Former Thai Student In Australia Fights Extradition

[webfact]

Former Thai Student in Australia Fights Extradition

A lawyer representing a former Thai student in Australia submitted a petition with the National Human Rights Commission asking it to examine the Foreign Ministry's inaction in protecting the basic rights of his client.

Abhisit Siriposop, Lawyer of Sarut Srihaweerachat formerly a master degree student in Australia, said the petition was in response to the Preliminary Court's order to send his client back there at the request of Australian authorities to face trial in the alleged murder of an Australian citizen.

Abhisit stated that testimony by a Foreign Ministry's officer suggesting the court meeting of Australia's request infringed on the Extradition Act's Article 12 which requires concerned agencies to decide on extradition complaints filed by any country that Thailand does not have an extradition treaty with.

The extradition request was filed during the tenure of previous Foreign Minister Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya.

The lawyer said the officer's claim that extradition was based on a quid pro quo basis was not justified.

He accused the Foreign Ministry of not taking action to protect or assist his client and said a murder case there would be unfair to his client, as there is a racist bias against Asians.

He said Sarut is not confident in the Australian judicial system even though it has already arranged for a lawyer for him.

The extradition order is now being reviewed by the Appeals Court.

He remarked that the Foreign Ministry should handle Australia's request in the same way it did with the petition filed by the British government seeking the extradition of prominent Thai financier Pin Chakapark for his alleged bank fraud, which the ministry refused.

Abhisit also submitted the same petition with the ombudsman and the chairman of the Parliament's committee on foreign affairs.

-- Tan Network 2012-01-12

[thequietman]

He accused the Foreign Ministry of not taking action to protect or assist his client and said a murder case there would be unfair to his client, as there is a racist bias against Asians

I dont agree with this. It is my experience that in OZ a blokes a bloke. rich, poor, superstar, nationality, etc., an ozzie will call you up on anything no matter who you are.

why would this guy want to be tried in a thai court and spend time in a thai jail anyway.

Wait ! He can buy his way out here, i forgot. if he attended a uni in oz then the family must have money, maybe hiso.

ah, i see the reasoning now. silly me.

[OzMick]

Bank defrauders have many more friends than murderers, especially in Thailand. With the exception of one billionaire.

IMHO if there is exception to extraditing a citized, he should be tried (and incarcerated) here on the evidence presented by the Australian government, witness evidence given via video link. There is quid pro quo when you consider that the Australian government will prosecute its own citizens for quite a few crimes they may commit here.

And the Aussies don't have to pay room and board for the next decade or so.

[kotsak]

"He said Sarut is not confident in the Australian judicial system even though it has already arranged for a lawyer for him."

Only when you can buy them you can feel confident..

[Reasonableman]

"...a murder case there would be unfair to his client, as there is a racist bias against Asians".

more like a "bias" against scumbags, regardless of racial grouping

[Kilgore Trout]

I certainly hope he can provide clear cut cases in Australian courts which have shown a "bias against asians."

Absolutely ridiculous.

[coma]

This guy is definately misinformed. "He said Sarut is not confident in the Australian judicial system even though it has already arranged for a lawyer for him". I think even a Kangaroo Court in Australia would be straighter than alot of other courts around the world. As to his claims to there being Bias against asians in Australia, well this is just simply not true.

[beano2274]

I bet when he was studying there he was never racially abused, and he loved it, just so happens that now he is under the kosh then things change.

[tragickingdom]

maybe the lawyer has Thailand in mind when he speaks about a racist bias. The Thai court and police are racially abusing foreigners in Thailand. Are you a foreigner? You pay, and you are guilty. Maybe something is seriously wrong in the brain of the lawyer.

[laurentbkk]

I just wonder our Australians are treated in Thai jails ? or is there any racism among white there too ? If this student has nothing to fear over there , they should send him back ..apparently he might have issues by not wanted to go back to Oz. who play with matches burn his fingers.

[scorecard]

I certainly hope he can provide clear cut cases in Australian courts which have shown a "bias against asians."

Absolutely ridiculous.

