Thailand seeks to prosecute ousted PM Thaksin in absentia in two graft cases

[Ricardo]

24 minutes ago, Sid Celery said:

 

You're undoubtedly right and you may already know this but trying to have a sensible discussion with this guy is a forlorn hope. There aren't many junta-huggers around these days, just newbs who don't understand anything and people like this guy. God knows where they got their opinion from, though I can guess. "You don't hire a bargirl to listen to her political views" seems like appropriate advice.

 

"just newbs who don't understand anything"

 

says a poster who joined just a couple-of-weeks ago ?

 

perhaps it's more-productive to discuss the thread, rather than sneer at other posters, who don't share your opinion ?

 

the point seems to me to be, is it fair to try cases where the then-existing laws may have been broken, but where the cases haven't been started in-court, due to the deliberate absense of the accused  ...  I'd be more convinced myself about the justice of this new move, if it also applied equally to non-political people like the Red-Bull-Kid.

[Sid Celery]

9 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

"just newbs who don't understand anything"

 

says a poster who joined just a couple-of-weeks ago ?

 

perhaps it's more-productive to discuss the thread, rather than sneer at other posters, who don't share your opinion ?

 

the point seems to me to be, is it fair to try cases where the then-existing laws may have been broken, but where the cases haven't been started in-court, due to the deliberate absense of the accused  ...  I'd be more convinced myself about the justice of this new move, if it also applied equally to non-political people like the Red-Bull-Kid.

 

Not all newbs are equal, friend.

 

You haven't come across Halloween before then? OK. A bit of a legend on TV by all accounts, not necessarily in a good way.

 

The point is that the international community does not regard retrospective legislation of this type as being valid or reasonable, or consistent with human rights or good jurisprudence. You appear not to have known that. It's OK, too much folk-rock I suppose.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Sid Celery

[Ricardo]

Just now, Sid Celery said:

 

You haven't come across Halloween before then? OK. 

 

The point is that the international community does not regard retrospective legislation of this type as being valid or reasonable, or consistent with human rights or good jurisprudence. You appear not to have known that. It's OK, too much folk-rock I suppose.

 

It's the morris-dancing that causes the real brain-damage !

 

The contrasting point, as others have said, these crimes (if he's found guilty as-alleged) were crimes at the time they were committed, and fleeing is merely a common (amongst poo-yais & politicians) device to avoid them.

[Sid Celery]

14 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

 

It's the morris-dancing that causes the real brain-damage !

 

The contrasting point, as others have said, these crimes (if he's found guilty as-alleged) were crimes at the time they were committed, and fleeing is merely a common (amongst poo-yais & politicians) device to avoid them.

 

Irrespective, as I understand it the retrospectivity involves the ability of the judiciary (yes I know it's a joke in Thailand, as are many things) are able to try alleged wrong-doers. 'ín absentia'. Any law specifically aimed at convicting one person is going to be a bad law. In my opinion.

[Ricardo]

36 minutes ago, Sid Celery said:

 

Irrespective, as I understand it the retrospectivity involves the ability of the judiciary (yes I know it's a joke in Thailand, as are many things) are able to try alleged wrong-doers. 'ín absentia'. Any law specifically aimed at convicting one person is going to be a bad law. In my opinion.

"Any law  ... "

 

Agreed, which is why I also said  " I'd be more convinced myself about the justice of this new move, if it also applied equally to non-political people like the Red-Bull-Kid ".

 

Such a pity that the then-government didn't start the several other cases in 2008, when Thaksin was back in the country, but I think it's clear why they failed to do so.  Mustn't bite the hand that feeds one, eh ?

 

 

" A bit of a legend on TV by all accounts, not necessarily in a good way. "

 

Thanks for adding-to/clarifying what you meant, I'd honestly thought you were referring to Halloween  (not  Halloween the poster) in the sense of ghosts of posters-past, returning to haunt us, but had decided not to pursue it !

 

 

[halloween]

21 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

Applying new laws retroactively to crimes commited over a decade ago is not justice, end of story. That is of course a very relevant point when justice is concerned. But what do you know about justice or democracy for that matter. 

 

The irony is that you openly support known criminals, that escape prosecution because they wrote themselves a far reaching amnesty. Therefore I believe you have absolutely no leg to stand on.

