Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:44, 7 December 2005

Template:Long NPOV You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|November 2005|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

Nick Baker is a British citizen, raised in Gloucestershire in the United Kingdom. A professional chef and father of a 3-year old child, he was arrested in Japan on April 13 2002 at the age of 32, for allegedly smuggling drugs which were found by customs in false compartments of a suitcase upon his arrival at Narita Airport near Tokyo.

Baker has consistantly claimed that he was set up by his travelling companion, James Prunier, whom he became friendly with after meeting 2-3 years previously at a local football club. Baker claimed that when he got to the baggage carousel that Prunier, who had gone through immigration first, told him that Baker's bag had come and gone. Prunier, who was already holding his own suitcase, asked Baker to take it and get in the customs line while he waited for Baker's bag, whereupon he would join him in the queue. Prunier however joined a different queue in possession on Baker's blue sports bag. Upon reaching inspection, the suitcase Baker was holding for Prunier was found to contain 41,120 ecstasy tablets together with 992.5 grams of cocaine, the largest ever walk-through seizure of ecstasy at Narita Airport at that time. After Baker's arrest, Prunier was placed under surveillance by the Japanese police, but freely allowed to leave the country two days later without questioning. He was subsequently arrested in Belgium some three months later for alledgedly smuggling drugs along with three other young British people.

In June 2003, Baker was sentenced by the Chiba District Court to 14 years in prison with forced labour and a ¥5,000,000 fine. He appealed the ruling, but on October 27 2005, the presiding judge upheld the guilty verdict, ruling that he was aware of the contents of the case. However, the judge reduced the sentence, saying "he does not seem to be the mastermind, and his parents have been worried about him". Baker's term was reduced from 14 years to 11 years and his fine was reduced from ¥5,000,000 (approx.£24,392) to ¥3,000,000 (approx.£14,635). Baker was awarded time served of 1,172 days against the sentence, excluding a percentage of time held in remand during the district court trial. His work rate was raised from ¥10,000 to ¥20,000 (approx.£97.58) per day. A daily "work rate" is the sum deducted from his fine, if it remains unpaid. In Baker's case, he will have 150 days added to his sentence if the fine is not paid.

In November 2005 Baker decided not to appeal to Japan's Supreme Court.

Baker's account

Baker, an avid football fan, maintains that he was travelling to Japan in order to buy some memorabilia ahead of the Football World Cup. The pair had gone to Belgium before the trip where Baker had bought clothes. These would not all fit in Baker's blue sports bag so some of his things ended up in the suitcase. Baker describes his detailed version of events at the airport and after in a letter from prison:

What the Prosecution argued

The Japanese prosecution built its case largely on the following arguments:

• Baker was carrying the bag which contained the drugs when he was arrested and they are therefore his responsibility. Baker also checked the bag in his own name before boarding the flight to Japan.
• Baker's statements inferred that he was approached by two members of the Israeli mafia and threatened with dire consequences if he told anyone about the return trip. The prosecution went on to argue that despite this, Baker then paid for his own ticket to Japan.
• Even if the bag containing the drugs did not belong to Baker, it is implausible that he would not know about the presence of the drugs given the closeness of his relationship with the owner, a friend of some time standing.

What the Defence argued

Baker’s defence team based their appeal upon the following legal definitions:

• Factual errors affecting the trial (criminal trial law article 382), violation of trial procedures (article 379), and unjust punishment (article 381).

The defence raised the following points:

