Icelander in Thailand Prison Released

Richard Barrow

BANGKOK: -- Icelandic citizen Brynjar Mettinisson has been released from prison in Thailand after having been in custody since May 2011. Brynjar had been accused of drug offenses but was found innocent in August.

Despite having been acquitted in August, Brynjar had to remain in prison while the prosecution decided whether to appeal.

Full story: http://www.thaipriso...rison-released/

-- Thai Prison Life 2012-10-10

Found innocent. That must be a first? What is the story with this...

Still held despite innocence?

And 3 cops sentenced to death a couple of months ago were released on bail awaiting appeal

Sure we are equal in the eyes of the law !

Some might want to know the name and number of his ... lawyer.

I want to know who trims his beard in prison.

Not being able to afford bail sucks in just about any country but expect to even have to pay even more when in a foreign country as you are a much higher flight risk.

However, I am not sure if this story is completely non-biased as he couldn't have been found innocent but at best he was judged not-guilty which could have been do to numerous things from his actual innocence to the prosecution filing a paper late. Unlike some other countries, obviously both sides have the right to appeal a verdict. One should be familiar, not surprised, by such laws when visiting or living in another country they are not a citizen.

As for justice being applied differently ... Chuvit Kamolvisit, the leader of Rak Thailand Party, was sentenced to five years (without suspension) last month by an Appeals Court, overriding a lower court's decision acquitting him 6-years ago in the 2003 Sukhumvit Square beer bar demolition case.

Not being able to afford bail sucks in just about any country but expect to even have to pay even more when in a foreign country as you are a much higher flight risk.

However, I am not sure if this story is completely non-biased as he couldn't have been found innocent but at best he was judged not-guilty which could have been do to numerous things from his actual innocence to the prosecution filing a paper late. Unlike some other countries, obviously both sides have the right to appeal a verdict. One should be familiar, not surprised, by such laws when visiting or living in another country they are not a citizen.

As for justice being applied differently ... Chuvit Kamolvisit, the leader of Rak Thailand Party, was sentenced to five years (without suspension) last month by an Appeals Court, overriding a lower court's decision acquitting him 6-years ago in the 2003 Sukhumvit Square beer bar demolition case.

And how many days do you think Khun Chuvit is going to spend behind bars ? I'll bet you, a lot less time than our "innocent" friend from Iceland!

And 3 cops sentenced to death a couple of months ago were released on bail awaiting appeal

Sure we are equal in the eyes of the law !

Exactly what I thought... guilty out on bail while the acquitted have to stay in jail....

If my understanding is correct, he is with his mother in Sweden and he misses prison.

http://www.ruv.is/frett/saknar-fangelsisins

Not being able to afford bail sucks in just about any country but expect to even have to pay even more when in a foreign country as you are a much higher flight risk.

However, I am not sure if this story is completely non-biased as he couldn't have been found innocent but at best he was judged not-guilty which could have been do to numerous things from his actual innocence to the prosecution filing a paper late. Unlike some other countries, obviously both sides have the right to appeal a verdict. One should be familiar, not surprised, by such laws when visiting or living in another country they are not a citizen.

As for justice being applied differently ... Chuvit Kamolvisit, the leader of Rak Thailand Party, was sentenced to five years (without suspension) last month by an Appeals Court, overriding a lower court's decision acquitting him 6-years ago in the 2003 Sukhumvit Square beer bar demolition case.

Maybe they could put this on the Thai tourism advertisements.

"People are often arrested and charged for crimes they haven't committed. Even if you're innocent, you won't be released straight away. Don't be surprised by our laws and enjoy your stay"

Any advice as to how to not be arrested for a crime you haven't committed?

Not being able to afford bail sucks in just about any country but expect to even have to pay even more when in a foreign country as you are a much higher flight risk.

However, I am not sure if this story is completely non-biased as he couldn't have been found innocent but at best he was judged not-guilty which could have been do to numerous things from his actual innocence to the prosecution filing a paper late. Unlike some other countries, obviously both sides have the right to appeal a verdict. One should be familiar, not surprised, by such laws when visiting or living in another country they are not a citizen.

As for justice being applied differently ... Chuvit Kamolvisit, the leader of Rak Thailand Party, was sentenced to five years (without suspension) last month by an Appeals Court, overriding a lower court's decision acquitting him 6-years ago in the 2003 Sukhumvit Square beer bar demolition case.

You say this man couldn't be found innocent but at best judged not guilty. So by your reckoning if someone is found not guilty then they must be guilty of something, right?

If my understanding is correct, he is with his mother in Sweden and he misses prison.

http://www.ruv.is/fr...ar-fangelsisins

In addition, my understanding was that he was accused of being conspiracy to transport methamphetamine to Japan . He was arrested with an Australian national at a Bangok hotel. The drugs were not on his person. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Why is it a shock that foreigners are subjected to stricter bail conditions when they habitually flee the country when released? seems to be a whiff of hypocrisy here, people complaining that he can't get bail, who would also advise him to run out of the country if he got a chance.

