Violations of the European Convention by the Dutch judiciary and government

Under Articles 94 & 120 of the Dutch Constitution (the Grondwet) the European convention on Human Rights is given primacy; however none of the Dutch Police, Prosecutors, Examining Magistrate, or Judges respect their own constitution and they systematically conspire to breach their own Constitution and the European Convention. The failure of the Dutch judiciary, prosecution and police to comply with the rule of law is not due to their ignorance of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is actually systematic and institutionalised corruption.

The following provides some details of the very many breaches of both the Dutch constitution and the European Convention by the Dutch Police, Prosecution, Examining Magistrate and Judges:-

European Convention, Article 3 violations:

Inhuman treatment: During the interrogations of Sweeney by the police in a several week period after 18 March 1996 he was subjected to intense mental pressure that caused him to break down.

Degrading treatment: During the interrogations of Sweeney the police aroused in him feeling of fear, anguish and inferiority with the purpose of humiliating and debasing him and in order to break his physical and mental resistance.

During the time of his custody at the police station (± 13 days) the police threatened the health and safety of Sweeney’s daughters and mother.

There is evidence of this matter based on the treatment of Sweeney’s mother in England during the police interview of her and of the treatments of Sweeney’s daughters (then aged 7 years and 4 years) whom were subject to a variety of psychological stresses.

Despite being ordered by the Examining Magistrate to confine their questions to relevant matters, the police during over 200 hours of interrogation continually brought intense mental pressure on Sweeney with threats to him and his children, racism, psychological abuse, and attacks on his race, birth, religion, family life, parents and so forth. Eventually Sweeney had a mental breakdown.

The police and prosecution have made constant racial remarks to Sweeney, in the media and in the prosecution documents regarding Sweeney. It is remarkable to note that uniquely in the Court of Appeal and Court of Cassation decisions there is a note of Sweeney’s place of baptism. This has never before been noted in Dutch judicial proceedings and represents the State’s desire to make some sort of racial comment on Sweeney’s life.

The video-tapes of the police interviews provide evidence of this matters.

European Convention, Article 5 violations:

It is submitted that the Dutch state needs to justify “reasonable suspicion” in this case in several respects. The European Court has found that ‘reasonable suspicion’ must exist in order to justify arrest and detention, and indeed conviction of the accused.

In 1996 (in refusing the Dutch government’s application for a Rogatory Commission) the U.S. Department of Justice in a letter to Dutch Ministry of Justice stated that they saw no evidence against Sweeney and questioned the motive for the Dutch authorities pursuing Sweeney.

There was significant evidence in this matter offered to, and refused by, the Court of Appeal in November 1997.

Firstly, in this case, there was no reasonable suspicion that there was in fact a real offence, that is, an offence of arson. There was no evidence that the fire in question was not an accident or a para-suicidal gesture on the part of Suzanne. The evidence of an accident and/or the mental health of Suzanne was specifically suppressed by the prosecution and the examining magistrates in this case. In the Netherlands there were (in 1995) 6,531 household fire incidents reported (and many thousands of such incidents unreported) and in this case the authorities were not able to show actual evidence of why and how the fire in this case differed from any of the other accidental domestic fires in the Netherlands. Indeed the Examining Magistrate refused to allow evidence of other similar accidental fires to be admitted by the defence. Further, there was considerable indication that Suzanne was prone to psychological and psychiatric problems and yet this evidence was suppressed.

There was significant evidence in this matter offered to, and effectively refused by, the Court of Appeal.

Secondly, in this case, there was no reasonable suspicion that Sweeney was involved in any offence, indeed it was impossible that he could have committed the offence.

If one or both of the above suspicions cannot be sustained by evidence then the State’s

	Arrest on 4 December 1995. Sweeney’s arrest by international arrest warrant, at his home at night, when his children were in bed, was grossly unnecessary. Sweeney had at all times submitted to the Dutch authorities’ requests for him to go to the Netherlands. He was frequently in the Netherlands and indeed had been there on the weekend before his arrest. After his arrest the Dutch authorities refused to arrange his transfer from the Belgian prison to the Netherlands for a period of over 3 months. This was done to allow the Dutch police to intimidate witnesses without the supervision of an Examining Magistrate, to intimidate Sweeney and also to facilitate the abduction of his children from their home in Belgium.
	detention until 12 September 1996;
	prosecution from 1995 to 2001;
	re-arrest and detention on 6 February 2001;
	conviction on 20 February 2001;
	refusal of appeal on 26 November 2002
	and continued detention thereafter,

is a violation of Article 5.

It is submitted that not only is there no suspicion of arson or the involvement of Sweeney in any arson, but moreover on the basis of logic, common knowledge, common sense and self-evident laws of physics these allegations were impossible.

The State’s ‘suspicion’ of an offence of arson was unfounded.

Some examples:-

i.	The State’s allegation that turpentine was used as an accelerant to start a fire in the bedroom and that traces of turpentine were allegedly found on the carpet was entirely untrue and a fabrication by the police. It was later discovered and shown to the court that the police had fabricated this evidence, furthermore the prosecution knew of this fabrication at all times, indeed from the day of the fire on 17 July 1995. This matter was pleaded in the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation, however in both courts this serious fabrication of evidence was ignored. There are (the police's own) photographs in evidence to prove that the police allegations were fabricated.
ii.	The state alleged that up to 8 litres of turpentine had been sprinkled on the bedroom carpet up to 30 hours before the fire, however (in addition to the fact that the police had fabricated the allegation that there were traces of turpentine on the carpet) there were no traces of turpentine on the concrete floor below the carpet, nor on any walls, ceiling, clothes, curtains, or any part of the room. Logic, common sense and the law of gravity dictates that if 8 litres of any liquid is poured onto a domestic wool woven bedroom carpet (with no underlay or backing) and left to stand for 30 hours that the liquid will pass through the carpet and contaminate the floor below and furthermore a fire involving the liquid would spread contamination throughout the entire room. There was absolutely no forensic evidence produced in this respect to support the State’s suspicions of the use of 8 litres (or indeed any quantity) of turpentine being used in the fire. The State refused to acknowledge logic, common sense or gravity, and pretended a ‘reasonable suspicion’ in violation of Article 5. Furthermore, the police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed much evidence in this respect.
iii.	The State alleged that the bottles of cleaning fluids found at the scene could not have been in the house for cleaning purposes because a domestic helper at the house, a week before, saw no need to clean. However, Suzanne herself, 3 hours before the fire told her brother by telephone that she was cleaning; Suzanne’s diary had a list of things to do and this listed cleaning and the purchase of cleaning materials; the firemen at the scene of the fire testified that there were paint stains or splashes (that would need cleaning). The prosecution officers suppressed evidence that Suzanne had herself purchased the cleaning materials on the 13 July 1995. Fingerprint tests indicated that Sweeney’s fingerprints were not on the cleaning fluid bottles, however the actual identity of the person or persons handling these bottles, be that Suzanne, the cleaning lady or the painters/decorators, et al, were suppressed by the prosecution. The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed much evidence in this respect, including the Firemen’s observations; Suzanne’s diary and her note book (the so-called ‘Pink Book’ that contained a shopping list of cleaning materials to buy, a list of cleaning tasks to do and the sales receipts of the cleaning materials she had purchased on the 13 & 14 July 1995); and the identity of the persons whose fingerprints were found on the cleaning bottles.
iv.	The State alleged that Suzanne could not have committed suicide on the basis of a statement made by a baby-sitter (McDaid) whom did not know Suzanne and had a only 20 minute car journey with her. However, Suzanne’s brother, parents, former partners, doctor and others had stated that Suzanne was prone to psychiatric problems and self-destructive gestures. When it became clear to the State that McDaid was discredited as there was proof that she had perjured herself in her statements and had also defrauded her company in respect of the payments she had received from Sweeney, the State then relied on the statement of Suzanne’s brother that Suzanne had not been depressed on the night of the incident. This in the face of the brother’s first statement that Suzanne had previously told him that she had contemplated suicide. The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed much evidence in this respect, including evidence sent by the Crown Prosecution Service in England to the police and to the Examining Magistrate/s.
v.	The State alleged that a raging and explosive fire was started at a particular time. However, at that time there were 7 witnesses (including 2 policemen) within 2 metres of the windows of the room in which the fire was allegedly raging and there were perhaps 200 witnesses, passers-by, pedestrians, motorists, neighbours, et al. None of these witnesses apparently (according to the State’s theory) saw the fire on a clear night, in a first floor room without curtains and with 4 large windows and a glass balcony door. The prosecution’s own time-line for the incident shows that these witnesses were present at the scene and during the time alleged by the prosecution that the fire was in progress. Furthermore the prosecutions own tests (the TNO tests) reveal that the fire, as alleged by the prosecution, was an explosive and raging fire. The Court of Appeal refused to view the Prosecution’s own video tape of the TNO tests that showed the explosive nature of the fire alleged by the prosecution. The Court of Appeal refused to acknowledge the prosecutions own photographs of the scene of the fire that showed that the bedroom windows and a full glass balcony door had been shattered and that anybody outside the house could not failed to have seen, heard and/or felt the fire.
vi.	The Prosecution officers suppressed information of the Time of Death that showed that it was impossible that the fire started at the time alleged by the prosecutor.
vii.	There are a large number of other examples of the impossibilities of the State’s allegations.

The State’s suspicions that Sweeney was responsible for the alleged arson was unfounded.

Some examples:-

At the time the fire was reported by witnesses, Sweeney was 200 kilometres away from the scene in Brussels.

The witness McDaid stated that Sweeney was at his home, some 25 minutes south of Brussels at the time of the fire in the Netherlands.

ii.

The house was entirely locked up from the inside and thus it was impossible that anybody, including Sweeney, could have started a fire and then left the premises.

The statement of the witnesses Moorens and Smets and the statement of the 2 Policemen at scene at and after 02.40 hrs. stated that the house was secured and that there was no fire. The statement of Firemen whom arrived at the scene stated that the house was locked-up from the inside.

iii.

The State offered no motive.

