Case of Teresa Daniels
John Bercow calls for British Government intervention on behalf of Terry Daniels.
John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): In the time available to me, I should like briefly to summarise the chronological sequence of events in this case, to comment on the trial and appeals process, to describe the mitigating factors and to pose a series of relevant questions to the Minister of State.
On 12 June 1997, Teresa Daniels—hereafter referred to as Terry—was arrested at Las Palmas airport in Tenerife in the company of her companion Antonio Benavides, who was in possession of 3.8 kg of cocaine. On 17 June, five days later, Terry was released on bail. Shortly afterward, she suffered a near-fatal brain haemorrhage, but fortunately, as a result of early and effective medical intervention, she was saved and restored to health.
On 2 September 1997, Terry attended a court hearing that lasted one and a half hours, at which she was asked five questions and then told that she was free to go. More than six months later, on 27 March 1998, Terry Daniels was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for drug trafficking—precisely the same sentence as was imposed on her co-defendant Mr. Benavides. He had previous criminal convictions; she did not. As I have mentioned, he had cocaine in his possession at the time of the arrest; she had none.
Terry's lawyer requested that she be given conditional liberty, which was granted to her. After a series of legal skirmishes, the first appeal by Terry's lawyers was heard on 12 November 1999. It was heard on the basis of written pleadings and dismissed in her absence. A copy of the judgment was never sent to her and her sentence of 10 years' imprisonment was confirmed. In January 2000, Terry lodged a second appeal and in February 2000, she travelled to the United Kingdom to have a medical check-up and it transpired that she needed to have a series of operations. In March 2000, in response to correspondence from me, the Spanish ambassador sent me a letter with a report from the Spanish directorate general of penitentiary institutions that stated that Terry had been released on 17 June 1997 "without further admissions".
In May 2002, more than two years later, an international search and arrest warrant was issued, and in June 2003, a formal request for extradition was made. In August 2005, the Home Office—in the person of the Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—agreed to her extradition and Terry was extradited in October 2005. Now she is in Topas prison in Salamanca near Madrid.
I said that I wanted to comment on the trial and the appeals process, and I shall do so in two very specific respects. One might be characterised as a comment on form and the other manifestly relates to substance. As far as the form is concerned, no translator was available during the trial. I must emphasise that, because I believe passionately that Terry has been ill treated. Terry did not understand and therefore could not effectively participate in the proceedings. She did not receive a copy of the judgment and, yes, such was the level of misunderstanding and lack of information that she thought that she was a witness at the hearing and not a defendant.
On the matter of substance I make the point to the Minister of State that the evidence upon which Terry was convicted and then sentenced was scanty indeed. I do not think that I exaggerate when I say that it consisted overwhelmingly of the interpretation of an entry in her diary which referred to an expected payment. The interpretation put upon it was that she was recording an expectation of payment as a result of engagement in drug trafficking. In fact, as she explained, she was referring to a payment that was to come to her as a result of a personal injury claim. The official translation of the content of the diary was judged to be inadmissible, apparently on the grounds that it was out of time. It seems certain to me that Terry's human rights under the European convention were breached in two respects: by the failure to admit the official translation of the diary, which would have lent weight to her pleading, and by the theft of her diary.
I shall now discuss the mitigating factors in Terry's case, which I genuinely believe should be seriously and thoughtfully taken into account by the Minister. I referred a few moments ago to the reference in the letter that I received from the Spanish ambassador and the accompanying report to the phrase "without further admissions". It was surely not unreasonable of Terry Daniels to believe, when she had sight of that document, that the phrase "without further admissions" suggested that the case had been closed. That certainly was her view: she thought that the case had been dropped.
There are several other mitigating factors. Seven and a half years elapsed between Terry's original conviction and the start of her imprisonment. The Spanish authorities made little effort to detain her until Thames Valley police notified Interpol of her whereabouts. She has suffered from desperately bad health—I referred to her near-fatal brain haemorrhage, and she now suffers regular bouts of depression. In addition, in the course of this appalling, harrowing and seemingly interminable saga, she has lost her father; he died of cancer slightly less than five years ago.
It is inevitable that if Terry stays in prison for any length of time after such protracted delays and despite the real anxieties about the fairness of the trial, she will have a greatly reduced possibility of having a family. She is already in her early 30s and I believe that that is a relevant consideration in this case. In addition, the prison conditions that she is now experiencing are poor. It is difficult for her to communicate as she does not speak Spanish, and many of the people around her do not speak English or do not choose to communicate with her in her mother tongue.
On top of all that Terry endures separation from her remaining family. I ask the Minister to try to put himself in her position and to see the merit of my case That separation is a huge burden. Pat Daniels, her mother, is a magnificent woman, a supportive mother and a hard-working individual, but she could not by any stretch of the imagination be described as a person of means and it costs approximately £1,000 every time she goes to visit her daughter. All in all, the cumulative impact of the nature of the trial, the unsatisfactory character of the appeals process, the ongoing delay, the continued uncertainty and the absence of any obvious light at the end of the tunnel is putting an intolerable strain on Terry.
That leads me to my series of questions and challenges to the Minister. He knows that I hold him in the highest esteem—he is an immensely capable and intelligent Minister—so I hope that he will not take amiss what I am about to say as the prelude to my three questions. I, like many other hon. Members, have conducted a number of Adjournment debates over the years. It is not uncommon—in fact, it might be said to be a regular characteristic—to find substantial parts of ministerial speeches devoted to congratulating the hon. Member who has secured the debate and to repeating a considerable number of the difficult circumstances that the hon. Member has just spent some minutes describing. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that my ego is quite big enough, I do not require it to be inflated any further, and I am certain that he is familiar with the case, upon which there has been a great deal of correspondence. I would therefore be very grateful if he were to focus specifically on the questions that I am now about to ask.
I am immensely grateful to the Foreign Office for the visits by consular staff, and for the advice that they have proffered, but I wish to put the following question to the Minister. First, given that Terry seeks a pardon, will Her Majesty's Government support her request for it? Secondly, without prejudice to the first question and the Government's attitude to it, will the Minister expedite the application for Terry's transfer to the United Kingdom? Thirdly, if the transfer is successful, will the Government allow Terry to serve her sentence, or that part of it that she is still obliged to serve, in a low-security prison on the grounds that, manifestly, she poses no threat to public order or security?
I immensely appreciate my good fortune in being able to bring these matters to the attention of the Minister this afternoon. It is not my responsibility, so I shall not take it upon myself to say whether Terry Daniels is innocent or guilty. For my part, I believe that she is an honourable and decent person. It is, however, my responsibility to judge whether she has a reasonable case with which it is proper to trouble the Minister. I believe that she has.
Terry has been supported throughout her case by Fair Trials Abroad, an admirable organisation to whose distinguished director, Stephen Jakobi, and his indefatigable work on this case I pay the warmest possible tribute. She has been badly treated. I do not want her case to be forgotten. It should not go by the board. Pat Daniels has done her best to champion Terry's cause while trying to work for a living and to hold the family together in some way. Terry is in no position to act for herself, but she knows that this debate has been secured. If she is to have a chance to rebuild her family life, to consider the possibility of being able to start a family herself, and to build a constructive and happy future, I believe that she requires the assistance of the British Government. I am sure that the Minister is not only intelligent and competent, but decent and humane, and I look forward to his reply with interest and anticipation.