Some Legal Advice Re Death Threats

[bigorangebike]

My Thai wife recently won a libel lawsuit in a Thai court against an Australian citizen that resides in Thailand when he has money. The day of the court hearing, the accused didn't show and we were told that he had fled to Australia to avoid the hearing, the judge therefore made summary judgement (judge wasn't too happy).

The day after the court case, presumably once he had found out he had lost, the Australian "gentleman" sent me the following threatening email containing death threats, from his own private email address.

Concerned for the safety of my family and myself, I was wondering if anyone had any advice as to what to do? Some people have suggested that if the Thai immigration and police see this then he might be barred from Thailand? Also show the death threats to the Australian Consulate?

Below is the email that he sent from his own private email address, any advice would be greatly appreciated, as this is quite serious:

to me

Hey XXXXXXX

I am surfing the east coast of Oz at the moment.

Hanging out with the Bro's.

They reckon you are a dog.

Dogs sell themselves to to the cops and to the establishment.

They are usually found in car wrecks or fished out of the surf.

Come and get me you weak as piss XXXXX cXnt.

Live a fXckwick life

Come and get me you fXcking fat XXXXXX cXnt.

I am waiting for... XXXXXXXX I make that in a week as an engineer.

Every time you walk out of you XXXXXXX,

You may have a target on your back..

You will suffer ... 6 months....1 year...

I will not persue you... others will.

Dyeing of cancel will be a more easier way of dying.

Werever you go I have peope in Thailand watching you.

The devil watches.

[colinneil]

dont bother going to police in thailand they are not interested , i had similar 2 years ago ,went to police station man on desk was reading newspaper when i went in , still reading newspaper when i left nothing happened at all

[jonnog]

I have also experienced similar, from a Thai lady threatening to hire people to kill me. About 15 years ago. I did nothing and nothing ever happened.

[bigorangebike]

dont bother going to police in thailand they are not interested , i had similar 2 years ago ,went to police station man on desk was reading newspaper when i went in , still reading newspaper when i left nothing happened at all

I think we're going to present it to Thai Immigration in Bangkok

[manarak]

send it to the Police in Australia.

[Gone]

Thailand has witnessed a number of high-profile defamation actions in recent years, many of which are currently pending in its courts. Of particular public interest is the 2004 case filed by Shin Corporation against media activist Supinya Klangnarong, and the recent media war between Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and Manager founder Sondhi Limthongkul, which resulted in several defamation lawsuits that have since been withdrawn.

These multi-million-baht actions have drawn the attention of the international media and have placed an intense spotlight on the impact that Thai defamation law has on the free exercise of speech. While the focus is on the potential chilling effects in the media, the reality is that Thai defamation law directly affects businesses and private citizens alike.

In fact, average individuals, business owners, and company directors can find themselves subject to defamation lawsuits for the unwitting or careless publishing of statements, even in situations where there is a reasonable belief in their truth.

It is not necessary that the claimed defamation occur in a media setting, as liability can arise from statements made outside the wider media arena. For example, carelessly drafted demand letters and e-mails, criticisms of company policies and procedures, and even negative reviews of restaurants can all lead to potential defamation actions.

Regardless of an individual's personal feelings about the issue of free speech and open debate, it is important to understand Thai defamation law as it stands today, the legal process, and most importantly, how to minimise the likelihood of having to defend such actions. This article is a first of a two-part series providing such guidance.

Defamation. Defamation refers to a category of claims based upon intentionally harmful or false statements "published" in spoken or written form to third parties. Thai law makes no general distinction between spoken (slander) and written (libel) defamation. Further, and of critical importance, is the fact that in Thailand a party can be subjected to civil or criminal litigation for defamation, or both.

Civil Defamation. Section 423 of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code defines civil defamation as a statement made contrary to the truth, which is asserted or circulated as a fact, with resulting injury to the reputation, credit, earnings or prosperity of an individual.