The witnesses in the case, including Suzanne’s father, doctor, best friends, secretary, staff and others stated that Sweeney cared for and provided for Suzanne and that she was happy with Sweeney. There was no suggestion and no evidence that Sweeney had been anything but caring and loving towards his wife.

Given these and many more examples that demonstrate the physical impossibility of an arson or of any involvement in the fire of any person other than Suzanne, the authorities had no grounds for the arrest, detention or conviction of Sweeney.

European Convention, Article 6 violations:

Police and law officers have, in the period 17 July 1995 to date, been engaged in the fabrication of evidence, the suppression of evidence and perverting the course of justice. This corruption began the day of the fire, when the police fabricated the allegation that they took carpet samples for testing and has continued ever since.

The law officers in this case are, inter alia:-

Technical police: Albers, Velders, Van Meurs and others.

Police: Von Bokhoven, Haarman, Veldhoven, Goodley, Heard and others

Prosecutors: Ten Hoppe (1^st), Klinkenbijl (4^th), Broek-Blaauboer (5^th) and Jorg (6^th).

Examining magistrates: Roterdink (1^st), Ter Beek (2^nd), Barteld (3^rd).

Under-cover policeman: Postma

Fabrication of evidence by the police/prosecutors/examining magistrates:

Fabrication of carpet sample evidence

It was discovered in 2001 that the police / prosecution allegations that traces of a ‘crude oil distillate’ was found on the carpet in the bedroom were falsified as the police did not take the carpet samples as stated in their evidence. Photographs discovered showed the room cleared and swept and that the carpet was intact and the samples had not been taken. The Court of Appeal judges on the 6 February 2001 specifically stopped the proceedings when it became evident that Sweeney’s lawyers were going to plead this matter of police fabrication of evidence (in public) in the open court.

Perjured allegations of computer hacking

The policemen Von Bokhoven and Haarman had throughout 1995 and 1996 stated to the court that Sweeney had ‘hacked’ into the police computer in Eindhoven. This allegation was several times stated to the judges in the court. In 1996 it was discovered that a special department of the Dutch police had undertaken an investigation in October 1995 and had discovered that the police allegations of computer hacking were false. This report was suppressed from the judges and court until it was discovered by the defence. Despite the perjury and the attempt to ‘pervert the course of justice’ the 2 policemen involved were not removed from the case and the various other evidence they had fabricated was allowed into evidence.

It is a maxim of law that all the ‘fruit of a poisoned tree’ is suspect, however the Dutch authorities and indeed the Dutch judges encouraged these corrupt policemen and did not discipline them.

Subornation of Belgian & English witnesses

The police blackmailed and coerced witnesses in order to obtain false and deceptive witness statements.

The Dutch policemen, Von Bokhoven and Haarman, blackmailed witnesses in Belgium. Evidence from an independent advocate (De Manet) states that the Dutch policemen committed a series of criminal acts under Belgian law. There is tape recorded and written evidence that these policemen had blackmailed witnesses and yet the Dutch authorities and judges sought only to suppress the facts in these matters.

Similarly in England witnesses were suborned. One witness (Rowley) stated before the Dutch Examining Magistrate that the statements alleged to have been made by her to the police were not truthfully reported. Similarly the witness McDaid stated before the Dutch Examining Magistrate that her statements were false.

None of these false witnesses’ statements were removed from the evidence and the Dutch authorities and judges ignored the corrupt policemen involved and did not discipline them.

It is significant to note that the majority of prosecution witnesses whom made statements to the police later stated that they were not allowed to read the statements before they were told to sign them. Many witnesses subsequently stated that their statements, as produced by the police, was not what they said or intended to say.

TNO Tests. Conspiracy to falsify and fabricate evidence

The entire validity, set-up, methodology and conduct of the TNO tests were designed to produce false results. The Court of Appeal in November 1997 ordered a specific set of temperature tests to be done, instead the police and prosecution (with the conspiracy of the examining magistrates) embarked on a scheme to produce tests that were a wholly artificial and invalid and whose sole purpose was to produce false and deceptive results.

The expert, Professor Barnett, has stated in his first report that the tests had a 1 in 110,000 possibility of being valid if the fire scene was accurately re-constructed (which in the TNO test it was not and thus the possibility of the tests being valid were very greatly less that 1 in 110,000). Thus in using the findings of these tests in order to convict Sweeney the Dutch judges reasoned that a less than 1 in 110,000 possibility of guilt was sufficient for a conviction.

The Examining Magistrate Ter Beek was removed from her position when it was discovered that she had suborned the TNO staff, notably Reijman. Yet this evidence was allowed to remain before the court.

Reijman during his interview with the replacement Examining Magistrate (Barteld) admitted that the conclusions he had made in his report was not true and did not reflect the test results actually obtained. Yet this evidence was allowed to remain before the court.

The tests were not conducted in accordance with the National (Dutch NNI) or the International (European Norm, ISO, et al) tests standards and norms and thus these tests were entirely without any scientific value.

Evidence from the NNI, Rapra, Fira, SGS, ISO, ASTM, British Standards, European Norm and other official testing organisations showed that the TNO tests were invalid.

Transcript of interviews with Sweeney were fabricated and false

Sweeney had agreed with the 1st Examining Magistrate (Roterdink) that he would answer police questions and that the interviews would be translated into English for him to read and then sign. The police and Examining Magistrate broke this agreement and fabricated statements that Sweeney had not read nor signed were entered into evidence. About 25 such statements, representing over 200 hours of police interviews, were produced to the court and these were unread and unsigned by Sweeney.

The police videotapes (1996) of the interviews with Sweeney, when compared with the written statements produced to court, demonstrate that the police fabricated this evidence.

Despite the fact that Sweeney did not sign any of these interviews, none-the-less the examining magistrates produced them in evidence and the judges accepted them as being proven evidence.

Racism

It is the case that some underlying racism still exists in the Netherlands and in this case the police and prosecution embarked on a strategy to cast some sort of racial image on Sweeney.

The insistence of the racism was striking. The police initially insisted to the press that Sweeney was Indian and indeed the press carried stories along these lines. One television program showed images of an Indian village and horse drawn vehicles, et al.

Sweeney had told the police that whilst he was baptised in the Anglican Church in Poona (India) he was not born there. The police knew that this was in fact true, however they persisted with the racial images. The police obtained official evidence from the authorities and then bizarrely a private detective was hired to try and fabricate evidence. Albeit the private detective also reported that Sweeney was not born in Poona. All this evidence was hidden from the court and the police, prosecution and examining magistrates continued with their obsession in this matter.

The judges in the case were not any better. The judges were aware that the suppressed evidence showed that Sweeney had been telling the truth, this evidence had undoubtedly been shown to them in whatever secret meetings they had had with the prosecutor/s. Thus uniquely in Dutch judicial proceedings, one sees police and prosecution papers ‘accusing’ Sweeney of being born in Poona and the judges in their decisions stating that Sweeney place of birth was unknown and that he was baptised in Poona. For the first time in Dutch judicial history one sees in this case judges qualifying the place of baptism of a defendant. The reasons for this can only be racial and/or religious discrimination.

Falsification of statement from the ABN-Amro Bank

In the video-tapes of the interviews with Sweeney the police are seen to be repeatedly making false and fraudulent statements. For example, over a period of a number of days the police stated that they had written statements and verbal statements from a bank in the Netherlands that stated that Sweeney had visited that bank. Sweeney had never in his life visited that bank and told the police so. Yet the police persisted in saying that the bank executives and staff had provided them with a statement. Eventually it was seen that the police had lied and that no such statements existed.

Perjured statements / evidence from Goodley / Heard

A letter and request for a Rogatory Commission was sent by the Chief Crown Prosecutor of England and the Home Office to the Dutch Ministry of Justice requesting that the Police Complaints Authority of England be allowed to interview Dutch police and other parties as the police officers responsible for the case against Sweeney had ‘Perverted the Course of Justice’. This entire matter was an indication that the English senior police in the case against Sweeney, together with the conspiracy of their Dutch colleagues, had fabricated evidence against Sweeney.

Apart from the above example of the fabrication of evidence other examples also exist:-

i.	English solicitors / Production Orders English and Dutch police fabricated evidence that they had NOT questioned various solicitors in England, however there was later discovered to be Production Orders given by English Crown Court judges that ordered various English solicitors to provide police with information and access/copies to the solicitors’ files. The police stated to the Dutch court that Sweeney had refused them access to the solicitor’s files, which was not the case, and indeed the police had had access to these files since 1996.
ii.	Rowley After Sweeney’s acquittal in 1996 the police went to Australia to suborn an ex-employee of Sweeney, a Nanny to his children who had worked for Sweeney some 2 years previously. The police produced an alleged statement from Rowley, which by Rowley’s own admission before the Examining Magistrate was false.
iii.	Evidence to English court alleging that the fire was set in 22 places In the Family Court in England the police had provided allegations that said that Sweeney had started the fire in ‘22 places around the house’. The police at all times knew that there was only one seat of fire and that had partially burned the bed only.
iv.	Appearance in English court to protect witness perjury In 1997, on legal advice from his Dutch and English lawyers, Sweeney brought criminal proceedings for perjury against a number of witnesses in England for the (section 9) statements that they had produced and for which Sweeney had proof that the statements were perjured. On each occasion the policeman Goodley appeared at the committal proceedings in court and requested that the case be postponed as Sweeney was on trial for Murder and thus the perjury proceedings against the witnesses were an abuse of process. In fact the evidence that was to be presented to the court were that Goodley himself and various other policemen had blackmailed the witnesses to obtain from them false statements against Sweeney. It was the dossier that contained this evidence that the Crown Prosecution Service sent to Police for investigation in 1998 and a copy was sent to the Dutch Examining Magistrate Ter Beek. The dossier sent to the Dutch court was subsequently suppressed by the Dutch authorities. See 3. a) 8 above.
v.	Subornation of witnesses The police compelled English witnesses to produce a number of statements in the case. In the period 1996 to 1998 Sweeney, his lawyers and private detectives collected evidence to show that these witnesses had committed perjury in their witness statements as well as had committed a number of other criminal offences including fraud and theft. The police had used the existence of these criminal offences and the offences of perjury to blackmail these witnesses. In total there were some 14 witnesses that were suborned and blackmailed by the police in England and the 1500 page dossier in this matter was sent by the Crown Prosecution Service in London to Police for investigation. A copy being sent to the Dutch Examining Magistrate Ter Beek. The dossier sent to the Dutch court was subsequently suppressed.
vi.	Provision of forged / false Scotland Yard documents Police produced a number of documents for the Dutch court and these were subsequently revealed, by forensic examination, to be false. The documents allegedly from as far back as the early 1970s were shown to be composed of a number of different and inconsistent type-faces.

