Gen. Aung San - 1940

Hla Tay - Paysage

Zwe Yan Naing Daw Suu

Maw Thu Da Nu
"Deep Inside"

Aung Khaing - Puppets

Hanuman

Bagan - Shwezigon Buddha 11^thCentury

Sao Ohn Nyunt

Sir Gerald Kelly 1932

The Case of Ambassador Kyaw Zwar Minn

Aung Khine - 2016

Former Myanmar Ambassador in London Kyaw Zwar Minn charged with trespass and to appear in Court on Friday 30 May 2025: the case continues.

The former Myanmar Ambassador to the UK, Mr Kyaw Zwar Minn, has been charged with "trespass on a diplomatic mission / consular premises contrary to section 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1977". A copy of the Charge may be found at this link. No previous Charges under this Section appear ever to have been made since the enactment of the Act. Defence and Prosecution have been asked to submit further arguments which the Magistrate will consider in September 2025. The case might even go to trial.

The Times reported on this case on 29 May 2025 and quoted the Attorney General's Office in the following terms:

A spokesman for the attorney-general’s office said: “There are a small number of offences which need

consent from law officers, acting independently of government, before somebody can be charged. That is a long-standing mechanism, set out by parliament.

“The Crown Prosecution Service will first decide whether there is enough evidence for a charge and

that prosecuting is in the public interest. Acting entirely independently of government, the law

officers then apply established prosecution principles of evidential sufficiency and the public interest and decide whether to consent.”

The matter of "public interest" has been much discussed nationally and internationally over the years. See Section 4 of the 2018 Code for Crown Prosecutors with regard to Crown Prosecution in the UK. The concept would seem to be only narrowly defined in this document and to exclude the "common good", the "national interest" and similar values. See however the Attorney General's speech to the Royal Services Institute on 29 May 2025, on respect for international law and the related national interest.

A crowdfunding appeal has been launched to Save Myanmar House. Donations may be made at this link.

Kyaw Zwar Minn: Photo -Teri Pengilley: The Guardian

The military junta known as the State Administration Council (SAC) has been seeking for over four years to evict Mr Kyaw Zwar Minn from the Myanmar Embassy Residence known as "Myanmar House" at 49 Redington Road, Hampstead, London NW3 7RA since his public opposition to the military coup staged on 1 February 2021.

The general background to this affair may be found at Sebastian Sergio's article in The Diplomat of 14 March 2022.

In the past London Lawyers Peters and Peters have acted for Mr Kyaw Zwar Minn.

The UK Land Registry records that the Registered Owners of 49 Redington Street, London NW3 7RA are "THE UNION OF BURMA - 19A Charles Street, Westminster, W1". The Union of Burma was the name of the State between 1948 and 1974 when the name changed under the 1974 Constitution to the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma. In 1989 the State was renamed the Socialist Republic of the Union of Myanmar under the change of all things named "Burma" to "Myanmar", and in 2008 the Republic of the Union of Myanmar under the 2008 Constitution. The postcode "W1" is out of date and would now read "W1J 5DX". The Metropolitan Police Summons is addressed to Mr Kyaw Zwar Minn, 49 Reddington [sic] Road, London NW3 7RA and the Charge is said to be authorised by "Attorney General [sic] Office". Reddington should read "Redington" and Attorney General Office should read "Attorney General's Office".

The Land Registry record does not appear to support the Metropolitan Police statement that the premises at 49 Redington Road, London NW3 7RA are "premises belonging to the Mission of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar to the United Kingdom". The premises would seem to belong to the successor State to The Union of Burma and to be Myanmar State property, not the property of the present diplomatic mission to the UK. The SAC seized power unlawfully on 1 February 2021 by detaining the Head of State Win Myint in contravention of the precise, detailed and lengthy procedure for the impeachment of a Head of State set out in Article 71 of the 2008 Myanmar Constitution. The National Union Government of Myanmar claim to be the only legitimate representatives of the Myanmar people. The Court may however decide that the precise ownership of the premises is not a major issue. It should be noted that it is standard practice in the UK that properties purchased freehold or leasehold by foreign states and used for diplomatic or consular purposes are registered with the UK Land Registry as owned not by the Embassy, but by the State concerned. Thus the in the case of the leasehold of Winfield House in Regents Park, the Residence of the US Ambassador, the registered owners are recorded as: "The United States of America". As with Myanmar House, the contact address given is that of the Embassy, but in neither case are the Embassy (that is, the Chancery or Diplomatic Mission) the registered owners.

The FCDO have in the past expressed concern about the possible implications for British diplomatic staff and property in Yangon of the continuing impasse in London. The FCDO will also be mindful of the obligations of both receiving and sending States under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The UK maintains diplomatic relations with Myanmar, but its policy since 1980 has been not to accord formal recognition to any Government or claimant, only to States. See statements in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons in the 1980s.

Those interested will note that the Attorney General is responsible for the work of the Crown Prosecution Service and that it is his Office which has decided to prosecute on behalf of the military junta. His Wikipedia record and biography is available at this link.

The Minister at the Attorney General's Office, Arthur Davidson (Labour MP for Accrington at the time), told the House of Commons on 13 July 1977:

"The reason for Clause 9 is simple. It is needed to discharge our international obligation to preserve

the inviolability of such [diplomatic and consular] premises. The obligation would not be discharged if

the offence were left out of the Bill or were limited to violent behaviour or behaviour threatening to

cause a breach of the peace as my hon. Friend proposes.

"We are required to guarantee to representatives of foreign and Commonwealth Governments - this is a strict liability under international convention - that they need not rid themselves of trespassers but

should be able to call on the forces of law and order to do so on their behalf. Our own interests are also

at stake, because we cannot expect our premises abroad to be treated better than the way we treat

the premises of other Governments here.

"I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no unwarranted prosecutions under Clause 9. The

amendment that I moved earlier in response to the fears that he had expressed provides that no

prosecution may be brought without the consent of the Attorney General."

The debate on Section 9 of the Bill in the House of Commons on 13 July 1977 clearly shows that it was intended to implement the requirements of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 against unauthorised third party entry to carry out protests, whether peaceful or not, and similar acts.

Article 1 of the Convention defines the “premises of the mission” as “the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission”. The Convention declares them inviolable, in the following terms:

Article 22
1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity [emphases added]."

This case is of an unusual, indeed unique nature. The Court could decide later this year whether Mr Kyaw Zwar Minn's continuing peaceful residence at Myanmar House makes him a trespasser within the purview of the Act.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines "trespass" as: "to pass beyond or across, to enter unlawfully on the land of another, or on that which is the property of right of another. Medieval Latin 'transpassare' to pass beyond."

[The views expressed above are the personal views of Derek Tonkin, editor and manager of this website.]

Guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service and Legal Texts

Trespass and Nuisance on Land - last updated 2 September 2024

The Code for Crown Prosecutors [Section 4 -the "Public Interest"] 26 October 2018

Diplomatic Immunity and Diplomatic Premises - last updated 9 September 2022

Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987

Criminal Law Act 1997 - with subsequent amendments

House of Commons debate on Clause 9 of the Criminal Law Bill - 13 July 1977

Commentary

Foreign Secretary Raab backs sacked Myanmar Envoy

Financial Times: 8 April 2021 - John Reed and Jasmine Cameron-Chileshe

Myanmar Ambassador suggests he could be killed if he returns home