Can Consulate Personnel be sued under Civil Law of Thailand for wrongs committed, in Consulate [ not Thailand Consulate ] against Visitor ?

[Our Man in the Tropics]

Can Consulate Personnel be sued under Civil Law of Thailand & other "applicable" Laws for Wrongs -- e.g.s defamation, & non-justifiable threats -- committed in Consulate based in Thailand [ not Thailand Consulate ] against Visitor ?

[simon43]

No

 

Next...

[Our Man in the Tropics]

9 minutes ago, simon43 said:

No

 

Next...

What is your authoritative basis to simply say "No" ?

[VocalNeal]

Once an Aus, friend of mine asked a local employee in the Aus. embassy if she had a visa and a wok permit to work in Australia.

[Our Man in the Tropics]

2 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Once an Aus, friend of mine asked a local employee in the Aus. embassy if she had a visa and a wok permit to work in Australia.

Sorry,- but this anecdote is not related to this topic ?

 

No disrespect, of course, to you.

[KhunBENQ]

Basically the premises of the consulate are not subject to law of the host country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritoriality

If the person has full diplomatic status there is no chance to sue for the mentioned cases like defamation/threat. Only a few exceptions for other matters. Often simplified as " diplomatic immunity". Even consular staff has an exceptional status.

It's a complicated matter and you would need a lawyer experienced with this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations

 

Question: was the person a member of the consular staff or even diplomatic staff?

[VocalNeal]

I thought it was as local consulate staff work in the country of that embassy and as such then may not be subject to local laws. 

 

You could try the laws of the country of the consulate but are foreigners subject to their laws?

[KhunBENQ]

1 minute ago, VocalNeal said:

You could try the laws of the country of the consulate

Formally that should work.

[Our Man in the Tropics]

Surely diplomatic immunity is STRICTLY given to only certain individuals ?

 

From my research vis-a-vis international discussions on Diplomatic Immunity some time ago,- I gather that Consulates are not locations that protect any & all staff with Diplomatic Immunity just on the basis of it being a Consulate ;

Please feel free to correct this theory vis-a-vis the general international view ;

 

Moreover,- I am interested in Thailand's laws on this topic ;

And,- I am very interested in legal precedents that have succeeded or failed for individuals & / or others in suing Consulates & / or INDIVIDUAL Personnel of Consulates.

 

I trust that this is a most stimulating topic for all nationalities everywhere.

[Our Man in the Tropics]

And,- I recollect that there are different levels of Diplomatic Immunity & "Associated" Protections for certain personnel employed by Embassies & / or Consulates & / or by proxy for the Embassies & / or Consulates [ There is the notion that Chancery Staff ( non-nationals of the particular country's Embassy / Consulate ) can be personally employed by the Consul, say, rather than the Consulate ].

 

THINK !

Consulate address is the scene of the Wrongs committed upon the Visitor ;

 

1_

Surely, the legitimate option is there for the Visitor to sue separately :

 

1_1_

the Consulate > Department of Foreign Affairs of that country through Thailand's Laws ?

 

1_2_

the Consulate > Department of Foreign Affairs of that country through that country's Laws ?

 

1_3_

the INDIVIDUAL Personnel through Thailand's Laws ?

 

1_4_

the INDIVIDUAL Personnel through that Country's Laws [ if the Personnel have residence rights & / or citizenship of that country ] ?

 

 

[KMartinHandyman]

Was the offender a citizen of the consulate country or Thailand? Never mind your premise is too vague and you seem to be well informed already.

[Our Man in the Tropics]

Ref.

Link given by KhunBenQ above

Post # 6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations 

 

Summary of provisions

The treaty is an extensive document, containing 53 articles.

The following is a basic overview of its key provisions.^[2]

 

• Article 9.
• The host nation at any time and for any reason can declare a particular member of the diplomatic staff to be persona non grata.
• The sending state must recall this person within a reasonable period of time, or otherwise this person may lose their diplomatic immunity.
•  
• Article 22.
• The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolable and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property.
•  
• Article 24
• establishes that the archives and documents of a diplomatic mission are inviolable. The receiving country shall not seize or open such documents.
•  
• Article 29.
• Diplomats must not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.
• They are immune from civil or criminal prosecution,
• though the sending country may waive this right under Article 32.
•  
• Article 31.1c
• Actions not covered by diplomatic immunity:
• professional activity outside diplomat's official functions. ; ? ? ?

[Our Man in the Tropics]

31 minutes ago, KMartinHandyman said:

Was the offender a citizen of the consulate country or Thailand? Never mind your premise is too vague and you seem to be well informed already.

