|
Graham
Cleghorn….victim of injustice in |
|
|
Home
> News Reports > 2006 |
|
|
|
Former aid worker
Graham Cleghorn, 55, was jailed in February 2004 and is being held in He is serving 20 years
for the rape of five teenage girls – a conviction he has said he is innocent
of. Mr Rider met with Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Trade spokeswoman Helen Tunnah said the decision was made because
neither Cleghorn nor his lawyer received advice of an earlier appeal hearing
in January, so were not present. "Mr Rider was
tonight (NZT) to meet Mr Cleghorn and his lawyer Dy Borima. He expects to
contact Mr Cleghorn's family after that meeting," Ms Tunnah said. Any decision to lodge
an application for a re-hearing rested with Mr Cleghorn and his legal
advisers, she said. Cambodian Justice
Minister Ang Vong Vathana said earlier that the appeal anomaly had arisen due
to confusion in "Cambodian law
does not stipulate clearly about the The Magistracy Council
is headed by King Norodom Sihamoni and, as well as the minister, includes the
chief magistrates from the Appeals and Supreme courts of In February 2004
Cleghorn was convicted of raping five former female employees in the northern
city of Siem Reap and sentenced to 20 years in jail and to pay each woman
$US2000 ($NZ3125) compensation. His appeal against the
charges was thrown out by the The New Zealand Embassy
in Cleghorn, a former tour
guide and the owner of prime land on the edge of the Angkor Wat temple
complex, has maintained his innocence and claims that his accusers were
motivated by offers of compensation by the non-government organisation which
supplied their legal representation, Cambodian Women's Crisis Center (CWCC). CWCC director Chanthol
Oung Tuesday strongly denied Cleghorn's claims as "laughable" but
said that whether or not the hearing was rescheduled and how it was held was
a matter for the court. In a prison interview last
Saturday, Cleghorn appealed to the New Zealand Government to ensure he was
granted a fair trial. Such a trial would
require the court to not only ensure he was present but to allow defence
witnesses to be heard and for his legal representation to be allowed to
cross-examine his accusers, which he said neither the Siem Reap court nor the
Appeals Court had so far allowed him to do.
|