Not being able to afford bail sucks in just about any country but expect to even have to pay even more when in a foreign country as you are a much higher flight risk.

However, I am not sure if this story is completely non-biased as he couldn't have been found innocent but at best he was judged not-guilty which could have been do to numerous things from his actual innocence to the prosecution filing a paper late. Unlike some other countries, obviously both sides have the right to appeal a verdict. One should be familiar, not surprised, by such laws when visiting or living in another country they are not a citizen.

As for justice being applied differently ... Chuvit Kamolvisit, the leader of Rak Thailand Party, was sentenced to five years (without suspension) last month by an Appeals Court, overriding a lower court's decision acquitting him 6-years ago in the 2003 Sukhumvit Square beer bar demolition case.

And how many days do you think Khun Chuvit is going to spend behind bars ? I'll bet you, a lot less time than our "innocent" friend from Iceland!

As stated in the first line above ... Not being able to afford bail sucks in just about any country but expect to even have to pay even more when in a foreign country as you are a much higher flight risk.

This guy was offered bail but couldn't afford it. Bail was almost certainly higher because of his high flight and the fact his charges were likely more serious and may have even carried the death penalty since he was accused of trying to arrange to to smuggle one liter of methamphetamine ... which he reportedly thought was legal (according to his girlfriend).

As for Kamolvisit, not sure how much time he has spent behind jail (probably on another thread) but recall he has spent time in prison as he made accusations about the prison wardens along with others and know he spent a month in jail when arrested before being granted and/or posting bail.

Edited October 10, 201213 yr by Nisa

Why is it a shock that foreigners are subjected to stricter bail conditions when they habitually flee the country when released? seems to be a whiff of hypocrisy here, people complaining that he can't get bail, who would also advise him to run out of the country if he got a chance.

Of course in their home country this would make sense to them but being a foreigner in Thailand it doesn't. (See a pattern here )

Still held despite innocence?

Amazing considering they let men condemned to death out pending appeal..

Not being able to afford bail sucks in just about any country but expect to even have to pay even more when in a foreign country as you are a much higher flight risk.

However, I am not sure if this story is completely non-biased as he couldn't have been found innocent but at best he was judged not-guilty which could have been do to numerous things from his actual innocence to the prosecution filing a paper late. Unlike some other countries, obviously both sides have the right to appeal a verdict. One should be familiar, not surprised, by such laws when visiting or living in another country they are not a citizen.

As for justice being applied differently ... Chuvit Kamolvisit, the leader of Rak Thailand Party, was sentenced to five years (without suspension) last month by an Appeals Court, overriding a lower court's decision acquitting him 6-years ago in the 2003 Sukhumvit Square beer bar demolition case.

You say this man couldn't be found innocent but at best judged not guilty. So by your reckoning if someone is found not guilty then they must be guilty of something, right?

Nope - your reckoning is clearly incorrect. As is common knowledge and both legally and realistically correct ... just because somebody is acquitted (found not guilty) it by no means means they didn't commit the crime (innocent), it just means it couldn't be proved legally. Criminal Courts in Thailand (and most places) don't declare people innocence, they simply decide if they are guilty beyond reasonably doubt/certainty. So, it is possible, but unlikely, even a person judged guilty is innocent but certainly many more people judged not-guilty did in fact commit the crime they were accused.

Bottom line, glad to see the guy is out and on his way home (guilty or not). If he did wrong or was hanging out with the wrong people, hopefully this was a big needed wake up call to change his path in life. If he was completely innocent, I hope he can put this behind him and realize he is not alone and move on with life, possibly using the experience to make a living while bettering his and other's lives who have have or are facing similar situations.

Edited October 10, 201213 yr by Nisa

Poor guy, 19 months in jail for nothing, thailand know definitively how to ruin somebody's else life.

Pretty sure that the crooked royal thai police were just looking for some bribe, that he canot afford.

Edited October 10, 201213 yr by Bender

Not being able to afford bail sucks in just about any country but expect to even have to pay even more when in a foreign country as you are a much higher flight risk.

However, I am not sure if this story is completely non-biased as he couldn't have been found innocent but at best he was judged not-guilty which could have been do to numerous things from his actual innocence to the prosecution filing a paper late. Unlike some other countries, obviously both sides have the right to appeal a verdict. One should be familiar, not surprised, by such laws when visiting or living in another country they are not a citizen.

As for justice being applied differently ... Chuvit Kamolvisit, the leader of Rak Thailand Party, was sentenced to five years (without suspension) last month by an Appeals Court, overriding a lower court's decision acquitting him 6-years ago in the 2003 Sukhumvit Square beer bar demolition case.

