Miscarriage Of Justice....

[taxexile]

from "fair trials abroad"

December 2004

Prisoner of the month.

Jody Ryan Aggett, Thailand

Jody Ryan Aggett, a British citizen, went to Thailand in 2001 to visit his Thai girlfriend, whom he had known for 4 years. He planned to take her back home to England, but owing to her pregnancy they decided to delay their travel plans. The couple was running low on cash and the offer of the Dutch/Canadian boyfriend, Adrian van Ommering, of a Thai friend of theirs, to stay for free in the first floor of a house in return for some cleaning work and the responsibility of opening and closing the travel agency on the ground floor, was greatly appreciated. Jody and his girlfriend had no idea that ecstasy was produced on a large scale on the premises.

On the 20th of November 2001 the police raided the house and discovered the drugs. Jody and some employees of the travel agency were arrested, but only Jody and his partner were kept in custody. Their child was born behind bars and is now living with Jody’s parents in the UK. The police intelligence was based upon the testimony of a police informer, who spoke in detail about Adrian and his Thai girlfriend, but never once mentioned any involvement of Jody and his partner.

Some 17 months later, Jody and Adrian and their girlfriends were brought to trial. The police informer did not attend the trial, apparently he had run away. The employees of the travel agency gave evidence that Jody had been waiting for a Visa for his girlfriend to take her to the UK and that he had hardly any money and no assets. In contrast, it was evident that Adrian had large amounts of money at his disposal, he owned cars, houses and expensive Rolex watches. When Jody’s defence lawyer asked the arresting officer why he had taken his client into custody, the officer replied “because he was in the house”. When challenged as to why the employees of the travel agency, who also lived on the premises, were not equally kept on remand, the policeman had no answer. Adrian’s girlfriend tried to put all blame on Jody and his partner. It seems that neither the prosecution nor the judge showed any interest in Jody’s account of events, almost as if they already had made up their minds beforehand. Jody was only questioned about his passport and his visa and not about the drugs at all.

All four were sentenced to death plus 20 years, which was later commuted to life imprisonment.

Main Grounds of concern regarding fair trial procedures:

• The judgment lacks reasoning. Whereas the conviction is based on the information of the police informer, his reports do not mention either Jody or his girlfriend as participants in the drugs production scheme. Neither was any evidence linking Jody to the crime presented to the court.

• During his initial police interview Jody was not allowed access to legal representation.

• No interpreter was present and nothing was translated into English. Thus Jody was faced with a bewildering situation, and was effectively prevented from stating his case.

• Jody was forced to sign a confession, a pre-drafted text in the Thai language, which he did not understand. Whilst the court may not have relied on this document it was, nevertheless, on file.

• At the trial the interpretation was insufficient. The interpreter only spoke when prompted by Jody for each and every sentence, thus comprehension was, at best, uneven.

It should be noted that, at the time of the judgment, judges were under a lot of political pressure as the Thai Prime Minister had announced that Thailand would be drugs free within 4 months. Judges were obliged to give harsh verdicts in drugs cases in order not to jeopardise their careers. Jody’s lawyer has appealed on the grounds that there is no evidence which links Jody to the ecstasy production scheme and that he had no assets and no money, thus that there was no reason to believe that he benefited from any proceeds of the illegal drugs trade. It is not known yet, when the appeal will take place.

In a recent development Adrian’s Thai girlfriend has written a statement in her prison cell, retracting her claim during the trial and to confess that Jody and his partner had no involvement whatsoever. This document is now in the hands of the lawyer, but it is apparently too late to be introduced into the appeal procedures. It will be possible to use it though, if it becomes necessary to take the case to the Supreme Court. However this is a slow process. Jody’s family is comforted by the excellent support given to their son by the British Embassy in Bangkok.

This is what you can do to support Jody Ryan Aggett:

Write to Jody, your letters will give him the moral support he desperately needs in these months of further agonising wait, knowing that his partner is also suffering in prison and being separated from their young son. (Bangwang C.P. Nonthaburi Road, Nontaburi, Bangkok Thailand 11000)

Please bear in mind that we are a charity and do not charge for our services. Please send a donation to enable us to continue to work for Jody Ryan Aggett and other prisoners. Why not join our exclusive Club 500? Get in touch with us for more information.

We thank you very much for your support!

one cant but help have some sympathy for this couple.

some forum members may wish to write to Jody , or look further into the workings of Fair Trials Abroad.

i have no connection with Jody Aggett , i came upon the website by chance.

[astral]

This should come as warning to all who visit or live in Thailand.

If you are in a place where illict goods are found, drugs, stolen items, etc

then you are deemed to be responsible, whether or not you had anything

to do with the original crime.

[Neeranam]

Jody and his girlfriend had no idea that ecstasy was produced on a large scale on the premises.

This is what they would say.

Who knows if they did or not?

A fair trial should take place, of course.

How can we help to ensure a fair trial? I would like to get more info on the "fair trials abroad" before I write anything to this guy.

It is our duty to help get fellow foreigners a fair trial. We never know, we could be next!

If you are in a place where illict goods are found, drugs, stolen items, etc

then you are deemed to be responsible, whether or not you had anything

to do with the original crime.

This is much the same in the UK. I once had a 3 bedroomed apartment. I let out a room to some " ex-######'s Angel" guy, whom I thought had gone straight and was trying to help him. He ended up selling drugs from the apatment(in my name) when I was out. I found out luckily and he was forced to leave(not an easy task!!). my brother-in-law, a criminal lawyer, told me that if he had been caught, the chances of me not being 'sent down' would have been very slim, unless he took full responsibility, which he may have. Last I heard he had been caught and just finished a 18 month sentence.

Be very careful when dealing with "dodgy" characters anywhere, and especially drug addicts!

Edited May 8, 2005 by Neeranam

[tuky]

man, thats scary.

I feel for these folks, and worry that it could happen to any of us.

[taxexile]

and here is another one.

i am not even going to hazard a guess as to whether this man , or the couple in the previous case are guilty or innocent.

what shocks me , (although it shouldnt shock.... having been in thailand for many years now) , are the police and the courts attitudes and procedures in these cases.

it really seems as if they can pick on anybody and get them locked up for a lifetime and there is absolutely nothing that anybody can do about it.

you really do have to be careful who you associate with here.

