Criminal Court Orders Extradition Of Two Thais To Face Murder Trial In Australia

[TechnikaIII]

pftt.... they deserve the stay at the Hiltons

Regardless of your sentiment, it is precisely the publication of views such as yours which will jeopardise the chances of a fair, unbiased trial. There is a dangerous stream of racism in Australia, and it also shows in the chauvinistic dismissal of Thai values in this forum. Not pointing the finger at you Steele404, just making a point. Whether the two are guilty or not will need to be clearly proven in court. The term 'kangaroo court' didn't just jump out of nowhere. Remember the legal lynch mob that found Lindy Chamberlain guilty of murdering her daughter?

As well as evidence against the accused, the mitigating circumstances also need to be heard. That's what due process and fair trial is about.

[softgeorge]

Australia was never part of the UK. Ruled, controlled, governed, initiated, colonised, used, discovered, mapped, and just about everything else by Britain, but never absorbed by it.

Historically the system of Law in Australia is dependent for its legal validity on a series of British Statutes including the COMMONWEALTH of Australia Constitutional Act 1900.The authority of the U.K. Parliament to enact those statutes depended on the acquisition of the Australian Continent as a territorial possesion of the British Crown.

Perhaps the Thai Judges were right in this case.Australia is still a part of the British Commonwealth and now being run by a Welsh woman.

Australia is still tecnically tied to mother England. The Governor General is the Queens official representative.

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him/her.

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

[jboras]

Since when has Australia broken away from England?

Last time we voted we kept the Queen, and we still have the Queen's Governor general.

We still have the Union Jack on the flag.

The only change is the National Anthem....

.....Australia remains part of the British Commonwealth, and the UK monarch remains the formal head of state, represented by the governor-general....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/country_profiles/1250188.stm

[softgeorge]

Mr Seehaverchart told a Bangkok court yesterday he was happy to stand trial in Thailand but did not want to be returned to Australia, because he had been called a "stupid Asian" and had heard reports of many racist attacks.

"Asians have to stay low profile to avoid being bullied in Australia," he told judges in Ratchada Criminal Court.

I love that. Someone called him a name so he doesn't want to stand trial in Australia. Sure am glad that Thai's don't call farangs stupid or other names and don't bully or stand over tourists.

Anyone who has walked around the Melbourne area will agree that it is like trying to spot the Aussie (Anglo) You will see a lot more asians.

Well he is not the brightest globe in the house getting himself into this position. Then again it is not nice to call a person who does a stupid thing, stupid.

As Forest Gump once said, My moma always told me, stupid is as stupid does.

Edited November 30, 2011 by softgeorge

[Nigel1500]

Australia was never part of the UK. Ruled, controlled, governed, initiated, colonised, used, discovered, mapped, and just about everything else by Britain, but never absorbed by it.

lol ... what are you talking about? All states, except SA were British until Federation and, in 1907, Australia was proclaimed as a part of the British Empire.

With regard to the 1916 Treaty, one would have to consider the definitions therein which, I'm sure, were the subject of considerable debate in the Criminal Court regarding this matter.

[katana]

Australia was never part of the UK. Ruled, controlled, governed, initiated, colonised, used, discovered, mapped, and just about everything else by Britain, but never absorbed by it.

Historically the system of Law in Australia is dependent for its legal validity on a series of British Statutes including the COMMONWEALTH of Australia Constitutional Act 1900.The authority of the U.K. Parliament to enact those statutes depended on the acquisition of the Australian Continent as a territorial possesion of the British Crown.

Perhaps the Thai Judges were right in this case.Australia is still a part of the British Commonwealth and now being run by a Welsh woman.

Australia is still tecnically tied to mother England. The Governor General is the Queens official representative.

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him/her.

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

In 1975, the then Governor General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, as the Queen's representative, dismissed the democratically elected Labour Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and appointed the Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister.

So in theory, this kind of thing could happen again and it shows the influence the UK still has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dismissal_of_the_Whitlam_Government

Edit: Cross-posted with Jobo.