• Disputed the Chiba district court’s view that the fact that Baker had travelled to Japan before suggested that he was likely involved in drug-smuggling, and stated “it is hardly necessary to provide evidence of people who are frequent overseas travellers but not narcotics smugglers.”
• James (Prunier) reserved the return air ticket Brussels-London-Narita-London-Brussels on April 11th, 2002, which showed that the defendant was not planning to go to Japan when he embarked on the initial trip with James (from London to Amsterdam) on April 8th 2002.
• A memo in Prunier’s handwriting showing his credit card details, and on the obverse the name of a Tokyo hotel showed that it was Prunier and not Baker who had arranged the trip to Japan.
• According to the testimony given by Customs Officer “K”, “the defendant did not act suspiciously until an x-ray revealed foreign items in the suitcase." His reactions suggest that the defendant was surprised by the appearance of objects in the case and therefore unaware that illegal narcotics were concealed until the x-ray monitor revealed such objects.
• There were serious inconsistencies in the confiscation report prepared by customs official “K” at the time of Baker's detainment at Narita airport, and detailed what it called "errors in fact-finding" during Baker's interrogation and "illogical leaps" during his original trial. The defence stated that it was not at all clear where items central to the prosecution's case, such as the key for the suitcase of contraband, had been found. The prosecution had argued the key was in Baker's pocket or waist bag, not in the suitcase itself, as Nick maintained. Pointing to discrepancies in font, style and type of paper, the defence claimed that the confiscation record had been altered. They also questioned the testimony of customs official “K”, who had changed his testimony on the point of the key.
• Regarding Baker's "confession," it was argued that the Japanese-language statement Baker affixed his thumbprint to after some three weeks of interrogation without council was not accurately translated to him and so should not have been admissible, as doing so violated article 38 of the Japanese Constitution: "No person shall be compelled to testify against himself. 2) Confession made under compulsion, torture or threat, or after prolonged arrest or detention shall not be admitted in evidence. 3) No person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against him is his own confession".

• After Prunier was arrested with other young British travellers in Belgium, that information should have been admitted as evidence by Chiba district court Judge Kadoya in accordance with guarantees in the Japanese Constitution for international compliance, as it supported Baker's standing claim that he had also been duped by Prunier.

• Countering assumptions made by Judge Kadoya about Baker's financial state being a motivation for smuggling, the defence argued that while Nick had a house loan his equity had increased and he had regular and sufficient income and therefore did not need to risk engagement in drug smuggling.

• Judge Kadoya "selectively and arbitrarily analysed" evidence and called for his "unjust" guilty verdict to be "challenged in every respect."

• Submitted a independent report from a linguistics experts pointing out gross discrepancies in the translation provided at the Chiba district court, noting that the statements that Nick Baker signed were written in Japanese with a cursory orally translated summary provided in English. The translation was misleading, inaccurate and contradictory. For example, "my mate's bag" was at one point mistranslated as "my bag" and "antibiotic" was translated as "a drug banned in Japan" by the Chiba district court translator.

• Submitted expert witness testimony in the form of a 6-page opinion including a video which claims the original customs photographs reveal what could be the strap of the suitcase key protruding from underneath other articles in a zipped-shut net pouch which directly challenged the claims made by customs officer “K”, who claimed he saw Baker throw the key of the suitcase into the case.

In conclusion, the defence focused on 3 mains areas:

• Whilst travelling together, Baker became concerned about the questionable activities of Prunier. In fact, so concerned was he that he (Baker) even insisted that they not return to the United Kingdom together.

• Collusion between prosecutors and customs investigation officers. Details emerged of how the initial customs officers report, filed on the very day of Baker's arrest, neglected to even mention the critical question of the whereabouts of the key to Prunier's suitcase. It was only some three weeks later and exactly one day before Baker's indictment, that the very same customs officer, resubmitting the exact same report, added just a few lines in which he now claimed to have seen Baker throw the key into the case. The officer then changed his story again at the Chiba district court trial, now claiming he had "seen something fly through the air, but not Baker's hand throw anything as he was looking in the direction of the suitcase." Evidence from photographic expert examination of the inside of the suitcase seems also to dispel the officer's testimony by showing the key to be in fact enclosed in a tightly zipped shut net pouch within the suitcase.

• A clear pattern was shown to emerge, through analysis of Baker's statements, of coercion by investigators. Baker has constantly insisted that he was told that if he signed their Japanese-language statements, he would be allowed to return home to his family. This is reflected in the sudden change in his story on April 24th, some 11 days after his arrest, after which every single statement concluded with his "earnest desire to co-operate with the investigation and be sent home at the earliest opportunity."