Helmut Johan Beute, a 39-year old from man the Netherlands, has lived in Suratthani, Thailand since 1996. He is married to a Thai citizen and has two children. His wife and he had made a living by offering business advice, help to obtain work permits and accountancy. In June 2000, he met a fellow Dutch citizen, 64-year old Ms Martha Jansen. This lady had many problems, in particular in relation to her severe alcohol abuse; Johan tried to help her to sort out her financial and accommodation problems, assisted her with cleaning and shopping and introduced her to his family. Johan bought her car which she had been trying to sell for some time. He saw her for the last time on the afternoon of the 14th of June 2000, less than two weeks after he had met her. The next day he received several phone calls from the Thai lover of Ms Jansen, whom he only had seen vaguely once before, telling him that Ms Jansen wanted the remainder of the money, which Johan owed her from a purchase of her car. Having agreed to make two staggered payments, and surprised by this call, Johan asked to speak to Ms Jansen direct. His requests were denied, because "she would be too drunk to talk". Johan told the man that without having the opportunity to speak to Ms Jansen directly, he would give the money to Ms Jansen's lawyer with the stipulation that it only be handed to her personally. Johan made the payment the same day. Several attempts by him to catch up with Ms Jansen at her bungalow failed, as the door remained locked and she did not answer his calls.

Ms Jansen's strangulated body was found on the 17th of June 2000, after neighbours complained about the smell coming from the house. Johan was asked to come to the police station, his house and car were searched without result and after three days, he was arrested and charged with Ms Jansen's murder. He has been in prison ever since.

The trial against him is a very slow process, two witnesses have been heard so far, who said that they saw Johan with Ms Jansen in the afternoon of the 14th June 2000 outside her house, but no witness saw him since then near her property. The charge sheet numbers 8 items as evidence against Johan, six of them might have been used during the murder, like a nylon scarf, blanket and electric wire, all of them belonging to Ms Jansen and none of which had Johan's finger prints on them. The other two items are the car, which Johan had bought from Ms Jansen and a pen which allegedly belonged to him and which was found in the victim's house. It is unclear how any of these items could link Johan to the crime. On the other hand, traces of blood and skin were found under Ms Jansen's fingernails but Johan's body, which had been thoroughly looked at by police on the day the body had been found, had not a single scratch mark on it. Still neither were the traces DNA-tested nor was the autopsy report presented in court or the examining doctor called as a witness.

Main Grounds of concern regarding fair trial procedures:

* Since being formally charged Johan has not been permitted to give evidence. Even prior to this, it was difficult for him to tell the police what he knew about the victim and to tell them about his own whereabouts, because at the time he spoke only very little Thai and none of the interpreters, which the police used, a German tourist, two journalists, and a travel agent spoke his mother tongue, thus communication was seriously hampered.

* The police have shown no interest in finding the Thai lover of the victim or to pursue further investigations. It is possible that they chose to arrest Johan because he was a foreigner and in the hope of getting money. The investigating policemen did not even bother to appear in court to give evidence about their search for the murderer.

* The lawyer has not attempted a proper defence and all requests from Johan are denied with the remark "this is Thailand."

* Not a single item of the eight items of evidence, as listed in the charge sheet, was used in court as evidence. The court case was solely built up on hearsay evidence and conflicting witness statements.

* Five more court hearings are scheduled until 30th of July 2003, when Johan is expected to learn about his sentence, more than 3 years after his arrest. However, he will not be able to attend some of the hearings, in particular the ones where the police give evidence, because they will be heard at higher courts. Thus he will not be able to instruct his lawyer to cross-examine these witnesses, nor can he make sure that his lawyer challenges any of their statements.

This is what you can do to support Helmut Johan Beute:

1. Write to Johan directly, 78 Donnok Road, Amphur Muang, Suratthani, Thailand 8400. Remember that he already has been in prison for nearly 3 years far away from his home country and the slow process, together with the great uncertainty, is nerve-wracking and frustrating for him. Your notes of support will boost his morale.

2. Write to the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Bangkok, P.O. Box 404, Bangkok 10330, Thailand to voice your concern that there seems to be no justification for the charge against Johan Beute and about the flaws in the trial procedure.

Please bear in mind that we are a charity and do not charge for our services. Please send a donation to enable us to continue to work for Helmut Johan Beute and other prisoners. Why not join our exclusive Club 500? Get in touch with us for more information.

We thank you very much for your support!

Latest News:

On the 18th of July 2003, quite unexpectedly, Mr Beute was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, despite the total lack of evidence and even the prosecutor concluding that they might have arrested the wrong man. An appeal has been submitted.

unbefukcinglievable !!

[Neeranam]

This reminds me why I never got into business in Thailand, there are risks in most businesses.

Also, the guy couldn't speak Thai after living here for what, 5 years or so?

What do the police think when they know a foreigner has been here years with a Thai family and can't speak the language? When he got arrested, he said nothing, or couldn't say anything. They probably thought that was as good as admitting it.

Learning Thai could save your life, really.

A lot of the guys I know who have been in Thailand for a long time, have become what I feel are loners. They know never to trust another person, especially when it comes to money.

I can't stress it enough, be very careful when people try to befriend you, Thai or foreign!!!! The chances are they are after something.

This first case that was posted is a 'classic' - get someone a bit short on cash and let them stay in your home. Become their friend, and when you get busted for something, put all the blame on them. I have been in this situation, but luckily sussed it out and got WELL away. Also, a monk(or imitation) was involved in one of the 2 cases involving illegal practices.

In caes such as these, one person HAS to go to prison for a long time. When the choice is between a Thai and a farang, well there is no choice!

Edited May 8, 2005 by Neeranam

[Pudgimelon]

man, thats scary.

I feel for these folks, and worry that it could happen to any of us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, not really. Take a closer look at the fact stated in that article and you'll see some tell-tale signs of trouble brewing in this guy's life.

No, I'm not suggesting he is remotely "at fault" for the situation he is in. From the sound of it, it seems as if he is truly a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, there are things he could have done to avoid that situation and we should all take a lesson from his experience.

First off, his choice of "friends" is really what got him into big trouble. We all have had friends in our lives that are "up to no good", and quite often, we accept or deny the evidence of their misdeeds because, "hey, they're 'good people'". Well, the lesson here is that: no, they are not good people. Many of us tolerate nefarious friends because they are fun to hang out with or because they share similar interests (music, football, drugs, whatever...). The problem with having nefarious friends, though, is that they are never content to simply destroy their own lives. They almost have a complusion to take as many people down with them as they can.

So the real lesson here is that if you have nefarious friends, the best thing you can do for yourself is move on with your life and leave them behind. Otherwise, you may find out that they aren't such good friends to have after all (for example, if they offer you accomodation, that might seem mighty nice of them, or they could just be using you to front for their drug operation, in which case, they are pretty crappy "friends").

Secondly, he obviously didn't have enough cash to support himself in Thailand while awaiting the visa process. I keep warning people about this, but it seems that there are always people willing to fling themselves halfway across the world with only a few coins in their pockets to spare.