Civil defamation claims are barred after one year from the date that the defamatory act and the person bound to make compensation became known to the plaintiff, or 10 years from the date the act was committed. Being unaware that a statement is false does not constitute a defence if a reasonable person should have known that such statement was false. All that is required is that an untrue statement was made with resulting damage to the plaintiff.

The problem, however, and what affects most defendants, is that the practical burden of proving falsity under Thai law does not lie on the plaintiff. Rather, the defendant is invariably placed in the position of having to prove that his statement was true to escape liability. Such truth can be difficult to prove in court and may prevent potential speakers from rendering even truthful statements if they are concerned about their ability to prove the allegedly defamatory statements in a later civil court action.

Even if a defendant is able to prove the truth of his statements, he may not be absolved of liability. This is because a defendant may also be required to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the allegedly defamatory statements were substantially justified, even if true. Statements made about certain "private" facts, even if they concern "public figures", may subject one to civil liability.

While admittedly good arguments can be made that such comment is justified, Thai courts have historically placed a greater burden on defendants in proving such justification than is required in some Western jurisdictions.

A defendant may also defend that his statements were privileged. For example, a legitimate defence may lie where the defendant can show that the communication was made in good faith to persons having a rightful interest in the information, such as when an employer provides employee performance evaluations to related business units related to an employee transfer, or when an association circulates notices to its members concerning actions that could potentially damage its business. Other forms of privilege include statements originating in court proceedings and in the Senate, House of Representatives and National Assembly.

With regard to evidentiary proof, Thai law permits a civil court to accept as true those facts adjudged by a criminal court relating to the same defamatory statements. This can streamline the evidentiary process and is one reason why civil defamation actions are often pursued current with or subsequent to criminal defamation actions.

Criminal defamation of character: the Thai regime

Rarely does a week pass without media reports of new defamation actions being filed and prosecuted in Thailand. Frequently these legal battles are staged on multiple fronts, civil and criminal, and in multiple jurisdictions. Their effect on a defendant can be significant, particularly when faced with the potential for criminal punishment. This report, the second of a two-part series on defamation in Thailand, focuses on criminal defamation.

Criminal defamation. Section 326 of the Thai Penal Code provides that a person who imputes anything to a third party in a manner likely to impair the reputation of another, or to expose such person to hatred or contempt is guilty of defamation. If the publication is made in a visible or easily reproduced manner, such as through print, video, and recordings, then an offender can be incarcerated for up to two years, subjected to fines of up to 200,000 baht, or both. In addition, charges of defamation, if lodged against a company, will also extend to its directors, regardless of their involvement with the allegedly defamatory statement.

Generally, a person who feels he has been defamed can bring criminal charges in one of two ways: 1. he may file a complaint with the police; or 2. he may file the criminal action directly with the criminal court.

However, charges of criminal defamationare barred unless they are initiated within three months from the date that the offence and the offender became known to the injured party. They may also be withdrawn by the aggrieved party at any time prior to final judgment.

If a complaint is submitted to the police, they will question the aggrieved party and summons the accused to appear for similar questioning. After completion of an investigation, the investigating officer will issue an opinion to the Public Prosecutor, making a recommendation for or against prosecution.

If the prosecutor ultimately decides to prosecute, the matter will go to trial and the aggrieved party can join prosecution as a co-plaintiff. At that stage it is likely the accused will be required to post bail.

A person also has the option of filing criminal charges directly with the court . In that event, the court will schedule preliminary hearings to determine whether the facts support trying the case. If the court agrees that there are reasonable grounds to proceed, it will schedule a trial just as though the Prosecutor were bringing the charges.

Criminal defamation law provides the following defences. First, if the statement was true, except where the allegedly defamatory statement concerns a personal matter not in the public interest. Second, statements made in court by parties or their lawyers are not considered defamatory. Third, an expression of an opinion made in good faith (1) to protect a legitimate interest, (2) to comment about an official in his official duties, (3) to provide fair comment on any person or thing subjected to public criticism, and (4) to report on open court proceedings or meetings.

