New Deportation Condition Changes!

[Badbanker]

Due process was followed and he declined to appeal against the deportation in court but rather agreed to be voluntarily repatriated to the UK.

I believe, Thailand cancelled his right right to stay in the Kingdom because he was a person deemed to not meet the character requirements required. Thailand can deny someone the right to be here, if the Thai Government is made aware someone has been convicted of criminal behaviour in another country particularly if it involves human trafficking of Thai Women.

Interpol was very heavily involved in this case!

[wayned]

BAD BANKER,

If the UK declined to send the proper authorities to escort him back to the UK. Could Thailand have deported him and delivered him to the UK Embassy and the it would be their responsibility for his transport back to the UK? It's about time that they took some responsibility for there citizens in Thailand.

[harrry]

After a lot of posts we have now found.

1. The person was arrested in Thailand and the court asked to cancel his visa.

2. The court cancelled his visa and the person agreed to leave Thailand voluntarily (at his expense)

3. This was complied with.

The UK govt was apparently informed of his arrest. It should have

1 Asked a UK court for a warrant to extradite

2 asked the THai court for the person to be held for extradition

3 sent representatives to plead for extradition in a court hearing

4 If extradition granted it should have sent a police officer to take custody of the person within a certain time and then removed him to the UK at the UK expense.

It seems due process was followed and the person left to the country of his choice.

[Badbanker]

Voluntary conditional repatriation happens all the time!

The thing this thread is about is Andrew Christopher Michael Wallace's decision and actions to buck the system and dare I say abuse the system has now caused a huge amount of grief to many innocent victims from that time on.

[Jawnie]

Hallo Bad Banker,

Many thanks for your answer. But I have – unfortunately – to say that I did not understand your comment.

In a previous post you wrote: Quote: “Sir if you overstay your visa you have broken Thai law and are considered a criminal, as you will go to court …” and “Breaking the law by overstaying makes you a criminal” Unquote.

In your recent answer you seem to distinguish between deportation as such and being a criminal (see above). Does it mean Thai Immigration or Thai courts have no authority to blacklist criminals?

It all depends if the court imposes a jail sentence on you of over X amount of time I believe. Actually we need a Thai legal eagle in here to clarify things. Immigration can order a Black List after a conviction if they consider it is a crime worthy of this. I believe this is one legal area Immigration could technically use to black list overstayers.

It seems to me that the key point in all of this is not which specific action Thai immigration or courts took toward any specific situation. This is because Thai courts and immigration officials can vary their responses and actions toward a given set of facts or circumstance. That's called 'discretion."

People should understand that the law is written to provide courts and immigration officials with maximum amount of discretion up to and including incarceration and deportation. The law must do this in order for Thailand to protect it's sovereignty and legitimacy. It is not inconsistent that different actions are taken toward similar appearing immigration issues. And, of course, there will always be people who game the system and people will always slip through the cracks.

[overherebc]

Mods feel free to move this or what you decide.

I have just come back from a long weekend in Malaysia where the papers had reports on a daily basis on the interview at the desk by the Immigration Officer. 6 years ago a letter was issued to the Immigration Dept to stop asking so many questions when people arrived in Malaysia, reason, it made them seem unfriendly to travellers. It would appear that this will be reversed soon as Malaysia now has realised that they have so many long term overstays who are working Illegally and generally are not good for the country.Factors mention in the news were, return ticket, enough money to support you during your intented stay and a hotel booking slip. None of this is in force yet but is being actively debated in Malaysia now.

Maybe all the Asean countries are starting to enforce laws a bit more on the borders.

If you are legally here or wherever and conform to the laws what do you have to worry or complain about, not directed at you as a reply, just a statement in general.

[Maestro]

Voluntary conditional repatriation happens all the time!...