Simply put, you NEED a back-up reserve of cash of at least $5,000 to $10,000 before you should even think of transplanting yourself in a foreign land. Yes, yes, yes, yes, I KNOW that not everyone can do this and that many people manage just fine on a lot less, but that's not the point!! The point is that if you travel far from home and something bad happens, you've got no one to blame but yourself for leaving home so ill-prepared for the twisted fates of life.

Pick better friends and prepare for life's little misfortunes, that's the real lessons to be learned here.

For example, back about 15 years ago, I was living in Florida and working in a Bennigan's restaurant with a bunch of other scruffy no-gooders like myself (like I said before, the crowd I hung out with included the likes of pre-famous Marilyn Mansion, so you can imagine what our house parties were like). Anyway, I knew many of my friends were up to no-good, but I let it slide because, "hey, they're 'good people'". I've never done drugs in my whole life, but at that time in my life, I tolerated it in my friends because I was young and stupid. That is until one night when I was crashing on my friend's couch after a night out at the clubs. About 5AM, I woke up with a pistol pressed against my skull. Turns out, my friend's idiot roommate had bought some pot from an undercover agent and the cops decided to stage a full-blown raid. A bit of an over-reaction on their part (given that this was in a COLLEGE DORM ROOM), but the cops in Fort Lauderdale are a bit "extreme" and so they apparently felt the need to ninja themselves into the dorm room and scare the crap out of everyone sleeping there.

Fortunately, this happened in America where due-process is still given lip-service, and so after a brief talk with the cops (and a phone call to my parents, ugh), they let me go without muc of a hassle (they even gave me a ride home). I consider myself lucky that I'm not the type of person who smacks people who try to wake him up. Otherwise I might have gotten a bullet in my head. Anyway, the point of my story is that I never would have been in that situation if I hadn't been hanging out with that particular group of people. Like this Jody guy, I hadn't done anything wrong myself, and I was simple in the wrong place at the wrong time, but my point is that I DID choose to be in that place, with those people.

I feel for this guy and hope he wins his appeal and gets back to the UK to be with his family soon. But hopefully his example can be a lesson to those who are currently making poor decisions when it comes to picking friends.

No, it's not possible to know everything that your friend are up to, and in this case, who knows, this guy may have been completely blinkered. But the more common scenario for many people who read these forums is that they tolerate "naughty" friends because they are fun or decent (at least, to them). The lesson here is that if you have those kinds of "friends", you should back out of those friendships or you may regret it later.

In large part, who you are is determined by who you are with. So don't let other people pull your life down. Find positive, uplifting friends who are truly decent people, and in the long run, you won't miss the nefarious "pseudo-friends" from your wilder days.

Edited May 8, 2005 by Pudgimelon

[Ajarn]

Though the credibility of these accounts is not guaranteed, I have still taken the liberty of forwarding the accounts to a good Thai friend who is highly placed in the Thai Judiciary. Can't guarantee that he won't just toss it, but just maybe it might help a bit, too...

Best of luck to any true innocents in Thai prisons.

[RDN]

...First off, his choice of "friends" is really what got him into big trouble.  ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the point I was going to make: how can people get into a situation where they don't know what is happening around them? In the 60's I met some pretty dodgy people, but I could tell whenever I was in a situation where I didn't know what was going on, where I was not in control - and I got out fast! And with the justice system here, you've got to be even more careful. I hope these people get out eventually with their health - physical and mental - intact.

[taxexile]

its not always easy in your own country amongst "your own people" to sort out the good from the bad , especially with people that you may only have known for a short time.

in a foriegn country , with no knowledge of the language or the workings of society or state , faced with a seemingly endless supply of seemingly friendly people (especially the ladies) its no surprise that so many people make so many mistakes in character judgement.

its also worth noting that you are as likely to get stitched up by a falang as a local !!

there but for the grace of god.........

ajarn

I have still taken the liberty of forwarding the accounts to a good Thai friend who is highly placed in the Thai Judiciary. Can't guarantee that he won't just toss it, but just maybe it might help a bit, too...

well done.

[roscoe]

how did he miss "large amounts of ectasy being produced on the premises"?

naive he certainly is , if this is true.A dupe waiting to be duped and a sad reflection on society,not just in LOS.

[taxexile]

how did he miss "large amounts of ectasy being produced on the premises"?

maybe it was made in a locked bathroom.

if he was staying in say the top floor of a three storey shophouse , its not improbable that he had no access to the rooms on the second floor.

if you are living in a rented house roscoe , can you say for sure that your roof space is empty , can you say for sure that your landlord isnt coming in when you are out and storing something illegal up there , and one day when he and you have some problem over rent or repairs or something that he wont phone the police to get his revenge.

[kidtongue]

This should come as warning to all who visit or live in Thailand.

If you are in a place where illict goods are found, drugs, stolen items, etc

then you are deemed to be responsible, whether or not you had anything

to do with the original crime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rounding up the usual suspects

It's a fairly standard police strategy, and in Thailand farangs are usually more suspect than not (unless you recently coughed up for your share of weekly tea money). Criminal law procedure is 1 thing in theory another in practice (also a post 9/11 phenomena elsewhere) and virtually unheard of in the education of the boys in khaki. There are also no jury trials or grand juries in Thailand You have the right to remain silent. They are supposed to get a search warrant. Your Embassy can't help you (they're not licensed to practice here even if they are lawyers) and unless the Embassies here get pressure from LOTS of folks back home, it's unlikely that the Embassy will do more than visit you.

And just to make the game even more exciting, your lawyer had better show up in court with their current bar card because failure can be cause for immediate arrest of your lawyer. Makes hearings resemble the tv game show Jeopardy with unknown categories. Your mileage may vary. And even though they run an audio tape for the hearing, they also erase immediately after the hearing is over. You mileage will not vary.

For those familiar with snooker, running the rack here can also mean being charged differently in different courts and being required to appear in all of them at the same time and date And they never seem to consolidate actions so you can have 1 trial on all issues in the same place.

In Thailand, lawyers generally don't speak English (or anything but Thai) unless they're at a big brand name firm but there are some. Lawyers with dual citizenship can practice and appear in court but there aren't many of those around.

Getting information out of court clerks is another language problem, even though the MoJ pays for classes, and most judges speak and understand some English because they get training at the judicial institute. There is a thought pattern that leads them to think you must be guilty of something or you wouldn't be there.

It used to be that judges made what Police Colonels made, so you do the math. Moral:Find a lawyer before you need 1. All your girlfriend has to do is denounce you and you can be on the next train to Cambodia.

Edited June 23, 2005 by kidtongue

[haha]

man, thats scary.

I feel for these folks, and worry that it could happen to any of us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, not really. Take a closer look at the fact stated in that article and you'll see some tell-tale signs of trouble brewing in this guy's life.

No, I'm not suggesting he is remotely "at fault" for the situation he is in. From the sound of it, it seems as if he is truly a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, there are things he could have done to avoid that situation and we should all take a lesson from his experience.