Other points noted by supporters

Baker's supporters claim the Japanese legal practices and trials were unfair and unjust and that Baker had suffered serious abuses of human rights while incarcerated. In particular they claim:

• The judge declined to obtain evidence from the Belgian authorities relating to the arrest of his companion.
• Baker was not treated fairly because during a period of 23 days he was interrogated by as many as 6 police officers at one time, shackled to a chair and hands tied behind him without given access to legal counsel.
• He was also held in solitary confinement for more than 10 months for refusing to admit guilt at a time when he was entitled to a presumption of innocence outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which Japan had ratified.
• In one of the appeal hearings, the court translator was inaudible reading through the defense case and the judge stopped her before finishing because the session had run out of time. The second hearing was cancelled because the translator had resigned and there was no replacement.
• The conditions inside the prison have caused Baker physical damage including frostbite.

Justice for Nick Baker Campaign and Reaction

An awareness campaign spearheaded by Baker's mother, Iris, and an international network of supporters attracted substantial media attention worldwide, prompting regular coverage of the case in the British media. A petition was launched to urge British Prime Minister Tony Blair to "use all the influence your good office can muster to secure Baker's right to a trial which follows internationally accepted standards." This was signed by more than 5,000 people; about half of the signatures coming from drives held in the UK, the other half from an online version hosted by the nonpartisan organization The Petition Site. Iris Baker along with Member of European Parliament The Baroness Sarah Ludford presented the petition to Mr. Blair's representatives at 10 Downing Street, and Iris Baker later presented the petition to the Tokyo High Court.

In the summer of 2003 Baker's supporters launched an advocacy website to further speed awareness. The site argued that Baker had not received a fair trial and called on concerned people to contact the Japanese embassies in their countries to demand fair and just treatment for detainees in Japan. In this sense the Justice for Nick Baker website was probably the most high-profile international challenge ever against Japan's legal system and its 99.97% conviction rate. The campaign and website attracted a great deal of attention, garnering support from Fair trials Abroad, Amnesty International, the Japanese Bar Association and British Members of Parliament. But as the public profile grew, the reaction was not all positive.

The site posted visitor logs, which showed regular visits from the Japanese Ministry of Justice, and site administrators claimed to have received a warning from the high court (delivered by e-mail via Baker's lawyer Shunji Miyake) demanding that criticism of the court interpreter be removed from the site.

Mark Devlin, publisher of Japan's largest distribution English magazine, Metropolis, and the Internet news and information portal, Japan Today, along with an ex-supporter and anonymous posters on Japan Today's public internet forums, claim that the support group was not being forthright in its presentation of facts to the public. Devlin, who was originally a supporter of the case, voiced this opinion an in editorial he wrote in the September 4, 2004 issue of Metropolis. Devlin backed up his claims with an analysis of the case, which he sent to around 15 media organisations, the MPs supporting the case and the various organisations supporting Baker (a total of 26 or so recipients). The analysis was also sent to many interested parties who requested the document. Baker's supporters have claimed that that Devlin actually spammed recipients using email addresses harvested from the supporter’s site, although they have no evidence that any emails were harvested. Devlin has noted that, as a publisher he is well within his rights to alert other media of inconsistencies in the case. Devlin claims that several of the media he contacted were also concerned about inconsistencies in the case and were critical of Iris Baker and the support group. Supporters note that not one other article critical of Iris Baker or the support group can be found outside of Devlin's own publications. Supporters also claimed Devlin had made up all the quotes he attributed to Iris Baker in his editorial, as she has never been interviewed by Devlin and none of the supposed quotes were to be found anywhere on the support website.

Devlin, the ex-supporter, and the anonymous forum posters (hereafter the "Detractors") claimed inconsistencies existed in the Baker case which supporters had either refused to answer, have sidestepped, or had actively suppressed:

Inconsistencies claimed by the detractors

• Baker had already been to Japan with Prunier just two months before his arrest.
• It is still not clear how and why a professional chef would have reason to travel to Japan twice in two months.
• Baker has a drink driving conviction in the UK.
• Baker and Prunier had associated with Israeli traffickers in Belgium.
• Prunier told Baker that he owed the Israelis money and was being sent to Japan to collect something for them. (The information about the drug deal gone wrong came at the verdict.)
• In the verdict the judge said that Baker knew that Prunier was a drug dealer.
• Baker's statements show he was aware that the bag might be used for smuggling sex-pills (Viagra) out of Japan. Detractors have pointed out that Viagra is more expensive in Japan that in any other country.
• Baker therefore knew he was involved in a smuggling operation.
• The Israelis threatened Baker after check-in at the airport. From the defense appeal document: “(The smuggler) threatened to kill the defendants family member(s) by showing the defendant three pictures of grisly murder scenes if the defendant leaks the matter to anyone during his return trip from Japan.”
• Even though it was just a few months after 9/11, according to Baker, Prunier was able to check-in his case under Baker's name, without the check-in attendant or Baker noticing.
• Baker wanted to get off the plane in London but Prunier persuaded him to stay on the flight. Detractos point out that if he was a dupe, he would not need to be persuaded.
• Detractors argue that it is highly unlikely that Prunier would expose himself to the risks associated with trying to dupe Baker into taking the case in the customs hall. If Baker's story is true, Prunier's plan would have relied on Prunier being assured of going through immigration first and having time to arrange the bags (even though the two friends were traveling together). Prunier would also have had to manage the risk of Baker refusing to take the case through customs and of Baker calling him over when he was stopped by the customs officer.
• According to a U.S. prosecutor, Baker's statement to the customs officer when asked to search the bag ("Sure, it's me mate's") is internally inconsistent. It means "Go ahead and search the case, but if you find anything, it's not mine." In normal circumstances a person would call their friend over or refuse
• Even if Prunier was caught for allegedly duping other people later it does not mean that Baker was not involved in the Japan smuggling operation.
• James Prunier said in an interview in 2004 he did not set-up Baker: "What he's done is blame me. He says I swapped his suitcase at the airport and I didn't. Nick knows what happened, he really does, I know what happened. I can't tell the whole story. The idea that I set him up and put somebody in prison, a friend or not a friend, anybody in the world, the thought that I would do that, is the pits."
• Baker implied that the Embassy did not support him when he was first arrested when in fact, he was visited by an English-speaking member of the Embassy who created a Prison Visit Record.
• Baker said he did not receive legal counsel in his first 23-days although he was visited by a Bar Association duty lawyer.
• Baker's own MP, David Drew of Stroud does not support the case. Citing that his findings “did not tally with the account on (Bakers) website.”

Baker's detractors believe there is a simpler explanation of events: After visiting Japan the first time on a reconnaisance trip, Baker conspired with Prunier to bring the case They argued that, if discovered, Baker would deny knowledge and, after a few days to give Prunier time to escape, that Baker would blame Prunier. As an innocent dupe he would then presumably receive a lighter sentence.

Detractors claims about the Support Group Activities

• The Justice for Nick Baker support group presented Baker as an innocent dupe, when the family, and at least some non-family members knew there was evidence that pointed to his involvement in the crime.
• The support group suppressed the first trip to Japan until after the initial media push.
• The family denied that Baker was involved with the Mafia, discounting it as a "rumour" even though they must have read and heard this evidence at the first trial.
• Iris Baker refused to release the original trial documents saying it would be a waste of resources to translate the documents. However, it was found out in November 2005 that the British Embassy had translated the original court documents into English for the family at the time of the trial.
• Pictures and stories of prisoner abuse on the Nick Baker support site did not actually happen to Baker himself. Baker has been treated in the same way as any other Japanese prisoner.
• The support group claimed that the Belgian dupes had been set free, when they had actually been convicted. They claimed that the "Belgian evidence" had not been considered, when it actually had.
• No discussion of Baker's guilt or innocence was allowed on the Justice for Nick Baker site. All messages questioning Baker's innocence, and any links to negative press were removed from the site.
• When questioned about the inconsistencies in Baker's account the support group said that Baker's guilt or innocence was not important. They repeated their claims for a "fair trial", but were unable to define what a fair trial is, other than one that frees Baker.
• The support group has presented Prunier as a professional con man, although there is no independent evidence to show this.
• Some detractors believe that Iris Baker has collected funds under false pretences and have openly accused her of fraud.
• Some have pointed out that Baker owns a house (with positive equity) in the UK that could be used to pay his fine.
• In making their case, some detractors believe that Baker's supporters have reinforced negative stereotypes about Japan to gain support.
• Others point out that by misleading the public, it will be more difficult for other prisoners to get media attention or the public's trust.
• Iris Baker has attacked Japan Today publisher Mark Devlin, branding him a a spammer and also threatening to file a libel action against him. In response, Devlin has said that Iris Baker's claims are "a ludicrous diversion from inconsistencies of Baker's account and the cover-up activities of the support group" and noted that this case is not about him vs. Iris Baker, but about Nick and Iris Baker's accountibility to the public. To date, no suit has been filed.