I see two points:

- Is there some level of racism in Australia against Asians. Well thats' a very broad brush. If the question was is there bias againts the umemployed uneducated Vietnamese in Cabramatta, then the answer is probably yes, but certainly not by all Australians.

- Is there obvious or regular against Asians (using the broad term) by judges in Australia. No.

[wxyz]

the racism of asians towards non asians and even other asians, trumps any non asian racism against asians

[weegee]

the racism of asians towards non asians and even other asians, trumps any non asian racism against asians

They invented the word....remember

[Kaker]

I love the way so many people jump in to defend the honor of the "farang legal system", and attack the Thai lawyer for defending his client against extradition. It is the lawyer's job to fight the extradition. Whether he really believes that there is racism in Oz courts (which is not beyond the realm of possibility) is largely irrelevant.

There are many blatant (and some subtle) racists here who act superior, and at the same time condemn those Thais that hold the other side of those views. IMHO, as long as you are a racist, bitching about other racists won't get you far.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Kaker

[softgeorge]

"...a murder case there would be unfair to his client, as there is a racist bias against Asians".

more like a "bias" against scumbags, regardless of racial grouping

And he showed an unracist view and gave his victim a fair go when he and his Thai mate held down a white anglo saxon and plunged a knife into his chest numerous times. A fair go Thai style. Yes put him before the courts in Thailand and the verdict, not guilty the farang committed suicide.

[Reasonableman]

I love the way so many people jump in to defend the honor of the "farang legal system", and attack the Thai lawyer for defending his client against extradition. It is the lawyer's job to fight the extradition. Whether he really believes that there is racism in Oz courts (which is not beyond the realm of possibility) is largely irrelevant.

There are many blatant (and some subtle) racists here who act superior, and at the same time condemn those Thais that hold the other side of those views. IMHO, as long as you are a racist, bitching about other racists won't get you far.

And if that argument (anti-Asian racism in the Australian judicial process) is specious and racist in itself, we are within our rights to point that out and to reject it.

[Kaker]

I love the way so many people jump in to defend the honor of the "farang legal system", and attack the Thai lawyer for defending his client against extradition. It is the lawyer's job to fight the extradition. Whether he really believes that there is racism in Oz courts (which is not beyond the realm of possibility) is largely irrelevant.

There are many blatant (and some subtle) racists here who act superior, and at the same time condemn those Thais that hold the other side of those views. IMHO, as long as you are a racist, bitching about other racists won't get you far.

And if that argument (anti-Asian racism in the Australian judicial process) is specious and racist in itself, we are within our rights to point that out and to reject it.

Of course, you are within your right to say whatever you like. My main point was that the lawyer is doing his job defending his client, so you have no idea what his real sentiment is. My second point was that a large proportion of posters here vehemently defend anything that is farang, and attack most things Thai, and to top it off, carry a chip on their shoulder regarding Thai racism towards them. Seems hypocritical to me. That does't mean these people shouldn't point out racism in others, but if they expect to be taken seriously, they should first try to rectify their own shortcomings in respect to the topic of racism. If nothing else, they themselves are proof that anti-Asian racism does exist among some farangs, so it may very well also exist in the Australian legal system, weakening their own argument.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Kaker

[softgeorge]

With the huge Asian population in Melbourne he has a fair chance of having a majority asian jury. He also has the oppertunity to challenge 50% of the jury (12person jury) until he gets who he thinks are better to assist him in his case. His defence council will assist him in the selection and they have the backgrounds of the jury pool. They parade in front of the accused are can be selected like attending cattle sales.

[DoctorG]

sofegeorge. A very good video. Thank you.

[Reasonableman]

I love the way so many people jump in to defend the honor of the "farang legal system", and attack the Thai lawyer for defending his client against extradition. It is the lawyer's job to fight the extradition. Whether he really believes that there is racism in Oz courts (which is not beyond the realm of possibility) is largely irrelevant.

There are many blatant (and some subtle) racists here who act superior, and at the same time condemn those Thais that hold the other side of those views. IMHO, as long as you are a racist, bitching about other racists won't get you far.

And if that argument (anti-Asian racism in the Australian judicial process) is specious and racist in itself, we are within our rights to point that out and to reject it.