First off, his choice of "friends" is really what got him into big trouble. We all have had friends in our lives that are "up to no good", and quite often, we accept or deny the evidence of their misdeeds because, "hey, they're 'good people'". Well, the lesson here is that: no, they are not good people. Many of us tolerate nefarious friends because they are fun to hang out with or because they share similar interests (music, football, drugs, whatever...). The problem with having nefarious friends, though, is that they are never content to simply destroy their own lives. They almost have a complusion to take as many people down with them as they can.

So the real lesson here is that if you have nefarious friends, the best thing you can do for yourself is move on with your life and leave them behind. Otherwise, you may find out that they aren't such good friends to have after all (for example, if they offer you accomodation, that might seem mighty nice of them, or they could just be using you to front for their drug operation, in which case, they are pretty crappy "friends").

Secondly, he obviously didn't have enough cash to support himself in Thailand while awaiting the visa process. I keep warning people about this, but it seems that there are always people willing to fling themselves halfway across the world with only a few coins in their pockets to spare.

Simply put, you NEED a back-up reserve of cash of at least $5,000 to $10,000 before you should even think of transplanting yourself in a foreign land. Yes, yes, yes, yes, I KNOW that not everyone can do this and that many people manage just fine on a lot less, but that's not the point!! The point is that if you travel far from home and something bad happens, you've got no one to blame but yourself for leaving home so ill-prepared for the twisted fates of life.

Pick better friends and prepare for life's little misfortunes, that's the real lessons to be learned here.

For example, back about 15 years ago, I was living in Florida and working in a Bennigan's restaurant with a bunch of other scruffy no-gooders like myself (like I said before, the crowd I hung out with included the likes of pre-famous Marilyn Mansion, so you can imagine what our house parties were like). Anyway, I knew many of my friends were up to no-good, but I let it slide because, "hey, they're 'good people'". I've never done drugs in my whole life, but at that time in my life, I tolerated it in my friends because I was young and stupid. That is until one night when I was crashing on my friend's couch after a night out at the clubs. About 5AM, I woke up with a pistol pressed against my skull. Turns out, my friend's idiot roommate had bought some pot from an undercover agent and the cops decided to stage a full-blown raid. A bit of an over-reaction on their part (given that this was in a COLLEGE DORM ROOM), but the cops in Fort Lauderdale are a bit "extreme" and so they apparently felt the need to ninja themselves into the dorm room and scare the crap out of everyone sleeping there.

Fortunately, this happened in America where due-process is still given lip-service, and so after a brief talk with the cops (and a phone call to my parents, ugh), they let me go without muc of a hassle (they even gave me a ride home). I consider myself lucky that I'm not the type of person who smacks people who try to wake him up. Otherwise I might have gotten a bullet in my head. Anyway, the point of my story is that I never would have been in that situation if I hadn't been hanging out with that particular group of people. Like this Jody guy, I hadn't done anything wrong myself, and I was simple in the wrong place at the wrong time, but my point is that I DID choose to be in that place, with those people.

I feel for this guy and hope he wins his appeal and gets back to the UK to be with his family soon. But hopefully his example can be a lesson to those who are currently making poor decisions when it comes to picking friends.

No, it's not possible to know everything that your friend are up to, and in this case, who knows, this guy may have been completely blinkered. But the more common scenario for many people who read these forums is that they tolerate "naughty" friends because they are fun or decent (at least, to them). The lesson here is that if you have those kinds of "friends", you should back out of those friendships or you may regret it later.

In large part, who you are is determined by who you are with. So don't let other people pull your life down. Find positive, uplifting friends who are truly decent people, and in the long run, you won't miss the nefarious "pseudo-friends" from your wilder days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

on the topic of "picking your friends"... I am with you in full agreement. be careful with whom you pick to be your friends.

I have met literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in my stay here in thailand. and frankly, I've learned to stay away from the "questionable types".

once, I hung out with this guy for a whole year before finding out that he was a pedaphile. once he told me this side of his life, I stopped hanging out with him.

another time, I met a guy who used to be a biker. he told me once that he did

"everything in the book" except kill someone. I thought nothing of it until one day he threaten me if I didn't lend him some money. suffix to say, I don't see him anymore.

yet another time, I met a guy who bluntly told me he was going to chiang mai to visit with some friends and smoke pot. I couldn't believe this guy. he didn't even really know me. talk about brains.

I wonder where these people come from????

I have many other similar stories. life can be scary at times.

on the other hand, I have met some of my best friends during my stay here. so, I guess there is a balance.

..happy memories.

[Neeranam]

Rounding up the usual suspects 

It's a fairly standard police strategy, and in Thailand farangs are usually more suspect than not (unless you recently coughed up for your share of weekly tea money). Criminal law procedure is 1 thing in theory another in practice (also a post 9/11 phenomena elsewhere) and virtually unheard of in the education of the boys in khaki. There are also no jury trials or grand juries in Thailand You have the right to remain silent. They are supposed to get a search warrant. Your Embassy can't help you (they're not licensed to practice here even if they are lawyers) and unless the Embassies here get pressure from LOTS of folks back home, it's unlikely that the Embassy will do more than visit you.

And just to make the game even more exciting, your lawyer had better show up in court with their current bar card because failure can be cause for immediate arrest of your lawyer. Makes hearings resemble the tv game show Jeopardy with unknown categories. Your mileage may vary. And even though they run an audio tape for the hearing, they also erase immediately after the hearing is over. You mileage will not vary. 

For those familiar with snooker, running the rack here can also mean being charged differently in different courts and being required to appear in all of them at the same time and date  And they never seem to consolidate actions so you can have 1 trial on all issues in the same place.

In Thailand, lawyers generally don't speak English (or anything but Thai) unless they're at a big brand name firm but there are some. Lawyers with dual citizenship can practice and appear in court but there aren't many of those around.

Getting information out of court clerks is another language problem, even though the MoJ pays for classes, and most judges speak and understand some English because they get training at the judicial institute. There is a thought pattern that leads them to think you must be guilty of something or you wouldn't be there.

It used to be that judges made what Police Colonels made, so you do the math.  Moral:Find a lawyer before you need 1. All your girlfriend has to do is denounce you and you can be on the next train to Cambodia.

Are you a lawyer?

[deepdiver]

man, thats scary.

I feel for these folks, and worry that it could happen to any of us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

all stories have two sides...i know a few guys in jail in Thailand and everybody is innocent ...

