Remix4

Forget complaining to the police, the best option is to complain to the Pollution Control Dept:

http://www.pcd.go.th/indexeng.cfm

We have used them before for complaints in Bangkok and they responded very quickly and soon sorted out noise problems.

When we brought 2 huskies in 7 years ago as excess baggage the only charges we had to pay at this end were 250 THB per dog for the documentation

Given that as I understand it this matter was raised by the British family's Member of Parliament in the UK and represented to the Thai government, I would find it unlikely that this was therefore "simply" a civil case.

As an aside I have no special knowledge about this case apart from what I've read.

So, of course, I may be in error.

Regards

Correct this is a criminal case.

Originally 2 charges - theft & criminal damage

Acquitted of both charges and prosecution only appealed criminal damage charge

1st appeal - acquitted of criminal damage charge

Now prosecution trying to appeal criminal damage charge to Supreme Court

Remix4 now I am confused.

I thought this had only been heard by the criminal court and that they missed the 30 day appeal court window hence the landlord appealing to the supreme court for an extension to take it to the appeal court?

Did the appeal court up hold the criminal courts decision or is it simply they missed the 30 day appeal window?

No - it's gone through to the 1st appeal court already, which took 2 years.

The 1st appeal court upheld the first court's verdict - not guilty on the 4th Dec 2012

Basically he is trying to appeal it a 2nd time to the Supreme Court

Obviously 2 not guilties is not enough and the accused require 3 in order to finally leave!

Given that as I understand it this matter was raised by the British family's Member of Parliament in the UK and represented to the Thai government, I would find it unlikely that this was therefore "simply" a civil case.

As an aside I have no special knowledge about this case apart from what I've read.

So, of course, I may be in error.

Regards

Correct this is a criminal case.

Originally 2 charges - theft & criminal damage

Acquitted of both charges and prosecution only appealed criminal damage charge

1st appeal - acquitted of criminal damage charge

Now prosecution trying to appeal criminal damage charge to Supreme Court

Mr Chestnutt must be loaded to hang around Thailand for years with out a paying job.

You really need to at least attempt to read the story fully and not just look at the pictures ... Mr Chestnutt doesnt have a choice

It sounds like the judge merely laid out the charges against him and asked if he was pleading Guilty or Not Guilty. Isn't that standard practice in most courts worldwide. The judge also tried to find if a plea bargain was an option. Doesn't seem out of the ordinary either.

The way I read it the trial had started and had the 3 judges appointed to it. Chestnutt was then taken aside but a non trial judge and 'offered the deal' outside of the trial its self.

Maybe I got it wrong.....

Para - yes you assumed correctly.

It is not really clear whether he was acquitted in the court of first instance or the charges were dropped. I guess he was a acquitted as I don't see any way of appealing a decision to drop charges and once the charges are dropped the accused should be free to do.

They were acquitted in the court of first instance of both charges & the appeal court upheld the first court's verdict.

No - it wasnt the trial judge, it was the Chief Judge (as in top judge for the courts) in a private meeting during the 2nd day of the trial. In fact the trial judges stated that this discussion is not on record and the decision will in no way affect the trial. The 3 trial judges were not present in the room during the meeting.

Ouch!

Sounds like 'Thai rak Thai' for a slice of the money.

Did his lawyer ever bring this in in court during the trial?

Never mentioned again! Although I must admit it does sound rather dodgy

Para you are 100% correct!

The only option offered by the court to the accused at the start of the trial (by the Chief Judge) was - plead guilty, pay 500,000 THB and maybe receive a suspended sentence as opposed to jail. Not an option!

The plaintiff was asked by the court to lower the amount he demanded - he refused!

It is not the plaintiffs decision to drop a court case.

Remix4 are you sure you have this right? The trial judge 'offered' Chestnutt that?

dam_n thats screwed up. Its not the judges decision or position to offer a deal like that he has to listen to the case and judge on its merits. Chestnutt chose to fight the charge in the first case.

Sounds like the (ex)police landlord the the judge have a connection and tried to squeeze your friend IMO.

No - it wasnt the trial judge, it was the Chief Judge (as in top judge for the courts) in a private meeting during the 2nd day of the trial. In fact the trial judges stated that this discussion is not on record and the decision will in no way affect the trial. The 3 trial judges were not present in the room during the meeting.

