Zimbabwe: Detention of British Citizens (Hansard, 3 July 1986)

§ The Marquess of Salisbury
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to secure the release from prison in Zimbabwe of Philip Hartlebury and Colin Evans, both British citizens who have been detained without trial for more than five years.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)
My Lords, my right honourable and learned friend raised those cases when he visited Zimbabwe in January 1985, as did my honourable friend the Minister of State in June this year. The High Commission in Harare has also continued to make clear to the Zimbabwean authorities our hope that Mr. Hartlebury and Mr. Evans can be released soon. Their appeal against detention is due to be heard on 30th July.

§ The Marquess of Salisbury
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. Is she aware that there have been several previous appeals against detention but that they have all been turned down? Is she aware also that, as yet, there have been no charges made against the men in question, although they were informed two years ago that they were about to be released? Can the noble Baroness say what treatment they have received during their detention?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, their detention is regularly reviewed by the tribunal, as laid down in the Zimbabwean constitution. Since June 1973 three separate review tribunals have been convened, but none has recommended the release of the men. On 13th March this year the men claimed in the High Court that the proceedings of the tribunal were unfair. In March of this year that petition was dismissed. An appeal to the Supreme Court will now be heard on 30th July. I must make clear that the case is therefore sub judice.
So far as concerns the men's treatment, our High Commission consular staff have paid regular visits to Mr. Hartlebury since he was first arrested. Mr. Evans was until recently a Zimbabwean citizen also, and therefore we had no consular standing in his case, but as he has now allowed his citizenship to lapse, he has been regularly visited by the High Commission staff.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we fully support the representa-tions that have been made by her right honourable and learned friend and by the Minister in this matter? Can she say whether or not the family of Mr. Hartlebury are still in Harare, and whether it is the case that Mr. Hartlebury's assets have been taken away? If that be the case, can the noble Baroness say what assistance his family are receiving to enable them to live? Can the noble Baroness also say a word about Dr. Frank Bertrand, a British citizen who has also been detained in similar circumstances? What treatment is being meted out to him?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, as to the second point of the noble Lord's question, I shall have to write to him because I have no information to hand. As to the first, Mr. Hartlebury is a British subject, as I have indicated, and to the best of my knowledge and belief his immediate family were until recently resident in Harare. Because he is British, he is visited regularly by consular staff.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, my noble friend's earlier remarks implied that our diplomatic represent-atives are not very closely in touch with these men. Can she say whether they are regularly visited and whether their families are regularly visited? Is their situation unique, or, given the intention of Dr. Mugabe to form a one-party state, are other people being detained without trial, and kept in prison? Surely our diplomatic representatives ought to be in close touch with those problems and reporting back, so that this House and another place know what is happening.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I very much regret it if anything that I said might have been construed in the terms that my noble friend has suggested. The men have been regularly visited by our consular officials. If they were not British citizens, then of course our locus standi would be very different. As I have explained, Mr. Evans was also a Zimbabwe citizen until recently, but has now allowed that citizenship to lapse. Both men are now regularly visited and we have been in touch with the families under those circumstances.
So far as concerns any other British subjects, there are, as I understand it, two other British citizens held under the same regulations. Charges have not yet been laid against them, but they, too, would be visited regularly.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, are those men legally represented and have they the resources to be legally represented?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, their cases, unquestion-ably, have been taken up, and they have lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court. As to their expenses, I am not in a position to comment, but their case is being heard. Perhaps I may say to your Lordships that in these cases, which have been taken up by both my right honourable and learned friend and by my honourable friend Mrs. Chalker in another place, it is sometimes in the best interests of the people involved if matters are not necessarily talked about across the Floor of the House. We all of us wish to do what we can in the best interests of the men concerned.

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, what are the crimes that these men are supposed to have committed?