Of course, you are within your right to say whatever you like. My main point was that the lawyer is doing his job defending his client, so you have no idea what his real sentiment is. My second point was that a large proportion of posters here vehemently defend anything that is farang, and attack most things Thai, and to top it off, carry a chip on their shoulder regarding Thai racism towards them. Seems hypocritical to me. That does't mean these people shouldn't point out racism in others, but if they expect to be taken seriously, they should first try to rectify their own shortcomings in respect to the topic of racism. If nothing else, they themselves are proof that anti-Asian racism does exist among some farangs, so it may very well also exist in the Australian legal system, weakening their own argument.

The lawyer is free to make whatever arguments he can in defense of his client, whether he believes in them or not. At some stage, he will be obliged to validate these arguments. How he will demonstrate the existence of anti-Asian racism in the courts, which might reasonably prejudice a fair outcome for his client, is his challenge. The judge (or panel) will make the final decision on whether the argument is convincing.

[softgeorge]

sofegeorge. A very good video. Thank you.

I thought it may assist some of those when they reply to possible racism in the courts and the jury. The jury process does not only balance out gender but also ethnic backgrounds.

[chooka]

I love the way so many people jump in to defend the honor of the "farang legal system", and attack the Thai lawyer for defending his client against extradition. It is the lawyer's job to fight the extradition. Whether he really believes that there is racism in Oz courts (which is not beyond the realm of possibility) is largely irrelevant.

There are many blatant (and some subtle) racists here who act superior, and at the same time condemn those Thais that hold the other side of those views. IMHO, as long as you are a racist, bitching about other racists won't get you far.

And if that argument (anti-Asian racism in the Australian judicial process) is specious and racist in itself, we are within our rights to point that out and to reject it.

Of course, you are within your right to say whatever you like. My main point was that the lawyer is doing his job defending his client, so you have no idea what his real sentiment is. My second point was that a large proportion of posters here vehemently defend anything that is farang, and attack most things Thai, and to top it off, carry a chip on their shoulder regarding Thai racism towards them. Seems hypocritical to me. That does't mean these people shouldn't point out racism in others, but if they expect to be taken seriously, they should first try to rectify their own shortcomings in respect to the topic of racism. If nothing else, they themselves are proof that anti-Asian racism does exist among some farangs, so it may very well also exist in the Australian legal system, weakening their own argument.

The lawyer is free to make whatever arguments he can in defense of his client, whether he believes in them or not. At some stage, he will be obliged to validate these arguments. How he will demonstrate the existence of anti-Asian racism in the courts, which might reasonably prejudice a fair outcome for his client, is his challenge. The judge (or panel) will make the final decision on whether the argument is convincing.

One would expect the lawyer to do his upmost for his client, however the little bugger (didn't want to sound racist) should face the courts in Australia. He would be afforded a much fairer trial in Australia than an Aussie would get in Thailand. He will get some of the best defence barristers representing him and all at the aussie tax payers expence. All documentation that he signs would be in Thai so that he fully understands and he gets a say in who is on the jury. What would a farang get in Thailand? A law clerk representing you, forced to sign documents written only in Thai and the choice of plead guilty or face the noose.

What did this guy master in? He was arrested in a small restuarant was it a Master of pot scrubbing?

[EvolvingApe]

maybe the lawyer has Thailand in mind when he speaks about a racist bias. The Thai court and police are racially abusing foreigners in Thailand. Are you a foreigner? You pay, and you are guilty. Maybe something is seriously wrong in the brain of the lawyer.

Seems obvious to me that his lawyer is doing his job. He's making the best argument he can come up with to protect his client. I don't expect it's going to work, but let's wait and see before we get too excited.

[Kaker]

The lawyer is free to make whatever arguments he can in defense of his client, whether he believes in them or not. At some stage, he will be obliged to validate these arguments. How he will demonstrate the existence of anti-Asian racism in the courts, which might reasonably prejudice a fair outcome for his client, is his challenge. The judge (or panel) will make the final decision on whether the argument is convincing.