I would like to know, what sort of place this "landlord" was renting to him, the type of furntiure etc., etc..

Quite a few years ago, I had a bedsit dwelling (a room not dissimilar to here, without an ensuite etc), I kitted it out with IKEA, bed, wardrobe and chair with a sink. In total to furnish the whole room was around 50kbht, so what has this guy provided above that... Maybe a TV and fridge? Where does the cost of DAMAGES, 500K, come from?

It was 2 houses in one compound. The houses were unfurnished since the accused had imported a 40 foot container of furniture from Singapore, where he previously lived. The non-existant items alleged stolen - a teak bed, 2 teak wardrobes, a leather sofa, one set of curtains & one TV console.

As everyone will know landlords always fit out unfurnished houses for lease with high quality, expensive teak furniture and state in the contract its unfurnished!

First of all -- I am sure it has cost more for him and his partner in money then than 500,000 (a unverified number posted by someone who claims to know info and clearly is siding with tenant) to live here 3.5 years and to fight the case not including the problems with not being able to work during this time or leave the country and the nightmare it has caused the families.

But no I don't have proof the landlord would settle just like we don't have proof of anything about this case but given the expenses of taking a matter to court and given it may be a weak case (if that is the reason charges have been dismissed) and the fact he met with the defendants to discuss settlement logic dictates he would have settled for less ... then add to the fact he could have tried to settle since the case has been ongoing and that 1/2 the case is already gone (again according to a poster here) and all that remains is the criminal complaint by the landlord it seems the landlord would take compensation over only having expenses out of this ordeal.

But of course we don't know if the landlord would settle but can only use some reasonable logic based on reports of an incident that doesn't have much logic for continuing .... By your focusing on this one comment and my reply to it, I hoped I have helped you to further avoid the obvious point that the tenant should have settled this by now given the costs both financially, to his family, his career, his ability to travel as well as a possible criminal record in Thailand.

Edit: Excluding court costs and assuming his and his partner have been able to survive on combined expenses of 20,000 a month then they have already cost them 600,000 in living expenses alone the last 3.5 years and they say it could go on another 5+ years if the landlord wins the latest appeal to not have the charges dismissed.

Nisa your ignorance of Thai law is now becoming boring.

Once Lee Chestnutt was dumped into the court legal system there is now way out till the court says.

Don't you think for a second he would of chosen to pay it off given the chance its not up to him as he is under the courts jurisdiction.

Para you are 100% correct!

The only option offered by the court to the accused at the start of the trial (by the Chief Judge) was - plead guilty, pay 500,000 THB and maybe receive a suspended sentence as opposed to jail. Not an option!

The plaintiff was asked by the court to lower the amount he demanded - he refused!

It is not the plaintiffs decision to drop a court case.

I wonder how much pain and money this has cost his mom and dad to support him these years and for him to keep this case going vs. how much the furniture would have cost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...hester-20589033

Perhaps you could put that question to his landlord?

Exactly!!! Nisa appears to have conveniently missed out the fact that the landlord is the one causing this!

Just out of general curiosity. If someone (not Mr. Lee) is forced to stay in Thailand by a court, has no money and no family or bank who can/will pay, and is not allowed to work in Thailand. Then who pays for food, shelter etc? Is Thailand, or the persons home country legally obliged to pay?

You are forced to pay. The Thai government and the UK government WILL DO NOTHING with regards to financial support

I am sure you are right with regards to the governments, but my question still stands. If you are not allowed to work, and not entitled to any form of welfare, which a foreigner in Thailand is not, then what money are you supposed to pay with?

Your own. Try one of the charities maybe - although if you arent a drug courier who's actually guilty then they arent generally interested!

You could try begging or routing through dustbins for scraps of food but then again that would constitute work I guess!

The landlord is a high-ranking police officer. The accused, is not free of blame, as he is wanted in connection with other incidents in Thailand, but those are civil matters, not criminal. I have no sympathy for this guy.

The accused is NOT wanted at all in connection with any other matters criminal or civil

“All we can do is wait to see if the Supreme Court allow the delay,” Mr Chestnutt said. “If they do, they will give him 60 days to form his appeal and then we have got to wait again to see whether the court even accepts the appeal.