The hypocrisy is claiming NOT prosecuting criminals is "in the interest of justice" because an exploited loophole is being closed. The irony is claiming someone else supports criminals because they support change, while you defend the criminals that exploited the country's poor excuse for democracy.

[Ricardo]

I think it's important for other countries to remember, that bringing cases to Thai courts 'in-absentia' (if indeed it happens), should not mean that defendants don't have the usual full legal-representation/defense throughout the hearings.

 

Also that the defendants do still have every right to be present in-court, the decision to be absent remains their own, its not some plot to hear cases in-secret or to deny them their full legal-rights, as regards their alleged crimes.

 

Removing this impediment to justice, that defendents can seemingly avoid prosecution by staying-away at the start of a case, would appear to be correcting a previous fault in the system, provided that it applies to ALL and not just certain cases.

 

 

[Srikcir]

55 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

the decision to be absent remains their own

There's really no choice. It's a forced decision not to appear in the face of certain incarceration.

And given the history of pre-trial interrogations in Thailand (especially during a military-led government who has absolute power over the judicial system), there is possible intimidation and torture for a confession.

 

By internationals standards is trial in absentia acceptable? No.

(may affect ability of the Thai government to extradite a person to carry out a judgement)

 

The International Criminal Court under the Rome Statute upholds the requirement that the defendant must be present during the trial with only one exception - when the accused who is being present for the Court continues to disrupt the trial. Even then there are limits to the exception:

• the possibility to remove the accused when disrupting the trial “shall only be used in exceptional circumstances after other reasonable alternatives have proved inadequate”.
• the accused shall have the ability to observe the trial and instruct his or her counsel from outside the courtroom, through the use of communications technology if necessary.

See Chapter 4.3 of the very lengthy publication attached.

The Thai government (aka Prayut) might (?) grant the accused temporary immunity solely for the purpose of appearing at the pre-trial and trial phases. But I think there's a trustworthiness issue with the government (aka Prayut) keeping its word no matter how formal and legal it may be presented.

 

Absentia Trial.pdf

[halloween]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

There's really no choice. It's a forced decision not to appear in the face of certain incarceration.

And given the history of pre-trial interrogations in Thailand (especially during a military-led government who has absolute power over the judicial system), there is possible intimidation and torture for a confession.

 

By internationals standards is trial in absentia acceptable? No.

(may affect ability of the Thai government to extradite a person to carry out a judgement)

 

The International Criminal Court under the Rome Statute upholds the requirement that the defendant must be present during the trial with only one exception - when the accused who is being present for the Court continues to disrupt the trial. Even then there are limits to the exception:

• the possibility to remove the accused when disrupting the trial “shall only be used in exceptional circumstances after other reasonable alternatives have proved inadequate”.
• the accused shall have the ability to observe the trial and instruct his or her counsel from outside the courtroom, through the use of communications technology if necessary.

See Chapter 4.3 of the very lengthy publication attached.

The Thai government (aka Prayut) might (?) grant the accused temporary immunity solely for the purpose of appearing at the pre-trial and trial phases. But I think there's a trustworthiness issue with the government (aka Prayut) keeping its word no matter how formal and legal it may be presented.

 

Absentia Trial.pdf

When your co-accused have either confessed or been previously sentenced with ample evidence, yes, incarceration is close to certain. Then it comes down to moral and intestinal fortitude. OTOH quite a few Thai politicians seem to believe that being elected, they have the right to steal from those they supposedly represent, and fail to see that there is any need for repentance, punishment or restitution.

[Ricardo]

5 hours ago, Srikcir said:

The Thai government (aka Prayut) might (?) grant the accused temporary immunity solely for the purpose of appearing at the pre-trial and trial phases. But I think there's a trustworthiness issue with the government (aka Prayut) keeping its word no matter how formal and legal it may be presented.

 

 

Or perhaps the accused might alternatively waive his right to be present, and allow the case to be heard anyway, if he were absolutely convinced of his innocence, as he has claimed in various interviews over-the-years ?

 

 

[Sid Celery]

So it would seem, compared with today, the Thaksin days were milk and honey. Be careful what you wish for I suppose eh Sondhi? You thought you were doing the country a favour but you're in prison, Thaksin is in the lap of luxury and the country is in the garbage bin. Good job eh?

 

The problem essentially is this, or so it seems to me.

Thais, despite the propaganda they've been fed from birth are useless.