Fabrication of TNO tests and false reports:

The construction of the fire test room was purposely distorted to give a false result designed to deceive the court

The evidence produced to the court by Professor Barnett in 1998 stated that IF the TNO tests re-construction was faithfully reproduced that there was a 1 in 110,000 chance of the tests being valid. In fact the TNO did not in any respect accurately reproduce or re-construct the fire test room and thus the possibility of the tests being valid were even more remote. This is attested to by the TNO’s own documentation and the video-tape of the tests. The TNO staff, suborned by the Examining Magistrate Ter Beek constructed an entirely false test room that did not in any way reflect the actual situation. The parameters of the TNO test room was certainly developed previously by secret experimentation and computer simulations that were designed to ensure that an entirely artificial test result was produced.

For example, the fire test room was specifically and fraudulently manipulated in that:

a)	The entire Test Room was confined in an Air-tight structure that was designed to reduce the flow of oxygen as would have been present naturally and actually at the actual fire scene.
b)	No Loft Space and Loft Hatch above the bed, which had been open during the fire
c)	No windows
d)	No balcony door
e)	No wall coverings or painted surfaces
f)	No interior woodwork
g)	No furniture
h)	No wall hangings or pictures
i)	No ceiling cladding
j)	No electric light bulbs or spotlights (glass)
k)	No electrical fittings (plastic)
l)	No Bedclothes
m)	No Curtains (fabric) or curtain fittings (plastic)
n)	No plastic fittings around the room
o)	No plastic packaging materials
p)	No paper, newspapers, paper products.
q)	Et al.

The police knew that there were bedclothes on the bed, and the Prosecutor and Examining Magistrate suppressed the police photographs from the Defence:

The cotton bedclothes from the bed:

Label from a ‘Marks & Spencer’ pillow that was on the bed:

ii.

The methodology used for the fire tests was purposely manipulated to give false results designed to deceive the court

The staff at the TNO knew at all times that the test methodology they were using was not correct or adequate and would give false results.

The report of 1998 by Professor Barnett gave indications as to the test methodology requirements.

The International Standards Organisation (ISO) and the ASTM Room Fire Test methodology was specifically not used in order to give false results.

iii.

Dutch, European or International Test Standards and Norms for conducting tests were not used in order to distort the results and thereby deceive the court

The staff at the TNO knew at all times that the Dutch test standards (Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut), the European Norm or the ISO standards were not used and the reasons for this was to specifically produce false results.

iv.

The materials used in the tests were specifically and fraudulently selected and/or specifically omitted to distort the tests and thereby give false test results to the court

The only item of furniture used in the tests was a mattress. This mattress was specifically manufactured of fire resistant materials by the manufacturer Silentnight. The staff of the manufacturer stated to the Examining Magistrate that the mattress was not the same as the mattress in the actual fire. Further in that the mattress in the actual fire was some 10 years old it was know by all concerned, including the TNO staff and the Examining Magistrate, that the actual mattress was more inflammable than a newly manufactured mattresses that was made of fire resistant materials.

The tests did not include the flammable items that were in the room.

The items that were on the bed and that burned or partially burned included, inter alia:

a)	Bed headboard
b)	Pillows (plastic foam)
c)	Pillow cases (cotton)
d)	Underblanket (cotton)
e)	Mattress cover (cotton & foam padding)
f)	Sheets (cotton)
g)	Duvet
h)	Duvet cover (cotton)
i)	Bedspread
j)	Clothes
k)	Newspapers / magazines
l)	Et al.

The flammable materials / products / items that were in the bedroom and did not burn included, inter alia:

a)	Bed clothes
b)	Clothes
c)	Softwood interior fittings
d)	Furniture
e)	Picture frames & wall embroideries
f)	Luggage
g)	Curtains & curtain fittings
h)	Paper packaging
i)	Newspapers / magazines
j)	Plastic objects / telephone / et al
k)	Electrical fittings & cables
l)	Lights / spotlight bulbs & fittings
m)	Pillows
n)	Et al.

The flammability test methodology was intentionally manipulated in order to distort the tests and produce false results

The flammability tests were termed by Professor Barnett at being a ‘blunder’.

The TNO staff knew that they were not using the Dutch (NNI) or any other European or International test standards and that thereby they were producing invalid results.

A report from SGS (the world’s largest testing organisation with 40,000 staff in 120 countries) stated that the TNO tests did not conform to any of the National, European or International Standards or Norms.

vi.

The flammability tests were intentionally distorted by the use of the wrong materials (for example, the use of specially manufactured fire resistant beds/mattresses), materials were specifically excluded or omitted (for example, bed clothes) and materials were manipulated (for example, the fact that the cigarettes were not placed on the mattresses in accordance with the recognised test methodology), in order to produce false results to deceive the court.

vii.

The TNO report conclusions did not accord with, or accurately reflect, the real data from the test sensors and was intentionally misstated in order to present a false picture to the court

The report conclusions produced by the Reijman (the TNO technician) did not accord or reflect the actual test data or the data produced by the test sensors. Thus the report conclusions that Reijman produced were both entirely false and a perjury and designed to deceive the court. During examination by the Examining Magistrate (Barteld), Reijman admitted that his conclusions did not accord or reflect the actual test data produced by the sensors and measuring instruments.

viii.

The TNO report conclusions did not give an impartial or unbiased scientific picture of the facts in issue and did thereby deceive the court

Reijman admitted to the Examining Magistrate that the conclusions that he had produced in his report were false and yet neither the Examining Magistrate, nor the judges in the court, excluded Reijman's report from the court evidence.

ix.

The TNO report conclusions specifically set out to deceive the court by making untrue and false assertions. Specific examples will be adduced in due course

Whilst this matter was pleaded in court, the judges ignored these facts and thereby allowed perjured and entirely false evidence into the court.

Accordingly, all the law officers and the judges were fully aware that the TNO tests were fabricated and false, that the report conclusions were false (by the testimony of the report author, Reijman), that the Examining Magistrate responsible for the tests and report (Ter Beek) had been removed from the case for the subornation of the TNO staff and that the TNO tests and report was specifically procured for the express purposes of falsely convicting Sweeney. Yet, the various judges used this fraudulent and false evidence to convict Sweeney.

Suppression of evidence by the police / prosecutors / examining magistrates:

Swabs of Suzanne’s hands to show that she had been cleaning with specific fluids

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed this evidence as it would have proved that Suzanne had been cleaning, as she had stated to her brother at the time, and that she was using the cleaning materials that she had purchased.

Swabs of Suzanne’s skin, feet, nose cavity, hair, et cetera, to record that there was no turpentine present on the floor or elsewhere in the room or the fire

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed the evidence in this respect as it proved that there were no fire accelerants (turpentine), involved in the fire. If such products had been used in the fire then they would have left forensic traces within and on the surface of the victim’s body.

Forensic evidence of the fire scene

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed much evidence in this respect, including, inter alia:

i.	Electrical fittings and circuits faults that may have been the cause of the fire.
ii.	Spotlights faults (above the bed) that may have been the cause of the fire.
iii.	Electrical connectors faults (behind the bed head) that may have been the cause of the fire.
iv.	Balcony door that shattered and would have been seen and heard by the witnesses on the scene at the time that the prosecution allege that the fire occurred.
v.	Curtain tracks/Curtains that did not burn, thereby indicating that there was no ´Flashover´ as alleged by the prosecution and in the TNO (Reijman) report. In fact had there been a ´Flashover´ as alleged then the curtains would have been one of the first items to have burst into flames.
vi.	Furnishings and Fittings that did not burn, thereby indicating that there was no ´Flashover´ as alleged by the prosecution and in the TNO (Reijman) report. In fact had there been a ´Flashover´ as alleged then these items would have been some of the first items to have burst into flames.
vii.	Items of paper, clothes, plastic, et cetera, found in the room and that did not burn, thereby indicating that there was no ´Flashover´ as alleged by the prosecution and in the TNO (Reijman) report. In fact had there been a ´Flashover´ as alleged then these items would have been some of the first items to have burst into flames.

Bedroom Floor / underdecking tests

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed evidence in this respect as it indicated that there was no turpentine, or any other inflammable product, poured on the bedroom carpet. Had any such liquids been poured on the carpet, for however short a time and especially for a period of up to 30 hours before the fire (as alleged by the prosecution) then it would have soaked through the carpet and contaminated the floor beneath.

Paint on stairs and other locations

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed much evidence in this respect as it showed why Suzanne had been cleaning. In fact the Firemen at the scene of the fire had stated in their report that they themselves had seen paint splashes and clearly these would have to be cleaned by Suzanne.

Door locking mechanisms

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed evidence in this respect as it showed that the house was entirely locked up from the inside. The various witness at the scene, including the firemen, stated that the patio door and other access points were locked and bolted from the inside and the firemen described the actions they went through the house to open the various access points after the fire. In fact the firemen had to use force to gain access to the property although a key to the house (from the cleaning lady) was at hand.

Existence of a Loft space and open Hatch above the bed

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed evidence in this respect. The was in fact a loft space above the bedroom and there was a open loft hatch above the bed. The prosecution, TNO and the examining magistrate suppressed this evidence because it demonstrated that there was both an oxygen supply and a ´chimney´ effect acting on the bed fire.