Edited November 30, 2011 by katana

[KRS1]

Mr Seehaverchart told a Bangkok court yesterday he was happy to stand trial in Thailand but did not want to be returned to Australia, because he had been called a "stupid Asian" and had heard reports of many racist attacks.

"Asians have to stay low profile to avoid being bullied in Australia," he told judges in Ratchada Criminal Court.

I love that. Someone called him a name so he doesn't want to stand trial in Australia. Sure am glad that Thai's don't call farangs stupid or other names and don't bully or stand over tourists.

Anyone who has walked around the Melbourne area will agree that it is like trying to spot the Aussie (Anglo) You will see a lot more asians.

So what your saying is you would rather go under trial in Thailand than back in your country of Australia.

Thais dont usually call a farang stupid unless they do something stupid. Some Caucasions on the other hand just do it for fun and in the words of a Brit - Taking a piss at someone...lovely people.

[friendphil]

pftt.... they deserve the stay at the Hiltons

What they deserve is a fair trial. Ever hear of an innocent man (or men, as it could be in this case?) being accused of a crime? I think it's actually fairly commonplace, and to jump to conclusions is not really fair.

'nuff said.

[tropo]

keep in mind, thailand "has" extradition treaties or agreements with the UK. but "not" with Australia.

from the thai's news. thai court agree on extradite the 2 men because thailand see Australia was under the UK ... on and on, which i don't think it is much of a reason than thailand want to kiss the Aussie butt.

You must have missed the part about Australia agreeing to extradite some people to Thailand to face charges.

Countries don't need formal extradition treaties - they can make mutual agreements whenever they please.

[Markaew]

This could go a long way for obtaining credibility for Thailand. Playing by International rules versus "thai culture" would make a big difference.

[Markaew]

pftt.... they deserve the stay at the Hiltons

At the Hilton, they're most likely treated as heros for wasting a farang in his own country.

It's still far worse to be jailed in Thailand than in Australia. America for example multiplies every year a U.S citizen has spend in a Thai jail by 6 because of the hard circumstances. In other words, if an American gets 30 years in Thailand and serves 5 of them and is then deported to the states to serve the rest there he will be set free immediately on arrival.

OK. Let's state some references here. Sounds like that came out of your arse.

[softgeorge]

pftt.... they deserve the stay at the Hiltons

Apparently that is what thier lawyers are saying also. Apparently Australian jails are not of the high standard as those in Thailand. Australian jails are 3rd World standard. I guess thier defence council have never seen an Aussie jail. :cheesy:

"Lawyers for the two men had fought against their extradition, claiming that they would not receive a fair trial in Melbourne and that the Victorian jails they would be held in are third-world standard."

[rkidlad]

Mr Seehaverchart told a Bangkok court yesterday he was happy to stand trial in Thailand but did not want to be returned to Australia, because he had been called a "stupid Asian" and had heard reports of many racist attacks.

"Asians have to stay low profile to avoid being bullied in Australia," he told judges in Ratchada Criminal Court.

I love that. Someone called him a name so he doesn't want to stand trial in Australia. Sure am glad that Thai's don't call farangs stupid or other names and don't bully or stand over tourists.

Anyone who has walked around the Melbourne area will agree that it is like trying to spot the Aussie (Anglo) You will see a lot more asians.

So what your saying is you would rather go under trial in Thailand than back in your country of Australia.

Thais dont usually call a farang stupid unless they do something stupid. Some Caucasions on the other hand just do it for fun and in the words of a Brit - Taking a piss at someone...lovely people.

It's 'taking the piss' not 'taking a piss'. Who are the lovely people?

I was once called a 'stupid farang' in a swanky bar in Ploen Chit. I ordered a Heineken and then 1 second later changed my mind. I told the waiter 'Sorry. No beer Heineken. One beer Laos' Hey, I'm not speaking Thai, but I am paying 180 Baht a bottle. He came back with a Heineken and a Beer Laos. After the girl I was with explained, he walked away. She told me she heard him say 'stupid farang made the wrong order'. She was very angry.

