On May 8 this year, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court dismissed an application filed by the Government of India to extradite Raymond Varley to face trial in India for charges of historical child sexualabuse carried out in the late 1980s to early 1990s. Justice Quentin Purdy accepted the defence argument that Varley’s physical and mental health was such that it would be unjust and oppressive to allow the extradition. On July 10 at a case management hearing in the UK, India appealed the decision and is currently seeking to submit fresh evidence at the appeal stage. The court directed the counsel for the Republic of India to submit a statement addressing the issues of why India chose not to submit separate expert testimony on Varley’s health at the earlier hearing, and the nature of evidence sought
to be submitted at this stage. The appeal hearing has been set for October 10 this year.
The May 8 judgement by Justice Purdy created a furore as Varley’s arrest warrant dates back to October 1996 and he has been elusive for almost two decades. Child rights activists are angry that he got away too easily on grounds of dementia. Pursued by the law for almost 20 years, Varley attempted to cover up his identity. He changed his name to Martin Ashley by deed poll in 2000 and his lawyer claimed he never visited India and was not the man in the pictures with the children. The photos
and the children’s statements is the hard evidence that has continued to stalk him all these years. In the prima facie case Justice Purdy said that he couldn’t compare Martin Ashley today against photographs of an adult Western male that were at least 20 years old and not of good quality. He said he was however “bound to consider all the evidence. In my judgement the documented visits on the preserved records (those alone now remaining) of visits to the Tourist Hostel, Margao, Goa can safely
and accurately be confirmed to be this Requested person by precise reference to his British passport number.” Varley’s lawyer further argued that he cannot face extradition in 2014 for allegations at least 20 years ago because “by reason of passage of time” and blamed Indian authorities for delays.
Indian immigration records show Varley was in India in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995. Despite Thailand and India having an extradition treaty and a Bangkok address having being provided in 1996, there was no extradition request. Not until 1997 does a superintendent of police send extradition papers to the Minister for External
affairs seeking extradition. Martin Ashley left Thailand on March 28, 1997 and the Interpol Red Notice to track him down came only on January 23, 1998. There was a
failed London arrest attempt in 2000. But the deed poll name change cannot be an excuse for the delay on the part of the Indian authorities, because by August 8, 2000 the UK authorities informed India of the new name and new passport. He was eventually found in Thailand and deported and then arrested in 2012 in his native
Halifax, Yorkshire. Peter Caldwell prosecution advocate argued that India was facing a “global enquiry” with “numerous suspects” beyond India and that a “consistent
pursuit by the Indians globally without success” cannot be said to be
culpable delay.
The judge rejected Varley’s ‘passage
of time’ challenge.
The defence also argued that Varley
should not be extradited because of
human rights—namely prison conditions
in Goa and his failing health.
Just how convoluted the process of
justice for the Goa children has become
can be viewed from the fact that
the UK sent two experts to Goa to review
the prison facilities here in the
interests of the “human rights” of the
child abuser. In 2013 Lord Ramsbottam
(former chief inspector of HM’s
prisons) and Prof Rod Morgan visited
prisons in Goa and concluded that
Varley’s human rights would not be
infringed here.
In Prof Morgan’s report he states “
…in my judgement a prisoner such a
Raymond Varley, taking account of his
age, medical condition and culture,
would likely find living stressful but I
do not think it can be said that his human
rights would be infringed.”
Lord Ramsbottom takes a similar
stance. “Although differently applied
than in the UK, no aspects of human
rights conditions appeared to be at
risk of being breached in Colvell
(meaning Colvale) prison”.
The British paedophile however
has used every trick in the bag to escape
extradition to India. Under ‘medical
evidence’, Varley speaks of “very
bad knees” for which he takes medication.
The problem has “got worse
throughout 2013”, meaning he “simply”
cannot squat. The significance is
that Prof Morgan’s report says the toilet
arrangements (in the Goa jail) are
a hole requiring squatting, therefore
help from others would be needed.
After seeing the reports by Lord
Ramsbottam and Prof Morgan and the
Indian reply on prison conditions,
Linda Atterton, a neuropsychologist
who examined Varley said she has no
doubt that he has “moderate to severe
dementia already”.
The prosecution challenged her
qualification to make such findings
pointing out that she wasn’t a psychiatrist
within the National Health Service
(NHS) and that there was “little
actual evidence available to support
the assertion of unfitness”. He said
one could not simply conclude that
dementia makes extradition oppressive.
The defence argued that India had
chosen not to commission its own expert
merely to challenge Atterton’s
competence.
But neuropsychologist’s report
weighed heavily with the British judge
who was swayed more by his concern
for the health of the child abuser than
serving the interests of justice for Indian
children. Justice Purdy concluded,
“This case has been long and
heavy going for all involved. Complainants
in India may very well feel
denied due process for allegations of
the most grave. As indicated in detail
I reject all challenges raised for the
reasons given save per S 91 finding
an extradition order to face trial for a
man suffering from dementia needing
“immediate daily support” must be
both “unjust’ and ” oppressive” and
therefore barred.
Bharti Patel, CEO of ECPAT UK, an
NGO that is campaigning against child
trafficking and transnational child exploitation
says India should have ensured
better preparation on evidence
gathering and this would have helped
argue the case considering the time
lapse and Varley’s age.
“Medical evidence on health of an
individual facing trial should have
been anticipated by India and better
case notes could have been prepared.
India should have submitted expert
evidence with regards to Varley’s defence
of his health condition.”
During the pendency of the extradition
proceedings against him, Varley
is on bail with conditions attached
such as staying away from places
where he could come into contact
with children. UK newspapers have
recently photographed him freely
walking the streets amidst unsuspecting
shoppers in the market town of
Todmorden West Yorks.
If the Indian government’s appeal
against the magistrate’s ruling fails
and Varley is not extradited, there will
be no charge against him in the UK
and he will therefore walk free as a
result.
Kanchan Prasad spokesperson for
the CBI pointed out to the racial element
in the case. “It has a lot to do
with white mindsets and attitude.
They wouldn’t like a white person to
be tried by a brown person. They feel
his rights will be violated in India under
the present conditions.” It isn’t
only India she says but sentiments
abroad also who are shocked at the
verdict given by Justice Purdy.
Varley’s case dates back to 1991
with the arrest of the notorious Freddie
Peats an Anglo German who ran
an international paedophile network
from Goa under the guise of caring
for street children and orphans. The
children in the Margao home operated
by Peats would be photographed
while being sexually abused by a
string of foreigners, among them, Raymond
Varley. Peats was sentenced to
life imprisonment in 1996 and died
in prison in 2005 at the age of 81.
Varley visited the orphanage since
the 1980’s almost every year during
Christmas. Some of the children he
abused were boys as young as five
and seven.
g Review Bureau
