Embattled Brit Lee Chestnutt Forced To Stay In Thailand

[Thai at Heart]

Not sure why so many think the landlord is at fault. None of you know the evidence. It could be the case that the tenant caused damage and stole stuff and the landlord wants to be compensated. Maybe the police dropped the case because they didn't think there was enough evidence to charge the tenant. But maybe the landlord doesn't agree. Imagine that you were a landlord and a tenant caused damage and stole stuff, would you let the tenant get away with it. Of course, I have no idea who's in the right or wrong here. But too many of you seem to think you know, when you have no idea.

If the tenant really did steal stuff, he's hardly likely to admit it, otherwise he might end up in jail, so he'd have to stick to his story. Same with the landlord. If he's in the right, he's going to keep pursuing this.

But we don't know, so it's a bit pointless speculating.

This doesn't seem like a Thai vs Farang battle, like many on here would like it to be. It's just landlord vs tenant. If you decide to live in a foreign country, then you have to accept that you are subject to the laws of that country. If you can't take that, then you shouldn't be here. It works the same the other way. In the UK there have been some foreigners locked up for years without even being charged with anything. At least this guy knows what he's fighting against. I'd rather be in Thailand fighting a case, than locked up in the UK without charges.

All possible, but read the above post....

[Remix4]

So one would expect to have an inventory of furnitures present at the property

Correct - and there was no inventory since it was an unfurnished property

[MunterHunter]

So one would expect to have an inventory of furnitures present at the property

Correct - and there was no inventory since it was an unfurnished property

So if no inventory was able to be produced by the plaintiff - counter signed by both parties - then the court would view the property as unfurnished, regardless of furniture being present or not.

[Para]

So one would expect to have an inventory of furnitures present at the property

Correct - and there was no inventory since it was an unfurnished property

So if no inventory was able to be produced by the plaintiff - counter signed by both parties - then the court would view the property as unfurnished, regardless of furniture being present or not.

As I have said the grounds for appeal are crazy.

What I don't understand is yes they have a 30 day window to appeal but that can be extended by a visit to the court before the 30 days is up. This can happen for a maximum of 3 times. The appeal court can't 'throw out' a case they can side with the criminal court and uphold the initial not guilty. If that was the case there is no option for the landlord/police to go to the supreme court as both criminal and appeal courts have found the person not guilty.

[FlamingBull]

There's no escaping Thailand my friend. As my momma always said - a chesnutt can never go far from the tree.

[FlamingBull]

There's no escaping Thailand my friend. As my momma always said - a chesnutt can never go far from the tree.

Edited January 16, 2013 by FlamingBull

[Thaddeus]

Hope that helps!

Immensely, thank you.

[davejones]

Not sure why so many think the landlord is at fault. None of you know the evidence. It could be the case that the tenant caused damage and stole stuff and the landlord wants to be compensated. Maybe the police dropped the case because they didn't think there was enough evidence to charge the tenant. But maybe the landlord doesn't agree. Imagine that you were a landlord and a tenant caused damage and stole stuff, would you let the tenant get away with it. Of course, I have no idea who's in the right or wrong here. But too many of you seem to think you know, when you have no idea.

If the tenant really did steal stuff, he's hardly likely to admit it, otherwise he might end up in jail, so he'd have to stick to his story. Same with the landlord. If he's in the right, he's going to keep pursuing this.

But we don't know, so it's a bit pointless speculating.

This doesn't seem like a Thai vs Farang battle, like many on here would like it to be. It's just landlord vs tenant. If you decide to live in a foreign country, then you have to accept that you are subject to the laws of that country. If you can't take that, then you shouldn't be here. It works the same the other way. In the UK there have been some foreigners locked up for years without even being charged with anything. At least this guy knows what he's fighting against. I'd rather be in Thailand fighting a case, than locked up in the UK without charges.

All possible, but read the above post....

And who's to say the above post is true. Just because someone comes on here and says it's true doesn't mean it is. These are very serious accusations, so I hope the poster can back up what he says with proof. I'm not saying git's not true, but we have no proof either way. It's just one person claiming to know. Probably someone from the landlord's side will also claim to know the opposite. But help if the reporting included more detail, instead of being so vague.