Anyway,I digress. The crime was committed in Australia and that's where they should be tried. 'Nuff said'.

[OZEMADE]

pftt.... they deserve the stay at the Hiltons

Regardless of your sentiment, it is precisely the publication of views such as yours which will jeopardise the chances of a fair, unbiased trial. There is a dangerous stream of racism in Australia, and it also shows in the chauvinistic dismissal of Thai values in this forum. Not pointing the finger at you Steele404, just making a point. Whether the two are guilty or not will need to be clearly proven in court. The term 'kangaroo court' didn't just jump out of nowhere. Remember the legal lynch mob that found Lindy Chamberlain guilty of murdering her daughter?

As well as evidence against the accused, the mitigating circumstances also need to be heard. That's what due process and fair trial is about.

This report from the Canberra Times sort of shoots your theory down. Apart from having witnesses to the murder, it was also recorded on CCTV. Pretty good evidence so far.

The brother of a former St Edmund's College student stabbed outside a Melbourne convenience store in 2009 says it is important to his family that the alleged killers are brought to Australia to face justice.Bound hand and foot in chains, Sarud Seehaverachart, 28, and Thatiya Terdputham, 25, faced Bangkok's Criminal Court yesterday charged with murdering 29-year-old Luke Mitchell. They are fighting extradition.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news...t/2172470.aspx

Edited November 30, 2011 by metisdead
Edited for fair use.

[softgeorge]

pftt.... they deserve the stay at the Hiltons

Regardless of your sentiment, it is precisely the publication of views such as yours which will jeopardise the chances of a fair, unbiased trial. There is a dangerous stream of racism in Australia, and it also shows in the chauvinistic dismissal of Thai values in this forum. Not pointing the finger at you Steele404, just making a point. Whether the two are guilty or not will need to be clearly proven in court. The term 'kangaroo court' didn't just jump out of nowhere. Remember the legal lynch mob that found Lindy Chamberlain guilty of murdering her daughter?

As well as evidence against the accused, the mitigating circumstances also need to be heard. That's what due process and fair trial is about.

This report from the Canberra Times sort of shoots your theory down. Apart from having witnesses to the murder, it was also recorded on CCTV. Pretty good evidence so far.

The brother of a former St Edmund's College student stabbed outside a Melbourne convenience store in 2009 says it is important to his family that the alleged killers are brought to Australia to face justice.Bound hand and foot in chains, Sarud Seehaverachart, 28, and Thatiya Terdputham, 25, faced Bangkok's Criminal Court yesterday charged with murdering 29-year-old Luke Mitchell. They are fighting extradition.

Mr Mitchell's brother, Shane, said yesterday he always expected it to be a protracted process, but was confident the tenacity of homicide detectives from Victoria and the Thai and Australian justice systems would deliver the result his family needed.

''We would like to think that the system will work in our favour, it's important for the family that the matter will be settled here,'' he said.

''I'm under no illusion, it will certainly take some time and we will just have to ride it out.''

A team of Victorian experts flew to Bangkok for yesterday's hearing after the alleged killers claimed that they would not receive a fair trial in Australia and if they were jailed they feared for their safety in prison.

The delegation, requested by Thailand, included a Homicide Squad detective, a senior Crown prosecutor and an official from Corrections Victoria.

Sarud and Thatiya have been charged with the stabbing murder of Mr Mitchell outside a Brunswick store on May 24, 2009, close to where he allegedly stepped in to break up a fight outside a nightclub.

He was stabbed up to five times and died later in hospital.

It is alleged that the three men involved in the murder then fled to Thailand. One is still on the run.

Sarud and Thatiya had both been working in the same restaurant in Phuket and were tracked down by Thai police.

Sarud was arrested in Phuket last September while Thatiya was arrested at Bangkok Airport on October 30, 2010.

According to local reports, both men, who were working and studying in Melbourne at the time of the alleged crime, admitted to the killing but claimed that it was in self-defence against a much taller man.