Supporters position on detractors activities

Iris Baker and Nick's supporters initially engaged in discussion with Devlin and the group of detractors but later most elected to withdraw in order to focus on their original campaign for a fair trial. There have been calls from Baker's supporters that a defamation lawsuit be filed against Devlin in the UK.

Detractors claims about The Japanese justice system system and the 99.9% conviction rate

Critics point to Japan’s 99.3% conviction rate as proof that there are problems in the system, but according to J. Mark Ramseyer of Harvard Law School and Eric B. Rasmusen of Indiana University, (“Why Is the Japanese Conviction Rate So High?”), the conviction rate is high because of three factors:

• Japanese prosecutors have limited resources and only pick the cases that are assured success
• Judges look down on prosecutors who have not prepared their cases well
• The overall incarceration level in Japan is low. At midyear 2003, 718 out of every 100,000 Americans were behind bars. In Japan the number is just 54, less than a tenth the US rate.

A report by Washington University in St. Lewis compares conviction rates between the US and Japan: In U.S. federal courts, prosecutors win 85% of all criminal cases with a 42% arrest/prosecution ratio. In Japan, in 1995 prosecutors filed charges against just 17.5% arrests. It is much less likely for a person to be arrested in Japan and if they are, it is much less likely that they will go to jail than in the U.S.

Unlike the UK and US, where defendents will almost always try to plead "not guilty" in the hope that they will find a sympathetic jury or get off on a technicality, the Japanese way is for the defendant to try to reduce their sentence by plea bargaining with the prosecutor in exchange for admitting their guilt. Baker’s insistence on innocence in the face of his own statements, and his lack of remorse, most likely made his original sentence more severe.

Claims for a "fair trial" based on the appeal trial were misguided as the court does not have the authority to change items like the 23-day detention period, or prison conditions -- appeal courts can only look at the evidence from the original trial. Baker's detractors point out that structural issues in the Japanese system should be addressed through more appropriate channels, such as Amnesty International.

==

In conclusion, it could be summarized that Baker's detractors claim that the question of his guilt or innocence comes before that of a fair trial and that justice is not served by allowing an apparently guilty man to go free. They also can prove that the support group has willfully misled the public to get publicity for the case.

Baker's supporters maintain that his guilt or innocence can only be proved through a fair trial and that he did not receive one. They further assert that this case highlights serious problems which exist across the Japanese justice system, and so are calling for reforms -- specifically the taping of interrogations and the enshrinement of a detainee's right to legal council. Many of the detractors also agree with these goals, but point out that they are not necessarily linked to Baker's guilt or innocence.

Reactions to the Appeal Verdict and Baker's abandonment of further appeal

Responses to the appeal verdict from around the world included that of disappointment and surprise, although public reaction on Japan Today was generally more negative than when the case was first discussed on that forum. Shunji Miyake the defence lawyer, said he was disappointed with the result, as similar cases in Japan have received sentences of 8-10 years.

In November 2005, Baker announced he would not appeal the high court ruling as he said he has lost faith in the Japanese justice system and, given the 99.97% conviction rate in Japan, another lengthy appeal would only prolong an inevitable outcome.

Member of the European Parliament The Baroness Sarah Luford:-

"The reduced sentence shows at least some acknowledgement of the frailty of the case against Nick, but the Court has missed an opportunity to overturn a gross miscarriage of justice. I am very disappointed indeed that he has not been acquitted. The Japanese justice system is in dire need of reform. Criminal cases have a 99% conviction rate, and all those accused are presumed guilty. Nick’s case in particular has been devoid of proper legal safeguards. There has been more than three years of tireless campaigning to try to ensure a fair trial, especially by Nick's mother Iris to whom I pay tribute. But justice has still not been done, and this is a stain on the reputation of Japan."

British Lawyer and Director General of UK charity group Fair Trials Abroad, Mr. Stephen Jakobi:-

"His case has in effect raised major concerns regarding the Japanese Justice System and its compliance with International law of fair trial (ICCPR) to which it is treaty bound.