[Locationthailand]

Friend of mine moved a piece of furniture he owned out from his apartment via a balcony to a waiting truck as access was not possible from the landlord in the lower floor (smart ass). The landlord filed a complaint of malicious damage (where there was none ) more as a loss of trade to his shop whilst the large piece of furniture was being moved. The case actually went to court and after about two years, my friend got nailed for loss of profits and business interruption only, and made to pay 2,000 Baht and the matter was over. Some Thai's are really vindictive and none more so than greedy landlords. But what a ridiculous justice system.

[Remix4]

Not sure why so many think the landlord is at fault. None of you know the evidence. It could be the case that the tenant caused damage and stole stuff and the landlord wants to be compensated. Maybe the police dropped the case because they didn't think there was enough evidence to charge the tenant. But maybe the landlord doesn't agree. Imagine that you were a landlord and a tenant caused damage and stole stuff, would you let the tenant get away with it. Of course, I have no idea who's in the right or wrong here. But too many of you seem to think you know, when you have no idea.

If the tenant really did steal stuff, he's hardly likely to admit it, otherwise he might end up in jail, so he'd have to stick to his story. Same with the landlord. If he's in the right, he's going to keep pursuing this.

But we don't know, so it's a bit pointless speculating.

This doesn't seem like a Thai vs Farang battle, like many on here would like it to be. It's just landlord vs tenant. If you decide to live in a foreign country, then you have to accept that you are subject to the laws of that country. If you can't take that, then you shouldn't be here. It works the same the other way. In the UK there have been some foreigners locked up for years without even being charged with anything. At least this guy knows what he's fighting against. I'd rather be in Thailand fighting a case, than locked up in the UK without charges.

All possible, but read the above post....

And who's to say the above post is true. Just because someone comes on here and says it's true doesn't mean it is. These are very serious accusations, so I hope the poster can back up what he says with proof. I'm not saying git's not true, but we have no proof either way. It's just one person claiming to know. Probably someone from the landlord's side will also claim to know the opposite. But help if the reporting included more detail, instead of being so vague.

Didnt realise it was "vague". Anyway ... yes correct they are indeed very serious accusations. All my clarification does was point out the facts - NOT GUILTY verdict by 2 courts.

[Thai at Heart]

Not sure why so many think the landlord is at fault. None of you know the evidence. It could be the case that the tenant caused damage and stole stuff and the landlord wants to be compensated. Maybe the police dropped the case because they didn't think there was enough evidence to charge the tenant. But maybe the landlord doesn't agree. Imagine that you were a landlord and a tenant caused damage and stole stuff, would you let the tenant get away with it. Of course, I have no idea who's in the right or wrong here. But too many of you seem to think you know, when you have no idea.

If the tenant really did steal stuff, he's hardly likely to admit it, otherwise he might end up in jail, so he'd have to stick to his story. Same with the landlord. If he's in the right, he's going to keep pursuing this.

But we don't know, so it's a bit pointless speculating.

This doesn't seem like a Thai vs Farang battle, like many on here would like it to be. It's just landlord vs tenant. If you decide to live in a foreign country, then you have to accept that you are subject to the laws of that country. If you can't take that, then you shouldn't be here. It works the same the other way. In the UK there have been some foreigners locked up for years without even being charged with anything. At least this guy knows what he's fighting against. I'd rather be in Thailand fighting a case, than locked up in the UK without charges.

All possible, but read the above post....

And who's to say the above post is true. Just because someone comes on here and says it's true doesn't mean it is. These are very serious accusations, so I hope the poster can back up what he says with proof. I'm not saying git's not true, but we have no proof either way. It's just one person claiming to know. Probably someone from the landlord's side will also claim to know the opposite. But help if the reporting included more detail, instead of being so vague.

Well so far he has been found not guilty and was within a whisker of being allowed to go home. So, so far, the system appears to be taking his side. Of course, it could be that he did wreck the place, but so far, he keeps being found not guilty or, charges dismissed. So, if and when this concludes, and he is let go again, that would suggest he didn't do it right.