[kidtongue]

Rounding up the usual suspects 

It's a fairly standard police strategy, and in Thailand farangs are usually more suspect than not (unless you recently coughed up for your share of weekly tea money). Criminal law procedure is 1 thing in theory another in practice (also a post 9/11 phenomena elsewhere) and virtually unheard of in the education of the boys in khaki. There are also no jury trials or grand juries in Thailand You have the right to remain silent. They are supposed to get a search warrant. Your Embassy can't help you (they're not licensed to practice here even if they are lawyers) and unless the Embassies here get pressure from LOTS of folks back home, it's unlikely that the Embassy will do more than visit you.

And just to make the game even more exciting, your lawyer had better show up in court with their current bar card because failure can be cause for immediate arrest of your lawyer. Makes hearings resemble the tv game show Jeopardy with unknown categories. Your mileage may vary. And even though they run an audio tape for the hearing, they also erase immediately after the hearing is over. You mileage will not vary.  

For those familiar with snooker, running the rack here can also mean being charged differently in different courts and being required to appear in all of them at the same time and date  And they never seem to consolidate actions so you can have 1 trial on all issues in the same place.

In Thailand, lawyers generally don't speak English (or anything but Thai) unless they're at a big brand name firm but there are some. Lawyers with dual citizenship can practice and appear in court but there aren't many of those around.

Getting information out of court clerks is another language problem, even though the MoJ pays for classes, and most judges speak and understand some English because they get training at the judicial institute. There is a thought pattern that leads them to think you must be guilty of something or you wouldn't be there.

It used to be that judges made what Police Colonels made, so you do the math.  Moral:Find a lawyer before you need 1. All your girlfriend has to do is denounce you and you can be on the next train to Cambodia.

Are you a lawyer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not a local so no practice here. I will pass along a saying

"It's dangerous to sue the devil when the court is in h e ll ."

[sriracha john]

It should be noted that, at the time of the judgment, judges were under a lot of political pressure as the Thai Prime Minister had announced that Thailand would be drugs free within 4 months. Judges were obliged to give harsh verdicts in drugs cases in order not to jeopardise their careers.

Amazing how many bad things eminate from Thaksin... right from the start of his power, in 2001, such as this case.

UPDATE

Family's hope

25 January 2006

BBC

The family of a man jailed for life in Thailand hope recent court cases there will raise his chances of release.

Jody Aggett, 28, from Swindon, was jailed for life in 2003 after being convicted of involvement in an ecstasy- manufacturing ring.

His family claim he was forced to sign an untranslated Thai confession.

They hope the renewal of interest in the Thai justice system in the wake of the murder of holidaymaker Katherine Horton will lead to a review of cases.

Aggett's parents Lorna and Tony, who care for his four-year-old son Ryan at their Wiltshire home, said they were "hoping and praying" fresh scrutiny could help secure his release.

Aggett and his Thai girlfriend Ramphia Lo - known as Kristin - were arrested in 2001. The couple had been living rent-free above a travel agency in Bangkok on the understanding they opened and closed the shop each day.

But when the agency's owner, a dual Canadian and Dutch citizen known as Adrian, and his Thai girlfriend were arrested for manufacturing ecstasy on the premises, Aggett and Kristin were also held by police.

Aggett was originally given a death penalty, but his sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment.

Mrs Aggett said: "In the beginning there was a letter all in Thai. They said to him 'sign this or else', I think Kristin was trying to translate but it was in the middle of police shouting 'sign it, sign it,'.

"When you think of the sentence, that's a harsh sentence for being in the wrong place at the wrong time it is hard not to be angry and bitter about it."

The Aggetts claim Adrian's girlfriend has since confessed that the tenants had not had any part in the drugs manufacture.

Their son has now lodged an appeal against his conviction with the Thai supreme court, claiming an unfair trial and insufficient evidence. The family's campaign is supported by UK-based Fair Trials Abroad.

=================================================

Yet ANOTHER case with a similar miscarriage of justice currently being discussed:

Russian Roulette in Thai He11

[taxexile]

thanks for that update sriracha john.

[sriracha john]

thanks for that update sriracha john.

My pleasure, tax. The timing of the article reminded that during the thread on the Samui rape/murder case that several posters had voiced so much faith in the Thai judicial system and clearly there are many, many instances of that faith being totally unjustified.

[simon43]

In the case of Aggett, I just wondered what happened to his Thai girlfriend. Is she also in prison on a life sentence? I expect not!

Simon

[taxexile]

i've posted these before , you might be interested in reading them.

it makes frightening and gloomy reading for anyone who may come up against the medieval thai legal process.

ADVENTURES IN THAI JUSTICE

PART TWO--CRIMEBUSTERS IN ACTION

by

Jeffrey Race

Copyright . 2003 by Jeffrey Race

This continues our series of case studies aiming

to clarify what might be done to restore

the Thai justice system to its former level of

international acceptance.

As before, identities are omitted. What matters

is how fails a system on which the public

depends, what high officials do when they

learn of failures, and how this affects the perception

of Thai justice on the world stage.

As

previously noted, the writer is intimate with

the details of these events from his role in

preparing the documentation and in helping

conduct these cases on behalf of the foreign

victims.

The last article focussed on a civil matter; now

we look at a criminal case involving the public

prosecution service.

BACKGROUND

This case concerns a grand scheme to launder

property held in trust prior to a court judgment

dividing it between local and foreign coowners.

This type of laundering is apparently

quite common; what is remarkable here is

the lengths to which the principals were willing

to go to cover up their misdeeds and their

success in escaping the consequences.

The assets in question were ten rai of land

owned in common as part of a real-estate

development. Legislation and long practice

underlay the foreign party’s right in the land,

and a Supreme Court ruling confirmed this

right, giving the foreigner initial confidence in

the legal process by which he hoped to protect

his property and, ultimately, to repay foreign

loans he had contracted to make the

investment in Thailand. The problems

occurred only during the enforcement phase;

unfortunately they proved fatal. (Fortunately,

so far, only legally).

THE SCHEME

The local co-owner holding the property in

trust planned to defeat justice by transferring

the ten rai to third parties prior to judgment,

using the proceeds to buy land in the names of

dummies unknown to the foreign victim. At

one point the local co-owner urgently needed

to transfer title in view of the foreigner’s

asserted legal claim to his share of the land

and impending court rulings.

The local co-owner succeeded completely in

this plan, except for a few loose ends which

later led to litigation. The aggrieved foreigner

obtained a copy of the transferred title deed

and petitioned the court to summon the

buyer.

Normally one rehearses testimony with a witness

so as to present the issues most clearly

and not waste the court’s time. However in

this case the foreign victim had only a name,

and no chance to meet the buyer beforehand.

Just as he feared, the buyer was a prominent

Bangkokian, furious at being summoned. In

the moments before the presiding judge

appeared, the foreign victim attempted to

placate her by saying that he had no issue

with her, wishing only that she recount the

facts as she knew them. Her mood improved

but the foreign victim remained anxious.