Clearly,- I have posed this post towards the HYPOTHETICAL Case of Consulates & / or INDIVIDUAL working in those Consulates IN Thailand ;

 

Again, lest a reader misapprehend the reality,- a Consulate "in" Thailand is NOT a Thailand Consulate ;

Rather,- they are Consulates representing respective Foreign Countries [ NOT Thailand ]

 

I am a little informed only ;

 

My reasoning is very much guided by mankind's civilised sense of natural justice ;

And,- natural justice is the penultimate plea that lawmakers refer to when justifying laws.

[KMartinHandyman]

Clearly,- I have posed this post towards the HYPOTHETICAL Case of Consulates IN Thailand.
 
I am a little informed only ;
 
My reasoning is very much guided by mankind's civilised sense of natural justice ;
And,- natural justice is the penultimate plea that lawmakers refer to when justifying laws.

So it’s a hypothetical troll post,,got it!

[Our Man in the Tropics]

6 minutes ago, KMartinHandyman said:

So it’s a hypothetical troll post,,got it!

Nay !

It is NOT a "hypothetical troll post".

 

Rather,- it is a REAL post about a HYPOTHETICAL Situation ;

And,- u betcha that this HYPOTHETICAL Situation is most relevant to all decent "un-connected" visitors to Consulates.

 

Ur language, & indeed attitude, is NOT diplomatic ... regrettably.

[Our Man in the Tropics]

To help readers to help me in this enquiry,- I submit 2 links which I just found now ;

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consul_(representative)#Consulates_and_embassies

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consular_immunity

[cleopatra2]

9 hours ago, Our Man in the Tropics said:

Surely diplomatic immunity is STRICTLY given to only certain individuals ?

 

From my research vis-a-vis international discussions on Diplomatic Immunity some time ago,- I gather that Consulates are not locations that protect any & all staff with Diplomatic Immunity just on the basis of it being a Consulate ;

Please feel free to correct this theory vis-a-vis the general international view ;

 

Moreover,- I am interested in Thailand's laws on this topic ;

And,- I am very interested in legal precedents that have succeeded or failed for individuals & / or others in suing Consulates & / or INDIVIDUAL Personnel of Consulates.

 

I trust that this is a most stimulating topic for all nationalities everywhere.

Thailand ratified the convention in 1985, rendering any domestic laws pertaining , subservient to the International Treaty.

You have already located the answer , section 31 of the treaty , agents immune from criminal prosecution in receiving country, subject to civil in limited circumstances

[noise]

@Our Man in the Tropics  said: trust that this is a most stimulating topic for all nationalities everywhere.

 

I appreciate stimulating intellectual subjects but (it may be because of old age?) I quickly lose interest if there is no practical use or application.   Does this one have either?

 

Never the less, I see two avenues that have to be taken.  First, as has  been mentioned lightly, a thorough examination of international law pertaining to diplomatic immunity and the bi-national treaty dealing with local national Embassy/Consulate staff is required.   That seems like a daunting task requiring extensive time spent in a law library.

 

The second avenue would be to search Thailand precedents in this arena and deciding under what extraordinary circumstances would a Thai court even accept such a case.    And then deciding whether one would have the slightest chance of finding a qualified lawyer capable of filing such a case.   My immediate reaction is these are daunting tasks #2.

 

This isn't, by any chance, some law school required paper, is it?

[ballpoint]

If an embassy / consulate staff member has diplomatic immunity then they may be expelled from the country they are in, but, in case of any prosecution, it is up to their home country to allow it to be waived.  There were two fairly recent contrasting examples from New Zealand:

 

Firstly, in 2014, the Malaysian assistant defence attache was charged with burglary and assault with intent to rape, and could not be prevented from returning to Malaysia.  To their credit, the Malaysian government waived his immunity and he was returned to NZ, convicted for indecent assault, served a 9 month home detention sentence and deported.

 

The other was when the deputy head of the EU Mission refused to pay $20,000 back rent owed on her Wellington house when leaving the country, and the EU refused to allow a waiver, meaning she was free to leave with the rent unpaid.  Tough for the landlord.

 

Lower ranked members of staff may have functional immunity, whereby they are immune for any crime committed while carrying out their regular duties, but liable for anything else.

[Our Man in the Tropics]

Further to the latest helpful replies [ cleopatra2, & noise ] :

 

Ref.

cleopatra2 [ Post # 17 ]

 

Thailand ratified the convention in 1985, rendering any domestic laws pertaining , subservient to the International Treaty.

 

1_

What are the avenues for Visitor, especially a National of that very Consulate, against :

 

1_1_

Defamation by Consulate as a whole ?

 

1_2_

Defamation by Individual [ National of the Country the Consulate belongs to ] ?

 

1_3_

Unjustifiable Threats ? ;

And, thereby making the victim feel "terrorised" ;

And, thus,- the victim should be suing against TERRORISM.