Of course, it could go the other way, but so far, it appears that the accusation isn't sticking. In which case, 3 or 4 years wasted, over a few hundred thousand baht accusation. I would imagine that the Embassy is watching this case,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-21024398

[Halion]

It is all rather strange and why this incident, whatever it was, has upset this landlord so much that he is still persuing the mater , is beyond comprehension. However, I do admire the no surrender mentality of Mr Lee Chestnutt, he claimed that he was innocent, the court ruled that he was innocent and yet the landlord still prevails in making this poor guys life a misery.

Perhaps the landlord is simply a typical money grabbing despot who tried his hand at extorsion and came up short in face , funds and status in the eyes of his family. Such people are a national treasure in this country and I have a soft spot for them in a rice field in Buri Ram. Parasites..

[animatic]

Surely there must be more to this issue than just some damaged furniture.

This comes down to the landlord losing face, and likely not much more than that.

Lose face, want revenge, to be seen, and his honor demands he do ANYTHING to win back his face.

Moronic abuse of social conventions.

Edited January 16, 2013 by animatic

[Remix4]

I would imagine that the Embassy is watching this case,

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ashire-21024398

The only thing the embassy watched were what are the latest fashions in pin-stripe suits, bowler hats and garden parties.

[Curt1591]

OK ... the ACTUAL facts (from someone who knows):

Hope that helps!

A source might help.

[Asiantravel]

Not sure why so many think the landlord is at fault. None of you know the evidence. It could be the case that the tenant caused damage and stole stuff and the landlord wants to be compensated. Maybe the police dropped the case because they didn't think there was enough evidence to charge the tenant. But maybe the landlord doesn't agree. Imagine that you were a landlord and a tenant caused damage and stole stuff, would you let the tenant get away with it. Of course, I have no idea who's in the right or wrong here. But too many of you seem to think you know, when you have no idea.

If the tenant really did steal stuff, he's hardly likely to admit it, otherwise he might end up in jail, so he'd have to stick to his story. Same with the landlord. If he's in the right, he's going to keep pursuing this.

But we don't know, so it's a bit pointless speculating.

This doesn't seem like a Thai vs Farang battle, like many on here would like it to be. It's just landlord vs tenant. If you decide to live in a foreign country, then you have to accept that you are subject to the laws of that country. If you can't take that, then you shouldn't be here. It works the same the other way. In the UK there have been some foreigners locked up for years without even being charged with anything. At least this guy knows what he's fighting against. I'd rather be in Thailand fighting a case, than locked up in the UK without charges.

All possible, but read the above post....

And who's to say the above post is true. Just because someone comes on here and says it's true doesn't mean it is. These are very serious accusations, so I hope the poster can back up what he says with proof. I'm not saying git's not true, but we have no proof either way. It's just one person claiming to know. Probably someone from the landlord's side will also claim to know the opposite. But help if the reporting included more detail, instead of being so vague.

oh come on! Are you saying you have never encountered a landlord who has tried it on? You really have to be careful of who you deal with when renting property.

In one apartment I rented in Bangkok, the varnish on the wooden floors had simply worn off in some places but she tried to get me to pay for the entire floor to be re- varnished. Fortunately I simply pointed to the fair wear and tear clause and she backed off.

I would really hope that Lee Chestnutt gets the opportunity at some point to publicise the name and whereabouts of this landlord so that another foreigner isn't potentially put in this situation.

[lensta]

OK ... the ACTUAL facts (from someone who knows):

1. 3.5 years ago plaintiff attempted to extort 500,000 THB and threatened with copies of passports and an arrest warrant. 2 plaintiffs - a) retired high ranking police officer & b ) employee of Thai embassy in London

2. Defendants refused to pay and were arrested walking out of the meeting in Starbucks. Spent one night in jail - released on bail following day.

3. 2 charges - a) theft of 5 pieces of furniture (from an UNFURNISHED house) 200,000 THB & b ) criminal damage of 192,000 THB (which they did not commit)

4. Court verdict NOT GUILTY 18th Jan 2010

5. Plaintiffs appealed ONLY ONE charge (criminal damage). First court refused to back the appeal and said that the charges cannot be split. Prosecutor backed the appeal and was therefore accepted by 1st appeal court.