 

Primitive people
Primitive culture
Primitive language
Corruption is out of control
Law enforcement is useless
Defence is hopeless
Jurisprudence is discredited 
Honesty and integrity almost non-existent among the Thai people
Terrible at sport
Terrible in academia
Useless in science and medicine
Dreadful at education
and an absolute catastrophe at managing a country, and they throw out the only Prime Minister that got close to making something of the place.

.

Thais (or so it seems to me) have waaaay too much confidence and waaaay too little competence and I don't think most of ém even understand the difference between those two things. No evidence of it anyway.

 

In fact, just for laughs, compare them with any country of comparable size. Australia is smaller but compare with Australia, that's worth a belly laugh.Compare them with UK, which is slightly smaller. Vietnam?

 

It's a keystone kops scenario, but without the humour. It needs some serious surgery and it won't get even close to right for 50 years, I won't see that day, that's for sure, and neither will most of the posters on TV.

 

Prayuth - dear oh dear. Come back Thaksin - please

Edited November 28, 2017 by Sid Celery

[Sid Celery]

So it would seem, compared with today, the Thaksin days were milk and honey. Be careful what you wish for I suppose eh Sondhi? You thought you were doing the country a favour but you're in prison, Thaksin is in the lap of luxury and I reckon the country's in the garbage bin. Top job eh?

 

The problem essentially is this, or so it seems to me: Thais, despite the propaganda they've been fed from birth and their ubiquitous superiority complex, are almost completely useless.

 

Primitive people
Primitive culture
Primitive language
Corruption is out of control
Law enforcement is useless
Defence is hopeless
Jurisprudence is discredited 
Honesty and integrity almost non-existent among the Thai people
Terrible at sport
Terrible in academia
Useless in science and medicine
Dreadful at education
and an absolute catastrophe at managing a country

 

So naturally they throw out the only Prime Minister that got close to making something of the place.

 

In fact, the only things they're really good at is bootlegging, prostitution and extortion.

 

Thais (or so it seems to me) have waaaay too much confidence and waaaay too little competence and I don't think most of 'em even understand the difference between those two things. No evidence of it anyway.

 

To make the point crystal clear, and just for laughs, compare them with any country of comparable size. Australia is smaller but compare with Australia, that's worth a belly laugh.Compare them with UK, which is slightly smaller. Vietnam?

 

It's a keystone kops scenario, but without the humour. It needs some serious surgery and it won't get even close to right for 50 years, I won't see that day, that's for sure, and neither will most of the posters on TV.

 

I hated Thaksin when he was hear, but Prayuth? - dear oh dear. Come back Thaksin - please

[gk10002000]

So who is Thailand?  What is the law?  Pass new law, then prosecute people under new laws that were not in effect in the past?   How many ousted PM's have been prosecuted in the past, after they took over and then left office?

[stephen tracy]

9 hours ago, Ricardo said:

 

Or perhaps the accused might alternatively waive his right to be present, and allow the case to be heard anyway, if he were absolutely convinced of his innocence, as he has claimed in various interviews over-the-years ?

 

 

What difference does any of it make in light of the current political situation? It's a sideshow. 

[pornprong]

On 11/27/2017 at 5:52 AM, halloween said:

Oh dear me, you state it is "in the interest of justice" that a known criminal should escape prosecution, not because the laws he broke were not in existence at the time, but because it was not possible to prosecute him because of his absence. And justify it be a few biased irrelevancies.

Oh dear me, you ignore the flood of crimes committed by the junta and yet remain entrapped within your bizarre obsession with Thaksin. Nobody is fooled, you couldn't care less about justice.

[pornprong]

17 hours ago, Ricardo said:

I think it's important for other countries to remember, that bringing cases to Thai courts 'in-absentia' (if indeed it happens), should not mean that defendants don't have the usual full legal-representation/defense throughout the hearings.

 

Also that the defendants do still have every right to be present in-court, the decision to be absent remains their own, its not some plot to hear cases in-secret or to deny them their full legal-rights, as regards their alleged crimes.

 

Removing this impediment to justice, that defendents can seemingly avoid prosecution by staying-away at the start of a case, would appear to be correcting a previous fault in the system, provided that it applies to ALL and not just certain cases.

 

 

Could you please explain why this new "law" only applies to politicians and not to say the Red Bull kid?