Witnesses in Australia said the attackers had pulled up in a black Mercedes-Benz and one man held Luke Mitchell down while another stabbed him.

The alleged killers fled to Thailand shortly after the murder and, according to sources in Thailand, were briefly held by local police.

However, they were released after questioning as they had not committed a crime in Thailand and no official request to detain them had been received.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news...t/2172470.aspx

Self defence THAI STYLE. Two thais beating up on one farang outside a nightclub, victim interviens and brakes up fight (2 on 2) everyone disperses, victim walks away shortly after the thais spot him in the street now there are 3 thais 1 farang, Thais armed with a knife victim unarmed thais pin him to ground and stab him 5 times in the chest. It's not self defence when you go away grab some back up, arm yourself and then attack and kill someone. Where was the threat after dispersing from the 1st incident. It is straight out murder not self defence Aussie style. It may wash with the courts in Thailand but not in Australia. I guess that is why they want to face the Thai judicial system under thai law.Will be dismissed as suicide. They have to go back and face the music where they committed the crime under the laws of the land. The victims family deserve to see justice run it course in court.

Edited November 30, 2011 by softgeorge

[KKvampire]

Prediction= They will not be extradited. The legal system in Thailand will make sure of that. Just remember we are talking about a country who thinks it people, judiciary, government and more are better than the rest of the world, and they dont trust foreigners, I can assure them the feelings mutual in respect of the LOS

Edited November 30, 2011 by KKvampire

[chooka]

Prediction= They will not be extradited. The legal system in Thailand will make sure of that. Just remember we are talking about a country who thinks it people, judiciary, government and more are better than the rest of the world, and they dont trust foreigners, I can assure them the feelings mutual in respect of the LOS

You are probably right but I hope for the victims family sake you are totaly wrong. Yes the thais do think thier system is better, the defence council already stated that Australia is 3rd world in thier argument. If the extradite these two then the 3rd guy, the son of the high ranking influencial military guy is located then he would have to go as well and I just can't see that happening.

[chooka]

pftt.... they deserve the stay at the Hiltons

What they deserve is a fair trial. Ever hear of an innocent man (or men, as it could be in this case?) being accused of a crime? I think it's actually fairly commonplace, and to jump to conclusions is not really fair.

'nuff said.

If you want to hear the story of what actually happened from a family member and witness (audio) then go to 3aw.com.au (home page)

Edited November 30, 2011 by chooka

[LTGTR]

Hello,those 2 are already in custody-the 3rd is still "on the run".

Excellent news, hope it happens soon.

Missing in the OP is they will be detained for 30 days during which time they can appeal the extradition, which one of the lawyers said they intend to do.

If they are not extradited within 90 days, they will be released.

.

what does that mean? does it mean if they turn themselves in 29 days before the extradition date, they get 30 days to appeal, then after the 90 days is up they are free?

[techboy]

pftt.... they deserve the stay at the Hiltons

At the Hilton, they're most likely treated as heros for wasting a farang in his own country.

Absolutely disgusting and uncalled for. Your member icon should be modified to "Sclerotic Dirty Old Man."

[sfbandung]

Australia was never part of the UK. Ruled, controlled, governed, initiated, colonised, used, discovered, mapped, and just about everything else by Britain, but never absorbed by it.

Historically the system of Law in Australia is dependent for its legal validity on a series of British Statutes including the COMMONWEALTH of Australia Constitutional Act 1900.The authority of the U.K. Parliament to enact those statutes depended on the acquisition of the Australian Continent as a territorial possesion of the British Crown.

Perhaps the Thai Judges were right in this case.Australia is still a part of the British Commonwealth and now being run by a Welsh woman.

Australia is still tecnically tied to mother England. The Governor General is the Queens official representative.

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him/her.

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

In 1975, the then Governor General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, as the Queen's representative, dismissed the democratically elected Labour Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and appointed the Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister.

So in theory, this kind of thing could happen again and it shows the influence the UK still has.

http://en.wikipedia....tlam_Government

Edit: Cross-posted with Jobo.