Lacking details the foreigner’s attorney was at

a disadvantage in questioning the hostile witness,

so he simply posed the broad question

how she had come to learn about the property.

She testified:

I know Defendant 1 because the Assistant

Prosecutor [from _____ province] told me that

Defendant 1 wanted to sell the contested land

because it was about to be seized [by the Court].

Land buyer’s testimony implicating public prosecutor

This Assistant Prosecutor moonlighting as a

real estate broker turned out to have been a

close friend of the Thai co-owner; she had

learned about the contested property in the

course of official duties. The buyer’s testimony

showed that the Assistant Prosecutor well

knew the land offered for sale was already

under legal claim—prima facie evidence of

willing participation in a criminal case of

swindling and/or defrauding a creditor.

The foreign victim had already obtained an

injunction barring sale of the land. An official

of the provincial governor’s office informed

the foreign victim’s attorney that the named

Assistant Prosecutor had personally lobbied

to have the injunction revoked (now, the foreign

victim began to understand, so she could

market the land).

A STRANGE COINCIDENCE

At the same time a very strange set of events

began to puzzle the foreign victim, who had

filed a police report denouncing the laundering

of the co-owned assets. The police dutifully

investigated, found probable cause of a

criminal offense, and submitted the matter to

the Public Prosecutor for further action with

the court. However the Public Prosecutor did

nothing, refusing to provide the foreign victim

any explanation.

Suddenly it all became clear: the Assistant

Prosecutor mentioned above worked in the

very office to which the police had sent the

case file! As long as one of its own staff was a

witting go-between in a scheme to defraud a

foreigner, the office could hardly file a case

without exposing

the whole

matter and causing

a scandal.

THE FOREIGN VICTIM STRIKES A

BLOW FOR HONESTY

In April of 1998 the foreign victim requested

the Attorney General to investigate the role of

the Assistant Prosecutor whose duty it was to

uphold the law but who instead participated

in a scheme to launder his property. In the

same letter he requested investigation of suspected

prosecutorial misconduct viz. refusing

to prosecute a brazen crime for fear prosecution

would reveal a staff member’s role in

laundering contested assets.

The Attorney General moved quickly, inviting

the foreign victim to document the complaint

and deposing him for a total of six

hours over three days. After the exhausting

deposition the appointed investigator (a kind

ly senior prosecutor on the verge of retirement)

stated mournfully that he was sure the

foreign victim would receive satisfaction

because the case was so outrageous and the

documentation so complete. The foreign victim

was greatly encouraged.

ANOTHER AMAZING LETTER!

In February of 1999 the Attorney General

announced the conclusion of his investigation:

the buyer had denied the Assistant Prosecutor

had participated in the sale, so no action

would be taken. This startling letter added

that “the decision not to prosecute conformed

to the facts and the law”.

Since this conclusion directly contradicted the

buyer’s sworn testimony, the foreign victim

grew uneasy, so thought to contact again the

kindly senior investigator. Regrettably he had

now retired but the foreign victim was able to

talk to a staff assistant to the Deputy Attorney

General himself on March 4.

As soon as the foreign victim identified himself

the staff assistant said he knew all about

the case—apparently it had become quite

notorious among senior officials.

The foreign

victim gently pointed out that the conclusion

Letter from Attorney General announcing result of intensive investigation

of his superior’s letter directly contradicted

the buyer’s sworn testimony. The assistant

stated that witnesses often lie in court, so one

could not rely on this testimony to implicate

the Assistant Prosecutor.

This struck the foreign victim as a rather odd

view given that prosecutors every day use

such testimony to send criminals to prison.

The foreign victim reluctantly concluded that

the Attorney General’s staff was determined

to whitewash this series of dishonest actions

no matter what the facts.

MORE UNEXPECTED TESTIMONY

At about this time a legal change moved

responsibility for this type of complaint to the

Prime Minister. Also by chance the Thai coowner

had the misfortune to be summoned to

testify in further litigation and was asked to

identify the middleman and the reason the

middleman gave the buyer for the sale’s

urgency. The co-owner confirmed the

Assistant Prosecutor had indeed been the gobetween

in the sale of the land and that the

reason she gave the buyer was indeed because

the land was about to be seized by the court.

In December of 2000 the foreign victim provided

a copy of this testimony to the Attorney

General and requested a re-investigation,

since now both buyer and seller had given

identical sworn testimony the Assistant

Seller’s testimony confirming role of the Assistant Prosecutor in the land sale

Prosecutor was the go-between in this dishonest

transaction.

When this request received no response after

a year’s patient wait, the foreign victim personally

visited the Attorney General’s office

near the City Pillar, where he learned that

the matter had been re-investigated and a

report sent to the Prime Minister. A phone

call confirmed the report was sitting on the

desk of a career civil servant in the Prime

Minister’s office. (The Prime Minister himself

had no reason personally to know of the

matter.)

This reinvestigation may have been another

whitewash. Or it may have been conducted

honestly, in which case the government

agency is on the hook for substantial damages

to the foreign investor. Either way it’s

a tough problem, and perhaps no wonder

that someone in the Prime Minister’s office

refuses to release the report to the victim.

THE VICTIM PLODS ON

Thai law provides one very big advantage to

victims like this intrepid foreigner. When

agents of the state refuse to perform their

duty, an aggrieved party may launch a private

criminal prosecution. The foreign victim

did exactly this, taking up the duty

(unfortunately at great expense) that agents

of the state refused. The local court accepted it and handled it in exemplary fashion,

even issuing an arrest warrant for the defendant

who at one point attempted to avoid

appearing.

On May 22, 2002, the court convicted the Thai

co-owner of swindling under Section 352 of

the Criminal Code, which shows that the

prosecutor’s decision not to litigate was at the

least suspect and at worst a criminal act. The

Assistant Prosecutor remains at liberty to collude

in frauds against other foreign investors.

The foreign victim remains convinced that the

prosecutorial staff in the small provincial

office where this occurred evaded their duty

in order to protect a criminal in their midst.

The truth may lie in the suppressed investigation

report now sitting in the Prime

Minister’s office.

Unfortunately the criminal conviction has

only token value, since the foreign victim’s

laundered assets are now irretrievably in the

hands of dummies.

CONCLUSION

Justice rides a slow horse everywhere. In fact

this type of criminal activity and criminal

coverup occur in the foreign victims’ homeland

as well. But there the perps in such

crimes and coverups go to prison, an outcome

foreigners find more congenial to their investment

decisions and which were optimistically

expected in Thailand as well. When the local

perps and their high-level protectors in this

case go to prison in Thailand, foreign

investors will surely take favorable notice.

NEXT INSTALMENT: A STATE-CONTROLLED BANK

INVOKES ITS OFFICIAL CONNECTIONS TO AVOID

JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS.