§ Lord Broxbourne
My Lords, a question from this side, I think. Does my noble friend appreciate that she has not answered the very important question that was put to her by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones? Is it not necessary that in proceedings before the Supreme Court the gentlemen referred to in the Question of my noble friend should be adequately, properly and professionally represented? Will Her Majesty's Government do what in them lies to ensure that that is the case?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and by my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. The information that I have is that the cases have been reviewed and that there is to be an appeal to the Supreme Court. Obviously the men cannot do that unless they have been able to support that appeal. I assure the House that our consular officials and the High Commission will do what they can under the circumstances.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, how can a case be sub-judice—

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, what offences are the men supposed to have committed? Of what are they accused?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, the two men were originally charged with contravening the Zimbabwean Official Secrets Act and the Emergency Powers Maintenance of Law and Order Regulations. On 28th January 1983 they were acquitted because the court ruled that certain prosecution evidence was inadmis-able. They were re-arrested under the country's emergency power regulations, which were created many years before the present Government in Zimbabwe under regulations passed by the former Rhodesian régime.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that discouraging exchanges across the Floor of the House on this matter hardly seem fit in this case? These people have been in prison for five years. Is my noble friend aware that it is an outrage to human freedom that men should be treated like that? Is she further aware that this calls for the utmost influence to be used by Her Majesty's Government to get justice for these men?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, once again, I much regret that my noble friend should feel that the men are not being helped. We have used what influence we have. My right honourable and learned friend visited Harare and there have been other ministerial visits. We have used our influence through our High Commission and by regular visits. I have explained the situation. It is a matter for the Zimbabwean legal system, ultimately, to determine what shall happen. Of course, I note the very strong feelings in all parts of 1028 the House on this matter, and what we all have to determine is how best we can help in this situation.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, may I further pursue the extremely important question of legal representation raised by my noble and learned friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne? The House will fully understand that the noble Baroness may not have the details in her brief, but will she be good enough to look into the matter and inform my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord whether or not solicitors and counsel have been instructed in this case?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I shall of course do as the noble Lord asks. As I am writing to him on the other matter, I shall also advise him on this matter. I can say that under the constitution in Zimbabwe there is provision for such detentions to be regularly reviewed by a tribunal. Although it would be true to say that there has been some administrative delay, the procedure has in the main been followed.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that gratified though we are to learn that the tribunal exists, the fact is, as her noble friend pointed out, that these people have been held in custody for five years? Is it not quite intolerable that this situation continues in circumstances where, as the noble Baroness recognises, there is widespread concern in all parts of the House?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I have taken the point made by the noble Lord. We are speaking about an independent country, Zimbabwe. We can only make the representations that we do. We have to consider all the factors involved. We have made our representa-tions, as I have already said in answer to an earlier question, and we are not in a position, because it is not the United Kingdom, to do more than make these representations in the course of justice in another independent country.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, is it not true that we have a duty to make sure that these people are properly represented? That question has been asked a number of times from all sides of the House. To my mind, it is astonishing that the noble Baroness is not able to give a simple answer to this simple question: have they been properly represented?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, to the best of my knowledge and belief they have been properly represented and the procedures are taking place. However, we have to recognise that we are, as I have said, speaking about an independent country and one must recognise the limits of what we, as another independent country, can actually do in the circumstances.

§ The Marquess of Salisbury
My Lords, is it not correct that these regulations were produced when there was an emergency and they have been continued when presumably no such emergency exists? Is it not an offence against human rights to continue in this way?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, there is of course something in what my noble friend says. The regulations which were introduced by the former Rhodesian regime were produced at a time when the situation was not as it is today in Zimbabwe. However, whether or not these regulations are repealed is a matter for that Government.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the matter is sub judice. How can that be when there has not been a trial?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, the appeal to the Supreme Court is to be held on 30th July. It was originally fixed for 28th June but was delayed as the defence counsel was not available. In those circumstances it is right to recognise that this whole long procedure—it is the end of a long procedure—is still sub judice.