Photographs

Loft space, hatch opening above the bed, ceiling, spotlights, electrical fittings, headboard, fire patterns on wall, balcony door, et cetera.

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed all the photographic evidence in this respect in order to hide the existence of the vital evidential factors and parameters in the fire.

Photographs of adhesives / carpet tape on the carpet underside

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed photographic evidence that showed that there were carpet adhesives and carpet tape on the underside of the bedroom carpet and that this evidence indicated both that Suzanne had a reason to clean the carpet (where the carpet adhesive had surfaced or was evident).

Evidence of carpet adhesives

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed evidence that showed that there were carpet adhesives on the underside of the bedroom carpet and that this evidence indicated both that Suzanne had a reason to clean the carpet and that this product would yield the same traces of a ‘crude oil distillate’ as alleged by the prosecution.

Evidence of carpet anti-stain treatment

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed evidence that showed that there were carpet anti-stain treatments on the surface of the bedroom carpet and that this product would yield the same traces of a ‘crude oil distillate ’ as alleged by the prosecution.

Evidence of double-sided carpet tape

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed evidence that showed that there was adhesive carpet tape on the underside of the bedroom carpet and that this product would yield the same traces of a ‘crude oil distillate ’ as alleged by the prosecution.

Contents of rubbish bags

Empty carpet adhesive containers, carpet stain treatment aerosol cans, carpet tape packaging, et cetera.

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed the evidence of the contents of the household rubbish bags (which the police noted were stacked outside in the back garden of the house) because these rubbish bags contained the packaging and used and empty containers in this respect.

Contents of Suzanne’s handbag and luggage (which can clearly be seen undamaged at the foot of the bed in the police photographs of the fire scene)

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed much evidence in this respect. For example, Suzanne’s luggage contained some scented candles and crystal candle holders what the children had bought Suzanne for her birthday. Suzanne had taken these items to the bedroom as night-lights. Suzanne’s luggage also contained baby oil and this cosmetic product also produces a trace of a ‘crude oil distillate’.

Suzanne’s diary, papers and documents

All were suppressed by the police, prosecutors and examining magistrates.

For example, Suzanne’s diary (found at the house) contained an entry of the cleaning work that needed to be done and also a list of cleaning materials that she listed as needing.

For example, the police and prosecution officers suppressed all of Suzanne’s financial and bank documents (found at the house) as these showed Suzanne to be in considerable financial difficulties. The Dutch authorities suppressed these documents, as this might have been evidence of a cause of a para-suicidal gesture by Suzanne.

For example, the police and prosecution officers suppressed all of Suzanne’s personal papers and divorce documents (found at the house) as these showed that Suzanne had falsified her divorce to her previous husband Christopher Arnold. The Dutch authorities suppressed these documents as this might have been evidence of a cause of a para-suicidal gesture by Suzanne.

Bed clothes labels found in the fire debris

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed evidence in this respect as these labels showed that there were pillows, pillow cases, sheets, underblanket, mattress cover, duvet, duvet cover, bedspread and other inflammable cotton items on the bed.

Bed clothes fragments and types of bed clothes found at the scene

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed evidence in this respect as these fire remnants and fragments showed that there were pillows, pillow cases, sheets, underblanket, mattress cover, duvet, duvet cover, bedspread and other inflammable cotton items on the bed.

Chemical causes of stains on carpet

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed the evidence in this respect as it is known that petroleum products (that is, ‘crude oil distillates’) produce a dark stain. In fact the stain on the carpet on the spot where the prosecution alleged that there was turpentine was light in colour and had actually bleached the carpet and was consistent with a stain caused by a non-inflammable product like a chlorine based cleaner. The chemical testing of the area of the light coloured stain was suppressed.

Bossruyt / Boss products and containers

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed evidence in this respect that showed that the alleged turpentine container was made of a type of plastic (PET) that the manufacturers had discontinued using for their containers and that if indeed the container found did at one time contain turpentine then this container was of an old type and thus may have been used to store other liquids. Further suppressed was the product list from the manufacturers that showed that they manufactured a wide range of products, using the same container, and that some of these products were non-inflammable chlorine based cleaning liquids.

PET / PE container sources

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed evidence that the alleged ‘turpentine’ containers had been purchased by Suzanne herself at a particular retail store (Superbois) in Belgium on the day (13 July 1995) when Sweeney was in the Netherlands moving furniture into the house there.

Blood tests done by the Home Office in England

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed evidence of an entire series of blood tests done through Scotland Yard and the Home Office’s Forensic Science Service that showed that Suzanne had not been drugged and that furthermore there were no traces of any fire accelerants in her blood.

Tests done on drinks / chocolates

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed evidence of an entire series of chemical tests done that showed that the drinks and chocolates that Suzanne might have eaten had not been drugged.

Identification of witnesses / suspects seen at and near the house or in the garden between 11.00 hrs and 04.00 hrs (+ 20 persons)

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed the identity of many of the witnesses at the scene during the alleged time of the fire (and did not see a fire) as this evidence would have discredited the prosecution’s claim as to the timing of the fire.

This was especially important as the house had been burgled only a few weeks previously and the police knew that burglars sometime return to houses where they have successfully stolen property in the past.

Witnesses. Café patrons and staff

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed the identity and testimony of many of the patrons and staff of the cafe that was next door to the Suzanne’s home and thus at the scene during the alleged time of the fire (and did not see a fire) as this evidence would have discredited the prosecution’s claim as to the timing of the fire.

Car seen at house between 02.00 hrs and +02.45 hrs

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed the identity of the car seen in the driveway of the house after Sweeney left the house at about 02.00Hhrs. The witness Hompes testified that at about 02.00 to 02.10hrs she saw another car in the driveway of the house, that is, not Sweeney’s car.

Volume of passing witnesses (pedestrian and road traffic) between 02.30 hrs and 04.00 hrs. (+ 200 witnesses)

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed the fact that some 200 witnesses were passing the house during the alleged time of the fire (and did not see a fire) as this evidence would have discredited the prosecution’s claim as to the timing of the fire.

Till rolls from Carpetland / Superbois on 13-7-1995 and 14-7-1995

Police checked the till rolls at many outlets to see what products had been purchased by Suzanne

The police, prosecutor and examining magistrate/s suppressed the evidence that on the 13 July 1995 and/or the 14 July 1995 Suzanne had been to Carpetland and there purchased the carpet adhesives, carpet adhesive tapes and carpet anti-stain treatment. Also Suzanne obtained from Carpetland a brochure that showed the various types of cleaning fluids that were required to clean various types of stains and dirt. She then visited Superbois where she purchased small bottles of these cleaning fluids. These were the cleaning fluids that the prosecution alleged were unjustifiably found in the house. The police are known to have visited many of the retailers around Suzanne’s home in Belgium and had collected details of the till rolls (i.e. the records of the purchases made on the days in question).

Police / prosecution failure to disclose to the court the alternative reasons for the alleged traces of a ‘crude oil distillate’

The Dutch authorities had investigated the alternative causes of the ‘crude oil distillates’ allegedly found at the fire scene, however this evidence was suppressed.

The authorities suppressed evidence from Scotland Yard, including inter alia

i.	Blood tests that proved that Suzanne had no ‘crude oil distillates’ and no drugs in her blood.
ii.	Photographs of the fire situation.
iii.	Fingerprint evidence that proved that Sweeney had not handled the cleaning fluid bottles and that other persons had handled these bottles. The identity of these persons were suppressed.
iv.	Fire tests that were done in England and that indicated that the fire was accidental.
v.	Witness statements that supported the possibility that Suzanne might have been engaged in a para-suicidal gesture and had started the fire in order to attract attention to herself and/or her problems.
vi.	Production Orders from Crown Court Judges and results from these that supported the information that Sweeney had given police.

Danish Interpol investigation

The Dutch authorities suppressed an entire Interpol investigation from Denmark that was in favour of Sweeney. The Dutch police had arranged for Sweeney’s first wife, a Danish citizen, to be interviewed and because she stated that Sweeney was a good man and had been a good husband. This investigation was suppressed by the Dutch authorities.

Psychological evidence regarding Suzanne’s state of mind that supported the possibility that Suzanne might have been engaged in a para-suicidal gesture and had started the fire

i.	Arnold (Suzanne’s former husband)
ii.	Williams (Suzanne’s former partner)
iii.	Suzanne’s English doctors and psychiatrists
iv.	Masters-Watkins (Suzanne’s Doctor)
v.	Suzanne’s brother
vi.	Suzanne’s parents
vii.	Suzanne’s friends.

Financial evidence of Suzanne’s financial pressures that supported the possibility that Suzanne might have been engaged in a para-suicidal gesture and had started the fire

i.	Suzanne’s bankers
ii.	Suzanne’s lawyers
iii.	Suzanne’s debts and court judgments and orders against Suzanne.

Statement of Christopher Arnold

Christopher Arnold was Suzanne’s former husband whom she married in July 1993 and supposedly divorced in September 1994. In fact Arnold may not have signed the divorce papers and thus Suzanne’s divorce might have been fraudulent and thus Arnold’s statements supported the possibility that Suzanne might have been engaged in a para-suicidal gesture and had started the fire.

Files / Information from Suzanne’s English bank that showed Suzanne financial pressures

Files / Information from Suzanne’s English solicitors (various) that showed Suzanne’s financial and other pressures

Suppression of existence of English Court Production Orders ordering disclosure of Suzanne’s solicitors’ files, bank files et al, to the Dutch police

Scientific reports (various) that provided evidence on many aspects of the case

Report on fingerprint evidence from Scotland Yard to the Dutch Police

Report on photographic evidence of fire scene from Scotland Yard to the Dutch Police

Fire test data of the fire tests and simulations done by the police and subsequently suppressed

Witness statements from England and elsewhere

TNO tests were not disclosed to the court as being tests NOT done in accordance with Dutch, European or International Test Standards

Police / prosecution failure to disclose to the court the temperature of materials flammability

Evidence was suppressed on glass windows, plate glass, plastics, fabrics, paper, et cetera, that proved the TNO tests were false.