Initially, I also thought that a shortcut was used to avoid the lengthy bureaucratic process and cost of a formal extradition by simply annulling Wallace's permission to stay, which made him an overstayer without his probably even becoming aware of it, then arrest, fine and deport him. Now I realise that it is indeed customary to give a wanted criminal the option to return voluntarily, thus saving him the embarrassment of being brought back in handcuffs with a police escort, particularly if he is not a particularly dangerous person. So this was the case with Wallace, whose UK prison sentence was, as we just learnt, for a mere three months. That this "voluntary conditional repatriation" also saves taxpayers' money can be considered a welcome collateral effect.

[SailingHome]

Last week I did 5 deportations and suddenly realised that I had not made a note of this change of policy to people on Thai Visa.

If you wish to voluntarily leave by paying the 20 k at the airport and flying out to get a new visa in an adjacent country, you may still do that.

If you are arrested or voluntarily surrender to immigration even after 5 days overstay expect to be deported to your country of origin.

Thanks for the info and reporting. Very nice to have your resources. I am confused by your statement. Are you saying that only in flying out can one not be deported for a 5+ day overstay? Certainly we surrender to immigration at land borders.

[Badbanker]

Last week I did 5 deportations and suddenly realised that I had not made a note of this change of policy to people on Thai Visa.

If you wish to voluntarily leave by paying the 20 k at the airport and flying out to get a new visa in an adjacent country, you may still do that.

If you are arrested or voluntarily surrender to immigration even after 5 days overstay expect to be deported to your country of origin.

Thanks for the info and reporting. Very nice to have your resources. I am confused by your statement. Are you saying that only in flying out can one not be deported for a 5+ day overstay? Certainly we surrender to immigration at land borders.

Just occasionally I hear of a case of someone who is a few days overstayed, who is picked up from a van or bus near a land border by a nasty cop. They are sent to the IDC, court and deported from Bangkok.

With this new policy it sure makes a mess of your plans! If you fly you really go where you plan!

Edited March 21, 2012 by Badbanker

[wayned]

Could you please answer my question posted #122. It seems that the British Government has no compassion for their citizens in a foreign country as evidenced by your concern for the street people or more recent a post here regarding a British citizen with dementia and thee has been no help from the Embassy or consulate in Pattaya. If people are deported , deport them and deliver them to their embassy's and let them handle it!

[evadgib]

Western nations clear their own backyard (ie within their borders) as per international agreement. Who do you think does it here?

[Markaew]

Most people on this forum know I work in and around the IDC almost every week and assist people get deported and go home in an organised manner.

Last week I did 5 deportations and suddenly realised that I had not made a note of this change of policy to people on Thai Visa.

If you wish to voluntarily leave by paying the 20 k at the airport and flying out to get a new visa in an adjacent country, you may still do that.

Previously It could be arranged for British nationals to be deported to a place for which you have no right of entry refusal as in Hong Kong.

That has now changed! If you are arrested or voluntarily surrender to immigration even after 5 days overstay expect to be deported to your country of origin.

Just thinking about it I realised that I had not told the forum about this change in policy.

Immigration is tightening across the board and it's all about money/face and how much they can grab. Foreigners are a big time target right now so keep your wits about you and don't screw up! They are waiting for you to make a mistake. From what I have heard there are several events that are driving these actions or excuses depending on how you look at it. The murder of the American woman by the Indian (my lawyer told me this) and apparently this event stated by the OP is just piling on the situation.

[Markaew]

Could you please answer my question posted #122. It seems that the British Government has no compassion for their citizens in a foreign country as evidenced by your concern for the street people or more recent a post here regarding a British citizen with dementia and thee has been no help from the Embassy or consulate in Pattaya. If people are deported , deport them and deliver them to their embassy's and let them handle it!

That goes for American government as well.

[Badbanker]

BAD BANKER,

If the UK declined to send the proper authorities to escort him back to the UK. Could Thailand have deported him and delivered him to the UK Embassy and the it would be their responsibility for his transport back to the UK? It's about time that they took some responsibility for there citizens in Thailand.

As is so often pointed out, "This is Thailand" and there is no other legal authority in Thailand except that vested in the Royal Thai Police. No foreign government has any right to arrest anyone or do anything with any citizen other than that which their foreign nationals wish to accept.