“If they do we are looking at staying here for another five to 10 years.”

http://www.chiangrai...news/12776.html

For the love of God sometimes you just need to accept your loses and move on with life ... in this case settle the matter with the freaking landlord ... unless him and his mate want this. He has been living in Asia 20-years and maybe things are going well not working and living off mom and dad.

Settle and plead guilty (after being found NOT GUILTY twice, despite what you believe) and be faced with a jail sentence. Anyway ...

For the umteenth time it is the landlord pursuing the charges and if they satisfy the landlord there is no charges . The only way he faces possible jail time is to keep fighting this. Although there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO PLEAD GUILTY, even if he did he would not face jail time for such an offense (especially if he made restitution) being a first time offender but yes it could effect his ability to stay or return to Thailand. But the bottom line is he is the one who by continuing to not settle with the landlord is keeping this case alive.

If you know about this case then you know it is the landlord filing appeals, the landlord claiming damages and it is the landlord who brought charges. No unhappy landlord = no court case.

I guess we just have to take your word for it then.

“All we can do is wait to see if the Supreme Court allow the delay,” Mr Chestnutt said. “If they do, they will give him 60 days to form his appeal and then we have got to wait again to see whether the court even accepts the appeal.

“If they do we are looking at staying here for another five to 10 years.”

http://www.chiangrai...news/12776.html

For the love of God sometimes you just need to accept your loses and move on with life ... in this case settle the matter with the freaking landlord ... unless him and his mate want this. He has been living in Asia 20-years and maybe things are going well not working and living off mom and dad.

Settle and plead guilty (after being found NOT GUILTY twice, despite what you believe) and be faced with a jail sentence.

Anyway ... as a wise man apparently once said - See no evil; see what is good Hear no evil; hear what is good - pretend evil doesnt exist and the world will be a fluffier place.

Clearly you know more than I do.

As do the family and the accused in their own words and as reported by BBC and other news sources.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...hester-20589033 (includes video of family)

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ashire-20607769

http://www.chiangrai...news/12776.html

Dont forget tomorrow you can add the links to the BBC Northwest TV interview (live with parents in studio and lee chestnutt via phone at around 6:40pm UK time) and the Granada Reports interview (approx. 6pm tonight - recorded earlier today).

And if the Thai FACE matter would not cloud any actions by the landlord this would have been resolved a long time ago. I applaud Chestnutt for fighting back again's all odds. It is about time !

What is he fighting to win which is at the expense of his family who are being pained emotionally and financially for years now due to his fight?

Have you actually read the facts - they are fighting being thrown in jail!

Also I would like to add at this point since you appear to believe that they are doing this "at the expense of their families" that their families are fully behind them and have been since they were arrested!

The families have been picking up all their expenses for them and his family says it has been a nightmare. Had he worked a deal with the landlord this would not have proceeded. If the purpose was to extort money from him and as YOU (no verification or links provided) claim it was 500,000 baht then the landlord would have settled for less because he has also been incurring expenses and headaches from this and in 3.5 years it has cost him and his mate and the families more than 500,000 to live here and fight this case. At each juncture and all during this time he could have settled without admitting any guilt and this would have gone away ... it is the landlord pressing charges. He wins and will never be declared innocent and unlike your claims of him being found not-guilty this too has not happened and the case has just been dismissed (we don't know if lack of evidence or procedural errors or what) and if this latest appeal is thrown out then that is how it ends without a verdict and him, his mate, his family going through near 4 years of pain and expenses that greatly exceeded not only 500k but what he could have settled for. Sounds like a winner all right ... I'd be dam_n proud to be telling people the pain and suffering I put my family through for years just so I could get some justice with some landlord in some less developed nation.

Clearly you know more than I do.

Drive down to a southern province. Get on a dam_n boat to Langkawi and go bloody home! Sorry, am I missing something here?

Maybe his -long time- relationship with a Thai partner?

Partner is Singaporean - also in the same situation - joint defendants

And if the Thai FACE matter would not cloud any actions by the landlord this would have been resolved a long time ago. I applaud Chestnutt for fighting back again's all odds. It is about time !

What is he fighting to win which is at the expense of his family who are being pained emotionally and financially for years now due to his fight?

Have you actually read the facts - they are fighting being thrown in jail!

Also I would like to add at this point since you appear to believe that they are doing this "at the expense of their families" that their families are fully behind them and have been since they were arrested!