You say this man couldn't be found innocent but at best judged not guilty. So by your reckoning if someone is found not guilty then they must be guilty of something, right?

Nope - your reckoning is clearly incorrect. As is common knowledge and both legally and realistically correct ... just because somebody is acquitted (found not guilty) it by no means means they didn't commit the crime (innocent), it just means it couldn't be proved legally. Criminal Courts in Thailand (and most places) don't declare people innocence, they simply decide if they are guilty beyond reasonably doubt/certainty. So, it is possible, but unlikely, even a person judged guilty is innocent but certainly many more people judged not-guilty did in fact commit the crime they were accused.

OK so in a court of law when someone is judged as not guilty I will refer to your comment and class then as guilty.

Why not get rid of courts where the defense can produce evidence to prove innocence because they must be guilty of something.

I know your agenda is to defend this legal procedure which I actually agree with. But to make a sweeping statement that people are never wrongly accused is wrong.

I could say if someone is guilty then it is incredibly easy to gather evidence and convict, thus proving guilt.

Pretty sure that the crooked royal thai police were just looking for some bribe, that he canot afford.

So, in your mind, the police got together and decided to risk their jobs, income, power and freedom all to conspire and fabricate evidence (or conspired with the court and prosecutors) to go after an innocent guy without money in hopes of getting a bribe despite their being tons of actual criminals and those with money to extort and of course continuing to put great effort into this plot long after they determined there was no money to be got?

Not being able to afford bail sucks in just about any country but expect to even have to pay even more when in a foreign country as you are a much higher flight risk.

However, I am not sure if this story is completely non-biased as he couldn't have been found innocent but at best he was judged not-guilty which could have been do to numerous things from his actual innocence to the prosecution filing a paper late. Unlike some other countries, obviously both sides have the right to appeal a verdict. One should be familiar, not surprised, by such laws when visiting or living in another country they are not a citizen.

As for justice being applied differently ... Chuvit Kamolvisit, the leader of Rak Thailand Party, was sentenced to five years (without suspension) last month by an Appeals Court, overriding a lower court's decision acquitting him 6-years ago in the 2003 Sukhumvit Square beer bar demolition case.

You say this man couldn't be found innocent but at best judged not guilty. So by your reckoning if someone is found not guilty then they must be guilty of something, right?

Nope - your reckoning is clearly incorrect. As is common knowledge and both legally and realistically correct ... just because somebody is acquitted (found not guilty) it by no means means they didn't commit the crime (innocent), it just means it couldn't be proved legally. Criminal Courts in Thailand (and most places) don't declare people innocence, they simply decide if they are guilty beyond reasonably doubt/certainty. So, it is possible, but unlikely, even a person judged guilty is innocent but certainly many more people judged not-guilty did in fact commit the crime they were accused.

OK so in a court of law when someone is judged as not guilty I will refer to your comment and class then as guilty.

Why not get rid of courts where the defense can produce evidence to prove innocence because they must be guilty of something.

I know your agenda is to defend this legal procedure which I actually agree with. But to make a sweeping statement that people are never wrongly accused is wrong.

I could say if someone is guilty then it is incredibly easy to gather evidence and convict, thus proving guilt.

Sorry but I have no idea what you are saying or trying to debate but get the feeling you are going out of your way to misinterpret what I thought I clearly stated and believed was fairly common knowledge with those familiar with the courts.

Thailand's legal system gives great weight in sentencing and remand or bail decisions on one's standing and position in Thai society, far more than Western legal systems. This guy as a foreigner had zero standing, bail would have been far less likely to have offered or would have been offered at a far higher cost than say to a policeman or army sergeant.

That's how it works.

Not being able to afford bail sucks in just about any country but expect to even have to pay even more when in a foreign country as you are a much higher flight risk.

However, I am not sure if this story is completely non-biased as he couldn't have been found innocent but at best he was judged not-guilty which could have been do to numerous things from his actual innocence to the prosecution filing a paper late. Unlike some other countries, obviously both sides have the right to appeal a verdict. One should be familiar, not surprised, by such laws when visiting or living in another country they are not a citizen.

As for justice being applied differently ... Chuvit Kamolvisit, the leader of Rak Thailand Party, was sentenced to five years (without suspension) last month by an Appeals Court, overriding a lower court's decision acquitting him 6-years ago in the 2003 Sukhumvit Square beer bar demolition case.

You say this man couldn't be found innocent but at best judged not guilty. So by your reckoning if someone is found not guilty then they must be guilty of something, right?

Nope - your reckoning is clearly incorrect. As is common knowledge and both legally and realistically correct ... just because somebody is acquitted (found not guilty) it by no means means they didn't commit the crime (innocent), it just means it couldn't be proved legally. Criminal Courts in Thailand (and most places) don't declare people innocence, they simply decide if they are guilty beyond reasonably doubt/certainty. So, it is possible, but unlikely, even a person judged guilty is innocent but certainly many more people judged not-guilty did in fact commit the crime they were accused.