Police / prosecution failure to disclose to the court that the TNO flammability tests were not done in accordance with Dutch, European or International Standards and Norms

Police / prosecution failure to disclose to the court that the TNO Room test construction and materials used were not the same as at the actual fire scene

Failure of the 3rd Examining Magistrates to ensure a fair trial include, inter alia:

Examining magistrates’ refusal to accept into evidence scientific reports

Suppression of evidence by examining magistrates in 1996 and between 1997 to 2001

Examining magistrates’ failure to disclose to the court that the methodology of the TNO tests were not in accordance with Dutch, European or International Standards and Norms

Examining magistrates’ failure to disclose to the court that the construction of the TNO Room test did not re-produce or accurately reflect the actual fire scene and would therefore produce false results that were intended to deceive the court

Examining magistrates’ failure to disclose to the court that there were alternative causes and reasons for the alleged traces of a ‘crude oil distillate’ at the fire scene

Examining magistrates’ failure to disclose to the court that the materials (bed, mattresses, et al) used in the tests were not representative of the actual fire scene and were specifically manufactured in order to produce false results

Examining magistrates’ failure to disclose to the court that the TNO tests demonstrated that the melting/flammability temperatures of the various materials (window glass, plate glass, plastics, fabrics, paper, et cetera) were exceeded in the tests and this indicated that the actual fire scene could not have been the result of a fire in which an accelerant was involved

Examining magistrates’ failure to disclose to the court that the TNO tests demonstrated that if one spills any quantity of turpentine onto a wool carpet that by the law of gravity the liquid will permeate through the carpet and stain/ contaminate the floor underneath

Examining magistrates’ did not disclose to the court that the conclusions of the TNO report did not accord with the sensor data recordings or the video-tapes of the tests

Examining magistrates’ did not disclose to the court that the TNO report allegations that there was a “Flashover” at the actual fire scene was false

Examining magistrates’ did not disclose to the court that the TNO test details were false and fraudulent and were designed to deceive the court

The 3^rd Examining Magistrate (Barteld) did not disclose to the court that the 2^nd Examining Magistrate (Ter Beek) had been removed from the case for corruption and that she had suborned the TNO staff so that they produce false test results and a false report

Examining magistrates’ suppressed dossier from the Crown Prosecution Service in London

Examining magistrates’ suppressed the Chief Crown Prosecutor’s statement that police had ‘Perverted the Course of Justice’

Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice by the police / prosecutors / examining magistrates:

Blackmail of Belgian witnesses by Dutch police

Subornation of English witnesses by police

Falsification of allegations of ABN-Amro statement

Deception regarding Marriage Contract / Notarised documents

No action taken regarding the perjury in McDaid’s statement

No action taken regarding Crown Prosecution Service dossier

No action taken regarding perjured evidence produced by Goodley

Subornation of Simon & Thomas Davies and their evidence in court by lawyers paid for by the police / prosecution

Provision of false information to the court

Provision of false information to the press intended to pervert the course of justice

Conspiracy with witnesses to produce false evidence, (e.g. the policeman Haarman’s subornation of the witness Moorens)

U.S. Dept. of Justice

Delay and obstruction of legal proceedings between 1996 to 2002

Failure to remove prosecution officers known to have perverted the course of justice

Failure to remove from evidence the perjured evidence produced by corrupt law officers

Production of false transcripts of police interviews with the accused

English police officer’s (Goodley) conspiracy to produce false witness statements

English police conspiracy with Dutch police to produce false evidence

Conspiracy to manipulate TNO test results in order to present a false picture to the court

Conspiracy to produce false TNO Test report conclusions

Conspiracy not to conduct tests in accordance with the Dutch, European or International Test Standards so as to distort and falsify the results and thereby deceive the court

Subornation of TNO technicians engaged in conducting the tests for the express purposes of obtaining and procuring false results to deceive the court

Conspiracy not to carry out the orders of the Court of Appeal on 3 November 1997

Conspiracy to act corruptly in order to pervert the course of justice and wrongfully convict the accused

The police, prosecutors and examining magistrates violated Article 6 in the pre-trial stages of the investigation.

(Imbroscia v. Switzerland, A-274, 1993)

The extent of the fabrication and suppression of evidence and perversion of the course of justice is noted above, 3. a).

The examining magistrates and the prosecutors were biased and prejudiced during the pre-trial investigation stages

They conspired jointly to exclude from evidence the logic, common sense and physical impossibilities of the prosecution case. They did not explain or attempt to explain to the court any of the basic issues:-

i.	How was it possible that 8 litres of turpentine did NOT pass through the carpet nor produce any environmental contamination of the room?
ii.	How was it possible that Suzanne would have entered her bedroom without SMELLING the presence of 8 litres of turpentine?
iii.	How was it possible that up to 200 witnesses, some less than 2 metres away, did not see an allegedly raging and explosive fire?
iv.	How was it possible for Sweeney to have started a fire and then left the house having locked up windows and all the doors from the inside?
v.	How was it possible for Sweeney to have started a fire and yet have been 200 kilometres away at the same time?
vi.	How was it possible that 7 witnesses, some only 2 metres away from raging fire, did not feel the heat or hear the fire or see any trace of a fire?
vii.	How was it possible that a fire in which the prosecution alleged a raging and all consuming ‘flashover’ did not burn curtains, newspapers, clothes, plastic, et al?
viii.	How was it possible that a fire in which the prosecution alleged 8 litres of turpentine was used would produce no contamination of the room, or any surfaces in the room, nor any traces in the blood or lungs of Suzanne, nor any traces on the hair, skin, hands or feet of Suzanne?
ix.	There are very many such questions that should have posed and answered by the authorities if they were acting impartially and without prejudice and bias. In the event the authorities did not have answers to any of these basic issues.

The examining magistrates and prosecutors/police were bound by the terms of Article 6 too be impartial and thereby examine the alternative causes of their alleged suspicions

i.	The authorities produced no information to the court regarding the alternative causes of domestic bed fires, namely, - a smoking in bed accident; - electrical circuit fire from the power point behind the bed; - electrical fire from the spotlights above the bed; - fire started purposely by Suzanne herself; - and so forth.
ii.	The authorities produced no information to the court that the alleged traces of ‘crude oil distillates’ could be found in other sources, namely, - carpet adhesives; - carpet tape; - carpet anti-stain treatments; - cosmetic products; - fuel from Suzanne’s own lighter; - carpet cleaning materials; - and so forth.
iii.	The Court of Appeal and Court of Cassation alleged that a “great quantity” (8 litres) of a fire accelerant was used on the carpet, however if one considers what percentage of the surface area of the carpet (300,000 sq. cms.) was allegedly tested and alleged to have produced a trace of alleged ‘crude oil distillate’, then an entirely different picture is seen. The amount of carpet allegedly tested (notwithstanding the evidence of the fabrication of the evidence of the carpet samples, Re: 3. a) 1) and allegedly found to contain traces, - was not 100%; - was not 50%; - was not 25%; - was not 10%; - was not 5%; - was not 1%; - was not 0.1%; - was not 0.01%; - was not 0.001%. - In actuality only 0.003% of the carpet revealed a trace of the alleged ‘crude oil distillate’.
iv.	Many such examples of the authorities’ failure to produce impartial alternatives to their theories exist and the authorities were bound by Article 6 to produce a balanced and fair flow of information to the court.

The examining magistrates and prosecutors knew fully well that witnesses had perjured themselves and they did not refer this to the court

For example, the witness McDaid (the babysitter) stated to the examining magistrates that she had fabricated evidence about being able to see through walls, the existence of security lights, the existence of exterior window handles, and so forth.

Having impeached this witness it was therefore incredible that she should be credited with psychiatric expertise when she stated that during a 20 minute car journey she had formed the opinion that it was impossible for Suzanne to contemplate self-harm. McDaid was the prosecution’s main witness regarding the psychological state of mind of Suzanne.

The examining magistrates and prosecutors showed prejudice and bias by suppressing the evidence from Suzanne’s doctor, previous husband, previous partners, family members, and so forth.

The examining magistrates and prosecutors showed prejudice and bias in suppressing from the court the 1500 page dossier that impeached 14 of the prosecution’s witnesses and that was sent by the Crown Prosecution Service of England to police for investigation

The examining magistrate, Ter Beek, and her replacement examining magistrate suppressed this dossier.

The examining magistrates and prosecutors knew that 2 policemen, Goodley and Heard, had perverted the course of justice by producing perjured statements to the Dutch court

The examining magistrates and prosecutors showed their prejudice and bias by entering into a conspiracy to keep this evidence secret. The confirmation that Goodley had perverted the course of justice had come from the Chief Crown Prosecutor in London and the evidence against Heard was discovered at questioning before the examining magistrate, yet all was suppressed and the actions of these corrupt policemen were hidden.