It is embarrassing that at times that 80% of the problem return overstayers in the IDC are British nationals. This is pointed out to me on regular occasions by IDC officials. They also ask me why my countrymen are like this? I cannot hazard an answer.

The British Government acting through the British Embassy spends an inordinate amount of time and money all over Thailand "solving" errant British nationals problems. The British Government acting through the British Embassy cannot arrest you but can only present a warrant for your arrest from a British Court through Interpol and explain the nature of the criminal charge.

It is up to the Royal Thai Police Government to make a decision that this person is not in the best interests of Thailand and as to if this person should be arrested and their visa cancelled as it was in the case of Mr. Wallace.

In the case of a capital crime of murder, rape, terrorism or some other major criteria that I am not privy to, I believe you will get free transportation back to dear old England! If it is a case of lesser importance you will have to pay yourself. I am not an authority on British Law so please someone come in here and correct me.

Sadly there is a staff of 30 plus hard working people local and foreign that are dedicated to serving "Distressed British Nationals". The amount they can help you is I believe limited by British Law with the caveat of being in a foreign country.

There are a number of very hard working people I work with who are verbally abused and threatened on relatively regular occasions by the very people they are trying to help.

In short the only place of deportation is the International Airport. British Embassy has no right to detain anyone or deport them. That right is solely vested in Thai Authorities. The problem in Mr. Wallace's case is a non stop flight should have been mandated.

[wayned]

Badbanker,

Aren't the grounds within a foreign embassy considered that countries soil. If you are in the American Embassy, you are in America, if you are in the British Embassy you are in the UK

[geriatrickid]

As a bit of additional background, Thailand has been under tremendous pressure from both Canada and Australia in respect to Thailand serving as a transit point for bogus Tamil refugees. It may not seem germane here, but Thailand was diplomatically blasted on the issue and has been super sensitive on immigration issues since. On top of this, the Canadian PM is visiting. Despite all the diplomatic handshakes and ASEAN issues, the PM is coming to convey in very strong terms his government's displeasure with Thailand as a haven for illegal immigrants in "transit". Cracking down on overstays is part and parcel of a more extensive response, although, the tamils still seem to be gathering in Thailand. The Tamils are all on overstay and Australia and Canada have asked why they are not being dealt with or deported back to Sri Lanka. For what its worth, the message conveyed to Thailand was that if it did not stop the flow of Tamils, there would be serious consequences. From a practical standpoint, one cannot just target one nationality and so the crackdown comes as part of an overall response. I am not saying this is the the reason for the change, but it is one of the factors behind the change in strategy. Apparently there are thousands of Sri Lankans in the country illegally, who I presume are waiting for the right refugee smuggler to get them to Canada or Australia.

[Tywais]

Badbanker,

Aren't the grounds within a foreign embassy considered that countries soil. If you are in the American Embassy, you are in America, if you are in the British Embassy you are in the UK

A common misconception.

Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.^[5][6] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country. The term "extraterritoriality," therefore, is often used in this broader sense when applied to diplomatic missions.

Source

More:

Contrary to popular perception and a lot of careless news reporting, embassies are the sovereign territory of the country in which they are located, NOT of the country whose diplomatic mission is housed there. That is why an office building can host an embassy on some floors and, say, a bank on others.

The reason for the misperception is probably that the Vienna Convention states that the local government foreswears the right to enter an embassy, and diplomatic immunity protects the diplomats working inside. However, this does not mean that that space is somehow transmuted into UK (or other) soil or legal territory for purposes of law enforcement.

[Badbanker]

Badbanker,

Aren't the grounds within a foreign embassy considered that countries soil. If you are in the American Embassy, you are in America, if you are in the British Embassy you are in the UK

Yes of course somewhat, but the trip from the embassy to the airport is Thailand and so comes under Thai law! There are a couple of people we would like to rendition, but then again that might not go down well in US or British courts very well.

I have seen 2 unfortunate accidental deaths in embassies and on both occasions the RTP came at the request of the embassy and did a full investigation and submitted full reports to all parties concerned. This proves the issues that Tywais is alluding to above.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Badbanker