Absolutely, he will have an uphill battle - he is grasping at whatever straws are available. Furthermore, his burden of proof may be "lightened" due to the Thai system's own quirks and prejudices.

I have no personal experience with the Aussie judicial system, but I know that there is plenty of racial prejudice in many farang legal systems, such as the United States, and it's not likely that the Aussie system is that much more "enlightened" than the US system.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Kaker

[Reasonableman]

The lawyer is free to make whatever arguments he can in defense of his client, whether he believes in them or not. At some stage, he will be obliged to validate these arguments. How he will demonstrate the existence of anti-Asian racism in the courts, which might reasonably prejudice a fair outcome for his client, is his challenge. The judge (or panel) will make the final decision on whether the argument is convincing.

Absolutely, he will have an uphill battle - he is grasping at whatever straws are available. Furthermore, his burden of proof may be "lightened" due to the Thai system's own quirks and prejudices.

I have no personal experience with the Aussie judicial system, but I know that there is plenty of racial prejudice in many farang legal systems, such as the United States, and it's not likely that the Aussie system is that much more "enlightened" than the US system.

Not likely based on what knowledge? On the balance of proabilities, gut feeling, intuition, or even.... evidence?

[wxyz]

sounds like all the thais should self deport from racist oz then

[Kaker]

The lawyer is free to make whatever arguments he can in defense of his client, whether he believes in them or not. At some stage, he will be obliged to validate these arguments. How he will demonstrate the existence of anti-Asian racism in the courts, which might reasonably prejudice a fair outcome for his client, is his challenge. The judge (or panel) will make the final decision on whether the argument is convincing.

Absolutely, he will have an uphill battle - he is grasping at whatever straws are available. Furthermore, his burden of proof may be "lightened" due to the Thai system's own quirks and prejudices.

I have no personal experience with the Aussie judicial system, but I know that there is plenty of racial prejudice in many farang legal systems, such as the United States, and it's not likely that the Aussie system is that much more "enlightened" than the US system.

Not likely based on what knowledge? On the balance of proabilities, gut feeling, intuition, or even.... evidence?

Not likely based on the fact that I have experienced much of Australia (though not its judicial system) and that there are many parallels between how the US and Australia have developed since the arrival of Europeans, but no, I have no concrete evidence - it is my opinion based on what I have seen, read and experienced. Call it an educated guess. That's why I used the words "not likely" instead of just "not".

Edited January 13, 2012 by Kaker

[Reasonableman]

The lawyer is free to make whatever arguments he can in defense of his client, whether he believes in them or not. At some stage, he will be obliged to validate these arguments. How he will demonstrate the existence of anti-Asian racism in the courts, which might reasonably prejudice a fair outcome for his client, is his challenge. The judge (or panel) will make the final decision on whether the argument is convincing.

Absolutely, he will have an uphill battle - he is grasping at whatever straws are available. Furthermore, his burden of proof may be "lightened" due to the Thai system's own quirks and prejudices.

I have no personal experience with the Aussie judicial system, but I know that there is plenty of racial prejudice in many farang legal systems, such as the United States, and it's not likely that the Aussie system is that much more "enlightened" than the US system.

Not likely based on what knowledge? On the balance of proabilities, gut feeling, intuition, or even.... evidence?

Not likely based on the fact that I have experienced much of Australia (though not its judicial system) and that there are many parallels between how the US and Australia have developed since the arrival of Europeans, but no, I have no concrete evidence - it is my opinion based on what I have seen, read and experienced. Call it an educated guess. That's why I used the words "not likely" instead of just "not".

Let's just call it your opinion... or a plain guess, since there is no evidence of it being an educated one. In fact, the histories of the USA and Australia are very different, so blanket simplifications may be handy for reducing the complex to a manageable level of generalization, but inaccurate. However, both countries are highly cosmopolitan, and allow people from all over the world to come and settle, buy land and a home, get a good education, work, raise families, and enjoy a great lifestyle in freedom and relative equality, far more than many other countries do. My guess is that they are far less racist than many other countries, too, but that's just my opinion as a resident of Australia for around 50 years. I don't profess to be an expert on the USA, of course.