I thought one was to generally be considered innocent until proven guilty. There is also typically a very short time, like 30 days, to appeal decisions in civilized countries. Can any one name any other country that allows a criminal court system to detain an accused that has been acquitted even if on a technicality.

Sorry but I have no idea what you are saying or trying to debate but get the feeling you are going out of your way to misinterpret what I thought I clearly stated and believed was fairly common knowledge with those familiar with the courts.

You stated "he couldn't be found innocent but at best was judged not guilty".

I am not debating, you have clearly judged him as guilty. This happens all the time on here with people like yourself becoming judge and jury.

You have ruled out the fact he maybe innocent and backed it up by saying that is how the court system works.

A court is there to prove both innocence and guilt.

He should sue the RTP at the ECHR, this whole story is really disgusting

I thought one was to generally be considered innocent until proven guilty. There is also typically a very short time, like 30 days, to appeal decisions in civilized countries. Can any one name any other country that allows a criminal court system to detain an accused that has been acquitted even if on a technicality.

I believe they only have 30-days in Thailand to continue to hold somebody while the prosecutor decides to file an appeal ... as I believe was the case in the OP.

As for prosecutors being able to appeal a Not Guilty verdict, it is common in many countries. The only place I know for sure prosecutors in the same jurisdiction can not retry anyone for a crime, under no circumstances, that has been found Not Guilty, is the US ... though I am guessing there may be others. In many (if not all) the countries that can appeal a Not Guilty verdict, they can also request bail and/or detainment of the accused, just like before the trial.

As for "innocent until proven guilty", it is a concept for Judges and Juries to use while considering a person's guilt and is not a reality as to the person's actual responsibility for the crime. In fact, when a person is held over for trial both here and much of the west, it is because it has been determined that there is a good chance the person committed the crime.

Sorry but I have no idea what you are saying or trying to debate but get the feeling you are going out of your way to misinterpret what I thought I clearly stated and believed was fairly common knowledge with those familiar with the courts.

You stated "he couldn't be found innocent but at best was judged not guilty".

I am not debating, you have clearly judged him as guilty. This happens all the time on here with people like yourself becoming judge and jury.

You have ruled out the fact he maybe innocent and backed it up by saying that is how the court system works.

A court is there to prove both innocence and guilt.

As I have stated to an annoying level now ... Courts do not find people "innocent" and I never came close to saying I thought he was guilty. And I have stated without contradiction he may be completely innocent of any wrong doing regarding this case.

I'd love to debate but it is getting old your continued insistence I am saying things I am not or that I have in anyway judged this person's innocence of the crime as well as your failing to comprehend a the court doesn't rule people innocent and a defendant doesn't have to prove they are innocent to earn an acquittal or not guilt verdict. An acquittal simple means the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to convict the person or the accused was able to provide enough doubt they didn't commit the crime. It is a good system and I agree with it and don't believe anyone should have to prove their innocence to earn an acquittal.

Edited October 10, 201213 yr by Nisa

Not being able to afford bail sucks in just about any country but expect to even have to pay even more when in a foreign country as you are a much higher flight risk.

However, I am not sure if this story is completely non-biased as he couldn't have been found innocent but at best he was judged not-guilty which could have been do to numerous things from his actual innocence to the prosecution filing a paper late. Unlike some other countries, obviously both sides have the right to appeal a verdict. One should be familiar, not surprised, by such laws when visiting or living in another country they are not a citizen.

As for justice being applied differently ... Chuvit Kamolvisit, the leader of Rak Thailand Party, was sentenced to five years (without suspension) last month by an Appeals Court, overriding a lower court's decision acquitting him 6-years ago in the 2003 Sukhumvit Square beer bar demolition case.

You say this man couldn't be found innocent but at best judged not guilty. So by your reckoning if someone is found not guilty then they must be guilty of something, right?

Nope - your reckoning is clearly incorrect. As is common knowledge and both legally and realistically correct ... just because somebody is acquitted (found not guilty) it by no means means they didn't commit the crime (innocent), it just means it couldn't be proved legally. Criminal Courts in Thailand (and most places) don't declare people innocence, they simply decide if they are guilty beyond reasonably doubt/certainty. So, it is possible, but unlikely, even a person judged guilty is innocent but certainly many more people judged not-guilty did in fact commit the crime they were accused.

Considering this logic, the lack of custody of evidence, the ability to force confessions and all the other dodgy crap that can go on in the west, and even more so here, i would contend that his mate had the drugs and he didn't.

faith in what can be proven, with a farang being found not guilty on this context is an absolute miracle.