• a.. Following an arrest, police can keep a suspect in for questioning for up to 23 days, with no contact with the outside world, apart from a consular representative, and no legal support.
• b.. The standard of interpretation is very poor and often misleading. Suspects are forced to sign documents in Japanese without translation into their own language.
• c.. The police seem to be very reluctant to investigate any defence assertions and defence evidence is permitted to be disallowed by them or withheld.
• d.. There is no presumption of innocence: acquittal is virtually unknown.

It is as a result of the above that we would say that Japan is unique among all major democracies in practising systematic defiance of the international rules of Fair trial that they are treaty bound to observe. The Japanese Justice system was on trial today and it failed."

Professor Makiko Mizuno, linguists experts at Osaka's Senrikinran University:-

"I am very disappointed with the judgment. I am surprised that those involved in trials still don't seem to understand the role of language in judicial procedures and the possible effects of successful or unsuccessful communication on the judicial procedures. Even if individual instances of misinterpretation are corrected in the end, it is obvious that if the interpreter does not have the ability to sufficiently and smoothly aid communication, the consistency and integrity of the statements made by suspect/defendant will be undermined. It is similarly obvious that this will have some influence over the way an opinion is shaped in the investigators' and judges' mind. It is also common knowledge among interpreters that one can't accurately interpret even if one speaks English unless one goes through formal training. It seems that in the judiciary, STEP (Eiken) grades, TOEIC scores, and Tour-Guide Certification are seen as sufficient benchmarks for the accuracy of interpretation. If those in the judiciary truly believe this, their understanding needs to change immediately. Simply assigning an interpreter does not mean that you have respected the human rights of the suspect/defendant. Respecting human rights is only possible when assigning an interpreter that can properly help communicate."

Iris Baker, Nick's mother and outspoken critic of the Japanese judicial and penal systems:-

"Judge Tao's reasoning was merely a rehash of the words of judge Kadoya at the Chiba district court, once more proving that the Japanese courts are not prepared to lose face. They would rather take an innocent man's life than admit to a mistake. Not only did Judge Tao betray Nick by allowing this charade to continue, but he also failed to take an important step forward in the eyes of the modern world. He had the chance to begin the steps to bring the Japanese justice system into the 21st century. He could have done this with honour and earned a new respect for Japan for its honest regard for human rights. This could have given a valuable legacy for future generations in Japan. My fight for justice will continue. Stay strong, son, and be proud of your innocence."

Mark Devlin, Metropolis Magazine Publisher

“Baker's supporters have tried to blame everyone for Baker's predicament: the friend, the customs officer, the translators, the judge, the media, the British Embassy, the Japanese system — everyone except Baker himself.

"Baker's supporters misrepresented the case to the media and the public to make him appear innocent. In doing so they wasted a lot of people's hope, time, effort and money.”

News links about the case (ordered by date)

• Peer alleges Briton's trial is flawed
• 'Duped' Briton gets 14 years
• Convicted Briton says he was drug run patsy
• Nick Baker fights 14-year sentence for smuggling drugs
• Drug smuggler Baker's appeal to test Japan's judicial system
• Nick wasn't set up says travelling companion
• Briton begins drugs charge appeal
• Jailed Briton's appeal postponed
• Man implicated in Nick Baker drug conviction found dead in Gloucester
• Suicide verdict recorded on "cocaine addicted and alcoholic" travelling companion
• Inquest opens into death on railway line
• Tokyo High Court to rule next week on Baker's conviction
• Drug felon Nick Baker's sentence reduced to 11 years
• Judge rejects drugs man's appeal
• British drug smuggler Nick Baker rules out further appeal

Other External links

• Nick Baker's supporters' site
• Fair Trial's Abroad entry on Nick Baker's case
• Articles about the case by Baroness Sarah Ludford, Member of the European Parliament
• We the Jury: Criticism of the Justice for Nick Baker Support Network by the Publisher of Metropolis magazine
• Criticism of the Publisher of Metropolis magazine by the Justice for Nick Baker Support Network
• Ramseyer report,“Why Japan has a 99% conviction rate"
• Ramseyer: no systemic human right's abuse in Japan
• Amnesty International's human right's concerns - Japan
• Metropolis magazine round-up of the case

• British people
• Disputed convictions
• Drug traffickers