6. Appeal court verdict 4th Dec 2012 - NOT GUILTY

7. Waited 30 days for documents to clear in order to handle immigration and be able to leave. Court confirmed documents cleared 10th Jan 2013

8. 14th Jan 2013 - Documents revoked and immigration block not removed due to request by Plaintiffs to have a 60 day extension to allow appeal to be submitted to Supreme Court (still only the criminal damage charge).

Hope that helps!

Yes, it does help and the best part is it has shut Nisa up. I remember him from his posts supporting the underage driver that hit the mini van killing 9 people.

[Thai at Heart]

I would imagine that the Embassy is watching this case,

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ashire-21024398

The only thing the embassy watched were what are the latest fashions in pin-stripe suits, bowler hats and garden parties.

Watching is all I said.

[Nisa]

OK ... the ACTUAL facts (from someone who knows):

1. 3.5 years ago plaintiff attempted to extort 500,000 THB and threatened with copies of passports and an arrest warrant. 2 plaintiffs - a) retired high ranking police officer & b ) employee of Thai embassy in London

2. Defendants refused to pay and were arrested walking out of the meeting in Starbucks. Spent one night in jail - released on bail following day.

3. 2 charges - a) theft of 5 pieces of furniture (from an UNFURNISHED house) 200,000 THB & b ) criminal damage of 192,000 THB (which they did not commit)

4. Court verdict NOT GUILTY 18th Jan 2010

5. Plaintiffs appealed ONLY ONE charge (criminal damage). First court refused to back the appeal and said that the charges cannot be split. Prosecutor backed the appeal and was therefore accepted by 1st appeal court.

6. Appeal court verdict 4th Dec 2012 - NOT GUILTY

7. Waited 30 days for documents to clear in order to handle immigration and be able to leave. Court confirmed documents cleared 10th Jan 2013

8. 14th Jan 2013 - Documents revoked and immigration block not removed due to request by Plaintiffs to have a 60 day extension to allow appeal to be submitted to Supreme Court (still only the criminal damage charge).

Hope that helps!

Mr Chestnutt's parents, Pat and Bruce Chestnutt, said charges against him were dropped in 2011 but he could not leave the country then as his former landlord lodged an appeal.

That appeal was not upheld in December ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ashire-21024398

You appear to have one date wrong and according to numerous news sources also the fact he was ever found not guilty. Charges being dismissed and appeal not upheld are significantly different than a Not Guilty verdict or being cleared of charges.

Any link to the other info such as the 500,000 demand for furniture in an unfurnished apartment or even the landlord's name and employment? Also curious why the tenant has not filed extortion attempts against landlord ... seems the court is not impressed with his background and employment ... Also wonder why no mention of the landlords status and why nobody has petitioned the UK for the expulsion of this UK staff member who is clearly an extortionist of at least one UK Citizen.

Above all links would be helpful or it will simply be another peeing contest between some internet poster who comes on to say it was 20k worth of furniture he was seen stealing.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Nisa

[Bagwan]

I don't think that this matter would ever have got to court in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service would have decided that there was little hope of a conviction and decided that they had better things to do with their time. I assume there would be only one avenue open for the complainant and that would be to resort of Civil law which means that the defendant could leave the country unhindered. My guess is that there are a few living here in Thailand that have taken advantage of that. Further more it is one thing to win a civil case and and entirely different one in getting any decision enforced.

Being held in lengthy custody in the UK without charges being brought is, as far as I know, only at the prerogative and with permission of the Home Secretary. There are a few Muslim extremists held under this edict, one of who was recently finally extradited to the US and others may well follow him out of the country. Persons may not be detained by the UK police for more than 24 hours but this may be extended to 36 hours with the express permission of a Police Superintendent, and for up to 96 hours with the permission of a magistrate. An exception is made to those arrested under the Terrorism Act and these persons may be held for up to 14 days. I very much doubt the veracity of a statement on this subject a few posts above.

