Coll 28/9 ‘Persia; Internal affairs; Shah’s tours in Persia: general situation reports’ [‎399r] (810/1038)

THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT
PERSIA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[E 1877/47/34]
Mr. Hoare to Sir John Simon.—{Received April 11.)
(No. 128.)
Sir ’ tat a , -i -yr -i a a t i , Tehran, March 24, 1933.
IN despatch No 124 I have referred incidentally to the result of the
trial of the ex-Mmister of Court Teymourtache. I have the honour to transmit
herewith a translation of a newspaper report of the trial and the sentence.
2. The section of the Criminal Code under which it was decided to hold
the case in camera was No. 327; a translation is as follows
The examination and investigation of the court must be public,
subject to the following exceptions : {a) in offences connected with chastity;
(&) in matters of filthy behaviour and in offences contrary to good morals;
(c) in conduct contrary to the feelings of religion; and {d) in circumstances
in which a public session of the court would be prejudicial to the security
and to the good order of the State. The court will issue directions for a
secret trial after the Public Prosecutor has declared his opinion.”
3. The sentences appear to be severe, judging from the accusations in the
light of current practice. I understand that the maximum penalty for “ false
pretences ’ ’ is two years; and for bribery the usual sentence is not more than
six months. The sentence of three years’ solitary imprisonment, being a more
severe form of penalty than the two years’ correctional imprisonment, prevails
over the latter, so that the two periods will run concurrently and not
consecutively.
4. I have mentioned the opinion of Mirza Ahmed Khan Shari’at-zadeh as
to the baselessness of the charges. The lawyer stated to Mr. Trott that he was
forced to withdraw from the defence. The newspaper account states that he
refused to defend the accused. It is probable that public rumour is correct in
saying that Teymourtache asked for Shari’at-zadeh to defend him, but, when
informed that Shari’at-zadeh could not do so, said: “All right, then, I don’t
mind whom you appoint to defend me—it makes no difference.”
5. As for the details of the trial, I suppose they will never be published, at
any rate by this regime. Two stories are current concerning Teymourtache s own
defence. One says that he just refused to make any detailed reply to the charges,
saying that he knew it would be useless; the other says that he made a long and
clever speech, criticising the provision of the Persian Criminal Code which says
that in trials of Government servants the Minister of Justice has the right of
supervision and intervention. I suppose that the former story is the more
probable. . . ^
6. As for the cryptic words of the judgment concerning the bripe^
“ apparently valued at 20,000 tomans 10,000 Persian dinars, or a gold coin of that value. , but sold for 8,000 tomans 10,000 Persian dinars, or a gold coin of that value. , which nobody
seems to understand, Shari’at-zadeh’s story is that this refers o e sa e y
Teymourtaohe of certain shares which he held m the Revir Khounan
Company (which develops the Samnan Oil-field) ; the accused is supposed to have
sold a block of these shares at a value greater than the true market rate.
7. The prisoner has, according to the law, a right ° f f a PP® al AA
“Tamiz” or High Court within ten days of communication of the sentence.
The fact that, as far as I can discover, he has not yet availed himself o
right leads me to think that he knows it would be <I ulte T u ® e _ ie f'
I have. &c.
R. H. HOARE.