TKM...

I can only tell you what happened from my side of the story. Whether
you believe or not is up to you. I don't care if you don't believe me.

the Australian Goverment don't support criminals nor do they interfere
in cases where they think Australians have broken the law. You only
have to look at the current cases ie: Bali nine/Schapelle corby etc...
and you will see that the Australian Government is quite clear that it
does not interfere in the affairs or judicial process of another
country.

Clearly, since the Australian Government gave our case high priority
and sent task forces to negotiate our release, and clearly since the
evidence submitted to the Australian Government convinced them of our
innocence is certainly comfort enough for me. Clearly that my husband
is a current serviing member of the Australian Special Forces and has
been given top secret clearnance is enough for me to feel that our
reputation is in tact. Clearly that most intelligent observers know
that we were caught in a political power play is enough for me to feel
quite as ease that people don't accept the conviction that was brought
against us. So it matters not what you think.

But in any case, though I know it is pointless, the facts are:

On 28 May 2000 the Directors of Gem Mining Lao [GML], a client of Lao
Securicor, left the Lao PDR. GML was in the process of what later
resulted in an illegal expropriation by the Lao PDR government.
Unbeknown to Kerry Danes, GML faxed a letter to DFDL lawyers appointing
Kerry Danes as their representative in their absence.

In a meeting on 31 May 2000, Kerry Danes and Deserek Tesco [DFDL]
attended a meeting at the Lao PDR Mines Department with the Ad Hoc
Committee of the Foreign Investment Management Cabinet [FIMC]. The Ad
Hoc committee refused to accept Kerry Danes appointment as the GML
representative. Subsequently, GML Director Julie Bruns emailed her
signature to DFDL lawyers and enabled GML to administer their own
affairs from Thailand.

SEVEN MONTHS after the departure of the GML Directors, on December 1,
2000 the members of the Ad Hoc Committee, the Village Chief of Haisok
Village, the Director of the Department of Geology and Mines and the
Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Vientiane Municipality conducted a
search and inspection of Gem Mining Lao [GML]. Also present were
Dirksen, Flipse, Doran & Le [DFDL] lawyers and Mr. Kerry Danes
representing Lao Securicor.

During the course of the inspection, a written record of GML's
inventory showed gemstones held in the office strong room weighed
1.7065 tonne. These sapphires were handed over to the Laos authorities
along with all other GML Assets that were previously being safe guarded
by Lao Securicor, at the request of the Laos authorities and GML. All
office furniture and computers that were stored at the head office
security vault at Lao Securicor were also returned to the Laos
authorities, at their request, along with GML Vehicles that were being
used by GML Lao Staff until the matters were resolved.

According to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 1 December 2000 and
signed by, amongst others, representatives of the Lao PDR authorities
and Mr. Kerry Danes, the responsibility of the jewelry kept in the GML
safe fell on Ms. Julie Bruns and Mr. Bjarne Jeppeson.

When the Laos authorities opened the GML Safe, there was nothing in the
safe other than some papers.

The Laos authorities twice asked Kerry Danes to sign a document stating
that he would accept full responsibility for "what happens to Gem
Mining". Kerry Danes refused to sign such a document. DFDL lawyers
argued that according to the MOU dated 1 December 2000, the
responsibility of the jewelry kept in the GML safe fell on Ms. Julie
Bruns and Mr. Bjarne Jeppeson.

The Lao authorities accepted this and Lao Securicor and Kerry Danes
were relinquished of any involvement with GML.

Until 23 DAYS LATER. Tan Bounmaly Vilayvong came to the Lao Securicor
office and requested Kerry Danes sign a statement that the GML
Directors were in breech of Lao Law. Kerry Danes requested verification
of evidence but Bounmaly told him that it wasn't necessary and that he
should just cooperate.

Kerry Danes could not make such a statement without proof because it
would have put his employers [Jardine Securicor] into a legal battle
with GML. So because Kerry didn't cooperate, he was kidnapped. There
was no arrest warrant. He was just taken away. When he wouldn't sign a
statement, the Laos authorities detained me. The Australian Embassy
were with me at the time of my detainment. There was no arrest warrant
and no charges laid. We were told that we were kept until GML Directors
returned to Laos. This did not happen.