ADVENTURES IN THAI JUSTICE PART TWO—CRIMEBUSTERS IN ACTION PAGE FIVE

ADVEN_2.PDF ADVEN_2.QXD ADVEN_2.IDX October 15, 2003

ADVENTURES IN THAI JUSTICE

PART FOUR—ALICE IN THAILAND

by

Jeffrey Race

A trusting foreigner in a provincial

court hoped that like Alice he could

awake from the curious dreamlike

place where judgment comes first and

evidence later. Unfortunately it was

no dream, and like the Rabbit the foreigner's

attorney had to push hard for

his evidence to be considered. He

failed: our concluding true story.

Unlike earlier case studies dealing with

property, this one examines the fairness

offered to foreign persons, obviously

significant for anyone considering

investment or residence in

Thailand.

JUDGE A

At the first hearing in a child custody

matter, the presiding judge announced

he had already decided for the plaintiff

because she had Thai nationality, so

few evidentiary hearings need be

scheduled. Judge A so stated knowing

nothing but the litigants' nationalities.

The foreign defendant and his Thai

attorney viewed this as tantamount to

declaring the court considered any

Thai, of any character, to be superior to

every foreigner. As it was impossible to Copyright . 2003 by Jeffrey Race

Sentence first, verdict afterwards!

. . . . .

Not yet, not yet! First witness!

. . . . .

“I've had such a curious dream”

said Alice.

proceed under such conditions they requested

the Director General of Judicial Region 1 to

review the matter.

JUDGE B

The Director General took the complaint seriously

and in short order Judge B replaced

Judge A. An amiable and cheerful man,

Judge B possessed poise, compassion, and

every other ideal Thai characteristic. The foreign

litigant was very encouraged and for

about two years Judge B conducted the proceedings

impartially, with no conflicts and no

problems except chronic delays in securing

the Thai party’s testimony.

JUDGE C

After his successful work in the _____ Court,

Judge B was promoted to Bangkok and succeeded

by Judge C. From the day of his

arrival, the situation reverted to be even

counsel had just resigned from the law firm to

run for Parliament. Judge C recorded the

doctor’s direct testimony, permissible in the

case of a busy witness like a physician.

According to settled practice cross-examination

would be scheduled at a later date in consultation

with both parties. Instead, Judge C

falsified the Report of Proceeding to state that

the foreign defendant had waived crossexamination.

When he objected, Judge C

threatened to imprison the foreigner, who had

to fall silent out of fear. But he declined to

legitimate the falsified Report by signing it

because the witness was crucial in a case with

important medical considerations.

Falsification of Testimony In May of ____ the

foreign litigant brought Mrs. W____ from her

residence abroad, scheduling her to testify in

two related cases before Judge C a few days

apart. She was an eyewitness to material

issues about the credibility of the Thai plaintiff

and her practice of chronic lying and teaching

the children to lie.

Extract of complaint of judicial misconduct

worse than under Judge

A. Judge C spoke and

acted to injure the interest

of the foreign defendant

in matters great and small

and to treat the foreigner’s

concern for his children

as a senseless triviality.

Two examples will

suffice.

Falsification of Report of

Proceeding In December

of ____, the Thai plaintiff

produced a very important

witness (a doctor) but

the defendant had to

request a postponement

because his chief counsel

was ill and alternate

ADVENTURES IN THAI JUSTICE PART FOUR—ALICE IN THAILAND PAGE TWO

manually corrected the typed transcript.

Judge C’s words reveal he knew that

teaching children to lie is an evil, evidence

of which would damage the Thai

litigant’s case, so he twice falsified the

trial record.

JUDGE D

Some months later the defendant himself

prepared to testify but the presiding

judge was absent so Judge D sat to hear

the case ad interim. On calling the case he

stated that it concerned only child custody,

that it had been going on many

years, and that the defendant was wasting

the court’s time. The foreigner stated

that he believed the mother morally

unfit to raise the two children to be honest

persons. Judge D asked “I would like

to know how a foreigner could raise children

better than a Thai”, not with genuine

curiousity but to signal annoyance

at wasting time on silly nonsense.

Hearing again the theme “Any Thai is

better than every foreigner”, the defen-

Two falsified transcripts of testimony, the second corrected after objection

At one point Mrs. W_____ testified that one

of the children “said to me her mother [the

plaintiff] said it is OK to lie”, which Judge

C recorded as that the child had “said it is

OK to lie”. Minor recording errors often

occur, as a check against which court procedure

is to read the testimony back to the

witness (in this case, to the interpreter) for

correction as necessary to reflect the witness’s

actual words.

When Judge C read out the testimony, the

interpreter informed him that the words

“her mother said” had been omitted. Judge

C asked “You want her to be that awful?”

The interpreter (now a prominent attorney

and himself the son of a senior judge) stated

“I am only the interpreter. That is what

the witness testified”. Judge C replied “I

know”. Because of Judge C’s constant hostility,

the foreigner deemed it useless to

object.

Four days later Mrs. W_____ testified identically

before Judge C, who again deliberately

distorted her testimony to omit the words

“her mother said”. This time the defense

attorney himself objected. Judge C showed

an expression of great displeasure and then

ADVENTURES IN THAI JUSTICE PART FOUR—ALICE IN THAILAND PAGE THREE

dant requested to postpone the hearing, fearing

Judge D would falsify the trial record as

had Judge C.

JUDGE E

After all evidence was taken, Judge E transferred

in and was assigned to write the judgment.

His deciding principle proved identical

to that laid down by Judge Aand Judge D: no

need for facts or law in a case between a Thai

and a foreigner.

The foreign defendant had introduced 11 eyewitness

to the moral unfitness of the Thai

plaintiff, backed up by solid documentary

evidence. Judge E arrived after completion of

evidentiary hearings, so had no direct and

personal knowledge of any testimony or documents.

Summarizing a case in litigation for

over five years, his reasoning totalled 34 lines,

never mentioning one word of the testimony

or evidence of the foreigner. (According to

Section 141(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, a

judgment must document all evidence considered.

Any evidence not documented was

not considered in forming the judgment.)

In his 34 lines Judge E stressed the hearsay

testimony of the doctor never subjected to

cross-examination, about which Judge C had

falsified the Report of Proceedings. At the

same time the judgment ignored all the eyewitness

evidence, subject to cross-examination,

which had proved the truth of the case.

LEGITIMATING A CULTURE

OF DISHONESTY?

In Thailand’s civil code system Supreme

Court judgments set precedent, and the outcome

of this case may trouble some thoughtful

readers. After disappointments in the

Trial and Appeal Courts the foreign victim

raised many points to the Supreme Court in

the matter of child custody, in particular

whether a parent’s chronic lying and teaching

others to lie is material in adjudicating custody

of a minor child. The Supreme Court

declined to accept this view, ignoring even a

perjury conviction in awarding custody, signalling

as precedent that chronic lying by a

parent, and teaching a child to lie, are immaterial

to fitness for child-rearing in the

Kingdom.

