Transcription on the Interview between the BBC and Mr. Le Tran Luat, Defense Counsel to the 8 Thai Ha Parishioner-Defendants
Attorney: I don’t expect to see my clients acquitted at the trial at all, but I hope by taking this case I am able to prove the innocence of those parishioners who only came to pray for justice in the court of opinion.
BBC News: On the state’s side they claimed that it was obvious that those parishioners had damaged the brick wall at the disputed area. For that accusation, what is your defense?
Attorney. My clients have been charged with two counts, disorderly conduct and damaging (property). I would like to say this, it was impossible for a disorderly conduct to happen, since the nature of praying is to do it in self control and silence, where would disorderly conduct stand in all of this? This is first issue,
The second issue is the charge of damaging property. One has to remember that this property happens to be built on Thai Ha Parish’s land. I am affirmed, I have collected enough evidence to prove that the property in question belongs to Thai Ha. So when someone who build (a wall) illegally on Thai Ha’s land, and the parishioners break (the wall) down, it can not be viewed as damaging property, since the property had been erected on the land illegally seized by Chien-Thang Garment Company.
Furthermore, it’s perfectly ok for the state to prosecute in order to clarify the public view of the government, but in reality after charges had been filed, they (the state ) bulldozed the wall themselves so it became clearly understood that the wall was only at a limited value but it served as an excuse for (the state) charging (the people) with damaging property, not to mention it was the property illegally built on Thai Ha’s land.
BBC News: In the process of representing your clients, were you able to get access to either your clients or to their files?
Attorney: I have a total of 8 defendants to represent, 6 of those were out on their own recognizance pending trial and 2 of them were detained. The two still being detained at Hoa Lo prison in Ha Noi are Nguyen Thi Nhi and Ngo Thi Dung. To those who are out awaiting their trial I am allowed by the Investigative Bureau to meet with them from the beginning of the case, however for any other motions filed, I have not been granted, claiming that since I was not their lawyer at the time I would not be able to see my clients in jail. But when I brought in my Certification of Representation in, they would employ other tactics including coercing the defendants into refusing to meet with me as their defender.
BBC News: What would possibly the sentence for those 8 defendants be?
Attorney: I would predict, based on my past experience, those who were convinced (by the prosecution) and agreed to plead guilty, they can receive a stay of imposition of less than 3 years. As for those who insisted of their innocence would be receiving a sentence of incarceration.
BBC News: How long would you predict the sentence would be?
Attorney: I would think anywhere from 2 ½ - 3 years in prison
Attorney: I don’t expect to see my clients acquitted at the trial at all, but I hope by taking this case I am able to prove the innocence of those parishioners who only came to pray for justice in the court of opinion.
BBC News: On the state’s side they claimed that it was obvious that those parishioners had damaged the brick wall at the disputed area. For that accusation, what is your defense?
Attorney. My clients have been charged with two counts, disorderly conduct and damaging (property). I would like to say this, it was impossible for a disorderly conduct to happen, since the nature of praying is to do it in self control and silence, where would disorderly conduct stand in all of this? This is first issue,
The second issue is the charge of damaging property. One has to remember that this property happens to be built on Thai Ha Parish’s land. I am affirmed, I have collected enough evidence to prove that the property in question belongs to Thai Ha. So when someone who build (a wall) illegally on Thai Ha’s land, and the parishioners break (the wall) down, it can not be viewed as damaging property, since the property had been erected on the land illegally seized by Chien-Thang Garment Company.
Furthermore, it’s perfectly ok for the state to prosecute in order to clarify the public view of the government, but in reality after charges had been filed, they (the state ) bulldozed the wall themselves so it became clearly understood that the wall was only at a limited value but it served as an excuse for (the state) charging (the people) with damaging property, not to mention it was the property illegally built on Thai Ha’s land.
BBC News: In the process of representing your clients, were you able to get access to either your clients or to their files?
Attorney: I have a total of 8 defendants to represent, 6 of those were out on their own recognizance pending trial and 2 of them were detained. The two still being detained at Hoa Lo prison in Ha Noi are Nguyen Thi Nhi and Ngo Thi Dung. To those who are out awaiting their trial I am allowed by the Investigative Bureau to meet with them from the beginning of the case, however for any other motions filed, I have not been granted, claiming that since I was not their lawyer at the time I would not be able to see my clients in jail. But when I brought in my Certification of Representation in, they would employ other tactics including coercing the defendants into refusing to meet with me as their defender.
BBC News: What would possibly the sentence for those 8 defendants be?
Attorney: I would predict, based on my past experience, those who were convinced (by the prosecution) and agreed to plead guilty, they can receive a stay of imposition of less than 3 years. As for those who insisted of their innocence would be receiving a sentence of incarceration.
BBC News: How long would you predict the sentence would be?
Attorney: I would think anywhere from 2 ½ - 3 years in prison