Something smells a bit fishy about this lot. Always two sides to every story and the truth is some ware in the middle.

When you have a system that can accept completely frivolous accusations, it is entirely possible that the middle ground and two sides don't exist.

Totally agree!

Can the accused sue for loss of earnings?

They can (along with other things) although not until the whole case is over - despite the theft charge not being appealed. Possibly one of the main factors driving them in attempting to delay further using the Supreme Court.

+ point for the Thai legal system however - the judges throughout both the trial and the appeal were excellent. Very supportive and 100% fair. The first date of the trial was held on the same day as the red shirts bail hearing and the judges stated that prosecution needs to be very careful how this is handled and that Thailand's image is not affected when already getting bad publicity abroad (obviously they ignored the warning!)

This is what i have heard about the judgements over and over again. So, who tells a plaintiff he is wasting his time pursuing the case? From what i have read, this advice never occurs, which gums the system too even more.

From what I understand (although Im not exactly sure this is 100% accurate) it would be the prosecutor and Im not sure the courts have much power to actually prevent it going to trial if the prosecutor backs it - again I may be wrong.

The courts at the start of this trial attempted to resolve it without going through the full trial - plaintiff was asking 500,000 THB and the courts suggested 50,000 THB but plaintiff refused. In this case the Chief Judge interviened on the 2nd day and called a meeting and offered (if it could be called that) - the defendants plead guilty and pay 500,000 THB and they "may" get off with suspended sentence. If continue to plead not guilty then they WILL go to jail if they lose the trial.

I think the courts tend to favour negotiation at the start to minimise full trials.

Just out of general curiosity. If someone (not Mr. Lee) is forced to stay in Thailand by a court, has no money and no family or bank who can/will pay, and is not allowed to work in Thailand. Then who pays for food, shelter etc? Is Thailand, or the persons home country legally obliged to pay?

You are forced to pay. The Thai government and the UK government WILL DO NOTHING with regards to financial support

Can the accused sue for loss of earnings?

They can (along with other things) although not until the whole case is over - despite the theft charge not being appealed. Possibly one of the main factors driving them in attempting to delay further using the Supreme Court.

+ point for the Thai legal system however - the judges throughout both the trial and the appeal were excellent. Very supportive and 100% fair. The first date of the trial was held on the same day as the red shirts bail hearing and the judges stated that prosecution needs to be very careful how this is handled and that Thailand's image is not affected when already getting bad publicity abroad (obviously they ignored the warning!)

I don't think that this matter would ever have got to court in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service would have decided that there was little hope of a conviction and decided that they had better things to do with their time. I assume there would be only one avenue open for the complainant and that would be to resort of Civil law which means that the defendant could leave the country unhindered. My guess is that there are a few living here in Thailand that have taken advantage of that. Further more it is one thing to win a civil case and and entirely different one in getting any decision enforced.

Being held in lengthy custody in the UK without charges being brought is, as far as I know, only at the prerogative and with permission of the Home Secretary. There are a few Muslim extremists held under this edict, one of who was recently finally extradited to the US and others may well follow him out of the country. Persons may not be detained by the UK police for more than 24 hours but this may be extended to 36 hours with the express permission of a Police Superintendent, and for up to 96 hours with the permission of a magistrate. An exception is made to those arrested under the Terrorism Act and these persons may be held for up to 14 days. I very much doubt the veracity of a statement on this subject a few posts above.

You are talking about being held in jail and the only reference to this guy going to jail was by a poster who says he spent one night in jail. The other comments are understandable and understand this may likely be dealt with in a civil matter in the US too but not only do we not know all the facts but more importantly, in Thailand individuals are free to bring criminal charges on their own and although not the same a bit similar to filing a civil complaint against somebody that can also be dismissed if without merit, not filed properly or for a host of other reasons.

Bottom line is guilty or not it is a nightmare to be in a country, where you don't speak the language (according to his Facebook he knows English, Indonesian, Melayu), and get caught up in their legal system that is much different than your own.

It is bizarre that an individual can bring a private criminal complaint don't you think? Would be better if this was only possible from the police who judge if the accusation is worth pursuing.

Totally agree. Thailand also allows private prosecution lawyers and in this case they had both a public and private prosecutor (not sure how common this is in other countries)