What long-run consequences will this precedent

produce? Could the court’s stance be

related to the low standard of commercial

ethics seen daily, or to the brazen dishonesty

of so many public figures? Had the

Supreme Court set a different precedent,

could it have worked to raise the standards

of public and commercial ethics in future generations?

The Thai people must reach their own conclusions

on this important matter, but the

foreign victim himself, and his foreign associates,

were shocked beyond belief to read the

Supreme Court’s judgment.

OBSERVATIONS FROM FOUR

CASE STUDIES

The several foreigners involved in these cases

had some reassuring experiences and some

deplorable ones. The latter were shocking

injustices, which should happen nowhere

and certainly not in a country, like Thailand,

which advertises worldwide the equality litigants

enjoy before its courts. Several judges

dishonored the sovereign whose image

graced their hearing room by turning their

solemn chambers into Alice-in-Wonderland

theaters of the absurd.

ADVENTURES IN THAI JUSTICE PART FOUR—ALICE IN THAILAND PAGE FOUR

Publication of fair-use quotations for comment is welcome; please refer your readers for the full text to

<http://pws.prserv.net/studies>. For reproduction rights of any other type or for any other purpose please fax

Fran Collin at +1 610 254-5029. Fax all other enquiries to +1 617 623-1882.

While miscarriages of justice can occur anywhere,

these cases dramatize two noteworthy

things in Thailand. First, despite great effort,

persistence, and the best legal counsel, litigation

against the powerful is prone to fail. In

the child custody case, a foreign parent and

his two children were cruelly separated for 15

years.

In the property cases, the foreign litigants

spent stupendous sums for over a decade,

with nothing to show except judgments of

dubious enforceability. At last report most of

the title deeds to the few remaining assets

against which the foreign victims might

(someday) levy judgment were “missing”

from the court document storeroom.

Second is the attitude of many civil servants:

stonewalling and denial rather than acceptance

and willingness to remedy manifest evil.

Just as the Law Society, the state-controlled

bank and the Ministry of Finance resolutely

ignored evidence of misconduct, for the better

part of a year Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign

Affairs has ignored the Diplomatic Note

from the foreign victims’ home government

politely requesting investigation of the documented

abuses and compensation to the victims

for their losses.

On the positive side, senior Thai leaders (who

had no role in any of the abuses of power here

detailed), now have a splendid opportunity to

prove they will no longer tolerate the kinds of

behavior documented in this series. From

cases like those recounted here foreign individuals,

businesses, and official bodies (like

CalPERS mentioned in our first case study)

have drawn conclusions about the rough justice

their persons and property may receive

in Thailand. And Thai citizens may draw

their own conclusions about what needs

attention to alter the perceptions of foreigners

who might choose to sojourn in their

Kingdom. ADVENTURES IN THAI JUSTICE PART FOUR—ALICE IN THAILAND PAGE FIVE

ADVEN_4.PDF ADVEN_4.QXD ADVEN_4.IDX October 15, 2003

Edited January 26, 2006 by taxexile

[sriracha john]

Thanks for those, Tax... points out that there are problems in so many areas of the judicial system from criminal courts to civil courts over diverse issues such as property rights, child custody, and criminal cases.

It was so unbelievable when I read those posts in the Horton case praising Thai justice...

[Abandon]

Deepdiver is completely wrong. I really do know quite a few people in prison here (not jail as diver mentioned ... jail is something different).

Very few of them claim innocence. They do claim, quite rightly, that they were not given fair trials or sentences.

When the angle is prisoners complaints .. the view here is always som nam na ... but when the angle is police corruption putting people away, the view is that this is the norm, and another thing to feel bad about.

[Plus]

The topic's subtitle is "miscarriage of justice". I don't see it - Adrian had a house, cars, Rolexes, and cash. Jody had nothing, no assets. It's very simple - Adrian wins.

As for chosing friends, Jody was offered a life saver - free place to stay in exchange for little house work, was he in a position to refuse? Was he aware of what Adrian was up to? Chances are Adrian didn't show him around his production lab. Yet people here feel nothing for the man who was given death sentence, even if later commuted to life in prison. Would you choose them as friends?

And the second case - Helmut's "friend" wasn't "nefarious", she was killed, a victim. 15 years in prison and some preaching from fellow farangs, that's what he got.

What's the world coming to?

[Dragonman]

Deepdiver is completely wrong. I really do know quite a few people in prison here (not jail as diver mentioned ... jail is something different).

Very few of them claim innocence. They do claim, quite rightly, that they were not given fair trials or sentences.

When the angle is prisoners complaints .. the view here is always som nam na ... but when the angle is police corruption putting people away, the view is that this is the norm, and another thing to feel bad about.

Is there an official Thai legal system definition of the difference between jails and prisons, as there is in the States? If so do you know what it is?

[kat]

"The Supreme Court

declined to accept this view, ignoring even a

perjury conviction in awarding custody, signalling

as precedent that chronic lying by a

parent, and teaching a child to lie, are immaterial

to fitness for child-rearing in the

Kingdom. "

Does this surprise any of us? It certainly doesn't me, but I am incredibly relieved that someone had the tenacity to get this all down and documented in such an erudite, professional, and undeniable manner.

Thanks.

[markee]

I can't understand why anybody is surprised by cases like this in Thailand, if you visit this country you must accept that there is a very very small chance that you will go to prison (even though you have not committed any crime) be raped or killed.

You must accept that in Thailand you may not get justice (as you would take for granted in your own country) and that you may be hurt or killed if you approach the wrong person in the wrong way.

You must accept that you are entering a third world country where xenaphobia is a given and corruption by officials (including the police) is accepted as standard practice.

Having said this however there is a very very large chance that you will not have any problems and will enjoy a great time in a beautiful country with lovely weather and some of the best tasting food in the world.

These are simply facts and if you do not consider the risk worth taking don't travel. I personally do and although I can't make the risk zero, I can reduce the risk by being smart. I have never had any of these problems in Thailand but I am aware that there is a very small chance that even though I do not touch drugs or break any laws, my next visit could end in tears in a prison cell, for a crime I have not committed, with no chance of a fair trial.

Life is a lottery you will never change that, all you can do is try to swing the odds further in your favour.

[britmaveric]

These lot hit the unlucky lottery - not lot any of us can do for them! However best to have your wits about you at all times and sometimes even that isnt enough!

[LaoPo]

sorry, something went wrong with my post. (wrong topic)

LaoPo

Edited January 26, 2006 by LaoPo