"and it shows the infuence the UK still has."

No it doesn't. Without going into the details of the dismissal of the Whitlam government, the UK had absolutely nothing to do with it. They didn't order it, they weren't consulted. The GG is "technically" the queen's representative under Australia's present form of government, but he (she, at the present time) is appointed by the Australian parliament. It was in no way an indication of UK influence in Australian politics.

[tw25rw]

In 1975, the then Governor General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, as the Queen's representative, dismissed the democratically elected Labour Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and appointed the Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister.

So in theory, this kind of thing could happen again and it shows the influence the UK still has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dismissal_of_the_Whitlam_Government

Edit: Cross-posted with Jobo.

That was nothing to do with the UK and was all local politics. I believe the GG no longer has this power.

[roamer]

Whilst I would like to see them face a fair trial I find the arguments that this is a valid extradition less than convincing.

Still in a nation where someone can be sentenced to 20 years for sending insulting text messages (Nov 23, you'll have to Google it as you won't read it on here)I guess I shouldn't be surprised by any decision of a Thai court.

[monty1412]

The whole sad incident should not have happened. These two should of had thier visa's cancelled months before the tragic death and they should have been deported after appearing in court on other serious assault charges. soft Australian judicial system set them free on the streets of Melbourne.

Thier police mugshots are on the public domain in the interpol website.

Just curious but how do you know about this. I mean the prior charges ?

[Daewoo]

Any country can extradite any national or non-national to another on a case by case basis, as decided by the judiciary. The prosecution in this case, used the existance of the treaty between United Kingdom and Thailand, and the connection of UK and Australia to support their arguement.

The connection is that the UK and Australia share the same head of state, The Queen, share a history, Australia being formerly a British Colony and formerly part of The British Empire , and that the countries continue to share a connection as both countries remain members of The Commonwealth of Nations. (along with 54 Member States, of which 16 retain The Queen as their head of state).

In all matters relating to Australia, The Queen takes advice from Federal Ministers of Australia, and no British Minister may advise The Queen on matters relating to Australia.

Cheers,

Darryl

[KKK]

Murder is a criminal offence here as well as Australia so the Aussies could always let the Thais do the trial here. I don't think it would be the first time that a trial has been carried out in a country other than the one where the offence was committed.

But seriously I think that extradition is probably the best way to go....

The bit I don't quite get is

The Australian government also promised to extradite other suspects to Thailand in return

Other suspects....in this case or other cases??? It can't be this case can it because why would Australia not want them. So it has to be other cases ... who are they Aussies or Thais? ... Anybody got a clue..

[VictorOne]

Excellent news, hope it happens soon.

Exactly, like yesterday!

[KKK]

In 1975, the then Governor General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, as the Queen's representative, dismissed the democratically elected Labour Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and appointed the Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister.

So in theory, this kind of thing could happen again and it shows the influence the UK still has.

http://en.wikipedia....tlam_Government

Edit: Cross-posted with Jobo.

That was nothing to do with the UK and was all local politics. I believe the GG no longer has this power.

Not so much the influence the UK has but the influence the queen has/had...she is sovereign/head of state of both countries with the Governor General as her man on the spot/representative in Australia. The UK government had nothing to do with the case in question.

Edited December 1, 2011 by KKK

[elgato]

Good riddance to bad rubbish!

[jalansanitwong]

Australia was never part of the UK. Ruled, controlled, governed, initiated, colonised, used, discovered, mapped, and just about everything else by Britain, but never absorbed by it.

Australia was not mapped by the British. Its now believed that Captain Cook used Portugese maritime maps to navigate around eastern Australia in the 1770's.Tragically, a fire in Lisbon destroyed its famous map rooms including all evidence of the European explorers who discovered ' terra australis' hundreds of years before Cook.

As for the two Thai soi punks. Leave them to rot in thai prisons. It would cost $60,000 a year to keep those cowards locked up in Melbourne. The only reason they dont want to go back is because they cant pay off the judge.

By the way , its Brunswick, not Burnswick.