting, but officials decided it was “too dangerous” for him to return to Somalia. After the cold-blooded killing of Sharon – mother to Samuel, Lydia and Paul – in a Bradford travel agency, Jama evaded capture for four years by fleeing to… guess where? Yup, Somalia. The very place his lawyers had claimed it was unsafe for him to return to. Were they ’avin a laugh? Sharon’s widower, Paul, certainly wasn’t. He said his wife would never have been murdered if “do-gooders” hadn’t kept her killer in Britain.

Why are we powerless to send these frightening, violent individuals back to where they came from? Because, according to the European Court, it’s too frightening and violent. Anything I’m missing here, chaps? Are our learned friends in Strasbourg ’avin a laugh? If so, there is no longer a shred of doubt that the joke is on the British people. A nation that carried the torch of liberty with Magna Carta, parliamentary sovereignty, judicial independence, Press freedom, habeas corpus and trial by jury needs no lessons in justice from its pious neighbours, who loaded Jews, gipsies and homosexuals into cattle trucks. The waffly preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights speaks of “countries which have a common heritage of political traditions, ideas, freedom and the rule of law”. Well, we don’t have a common heritage or laws. As the distinguished QC Geoffrey Robertson has pointed out, torture was a prescribed part of the Continental legal process for centuries after it was abolished in England in 1641. It was Great Britain, not Europe, that taught the world how to right human wrongs.

The riots have made scrapping the Human Rights Act more urgent. More than 150 people born abroad have been arrested so far. Immigration minister Damian Green said: “We strongly believe that foreign national lawbreakers should be removed from the UK at the earliest opportunity.” Good luck with that, Damian. You do realise the poor darlings can’t possibly leave the country, don’t you? They’ve got pussy cats to look after and drug addicts to supply.

While judges increasingly warp Article 8 of the Convention in favour of villains, why do they never seem to consider the right to a family life of people like Frances Lawrence and the four children she had with headmaster Philip? In 2007, the Home Office failed to secure the deportation of Learco Chindamo, Mr Lawrence’s murderer. An Asylum and Immigration Tribunal insisted that to deport the Italian-Filipino would breach his human rights. Like Paul Beshenivsky, Frances Lawrence was aghast to discover that the needs of her spouse’s killer outweighed those of her bereft family.

Chindamo, who was cleared in court yesterday of a street robbery, is a cocky youth who, like so many, had been emboldened by the knowledge that wrongs, however grievous, will never prevent him having human rights on his side. He is one of thousands of foreign-born criminals who have humiliated the Home Office and who have shown with brutal clarity that the law of the land is not ours, for what Briton in their right mind would put the domestic comfort of a murderer before the safety of their fellow citizens?

This is what Cameron was getting at in his forceful speech following the riots. He noted how the “greed and thuggery” could not be separated from the “growing sense that individual rights come before anything else… I am determined we get a grip on the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights.”

Three cheers for those noble words, Prime Minister, but what the hell are you going to DO about it? In Opposition, Cameron pledged to scrap the Human Rights Act “so we can throw foreign terrorists and criminals out of our country”. When I asked him about it in April, he looked exasperated. “Obviously, this is something which is more difficult in Coalition. I won’t hide that from you. The Liberal Democrats have a different view on the Human Rights Act.” He assured me the Government was setting up a commission to look into a British Bill of Rights. What he omitted to tell me was that Nick Clegg would be in charge of it. I’m sorry, but allowing the Deputy Prime Minister to head a body to scrap the Human Rights Act is like appointing a vegan to the Texas Beef Council.

Tensions in the Coalition are said to be running high with senior Lib Dems warning the PM not to “water down” Britain’s commitment to human rights. Good. Let battle commence. Some things are worth fighting for. As a sop to his Coalition partners, Cameron permitted a referendum on the AV voting system, a notion commanding such widespread support that only Eddie Izzard and five blind jugglers in Camden voted for it. So why can’t we have a referendum on something the public feels passionate about? Like a British Bill of Rights.

The PM could do himself and the country a power of good by jettisoning a law that makes a mockery of the very justice it is intended to dispense. To stiffen his resolve, here are some sage words from a predecessor in Number 10. “We are with Europe but not of it; we are linked but not compromised. We are associated but not absorbed. If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.”

Winston Churchill’s words are as relevant as they were on May 11, 1953. The time for Strasbourg ’avin a laugh at our expense must end. The case for a British Bill of Rights is overwhelming. Human rights can be wrongs.

When forgiveness goes a step too far

All together now, “Serm taymes it’s hurd to bay a wurman.” Tammy Wynette’s ballad of female loyalty, Stand By Your Man, was much mocked by feminists. Some thought Tammy was really singing, “Stabbed By Your Man” or the equally catchy “Let Me Be Your Doormat, You Cheating Bastard.” Wynette pointed out that the song was not actually about subservience, but rather advice to women to overlook their husband’s faults if they truly loved them. “Aftur ol, he’s jusst ur may-an.”

I have come to see the wisdom in Tammy’s approach. Forgiveness is good. Even so, the nauseating sight of French heiress and journalist Anne Sinclair standing by her man, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, sets a new low. The former IMF chief may have been acquitted of attempted rape against a hotel maid, but is there anyone who can look at that swaggering silverback primate without a shudder? Ugh.

In the unlovely phrase of Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers, the encounter with Nafissatou Diallo was “brief but consensual”. Whatever the truth, we can be sure that the man who planned to be France’s president rampaged out of the hotel bathroom with only a droit de seigneur to cover his Tour Eiffel. Applying the indulgent term “Lothario” or “libertarian lover” to a priapic bully won’t do any more.

Anne Sinclair is badly out of step with her fellow countrywomen. France is unlikely ever to be the same again post-DSK. There has been a big increase in reports of sexual harassment. Sylvie Kauffmann, the first female editor of Le Monde, says: “There is a tendency among men to pretend that nothing has happened. In the establishment mind, this issue is not very important. But I would bet that the average voter may feel differently.”

Let’s hope Frenchwomen treat DSK’s political ambitions with all the tender concern he showed the hotel maid. And shame on his indulgent wife. If Tracey Emin needed a tent to contain the names of all the people she had slept with, DSK needs a marquee.