European Union (Accessions) Bill

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and shall certainly take up his very kind offer. I am concerned that the ECHR could be infringed by the court’s bizarre failure to question Graham Sankey following his confession. The court’s rejection of that confession, with no questioning of Mr. Sankey, is inexplicable. It is inconsistent with the actions of the Bulgarian authority in attempting to question Graham Sankey before that confession was made. I am deeply disturbed by the wrong information that has been recorded in the Bulgarian official record of judicial proceedings. The official statement entitled, ““Reason for the Judgement”” dated 10 November 2005 states that Graham Sankey"““was not summoned to the court hearing as the English authorities could not find him and serve him with a writ of summons.””" The facts are very different. The facts, as authenticated by our Home Office, are that the Bulgarian authorities issued a summons for Graham Sankey incorrectly. The summons arrived at the Home Office on 11 July, giving the United Kingdom central authority nine days rather than the required six weeks to serve it. The UK authority did not attempt to serve the summons, so the Bulgarians tried to speak to Graham Sankey before he made the confession. They handled that wrongly. Their record of what happened is factually incorrect yet, when he made the confession, the Bulgarians did not attempt to question him. As the matter is under Bulgarian jurisdiction, it is entirely a matter for the Bulgarians. They can, of course, ask the United Kingdom police to inquire on their behalf, but they have failed to do so. I am also extremely concerned to see contradictory information in official reports from Bulgarian judicial authorities in reference to this case. The indictment issued by the Varna prosecutor’s office stated:"““At the time of the offence Shields was not under the influence of any psychoactive substances, alcohol or cannabis.””" Yet the official statement entitled, ““Reasons for the Judgement Returned”” relating to Michael Shields’s failed appeal issued on 10 November 2005 said:"““At the time of the offence the defendant was influenced by alcohol.””" Those are two contradictory statements made by official judicial bodies in Bulgaria referring to this case. I find that of added concern. The details that I have given are examples of a large number of concerns about Michael Shields’ situation. I have given them because I believe that they underline the European Commission’s concerns about the readiness or otherwise of the Bulgarians to become members of the EU. I am extremely concerned about my constituent Michael Shields. His family are devastated. They are campaigning strongly for justice and I will continue to stand with them until we receive it. I have referred to this matter in this Committee because it is relevant to Bulgaria’s joining the EU. The EU monitoring has drawn attention to the deficiencies in the Bulgarian judicial system, including accountability, openness and the pre-trial phase. The illustrations from Michael Shields’s case demonstrate that principle in a clear way, and I am extremely concerned. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to reject Bulgaria’s accession pending further investigation of this unacceptable situation and to enable consideration to take place of whether it is indicative of the wider concerns expressed by the Commission on Bulgaria’s judicial processes. This is a matter of justice for Michael Shields, but it is also about the suitability and readiness of Bulgaria to become a member of the EU in January 2007.