In short, Bounmaly Vilayvong had opened up a can worms and dug a hole
deeper and deeper that backfired on him and brought Laos into shame.

Our arrest and detainment proved contrary to writings of the Lao Law
Concerning Criminal Case Proceedings (1989) whereby; The accused or
defendants have the right to:

Be informed of the charges against them. We were never informed of any
charges. We were held arbitrarily for a further six months in a prison,
without charge. We were constantly interrogated as Bounmaly tried to
get us to sign false statements about GML. We refused to sign because
at no time did Bounmaly provide any evidence to support his claims
against GML.

No evidence was presented by the Lao PDR authorities to support the
allegations of wrongdoing against us either. Certainly no
cross-examination of witnesses or allegations was permitted in the Lao
PDR court. Repeated requests were submitted by both our legal counsel
and the Australian Government to obtain information from the Lao PDR
Ministry of Justice, Foreign Affairs and Lao PDR Government as to the
nature of the charges against us, our treatment, access and various
other requests in accordance with basic legal and human rights but in
most all requests submitted, most were denied, ignored or delayed
unnecessarily.

Despite numerous requests from our legal counsel and Australian
government, no documents were made available for review even after
charges were laid and trial pending.

Legal representation was provided for us but the Lao PDR court advised
that the law did not provide for adversarial proceedings. The legal
representative merely acted as an interpreter at the court since no
interpreter was provided. Kerry and I were separated during the entire
court proceedings and therefore, the Lao lawyer could interpret for one
but not simultaneously.

Our legal representation was not permitted active participation in any
court proceedings. He was in fact, told by the court to be silent.

Prior to the Court proceedings on 28 June 2001, Kerry and I were
visited in the prison by the Lao Public Prosecutor and our lao lawyer
and told that we had been found guilty of Embezzlement, Destruction of
Evidence and Tax Evasion. We had not yet been to court.

At least 14 breeches of the Lao Law Concerning Criminal Case
Proceedings (1989) were breeched by the Laos Public Prosecutor and his
team. Obviously, a fair trial was not going to occur.

Mr. Prasith Phommarack acted as our lawyer and claimed the following in
his statement to the court; -"During this visit I can see penal
suffering of these people because of their long detention. This visible
suffering is due to their innocence, because a guilty person will not
be suffering. Every day in the detention they suffer irreparable
psychological damage".

Mr. Prasith was at that time, the Head of the Lao Bar Association. He
was convinced of our innocence.

Our case drew much attention to the lack of rule of law and no
statement epitomizes that more than the statement made on 14 April 2001
by the Australian Ambassador "the credibility of Lao judicial system is
more on trial than the Danes".

Defining the Charges

1. Embezzlement of state assets represented the Laos Government's case
against Kerry Danes relating to jewelry allegedly stolen from the
office of Gem Mining Lao.

2. Tax evasion represented the Laos Government's case against Kay Danes
on the false premises that Kay was required to register in Laos,
business she was performing as a sole trader in Thailand.

3. Destruction of computer records represents the Laos Government's
case against both Kerry and Kay Danes for allegedly damaging the
information on the computers belonging to Gem Mining Laos.

Our Lawyers established our innocence in a 317 page legal submission
based on affidavits, forensic accounting, witness testimony, Lao law
and other comprehensive documentation that was also provided to the
Australian Government for extensive scrutiny. The submission was
prepared in duplicate in both English and Lao Language to the Lao PDR
court in advance of the court case that took place six months after the
Danes detainment. The legal submission was never referred to in the Lao
PDR court nor was the evidence submitted officially to the court by the
Judges who received the submission. The evidence was submitted to H.E.
Kham Ouane Boupha, Minister of Justice, Lao P.D.R. who did not so much
as even raise issue with the 317 page legal summary.