So while the law provides for certain defences to criminal defamation claims, it is important to note that truth is not an absolute defence. Of particular significance, and an area of considerable legal argument, is what personal matters are of the public interest. The distinction is more easily made when involving purely private figures, but is difficult when involving public persons. This leaves a situation in which a person can publish true accounts of a person, but is still subjected to criminal defamation claims. As for good-faith expressions of comment, it is important to note that the law limits situations in which fair comment is allowed and there are and will be situations in which an opinion, however reasonable, will not fall within the defence.

This is not to say that there are no other options available to parties accused of defamation. For example, the Thai Press Act allows a newspaper to avoid civil and criminal liability if it publishes a public retraction immediately following a request by party injured by untrue statements. In addition, a person wrongly accused of defamation may have the option of filing its own criminal action against the plaintiff for filing false charges.

Finally, one important distinction between criminal and civil defamation claims is that a person cannot be punished for criminal defamation for negligently publishing statements about another, even if false. In contrast, civil liability can extend to a party who has acted negligently in making defamatory statements.

Conclusions. Defamation actions, both civil and criminal, provide legitimate means by which an aggrieved party can seek compensation and justice for impermissible public comment. However, the law may have the unintended effect of providing a venue for plaintiffs to silence legitimate criticism.

Libel is a published or fixed form of defamation of character; a civil wrong that falsely impugns the reputation or character of a person or entity, opening the target up to public scorn or ridicule.

หมิ่นประมาทเป็นรูปแบบการตีพิมพ์หรือได้รับการแก้ไขจากการหมิ่นประมาทของตัวละคร; ผิดทางแพ่งที่แอบอ้าง impugns ชื่อเสียงหรือลักษณะของบุคคลหรือนิติบุคคลเปิดเป้าหมายถึงดูถูกประชาชนหรือเยาะเย้ย

High court rules personal e-mail is not public record

กฎศาลสูงส่วนบุคคลที่ e-mail ไม่ได้เป็นบันทึกสาธารณะ

[bigorangebike]

Thanks guys

[Mario2008]

1 post deleted as off topic.

moved to general as not visa related.

[bigorangebike]

We've bee told if he doesn't make the Thai court payments for damages, then an arrest warrant will be issued for him & he will not be able to get a Visa for Thailand.

Edited February 25, 2012 by bigorangebike

[damo]

The guy claims to be an engineer yet has trouble spelling. Just delete it. Without knowing the chap I would say from the e-mail that he's pissed and thats about all hes capable of.

I know of people like this in Oz, they have part time lives in Pattaya too. It seems they have watched a few episodes of underbelly and now think they are something not to be <snip> with. The are usually just <snip>. This bloke sounds like one too.

Enjoy Thailand, he's in Aus, you have your revenge allready.

Edited February 25, 2012 by metisdead
3) Not to post in a manner that is vulgar, obscene or profane. Profanity edited out of post.

[damo]

I am interseted in this, generally.

What led to legal action being initiated and what is the amount of money awarded by the courts. Also if you could expand on the legal process that occured that would be interesting to hear about too.

[bigorangebike]

I am interseted in this, generally.

What led to legal action being initiated and what is the amount of money awarded by the courts. Also if you could expand on the legal process that occured that would be interesting to hear about too.

Damages will be announced by the court in a week or so, after that we'll give some insight, actually very impressed with the Thai court system

[evadgib]

If you (OP) are neither Thai or Australian you should notify your own Embassy too.

[Gone]

I am interseted in this, generally.

What led to legal action being initiated and what is the amount of money awarded by the courts. Also if you could expand on the legal process that occured that would be interesting to hear about too.

Damages will be announced by the court in a week or so, after that we'll give some insight, actually very impressed with the Thai court system

Now that is a load of bulloks.

For one, the plaintiff must file a report with the police as it is a civil matter not criminal

Second the police, plaintiff and defendant and all get together and see if it can be resolved out of court. At this time the plaintiff can ask the defendant for what ever they want (100,000 baht etc.)