The Examining Magistrate Ter Beek acted in a corrupt manner by suborning the TNO technicians and Postma. Whilst Ter Beek was removed from the case, the false and fraudulent evidence she procured and/or suppressed was not removed from the dossier and/or disclosed to the court

This showed prejudice and bias by the subsequent Examining Magistrate, the prosecutors and the judges. Ter Beek’s perversion of justice includes:-

i.	The suppression of the evidence of a fire expert that tests to show an ‘accidental’ fire were impossible as one could not re-create an ‘accident’. (Barnett’s report)
ii.	The introduction of an under-cover policeman (Postma) who falsely posed as an independent expert witness and whose false and fraudulent testimony was not removed from the court dossier.
iii.	The Court of Appeal in November 1997 ordered Ter Beek to conduct certain specific tests. This she did not do because as she had done so it would have proved that the fire was an accident.
iv.	Ter Beek knew that the Dutch, European or International Test Standards had to be used to produce valid test results, however she knew that if these test methods were used then it would be shown that the fire was an accident. Thus Ter Beek corruptly ordered the TNO technicians not to use the mandatory testing methodology.
v.	Ter Beek knew that if a 10-year-old mattress of the type in the actual fire plus bedclothes were used in the tests when it would be clear that the fire was an accident. Thus Ter Beek ordered and used specially manufactured fire resistant mattresses and NO bedclothes in order to produce a false and fraudulent result.
vi.	Ter Beek knew that the TNO tests showed that the actual fire could not have involved the use of turpentine because the temperatures reached in the tests were greatly in excess of those reached in the actual fire. This data was not presented to the court by any of the examining magistrates or prosecutors.
vii.	The examining magistrates and prosecutors knew that the conclusions of the TNO report did not accord with the sensor data or the video-tapes, furthermore the TNO technician Reijman admitted this during questioning in front of the Examining Magistrate (3^rd). Yet this evidence was suppressed.
viii.	The examining magistrates and the prosecutors had the photographic evidence that showed that the prosecution’s allegations about carpet samples being taken on the 17 July 1995 were false and fabricated, yet they did not reveal this fact to the judges and they did not remove this fabricated evidence from the court file.
ix.	The Examining Magistrate (Barteld) appointed after Ter Beek and the prosecutor Broek-Blaauboer knew that Ter Beek had suborned the TNO technicians and had procured false and fabricated evidence, yet they did not remove this evidence from the court file nor report these matters to the judges.
x.	The examining magistrates and prosecutors were aware of the extensive fabrication and suppression of evidence and the perversion of justice in this case, inter alia 3. a) and 3. b) above, yet at no time did they seek to act in an impartial manner, indeed at all times they conspired to pervert the course of justice.

The administration of justice in secret, with no public scrutiny, is a violation of the European Convention

(Diennet v France, A-325-A, 1995)

On the 3 November 1997 at the Court of Appeal in Den Bosch it was evident that there had been a prior secret hearing between the judges and the prosecutor whereby a secret agreement was reached for the disposal of the case

It was also evident that this prior agreement had been disclosed to third parties in advance, but not Sweeney or his lawyers.

The agreement reached between the judges and the prosecutor was to limit the ‘trial’ to 1 hour. Both parties (judges and prosecutor) had scheduled the hearing of other cases.

Sweeney’s lawyers were not allowed to adequately present a case or to make any representations at this trial. Sweeney was not allowed to speak.

At dates, unknown to Sweeney, in secret conversations that were held between the judges in Den Bosch and Sweeney’s lawyers, negotiations and/or decisions and/or inducements and/or threats and/or coercion made by the judges for the disposal of the case has never been revealed to Sweeney, or made public

In that such a hearing was not provided for in Dutch law, Sweeney could not have been deemed to have waived his right to a public hearing or to be present at the hearing.

(Werner v. Austria, November 24, 1997, 26 EHRR 310)

On the 6 February 2001 at the Court of Appeal in Den Bosch, whilst Sweeney’s lawyers were pleading his defence, the judges suddenly suspended the trial and it is believed convened a secret hearing with the prosecutor, specifically excluding Sweeney and his lawyers

At this secret hearing the disposition of the case was agreed between the judges and the prosecutor.

Sweeney and his lawyers were thereafter not allowed to complete the pleadings for the defence.

Between May 2002 and November 2002 the Court of Cassation (Hoge Raad) considered, by its own motion and that of the prosecutor, questions of Fact

There were 6 hearings and all were held in secret, without the public or Sweeney or his lawyers being present, but in the presence of the prosecutor.

The Court of Cassation considered matters of alleged fact adduced by the prosecutor, however neither Sweeney, nor his lawyers were allowed to attend to defend the case or to rebut the prosecutor’s allegations.

These hearings should have been held in public and in the presence of Sweeney as in Ekbatani v. Sweden (A-134, 1988) the European Court found that an appeal which decides on questions of fact and law should be held in public.

The conduct of the Dutch authorities in this case has been one of constant delay over a period of 7 years in violation of Article 6

After Sweeney’s arrest on 4 December 1995 in Belgium he formally forewent the normal extradition procedures so that he could be immediately transferred to the Netherlands. However the Dutch authorities delayed his transfer for 3 months.
Following his acquittal in October 1996 the Dutch authorities waited over 1 year before hearing the prosecutor’s appeal against Sweeney’s acquittal. However the prosecutor at that trial on 3 November 1997 did not wish to proceed with the case at that time.
Over 3 years elapsed before Sweeney was summonsed again to a trial on 6 February 2001.
The judges in the Court of Appeal in Den Bosch, following Sweeney’s conviction on 20 February 2001, delayed providing a written verdict for 7 months and Sweeney was forced to go on hunger strike to secure the written judgment.
The Court of Cassation postponed giving their decision 5 times between March and November 2002.

The Dutch state have specifically delayed the case, inter alia:

i.	To enable the prosecution to fabricate evidence and suppress evidence. For example: It was known that the cleaning fluid bottles had been purchased by Suzanne herself on the 13 July 1995 at a shop called Superbois in Belgium. By delaying the case the police ensured that the till receipts of the Superbois shop was lost as they are usually only retained (for tax accounting purposes) for a limited number of years. The Carpetland shop, where Suzanne had obtained a brochure that explained the various cleaning fluids necessary to clean various types of stain or mark, ceased to trade and thus the possibility to obtain this evidence was lost. Similarly, many such records that would have enabled the Defence to prove matters have been lost simply because the prosecution delayed the case until the records were lost or destroyed.
ii.	To deplete Sweeney’s financial resources so that he would be unable to afford adequate legal representation.
iii.	Sweeney was not able to work during those 7 years because of the public allegations made against him that caused employers to reject him.
iv.	During this period the Dutch authorities provided allegations to the press and other parties that severely affected Sweeney and his family.
v.	The Dutch authorities provided allegations to the Family court that deprived Sweeney of his children.
vi.	Sweeney was deprived of a family life and contact with his children since 1995.
vii.	Sweeney was since 1995 unable to earn a living and to provide for his family and children whom have been considerably impoverished.

3..

The European Court has held that national courts of law should be independent from the executive and parties to a case, should not be subject to outside pressure and should ‘present the appearance of independence’

(Campbell and Fell v. UK, A-80, 1984; Lauko v. Slovakia, Sept. 2, 1988, 1999 EHRR 105)

On the 3 November 1997 the judges of the Court of Appeal were clearly seen to be under the pressure or influence of the executive, that is the prosecutor, in that a prior secret agreement had been made between the judges and the prosecutor to postpone the case and not to allow Sweeney or his lawyers any opportunity to speak in public at the trial

The evidence of this prior secret arrangement is based on the fact that the court listing only allowed 1 hour for the trial of the case and there were listed other cases for the judges and the prosecutor immediately thereafter. As above under 3. a) 11

Further, during the trial the judges made a personal attack on Sweeney’s lawyer and also stated that Sweeney could not be represented by more than 1 lawyer. Sweeney was not allowed to speak.

On the 6 February 2001 the Court of Appeal in Den Bosch demonstrated its lack of independence by its subservience to the executive, that is the prosecutor, and its secret agreement to stop the proceedings if the defence lawyers attempted to make public the corruption of the law officers in the case

i.	The hearing was suspended and a secret briefing ensued between the judges and the prosecutor at which matters of the police corruption were discussed.
ii.	The judges were informed by the police that the main police forensic witness (Albers) would not attend and give evidence and the judges accepted this direction of the police.
iii.	The judges had been secretly briefed on the police corruption by the prosecutor as when Sweeney attempted to cross-examine the main police witness the judges stopped Sweeney and by their comments it was clear that they were in possession of knowledge not in the court file and thus “beyond their knowledge”. Such information could only have reached the judges in a secret briefing by the prosecutor and the judges were clearly seen to not allow Sweeney to questions.
iv.	The judges refused to allow Sweeney to put points in his defence.
v.	The refusal of the judges to allow the defence to show the prosecution’s own video-tape (of the TNO tests) in court.
vi.	The refusal of the judges to accept photographic evidence that the police had fabricated evidence and had perverted the course of justice.
vii.	The clear indication that the President of the court was a personal acquaintance of the main police witness.
viii.	The acceptance of the judges of the prosecutor’s direction to arrest Sweeney before they had considered or delivered their verdict.
ix.	The subsequent refusal of the judges to allow Sweeney or his lawyers to have a copy of the tape recording of the hearing.
x.	The inability of the judges to produce a reasoned judgment for their decision.

Between May and November 2002 the Court of Cassation was continually under pressure from the executive, notably the Ministry of Justice and the Prosecutor, Jorg, to refuse Sweeney’s appeal

i.	The prosecutor Jorg fabricated alleged facts to present to the judges in contravention to the normal procedures of the Court of Cassation, which may only consider matters of law.
ii.	On or about the 12 September 2002 a Minister, at the Ministry of Justice, issued a public proclamation that Sweeney had been finally and conclusively adjudged guilty and was thus declared an undesirable alien in the Netherlands. This proclamation was issued 5 days before the Court of Cassation was due to make a decision on the case on 17 September 2002. The Court of Cassation postponed its decision undoubtedly as a result of the Ministry of Justice’s proclamation. None-the-less on the 19 September 2002 (2 days after the postponement by the judges) the Ministry of Justice proclamation was served on Sweeney by 2 policemen.
iii.	On the 8 October 2002 the Court of Cassation stated that it had again delayed its verdict until 5 November 2002, however the Prosecutor then apparently unilaterally issued a written verdict that stated that Sweeney’s appeal had been rejected by the Court of Cassation as being inadmissible.
iv.	Given this pressure from the executive it is clear that the judges of the Court of Cassation in its finally delivered verdict acquiesced to the executive and thus refused Sweeney’s appeal.
	It is significant to note that the Court of Cassation was unable to provide an independent reasoned judgment for its decision and relied solely on the allegation in the lower court, which were quoted verbatim.
v.	It is significant to note that of the 12 grounds for the appeal cited by Sweeney, the Court of Cassation were entirely unable to respond to 6 of the 12 grounds for the appeal and could only repeat the arguments of the prosecutor and not provide any objective logic to its decision.