1. Embezzlement of state assets [265 pieces of jewelry] - Contrary to
the court findings it was proven that Kerry Danes did not have the key
or combination to the GML safe. The provisions of security for the
contents of the GML safe did not form part of the services provided by
Securicor as stated in the Memorandum of 1 December 2000 signed by the
Laos government. A signed affidavit also stated on 29 May 2000, Gem
Mining Directors telephoned their Lao Manager Mr. Sommay Bounnaphol and
asked him to pack up the jewelry and take it to them in Thailand. The
Ad Hoc Committee of the Laos Government acknowledged in its Memorandum
of 1 December 2000, "that the responsibility for the missing jewelry
fell on Ms. Julie Bruns and Mr. Bjarne Jeppeson". The jewelry which was
actually 152 pieces and not 265 as declared by the Lao PDR authorities
was not the property of Gem Mining Laos. It had been annexed from the
GML Assets register prior to the company being listed on the stock
exchange years prior to this incident. It should have no bearing on the
case against the Danes. [Reference: legal submission to the Lao PDR 30
May 2001]. Furthermore, as in evidence submitted to the Lao PDR court
Julie Bruns had presented the 152 pieces of jewelry to the New Zealand
Embassy on the 24 January 2001 for verification of ownership.
[Reference: legal submission to the Lao PDR 30 May 2001].

2. Tax Evasion: The Laos government alleged that Kay Danes was guilty
of tax evasion for money she received from her client in Thailand where
she provided consultancy services. There was no tax payable in the Lao
PDR by Kay Danes in respect of the business that she conducted entirely
outside the jurisdiction of the Lao PDR. Further, payments made by her
client were net of tax payable in Thailand. Kay's client undertook to
pay all taxes including withholding tax and VAT on the fees payable to
Kay Danes. A comprehensive forensic accounting report by KPMG
[Accountants] concluded that because the contract was executed in
Thailand, any stamp duty that might have resulted, would have been
payable to Thai authorities rather than the Lao PDR. This was further
supported by the articles of the foreign investment laws of both Laos
and Thailand. Evidence later submitted to the Thai Court through the
Lao PDR Foreign Minister Somsavat Lengsavad, following the Danes return
to Australia, established the genuine and commercial nature of Kay
Danes' relationship with her client in Thailand. The Thai court
determined that the evidence submitted to them by the Laos Foreign
Minister Somsavat Lengsavad did not support any wrongdoing by Kay Danes
as alleged. The matter was thrown out of the Thai court. Furthermore,
the Australian Ambassador being present at the Lao PDR court and in his
own right a Legal Attorney was visibly concerned when the Lao PDR
Minister for Taxation testified in the Lao PDR court against Kay Danes
and in doing so, committed perjury. He falsely represented the Lao Law
when he submitted that Kay Danes had breeched the law in accordance
with the Instruction on the Implementation of the Decree of the Council
of Ministers No. 370/BOL/94, dated 23/10/90, regarding the Management
of Foreign Currency and Precious metals. This instruction relates to
the restriction of those who reside in Laos to take out foreign
currency from the Lao PDR not exceeding US$2,000. What the Lao PDR
minister failed to mention to the Lao PDR court was that the Governor
of the Bank of the Lao PDR had agreed to amend the instructions and so
passed a resolution on 28 April 1994 of the agreement that authorized
persons to take foreign currency out of the Lao PDR "without any limit
as to the amount and without requesting approval from the Bank of the
Laos PDR". This resolution was expressly implemented "to reduce certain
restrictions and to open wide the right of those who reside in the Lao
PDR to take foreign currency abroad, with the aim of increasing the
confidence of residents and foreigners, including foreign investors,
regarding the management of foreign currency system in Lao PDR".
Thereby, the accusations against Kay Danes were false.

3. Destruction of computer records - The Lao authorities alleged that
Kerry Danes had misappropriated various items of office furniture,
computers and other equipment by removing them from the Gem Mining main
office. This was done in late October/early November 2000 prior to the
seizure of Gem Mining by the Lao PDR Government and with the expressed
written permission from Gem Mining Directors to transfer specific items
of office furniture to Lao Securicor in payment of outstanding security
service fees owing by Gem Mining Lao to Lao Securicor. In any event,
the items were secured at the Lao Securicor office and could have been
returned at any time to the Laos authorities upon request, and in fact,
were returned undamaged. The Danes were not employees of Gem Mining
Laos and no involvement with its daily operation, equipment or affairs.
The computer records and documentation relating to the operation of Gem
Mining Laos were under the exclusive control of their own employees.
The so-called evidence that the Danes were accused of destroying was
the so-called evidence that the Laos court used against the Directors
of Gem Mining Lao in order to sentence them on 8 February 2001 in their
absence, to 20 years imprisonment. In addition the Gem Mining Directors
were ordered to pay US$31 million dollars and 10.1 million kip in
damages to the Laos Government for their alleged role in destroying
their own investment, amongst other things, stealing their own assets.
The Lao PDR Government convicted the GML Directors in their absence and
in doing so, did not provide any opportunity for a fair and transparent
trial. Nor did they provide an opportunity to resolve this dispute
under the rules of UNCITRAL as stipulated in their concession
agreement.

