European Union (Accessions) Bill

The matters being considered under clause 1 are extremely important. Accession to the EU is of great importance to the applicant countries and to the UK. Applicant countries have to be assessed by the European Commission, as must the compatibility of their domestic legal practices with the European convention on human rights. Only then can ratification take place. I want to register my grave concern that Bulgaria may not be ready for admission to the EU in January 2007. I ask the Government to withhold support for that country’s application. I submitted a written question to my right hon. Friend the Minister about the European Commission’s enhanced monitoring report on the state of Bulgaria. In his answer of 21 November, he said that he accepted the Commission’s view that Bulgaria should review its pre-trial phase and improve the accountability of its justice system. I am interested in this matter because of the experience of my constituent Michael Shields. Michael Shields, now aged 19, is serving 15 years in prison in Bulgaria for the attempted murder of Martin Georgiev near the Big Ben fish and chip bar in Varna at around 5.30 am on 30 May. Another man, Graham Sankey, has confessed to the crime, saying that"““an innocent man has received blame for what I did,””" but he has not been questioned about that confession. Michael has always protested his innocence. He says that he was asleep at the time and has produced evidence to substantiate the claim. I held an Adjournment debate on this subject on 17 November, which can be found in the Official Report for that date, columns 1211–16. I set out the reasons for my concern in detail then, and I repeat my thanks to ministerial colleagues for their help in this matter. In this debate, however, I want to focus on the judicial aspects of Michael Shields’s experience, which are relevant to our consideration of the accession treaty. I shall look at the European Commission’s expressed concern, and the compatibility of Bulgaria’s practices with the ECHR. My first point has to do with the status of the prosecution in Bulgaria. The defence in the Michael Shields case has stated that the prosecution is part of the judiciary. If that is true, it raises major questions about the principle of equality of arms—that is, the status of the prosecution in relation to the defence. There is a major question about the quality of justice if the defence is put at a disadvantage in court, in breach of article 6 of the ECHR. Secondly, I draw the House’s attention to the detail of the conduct of the trial, and of the pre-trial phase. Stephen Jacobi, the renowned human rights lawyer and director of Fair Trial Abroad, was the international observer at the trial of Michael Shields in Varna. In a written report, he has stated that the way in which identification was authenticated was ““quite appalling””. In addition, there appears to have been no protection of the crime scene and no forensics were undertaken to assist identification of witnesses. In court, witnesses resiled from their police statements that they could not remember the face of the assailant. Dock identification was permitted—a practice that Stephen Jacobi says was outlawed 50 years ago in the UK. The prison governor produced a prejudiced statement in court, but it was not questioned by the defence, and there were major queries concerning the identity parade and pre-trial publicity. Moreover, witness accounts differed. People in the bar said that they had not seen the whole incident, but all of them claimed that a stone had been clutched to the assailant’s chest before being dropped on Martin Georgiev. People outside the bar saw more of the incident, and said that the stone had been brought down from above the assailant’s head. Another problem has to do with the new witness, Mr. A. His eye-witness evidence has been notarised and legalised, and he has stated that he is absolutely certain that the perpetrator was not Michael Shields. When he returned to the scene of the crime the following morning, a witness whom he had seen the night before told him that he and at least another 10 people would testify that the perpetrator was"““a fat lad with black hair””." Mr. A. therefore felt assured that there were numerous witnesses, and so did not offer evidence himself. However, those same bar witnesses said in court that the fair-haired Michael Shields was the guilty party. Mr. A. has now come forward and given a legalised and notarised statement, and is willing to testify in Bulgaria.