Subornation of Sweeney’s lawyer during personal telephone call made by the President of the Court of Appeal to Sweeney’s lawyers on or about the 24 January 2001 in which the President of the Court of Appeal assured Sweeney’s lawyers that his acquittal would be upheld

This act of the judges could only have been done on the instruction of the prosecution and/or Ministry of Justice.

The executive branch of the Dutch government, namely the Ministry of Justice, issued a proclamation on the 12 September 2002 in which was stated that Sweeney was finally and conclusively convicted

This was in effect an order directed at the Court of Cassation.

The executive branch of the Dutch government, namely the prosecutor, issued a public decision/verdict on the 8 October 2002 stating that Sweeney’s appeal was inadmissible and thus refused

This was in effect an order directed at the Court of Cassation.

In Sramek v. Austria (A-84, 1984) the European Court found a violation of Article 6 on the basis that the tribunal was not independent because the government was party to the proceedings..

There are two tests in assessing whether the Dutch authorities acted impartially and without prejudice or bias

Firstly, a subjective test of the personal conduct of the members of the court vis-à-vis Sweeney and his lawyers; and secondly, an objective test that there are facts that raise doubts as to the impartiality of the members of the court.

The bias and prejudice of the pre-trial stages have been covered in 3. a) and 3. b) and in that these matters were known to Judges of the court they extend to the court.

The subjective test of the prejudice and bias of the trial judges were inter alia:-

i.	On the 3 November 1997 the trial judges: - in public made a personal attack on Sweeney’s lawyer; - harangued his lawyers; - refused to allow his lawyers the opportunity to present their client’s case; - conspired with the prosecutor to deny him any time to make any representations; - and refused to allow Sweeney to speak in person.
ii.	On the 6 February 2001 the trial judges: - refused to allow Sweeney’s lawyers to adequately present their case; - would not allow Sweeney to speak in person; - refused to view video evidence; - refused to allow Sweeney’s lawyers to present their full pleadings; - the judges were seen to protect corrupt police officers; - the judges did not question a police witness known to have fabricated evidence as this policeman was apparently personally known to the judge; - the judges refused to hear that certain witnesses had perjured themselves; - the judges failed to react to evidence (the fabrication of the evidence of the alleged carpet samples) that was at the crux of the prosecution’s entire case; - the judges ordered the detention of the accused before consideration or delivery of a verdict, despite the fact that no new evidence was presented implying Sweeney’s guilt, thereby indicating that a previous decision had been made in advance with the conspiracy of the prosecution; - the judges did not allow Sweeney to make any submissions or statements to the court; - the judges subsequently refused Sweeney or his lawyers to have a copy of the tape recording of the court hearing so that the facts could be established for the subsequent appeal to the Court of Cassation; - the judges signed a false Greffier's’ note of the court hearing and these notes were evidently false.
iii.	At the Court of Cassation during the 6 hearings between May to November 2002 the judges did not allow Sweeney or his lawyers to attend nor to hear evidence on matters of Fact that were alleged by the prosecutor and were being considered by the judges.
iv.	At the secret hearing with the judges in Den Bosch that excluded Sweeney.

The objectivity of the court was faulty:-

The judges at the Court of Appeal in Den Bosch on the 6 February 2001 and the Court of Cassation between May and November 2002 considered only the prosecutors’ allegations and not the defence evidence; further the judges manipulated evidence in favour of the prosecution and thereby demonstrated their prejudice and bias. The objectivity of the court was at fault:-

i.	In both the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation, the judges were bound to consider each of the elements of the submissions of Sweeney’s lawyers and to weigh these against any arguments of the prosecution. It is clear that neither court considered the evidence presented by Sweeney impartially and without prejudice or bias. The details of these matters are found in the written pleadings presented by Sweeney’s lawyers to both courts.
ii.	In neither the Court of Appeal nor the Court of Cassation did the judges display any basic logic, common knowledge, common sense or the application of the basic laws of nature and thus it was evident that the judges were not impartial, but were prejudiced and biased against Sweeney. Thereby these judges did not apply any of the logic or common sense as outlined above in 2. and 3. (b).
iii.	The judges at the Court of Appeal on 3 November 1997 refused to allow Sweeney any time to make any representations and indeed only 1 hour was allowed for the entire ‘trial’. The Judges at the Court of Appeal on the 6 February 2001 refused to hear Sweeney or his lawyers and total time allowed to him at the trial was less than 1 hour and the entire trial lasted only 3-4 hours. The judges at the Court of Cassation between May and November 2002 did not allow Sweeney to make any representations at any of the 6 hearings that considered matters of fact.
iv.	The judges at the Court of Appeal refused to allow Sweeney to call witnesses for the defence and refused to allow Sweeney an opportunity to question prosecution witnesses. This was important in that Sweeney was not allowed to attend the questioning of witnesses before the various examining magistrates.
v.	The judges at the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation were fully aware of the fabrication of evidence and the perversion of the course of justice by the examining magistrates, prosecutors and police and they conspired not to react to these facts. Furthermore the judges knowingly admitted fabricated evidence into the court and their deliberations. Furthermore the judges knowingly allowed the authorities to suppress evidence favourable to Sweeney.
vi.	The judges of the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation accepted into evidence perjured statements from witnesses in the full knowledge that the Crown Prosecution Service in England had a 1500 page dossier that these witnesses had committed perjury and various other criminal offences. The judges did not react to the fact that the prosecutors and the examining magistrates had suppressed this dossier. It is significant to note that the first judges handling the case were apparently removed and changed in order to secure the verdict required by the state.
vii.	The judges at the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation were fully aware that the Examining Magistrate Ter Beek had suborned the so called expert witnesses Reijman and Postma and had procured fabricated evidence, however the judges allowed this false and fabricated evidence to be used in justification of their decisions. It is significant to note that the first Court of Appeal judges handling the case were apparently removed and changed in order to secure the verdict required by the state.
viii.	The judges of the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation were fully aware that the police statements in the court file were fabricated and perjured and that the Chief Crown Prosecutor in London had stated that the police in question had perverted the course of justice, never-the-less the judges chose to ignore the police corruption.
ix.	The judges at the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation failed at all times to react to the written evidence of corruption of the police, prosecutors and examining magistrates.

In Remli v. France (April 23, 1996, 22 EHRR 253) the European Court found the above type of conduct to be a violation of an impartial tribunal.

Sweeney’s right to be present at hearings has been violated on at least 7 occasions

At a date unknown to Sweeney the judges in Den Bosch held a secret hearing without alerting or notifying Sweeney whom was not aware until December 2002 that this hearing had occurred

In that the judges at the Court of Cassation at the 6 hearings in the period May to November 2002 were considering matters of fact, Sweeney had a right to be present at those hearings

(Beliziuk v. Poland, March 25, 1998, 1988 EHRLR 28; Helmers v. Sweden, A-212-A, October 29, 1991)

Self-incrimination.

It is submitted that whilst there is a right to freedom from self-incrimination equally there is a right that judges do not attempt to falsely self-incriminate a defendant.

The police entered into evidence statements attributed to Sweeney that were not signed or agreed by him. Some 25 such statements were produced to the court and these unsigned documents were accepted into evidence by the judges.

ii.

On the 6 February 2001 the judges at the Court of Appeal asked Sweeney if he had taken anything with him to his home in the Netherlands on a particular occasion. He answered that he had not, however the judge accused him of changing his story from the statement he had given the police 5 years previously. In that it is inconceivable that the judges had viewed some 200 hours of video-taped recordings of Sweeney giving statements to the police it is impossible that the judges actions were other than an attempt to falsely incriminate Sweeney. In fact Sweeney had responded truthfully and it was the judge whom had lied in court.

The right to a fair trial includes “the right of anyone charged with a criminal offence … to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself”: Funke v. France, 16 EHRR 297. In Saunders v. U.K., 23 EHRR 313, the Court considered that the admission in evidence at Sweeney’s trial of transcripts of interviews with government inspectors violated Article 6(1). The court described the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself as generally recognised international standards which lay at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. The latter right presupposed that the prosecution in a criminal case must prove its case without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion and oppression in defiance of the will of the accused. In this sense the privilege against self-incrimination was “closely linked” to the presumption of innocence.

Equality of arms

Sweeney was never at any time given a reasonable opportunity to present his case and was at all times placed at a disadvantage to the prosecution.

In this case the examining magistrates, the judges of the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation withheld evidence from Sweeney’s lawyers

The 1500 page dossier supplied by the Crown Prosecution Service in England that demonstrated that the prosecution’s key witnesses had perjured themselves. The prosecutors and judges withheld the evidence that police (including, Goodley) had produced perjured statements and had been accused by the Chief Crown Prosecutor in London as having perverted the course of justice. It was clear from the hearing on 6 February 2001 that the judges were aware of these documents, however they had been suppressed from Sweeney’s lawyers.

A large number of other documents, forensic reports, expert reports, Interpol reports, photographs, test data, and so forth, that provided evidence in favour of Sweeney had been suppressed by the prosecutors and/or examining magistrates and/or judges

Whilst at the Court of Appeal in February 2001 prosecution witnesses were called, Sweeney was not allowed to call any witnesses in rebuttal

(Dombo Beheer v. Netherlands, A-274, 1993)

Sweeney’s right to adversarial proceedings were violated

(inter alia, Vermeulen v. Belgium, February 20, 1996, RJD 1996-I No 3; Nidevöst-Huber v. Switzerland, February 18, 1997, 25 EHRR 709)

The actions of the judges at the Court of Appeal in February 2001 ensured that Sweeney did not have knowledge of and/or comment on all the evidence adduced or observations filed against him

During the 6 hearings by the Court of Cassation during May to November 2002, Sweeney’s right to adversarial proceedings were violated in that he was not allowed to attend to present his response or comments on the matters of Fact that were considered by the judges

Article 6 requires that the Dutch courts, both the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation give a reasoned judgment of each submission that is fundamental to the outcome of the case

(Hiro Balani v. Spain, A-303-B, 1994; Helle v. Finland, December 19, 1997, 26 EHRR 159)

These courts were obliged to deal with each of Sweeney’s written submissions that went to the prosecution allegations and each of his submissions that was essential to his defence. This the Dutch courts entirely failed to do.