 

1_4_

other wrongful behavior -- COMMISSION & / OR OMISSION -- committed upon the Visitor [ in this case a National of that Consulate ] ?

 

2_

CAN THEY BE SUED AT THE COUNTRY ITSELF [ Country the Consulate belongs to ] ?

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Ref.

noise [ Post # 18 ]

 

The second avenue would be to search Thailand precedents in this arena and deciding under what extraordinary circumstances would a Thai court even accept such a case. 

 

It would be very helpful were there :

 

A_1_

a dedicated compilation of Thailand precedents in this area ONLY

 

A_2_

a list of the ORDINARY, & EXTRAORDINARY, Circumstances where a Thai Court would even accept such a Case

 

B_1_

a dedicated compilation of the Country of Consulate's precedents in this area ONLY

 

B_2_

a list of the ORDINARY, & EXTRAORDINARY, Circumstances where a Court of Country of Consulate would even accept such a Case

 

C_

This isn't, by any chance, some law school required paper, is it?

 

No.

 

 

[Our Man in the Tropics]

20 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

If an embassy / consulate staff member has diplomatic immunity then they may be expelled from the country they are in, but, in case of any prosecution, it is up to their home country to allow it to be waived.  There were two fairly recent contrasting examples from New Zealand:

 

Firstly, in 2014, the Malaysian assistant defence attache was charged with burglary and assault with intent to rape, and could not be prevented from returning to Malaysia.  To their credit, the Malaysian government waived his immunity and he was returned to NZ, convicted for indecent assault, served a 9 month home detention sentence and deported.

 

The other was when the deputy head of the EU Mission refused to pay $20,000 back rent owed on her Wellington house when leaving the country, and the EU refused to allow a waiver, meaning she was free to leave with the rent unpaid.  Tough for the landlord.

 

Lower ranked members of staff may have functional immunity, whereby they are immune for any crime committed while carrying out their regular duties, but liable for anything else.

Thank u for helpful reply, ballpoint.

 

I wonder what are the options following rape by Consulate Personnel who is [ are ] National of the Country of the Consulate upon Visitor [ same Nationality ] at Consulate ?

[ballpoint]

Just now, Our Man in the Tropics said:

 

I wonder what is the situation following rape by Consulate Personnel who is [ are ] National of the Country of the Consulate upon Visitor [ same Nationality ] at Consulate ?

I would suggest that charges be pressed in the home country.

[Our Man in the Tropics]

1 minute ago, ballpoint said:

I would suggest that charges be pressed in the home country.

I suspect that there has been many the case of such a rape, & other sexual assaults, committed by higher rank Consulate Personnel upon Visitors at the Consulates ;

And,- very likely that nationals of the Country of the Consulate were often the victim because they considered more isolated & thus vulnerable.

[Our Man in the Tropics]

Sorry, folks ;

I must vacate this thread until further notice ;

 

Pressing personal matter obtains now.

 

Thank u.

[KMartinHandyman]

Off to cash in his 100 Kin for starting a topic I figure.

[Kwasaki]

17 hours ago, Our Man in the Tropics said:

Can Consulate Personnel be sued under Civil Law of Thailand & other "applicable" Laws for Wrongs -- e.g.s defamation, & non-justifiable threats -- committed in Consulate based in Thailand [ not Thailand Consulate ] against Visitor ?

Wrong forum I would say first.

I would say no.

If you really want to know ask a lawyer.

This a lawyer that's a TV member maybe he could help.

[simon43]

I suspect that there has been many the case of such a rape, & other sexual assaults, committed by higher rank Consulate Personnel upon Visitors at the Consulates 

 

Sorry, folks ;

I must vacate this thread until further notice ;

Pressing personal matter obtains now.

 

.. such as sitting in the pub and laughing at how successfully he has trolled posters with his garbage about multiple rapes in consulates....

 

 

[scorecard]

14 hours ago, Our Man in the Tropics said:

Nay !

It is NOT a "hypothetical troll post".

 

Rather,- it is a REAL post about a HYPOTHETICAL Situation ;

And,- u betcha that this HYPOTHETICAL Situation is most relevant to all decent "un-connected" visitors to Consulates.

 

Ur language, & indeed attitude, is NOT diplomatic ... regrettably.

Perhaps you should give a little more actual detail to convince some TV members your genuine.

[MrPatrickThai]

I gave a British embassy worker(Thai) a telling off(in Thai) for shouting 'you, you phone' at the gate. 

Totally going downhill there. 

[roo860]

Why would you need a permit for a wok in Australia?

Once an Aus, friend of mine asked a local employee in the Aus. embassy if she had a visa and a wok permit to work in Australia.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app