Third, if this cannot be resolved and the plaintiff refuses to pay then they send you home to wait. Normally at least 3 weeks. During this time the police review the report from both parties and might call you in again for a second chat.

Fourthly, the police then take the reports to the prosecutor and they also review it. If they feel there is a case worth while and does not waste the court's time. As Thailand has a lot of actual criminal cases the chance of excepting it into Thai courts when it involves 2 farangs exchanging emails. there is on;y a 0/009% chance it would go that far.

Fifthly, Even if the prosecutor says it should go to court, The Thai courts are backed up for 4 years right now and during these 4 years neither party is allowed to leave Thailand under any circumstance. Not even for a visa run. You both would end up paying the 20k overstay. On your first day in court your passport will be revoked and held until the case is finished.

Thai courts charge a minimum fee of 200,000 baht per case and a lawyer is about the same. Weather the plaintiff choses to revoke the case at any time the money is NOT refundable.

If you don't believe me ask any lawyer here.

So as far as you saying the courts will reach a decision in a week or so, someone is pulling your leg. There is no special rules for farangs when it comes to the judicial system here. The second a prosecutor says it will go to court you are locked in.

Don't you realize that the guy is just talking out of the bottom of a bottle of whisky?

Edited February 25, 2012 by Gone

[bigorangebike]

If you (OP) are neither Thai or Australian you should notify your own Embassy too.

will do

[trainman34014]

This guy is obviously a lowlife and believes the sh-t that he can't even spell. Send him back an email telling him that he should spend his time watching his own back as he will be receiving a knock on the door shortly !

[bigorangebike]

Case is finished, summary judgement, the judge said he will announce the damages on March 8th, our lawyer also confirmed this.

I am interseted in this, generally.

What led to legal action being initiated and what is the amount of money awarded by the courts. Also if you could expand on the legal process that occured that would be interesting to hear about too.

Damages will be announced by the court in a week or so, after that we'll give some insight, actually very impressed with the Thai court system

Now that is a load of bulloks.

For one, the plaintiff must file a report with the police as it is a civil matter not criminal

Second the police, plaintiff and defendant and all get together and see if it can be resolved out of court. At this time the plaintiff can ask the defendant for what ever they want (100,000 baht etc.)

Third, if this cannot be resolved and the plaintiff refuses to pay then they send you home to wait. Normally at least 3 weeks. During this time the police review the report from both parties and might call you in again for a second chat.

Fourthly, the police then take the reports to the prosecutor and they also review it. If they feel there is a case worth while and does not waste the court's time. As Thailand has a lot of actual criminal cases the chance of excepting it into Thai courts when it involves 2 farangs exchanging emails. there is on;y a 0/009% chance it would go that far.

Fifthly, Even if the prosecutor says it should go to court, The Thai courts are backed up for 4 years right now and during these 4 years neither party is allowed to leave Thailand under any circumstance. Not even for a visa run. You both would end up paying the 20k overstay. On your first day in court your passport will be revoked and held until the case is finished.

Thai courts charge a minimum fee of 200,000 baht per case and a lawyer is about the same. Weather the plaintiff choses to revoke the case at any time the money is NOT refundable.

If you don't believe me ask any lawyer here.

So as far as you saying the courts will reach a decision in a week or so, someone is pulling your leg. There is no special rules for farangs when it comes to the judicial system here. The second a prosecutor says it will go to court you are locked in.

Don't you realize that the guy is just talking out of the bottom of a bottle of whisky?

Edited February 25, 2012 by bigorangebike

[Gone]

We've bee told if he doesn't make the Thai court payments for damages, then an arrest warrant will be issued for him & he will not be able to get a Visa for Thailand.

Mate you are really getting mixed up here and are completely un-informed. The Thai court payment is 200,000 baht and the defendant does not pay that, The plaintiff does if it gets accepted into court. Read my previous post.

Are the police going to fly to Australia to issue this warrant?