Substantial evidence was presented to the Lao PDR Public Prosecutor
within the first 24 hours of Kay Danes' detainment that proved she did
not breech any Lao laws as supported by documentary evidence in a
resolution by the Governor of the Bank of Laos dated 28 April 1994
authorizing persons to take foreign currency out of the Lao PDR
"without any limit as to the amount and without requesting approval
from the Bank of the Laos PDR". This resolution was expressly
implemented "to reduce certain restrictions and to open wide the right
of those who reside in the Lao PDR to take foreign currency abroad,
with the aim of increasing the confidence of residents and foreigners,
including foreign investors, regarding the management of foreign
currency system in Lao PDR". Consistent with the Resolution,
declaration forms for 1999 and 2000 and current as 23 December 2000 for
travelers departing from the Lao PDR did not require the person
departing to declare any amounts of currency. It followed that Kay
Danes had committed no wrong by proceeding to take funds from the Lao
PDR into Thailand. She was acting in accordance with the Lao law.

The Australian Government supported the Legal Brief prepared that the
Danes had no case to answer.

Immediately following our unlawful conviction, Foreign Minister
Alexander Downer expressed his dissatisfaction publicly. "I am deeply
disappointed and I have spoken to the families of both Kerry and Kay
myself. The Australian Government is dissatisfied with the process
which resulted in the conviction and sentencing of Kerry and Kay. I
have had a personal briefing from the Ambassador [Thwaites] and have
asked him to explore avenues for further action and to report back to
me. We will pursue all avenues to enable Kerry and Kay to come home."

The Australian Ambassador Jonathan Thwaites also commented in the media
"Let's be clear about the Danes, the Australian Government will not
let this matter rest until we have what we want, the Danes' release.
They are innocent. They have been caught up in power plays."

We appealed to the Supreme Court but it was rejected outright as ruled
by Somsavat Lengasavad. Our matter was never heard at the Supreme
Court.

The Australian Government told us that the Laos Government simply
wanted the matter resolved and as quickly as possible. A Presidential
pardon was granted by the President.

We were not expelled or extradited or transferred under any Prisoner
Transfer Agreement which would, in those circumstances, mean that the
conviction would remain in effect. We were granted a full Presidential
Pardon and invited to return to Laos at any time. If there was any
doubt whatsoever of our innocence, the Australian government would have
been obliged to utilise extradition proceedings. It did not.

On 19 October 2001, amidst further delays the Danes' application for
clemency remained with the Prosecutor-General. Lao PDR Foreign Minister
Somsavat Lengsavad claimed to Jason Bleibtreu of Channel Nine News,
that the Thai Judicial authorities had requested the Lao Government
extradite the Danes to Thailand. Reporters from 'Thai Manager Daily'
were present at the interview. Reuters and Ron Corben [AAP] informed
the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs that on 10 October 2001,
Bounmaly Vilavong, Somsavat Lengsavad's Chief Investigator, held
discussions on the Danes case in Bangkok at the time of the Danes'
release from prison. Thai businessman [TPI Chairman Prachai
Leophairatana] who had been trying to intimidate Kay's client [Ferrier
Hodgson] into leaving Thailand [hence the 24 hr armed protection] had
visited Vientiane late in the previous week.

These events and other more secretive meetings that were observed by
investigators for the Danes, revealed the obvious interference from
both the Lao Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Thai Petrochemical
Industries.

As I said previously..... the Australian government had its own LEGAL
department investigate our case, and along with others, determined that
we hadn't a case to answer.

Media reports are sensationalised simply to sell newspapers.

Tao Khai Meut wrote: