ROUMANIA (BRITISH SUBJECT, SENTENCE) (Hansard, 3 November 1948)

§ Mr. Bevin

I have taken steps to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the protest addressed by His Majesty's Government to the Roumanian Government on 15th September and 4th October.

As an appeal was lodged immediately after the sentences and the case is still sub iudice I have no statement to make on the verdict. For the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) on 1st November.

Following are the Notes:

British Legation,

Bucharest.

15th September, 1948.

MY DEAR MINISTER,

As you already know, a British subject, Mr. Walter Evans, ex-Director of the Steaua Romana S.A.R., was arrested by the Roumanian authorities on the 8th June, 1948, at the Roumanian-Hungarian frontier when on his way to England to consult his principals. Since then he has been held under arrest in spite of several vain efforts to obtain his release on bail. On the 9th July he was committed for trial by the Examining Magistrate of No. 6 Cabinet of Ilfov Tribunal on a charge of fraudulent administration of 8,200,000 Lei of the Company's money, under Articles 539 and 540 of the Penal Code.

72W

2. Mr. Evans has appeared before the "Tribunal de Urgenta" on repeated occasions, witnesses have been heard at length, and both prosecution and defence have fully stated their cases. On the 2nd September, the accused was invited to make his final statement and the Court announced that sentence would be pronounced on the 7th September. This was later postponed until the 10th September without any explanation.

3. Up to this point I refrained from intervening in the case, except that I pressed for an improvement in Mr. Evans' living conditions (on this point I have received some satisfaction) and, in view of his age and frail health, for his release on bail pending sentence. Unfortunately bail has been consistently refused.

4. On the 10th September, however, an incident occurred which leaves me no choice but to draw your attention to what appears to be a grave irregularity of procedure and a denial of justice to Mr. Evans. Instead of pronouncing judgment on the case on the basis of the evidence given during the trial, the Court decided to reopen the case on the 16th September in order to hear two witnesses for the defence with whom, during the session of the Court on the 2nd September, the defence had willingly dispensed as the evidence given by preceding witnesses had made their evidence superfluous. The Court had agreed that they should not be called and the Presiding Judge had instructed prosecution and defence to proceed with their final pleadings.

5. It has since come to light that the plaintiffs, on the 7th September, after the case had been closed on the 2nd September, filed a petition with the Prime Procuror asking that the sum, of the fraudulent administration of which Mr. Evans is being accused, should be increased from 8,200,000 Lei to 14,900,000 Lei—this in spite of the fact that the Examining Magistrate had, when committing Mr. Evans for trial, expressly eliminated 6,700,000 Lei from the original charge because the plaintiffs could not adduce before him reasonable proof that Mr. Evans had received the 6,700,000 Lei in question.

6. It now appears, therefore, that although Mr. Evans was committed for trial by the Examining Magistrate on a specific charge after enquiries conducted in secret over a protracted period during which Mr. Evans was denied the elementary right of proper legal assistance (that is to say from the 8th June, the day of his arrest, until the 9th July), and although Mr. Evans was on trial in Court between the 9th July and the 2nd September on the grounds of that same specific charge, the Court failed to pronounce a verdict as it should have done on the 10th September. Instead the Court is permitting the civil plaintiffs to amend the charge against Mr. Evans and to include in it a sum of money of responsibility for which he had already been exonerated by the Final Court Order No. 172 issued by the 8th Instruction Cabinet of the Ilfov Tribunal (which excluded from the charge the sum of 6,700,000 Lei and sent Mr. Evans for trial on a charge involving 8,200,000 Lei only).

7. I am convinced that Your Excellency will agree that, under these circumstances, I have no option but to lodge a strong, protest to you 73W personally against this arbitrary procedure of the Roumanian Court, and to ask you to intervene as soon as possible to correct the palpable injustice of which a British subject is the victim.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) ADRIAN HOLMAN.

Her Excellency,

Madame ANA PAUKER,

Minister of Foreign Affairs.

British Legation,

Bucharest.

4th October, 1948.

MY DEAR MINISTER,

In my letter of No. 246 of 15th September, I had the honour to draw your attention to the irregularities which had occurred in connection with trial of Mr. Alexander Evans, ex-Director of the Steaua Romania S.A.R. on a charge of fraudulent administry of lei 8,200,000 money belonging to the company, under articles 539 and 540 of the penal code. I then explained that the case had been definitely closed on 2nd September, but that for no apparent valid reason, had been subject to continual adjournments without any sentence being given by the presiding judge. In fact, Mr. Evans had, in the meantime, been called upon to appear again before the examinine magistrate in connection with a new charge involving a sum of lei 14,900,000 that is to say the original sum of lei 8,200.000 augmented by a further lei 6,700,000. This latter sum had been dropped from the original charge for lack of evidence. Thus Mr. Evans was being re-examined without any legal justification on a charge of which he had already been cleared. As I had received no reply to my representations and as the sentence continued to be withheld without any legal reason being advanced for this rather strange and irregular procedure, I personally communicated a further letter on 25th September to Madame Toma your Secretary-General, in the hope that these additional representations would have effect. On that occasion Madame Toma gave me a firm assurance that sentence would definitely be given on 4th October. Relying on her assurance I naturally expected that it would be implemented. You can therefore imagine my feelings when, instead of judgment being given by the court 4th October I was approached through the consular section of the Legation by the Procurator-General M. Aurel Dimitriu pressing me to agree to his proposal that, in return for the immediate release of Mr. Evans—whose health was in his opinion deteriorating—I should provide bail for the sum of lei 30,000,000, that is about four times the amount of the funds in regard to which Mr. Evans is now standing his trial. I replied that I could not entertain such a proposal and was awaiting today the promulgation of judgment in the present case in accordance with the assurance given to me by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. You will no doubt be aware that, when I originally asked for bail for Mr. Evans several weeks ago, in view of his age and failing health and to enable him to prepare his defence, my request was refused by the Roumanian authorities on the grounds of his nationality. I find it difficult to understand. 74W therefore, the reasons for the Procurator-General himself now proposing to me bail on the very day on which sentence has been promised. In order to prevent a very serious miscarriage of justice in which a British subject is actually involved, I beg Your Excellency to look into the matter personally without delay to ascertain why sentence has not been given as promised and why bail is being offered at this stage when the trial has been completed.

(Signed) ADRIAN HOLMAN.