Judge’s Son Can’t Get Arrested

[george]

Judge’s son can’t get arrested

BANGKOK: -- The son of a Constitution Court judge who tried to get himself arrested on purpose for possession of a single speed pill reluctantly walked out of court a free man yesterday because the prosecution failed to prove its case.

Panpat “Ton Lako” Na Songkhla, 23, was acquitted by the Criminal Court after a year-long trial.

The court heard that the defendant walked up to a policeman on patrol in August last year and presented him with an illegal methamphetamine tablet in the hope that he would get arrested to escape family problems.

Prosecutors decided to press charges even though Panpat had done exactly the same thing in March, 2003, and the Thon Buri Criminal Court threw the case out because he surrendered to police.

In yesterday’s ruling, the court said the prosecution had no evidence to back up the charge of drug possession. It said the suspect had the tablet in his possession because he specifically wanted to get arrested and not because he had illicit intentions as prescribed by the drug laws.

The defence presented records to confirm the suspect’s troubled relationship with his parents.

Following the verdict, Panpat’s father Chumpol Na Songkhla said his son had convulsions when he was a young child.

“My son is not a drug addict and he should not have been prosecuted in the first place,” the judge said.

He said ill-intentioned people might have wanted to publicise his son’s plight in order to discredit his judgeship.

--The Nation 2005-09-07

[sriracha john]

Thon Buri Criminal Court threw the case out because he surrendered to police.

In yesterday’s ruling, the court said the prosecution had no evidence to back up the charge of drug possession. It said the suspect had the tablet in his possession because he specifically wanted to get arrested and not because he had illicit intentions as prescribed by the drug laws.

I can see the next drug dealer using a similar defense when apprehended...

"But your Honor, I shouldn't be prosecuted as I was simply on my way to the police to surrender when they stopped me before I had a chance to."

and then,

"Your honor, can't you see? I wanted to get arrested... I had no real intention to possess these drugs."

[BkkPundit]

I can see the next drug dealer using a similar defense when apprehended...

"But your Honor, I shouldn't be prosecuted as I was simply on my way to the police to surrender when they stopped me before I had a chance to."

and then,

"Your honor, can't you see? I wanted to get arrested... I had no real intention to possess these drugs."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, there is a difference between a drug dealer and a drug user. Second, anyone can try to argue that they were intending to surrender, but in this particular case the defendant did *actually* surrender to the police. If a defendant in a future case says they are going to surrender, then it is a question of whether the judges believes them or not. It is like when a drug smuggler says they had no idea of the false bottom filled with heroin in the suitcase. It is one thing to say you didn't know, it is another thing whether the judge believes in the circumstances.

Having said that I am little surprised at the verdict as I would have thought drug possession was an absolute liability offence and the prosecution don't need to prove intention/mental element of the offence.

[sriracha john]

I can see the next drug dealer using a similar defense when apprehended...

"But your Honor, I shouldn't be prosecuted as I was simply on my way to the police to surrender when they stopped me before I had a chance to."

and then,

"Your honor, can't you see? I wanted to get arrested... I had no real intention to possess these drugs."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am little surprised at the verdict as I would have thought drug possession was an absolute liability offence and the prosecution don't need to prove intention/mental element of the offence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

precisely my point...

I was merely stating, in a ridiculous manner, the obvious fallacy in the court's actions... having to come up with a lame reason not to prosecute one-of-their-own's son.

[deus ex machina]

I can see the next drug dealer using a similar defense when apprehended...

"But your Honor, I shouldn't be prosecuted as I was simply on my way to the police to surrender when they stopped me before I had a chance to."

and then,

"Your honor, can't you see? I wanted to get arrested... I had no real intention to possess these drugs."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am little surprised at the verdict as I would have thought drug possession was an absolute liability offence and the prosecution don't need to prove intention/mental element of the offence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

precisely my point...

I was merely stating, in a ridiculous manner, the obvious fallacy in the court's actions... having to come up with a lame reason not to prosecute one-of-their-own's son.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A marvellous counterpoint to the alternative state solution previously meted out to the hapless Thai unlucky enough to face the full rigour of the law in more strident times, i.e. a bullet in the brain. Am I right in thinking there is no Thai word for 'farce'? The dictionary I am using is a little vague on the subject but translations for Judge and Prime Minister appear to be synonymous with buffoon....but it is' Changs abridged' and therefore inherently unreliable...hic!

[PanzerJohn]

He's obviously a nutter, and a judges son............not guilty! Of anything..............ever...............before or after the fact.........anytime..........anyplace............anywhere.

[Scott]

I think the point here is the possession of an illegal substance. He admits it and whether or not he wants to be arrested or has family problems isn't the issue in guilt or innocence. He is guilty of possessing an illegal substance.

The second part of the judicial process is sentencing. Here is where the courts can use common sense, logic and compassion. Sounds like he needs help and they could have committed him to receiving the help. They don't automatically have to throw him into jail.

It wouldn't even be an interesting story if the law were handled correctly. I am sorry for the defendant and the family. It's not pleasant having things brought out in public.

[Sandstone Art]

That's the life of those rich and powerful

Can get away with almost anything