[Sing_Sling]

Firstly . . . I wonder what kind of schooling this guy has had . . . amazingly bad English.

Well:

The local cops will do zip.

The embassy will do zilch

Thai immigration will do zilch

I could set up an e-mail account with your name within five minutes and send everyone on TV similar e-mails. Do you think this will stop you from getting a visa?

What proof do you have that the e-mail is from this d!ckhead? (I'm not saying you're making it up, but you have to provide proof and a name isn't proof)

Just let the guy stew - he's in trouble anyway regarding the court case, why bother yourself with this

[bigorangebike]

The case is over?

We've bee told if he doesn't make the Thai court payments for damages, then an arrest warrant will be issued for him & he will not be able to get a Visa for Thailand.

Mate you are really getting mixed up here and are completely un-informed. The Thai court payment is 200,000 baht and the defendant does not pay that, The plaintiff does if it gets accepted into court. Read my previous post.

Are the police going to fly to Australia to issue this warrant?

[bigorangebike]

What proof do you have that the e-mail is from this d!ckhead? (I'm not saying you're making it up, but you have to provide proof and a name isn't proof)

Just let the guy stew - he's in trouble anyway regarding the court case, why bother yourself with this

He admitted to sending the emails in a sworn Thai court document --- the email in the first post came from his same private email address that the previous emails were sent from that caused the Libel case that my wife won

Edited February 25, 2012 by bigorangebike

[janverbeem]

What proof do you have that the e-mail is from this d!ckhead? (I'm not saying you're making it up, but you have to provide proof and a name isn't proof)

Just let the guy stew - he's in trouble anyway regarding the court case, why bother yourself with this

He admitted to sending the emails in a sworn Thai court document

But you say in the OP that you received this email after the judgement.

[bigorangebike]

Previous abusive emails caused the Libel case that my wife won. The email in the original post was sent by him from his private email address after the courts summary judgement, sorry for any confusion. They were all sent from the same email address that he has sworn in a court document that it is his email address.

What proof do you have that the e-mail is from this d!ckhead? (I'm not saying you're making it up, but you have to provide proof and a name isn't proof)

Just let the guy stew - he's in trouble anyway regarding the court case, why bother yourself with this

He admitted to sending the emails in a sworn Thai court document

But you say in the OP that you received this email after the judgement.

Edited February 25, 2012 by bigorangebike

[Sing_Sling]

He admitted to sending the emails in a sworn Thai court document

The day after the court case, presumably once he had found out he had lost, the Australian "gentleman" sent me the following threatening email containing death threats, from his own private email address.

He admitted to sending the emails in a sworn Thai court document

But you say in the OP that you received this email after the judgement.

Yup. I smell a rat . . . your story is all over the place bigorangebike

[bigorangebike]

sounds like im not explaining the sequence of events well enough ......

basically death threats after a court judgement

[damo]

11 posts and most of them in this tread will also do you no favours. I don't wanna say too much as I am an Aussie and I dont wanna end up before the court.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed. Discuss this in a rational manner, or don't bother posting.

[bigorangebike]

11 posts and most of them in this tread will also do you no favours. I don't wanna say too much as I am an Aussie and I dont wanna end up before the court.

It will be interesting to see what Thai immigration make of it

[travelmann]

Dyeing of cancel will be a more easier way of dying.

Hmmmmmm are you sure he's an Ozzie as many Thais say CANCER as "CANCEL" even my wife

Tell him his spelling matches his mental age.............about 4-5 yrs old I reckon

Edited February 25, 2012 by metisdead
No need to post using bold font, bold font removed.

[travelmann]

Dyeing of cancel will be a more easier way of dying.

Hmmmmmm are you sure he's an Ozzie as many Thais say CANCER as "CANCEL" even my wife

Tell him his spelling matches his mental age.............about 4-5 yrs old I reckon

Oh an he is an engineer too?? with spelling like that?? c'mon it really doesnt add up does it?

Edited February 25, 2012 by metisdead
No need to post using bold font, bold font removed.