The right to a fair trial focuses on whether true and fair evidence was admitted

In this case the examining magistrates, prosecutors and the judges knowingly allowed perjured and fabricated evidence to be admitted and/or the judges specifically failed to remove evidence that they knew to be fabricated and false.

In both the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation the judges were fully aware that much evidence had been fabricated, yet they did not exclude this evidence and actually conspired to ensure that false evidence remained in the court file and/or would be used against the accused. This evidence includes:-

The false evidence specified above in 3. a).

The subornation of the so-called expert witness Reijman by the Examining Magistrate Ter Beek

The witness statements that had been exposed as being perjured in the dossier of the Crown Prosecution Service

The police statements (inter alia, that of the policeman Goodley) that was confirmed by the Chief Crown Prosecutor as having perverted the course of justice

The blackmail of Belgian witnesses by the Dutch police so as to obtain false statements

The subornation of witnesses by police

The protection of witness perjury by police (e.g. McDaid, Innes, T Davies, S Davies and others)

The coaching and subornation of witnesses by lawyers paid for and working for the police and prosecutor the night before they gave evidence in court on 10 September 1996 (S Davies and T Davies)

The examining magistrates’ and judges’ use of an under-cover police officer (Postma) posing as an independent expert witness

(Teixero de Castro v. Portugal, June 9, 1998)

The above matters were known to the judges and thus it was not simply a matter of the prosecutor and/or examining magistrates introducing false and fabricated evidence, it was also a matter of the judges of the various courts using this false evidence to falsely convict the accused. The underlying factor in the case is that the judges conspired to allow false and fabricated evidence into the court so as to be able to falsely convict Sweeney.

The presumption of innocence

The presumption of innocence requires inter alia that when carrying out their duties the judges should not start with the pre-conceived idea that the accused has committed the offence charged.

(Barbera, Messegue & Jabardo v. Spain, A-146, 1989)

In this case the judges had a presumption of the guilt of Sweeney in the face of all logic and common sense, inter alia:-

The judges written decision did not provide a reasoned decision and did not address the fundamental issues raised by the defence

The judges should not have based their decision on evidently false and fabricated allegations as specified in 3. a) and 3. b).

There is a violation of Article 6(2) when judges do not confine presumptions of fact ‘within reasonable limits’.

(Salabiaku v. France, A-141, October 7, 1988; Pham Hoang v. France, A-243, September 25, 1992)

These limits must be that the judges may not presume facts that are physically impossible or contrary to common sense or the laws of nature. These matters are specified in 2. above.

Where alleged facts have been clearly fabricated by an Examining Magistrate (Ter Beek) whom had suborned witnesses (inter alia, Reijman and Postma), then the judges may not accept these alleged facts as presumptions of guilt.

Where alleged facts have been fabricated, as in the case of the under-cover policeman Postma whom posed as an independent expert witness, then the judges may not accept this evidence as a presumed indication of guilt

The presumption of innocence does not only apply to decisions of the court, but also to the public statements of state officials

In this case the following public pronouncements were made:-

i.	Police and prosecution alleged to the press (and extensive press coverage resulted) that the accused had drugged Suzanne with chocolates. The police and prosecution knew at all times that the autopsy showed that Suzanne had not consumed any chocolates and that a series of blood tests showed no drugs in Suzanne’s blood.
ii.	The police made allegations to newspapers and were in fax contact with newspapers.
iii.	The police and prosecution alleged in public that Sweeney had started the fire in 22 separate places around the house, whereas they knew that that the only site of the fire was in the bed.

The decision of the Court of Appeal presumed the guilt of Sweeney as the judges used suspicion and supposition against Sweeney rather than actual evidence

The decision of the Court of Cassation presumed the guilt of Sweeney as the judges used suspicion and supposition against Sweeney rather than actual evidence

On or about the 12 September 2002 the Ministry of Justice made a public proclamation that Sweeney had been finally and conclusively convicted

This executive order was done specifically to influence the decision of the court that was due to give a verdict on 17 September 2002.

On the 8 October 2002 the Court of Cassation postponed their decision until the 5 November 2002, however on the same day the prosecutor issued a public written decision/verdict to the effect that Sweeney’s appeal was inadmissible and thus refused

This executive decision was done specifically to influence the decision of the court that was due to give a decision on the 5 November 2002.

The provisions of Article 6(3)(a) required that Sweeney be ‘notified in a language he understood, in detail the nature and cause of the accusations against him’

Further in this case he was not familiar with the Dutch language and he was being prosecuted in a foreign country.

Sweeney was never at any time from 4 December 1995 to November 2002 provided with any details of the nature and cause of the accusations against him in a language he understood. Furthermore, Sweeney was never provided with any documentation or prosecution papers in a language he understood. In Kamansinski v. Austria (A-168, December 19, 1989) the European Court stated that key prosecution papers must be translated into the language of the accused.

Given the complexity and duration of the case and the logicality of the prosecution allegations it was essential that Sweeney be provided with the prosecution documents and court file in a language he understood.

It must be noted that the prosecution did provide English translations of prosecution documents to the press and other third parties in order to disadvantage the accused.

The provisions of Article 6(3)(b) required that Sweeney have “the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restrictions as to the possibility to put all the relevant documents before the trial court”

Sweeney and his lawyers were denied access to the case file of the prosecution contrary to Article 6. (Kremzow v. Austria, A-268-B, September 21, 1993). Many parts of the prosecution file, forensic reports, the 1500 page dossier from the Crown Prosecution Service, the results of Interpol investigations, witness statements, Court Production Orders, photographs, et al, were suppressed by the prosecution and the examining magistrates because these documents were favourable to Sweeney.

Furthermore, the failure of the authorities to provide the accused with any documentation in a language that he understood also deprived him of his right to prepare his defence.

Article 6(3)(d) was violated in that Sweeney was at no time able to hear and/or question witnesses that he wished to call

The European Court has stated that evidence must be produced in the presence of the accused with a view to accusatorial argument

Sweeney has been excluded from all the questioning before the various examining magistrates in the period 1996 to 2000. At no time was he given the opportunity to put questions to witnesses.

Sweeney informed his lawyers in early 1997 of the witnesses he required to be heard by the examining magistrates and/or at any subsequent trial

The examining magistrates refused to allow Sweeney to call witnesses before them. Following the alleged secret hearing before the judges in Den Bosch and the telephone call of the President of the Court of Appeal to Sweeney’s lawyers on or about the 24 January 2001, it was found, without the consent or knowledge of Sweeney, that the defence could call NO witnesses at the trial.

Sweeney was refused the opportunity to be present or to question witnesses before the examining magistrates or to question witnesses in court

Under Article 6(3)(c) the Dutch state violated Sweeney’s right to be effective and adequate legal representation

At no time in the period 4 December 1995 to the 6 February 2001 was Sweeney given legal aid

The Dutch authorities were at all times aware that during this period Sweeney was unable to work or find employment and thus could not afford legal representation.

In November 1996 following his acquittal and the prosecutor’s appeal against his acquittal at the first trial, Sweeney was refused legal aid on the grounds that he was not resident in the Netherlands

Sweeney had since November 1996 to rely on unpaid lawyers as he was unable to afford the cost of paid representation

Sweeney’s lawyers, for reasons of expense and cost, were unable to adequately or effectively prepare a defence.

At some time during the proceedings it is alleged Sweeney’s lawyers were called to a secret and unlawful hearing with the judges in Den Bosch

At this hearing Sweeney’s lawyers were either given assurances that Sweeney would be acquitted again or the lawyers were threatened by the judges. Furthermore the telephone inducements made by the President of the Court of Appeal on or about the 24 January 2001 clearly was designed to suborn Sweeney’s lawyers. In all events Sweeney’s lawyers were persuaded or coerced not to call any witnesses for the defence, they were obliged not to protest the fact that prosecution witnesses would not be allowed by the court to be examined in public at the trial, they were not allowed to protest the grave abuses, fabrication of evidence, suppression of evidence and perversion of the course of justice perpetrated by the police, prosecutors and examining magistrates. It is therefore submitted that the judges of the Court of Appeal in Den Bosch rendered Sweeney’s lawyers “ineffective and inadequate.”

(Artico v. Italy, (1980), A-37, 3 EHRR 1; David v. Portugal, April 11, 1988, EHRLR)

The subornation of Sweeney’s lawyers by the judges of the Court of Appeal meant that the lawyers did not plead all the issues that might have been exposed in public

It was clearly seen in court that the judges of the Court of Appeal took aggressive measures to protect corrupt policemen, law officers and witnesses whom had perverted the course of justice. The subornation of Sweeney’s lawyers by the judges was to ensure that Sweeney would be deprived of an effective and adequate legal representation. Furthermore, Sweeney was not allowed to speak at the appeal hearing to prevent any opportunity for him to defend himself.

In the Court of Cassation Sweeney’s lawyer were rendered ineffective and inadequate as they were not allowed to react or to comment on the questions of Fact considered by the Court

The requirements of the authorities to provide information in the language of the accused extends beyond the actual trial

This requirement encompasses interpretations of relevant statements and documents in order that the Defence is able to fully understand and participate in the trial. (Luedicke, Belkacem & Koc v FRG, November 18, 1978, A-29)

The Dutch state did not provide to Sweeney translations of any documents whatsoever specifically in order that he would not be able to understand or participate in the trial

Indeed when Sweeney attempted to participate he was stopped by the judges.

Sweeney has never been provided with any of the decisions/verdicts of any of the hearings/trials from 1996 to 2002 in a language he understands

Toxicology Graph suppressed by Examining Magistrate and evidence regarding toxicology and Time of Death.

Photographs of bathroom showing damage done by plumbers that needed to be de-greased, restored and re-decorated was suppressed by the Prosecutor.

Standards and Guide for Room Fire Experiments (ASTM) was suppressed by the Prosecutor.

The scientific paper of the Prosecution witness Professor Klasen was suppressed by the Prosecutor.

Home