[Nisa]

Comments and info from accused and family this Christmas ... http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local-news/crime/freed-son-tells-of-thai-nightmare-1-5249090

[smutcakes]

Not sure why so many think the landlord is at fault. None of you know the evidence. It could be the case that the tenant caused damage and stole stuff and the landlord wants to be compensated. Maybe the police dropped the case because they didn't think there was enough evidence to charge the tenant. But maybe the landlord doesn't agree. Imagine that you were a landlord and a tenant caused damage and stole stuff, would you let the tenant get away with it. Of course, I have no idea who's in the right or wrong here. But too many of you seem to think you know, when you have no idea.

If the tenant really did steal stuff, he's hardly likely to admit it, otherwise he might end up in jail, so he'd have to stick to his story. Same with the landlord. If he's in the right, he's going to keep pursuing this.

But we don't know, so it's a bit pointless speculating.

This doesn't seem like a Thai vs Farang battle, like many on here would like it to be. It's just landlord vs tenant. If you decide to live in a foreign country, then you have to accept that you are subject to the laws of that country. If you can't take that, then you shouldn't be here. It works the same the other way. In the UK there have been some foreigners locked up for years without even being charged with anything. At least this guy knows what he's fighting against. I'd rather be in Thailand fighting a case, than locked up in the UK without charges.

All possible, but read the above post....

And who's to say the above post is true. Just because someone comes on here and says it's true doesn't mean it is. These are very serious accusations, so I hope the poster can back up what he says with proof. I'm not saying git's not true, but we have no proof either way. It's just one person claiming to know. Probably someone from the landlord's side will also claim to know the opposite. But help if the reporting included more detail, instead of being so vague.

oh come on! Are you saying you have never encountered a landlord who has tried it on? You really have to be careful of who you deal with when renting property.

In one apartment I rented in Bangkok, the varnish on the wooden floors had simply worn off in some places but she tried to get me to pay for the entire floor to be re- varnished. Fortunately I simply pointed to the fair wear and tear clause and she backed off.

I would really hope that Lee Chestnutt gets the opportunity at some point to publicise the name and whereabouts of this landlord so that another foreigner isn't potentially put in this situation.

No doubt that some landlords can be problematic, but so can many tenants. I have seen both, and I would hazard a guess that problem tenants are probably a more common occurance. I am not saying this is the case here though.

[Nisa]

I don't think that this matter would ever have got to court in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service would have decided that there was little hope of a conviction and decided that they had better things to do with their time. I assume there would be only one avenue open for the complainant and that would be to resort of Civil law which means that the defendant could leave the country unhindered. My guess is that there are a few living here in Thailand that have taken advantage of that. Further more it is one thing to win a civil case and and entirely different one in getting any decision enforced.

Being held in lengthy custody in the UK without charges being brought is, as far as I know, only at the prerogative and with permission of the Home Secretary. There are a few Muslim extremists held under this edict, one of who was recently finally extradited to the US and others may well follow him out of the country. Persons may not be detained by the UK police for more than 24 hours but this may be extended to 36 hours with the express permission of a Police Superintendent, and for up to 96 hours with the permission of a magistrate. An exception is made to those arrested under the Terrorism Act and these persons may be held for up to 14 days. I very much doubt the veracity of a statement on this subject a few posts above.

You are talking about being held in jail and the only reference to this guy going to jail was by a poster who says he spent one night in jail. I think having pending criminal charges against you in the UK would prevent you from leaving the country (citizen or not) without permission. The other comments are understandable and understand this may likely be dealt with in a civil matter in the US too but not only do we not know all the facts but more importantly, in Thailand individuals are free to bring criminal charges on their own and although not the same a bit similar to filing a civil complaint against somebody in the US that can also be dismissed if without merit, not filed properly or for a host of other reasons that can or cannot have to do with the person being responsible for damages.

Bottom line is guilty or not it is a nightmare to be in a country, where you don't speak the language (according to his Facebook he knows English, Indonesian, Melayu), and get caught up in their legal system that is much different than your own.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Nisa

[Thai at Heart]

I don't think that this matter would ever have got to court in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service would have decided that there was little hope of a conviction and decided that they had better things to do with their time. I assume there would be only one avenue open for the complainant and that would be to resort of Civil law which means that the defendant could leave the country unhindered. My guess is that there are a few living here in Thailand that have taken advantage of that. Further more it is one thing to win a civil case and and entirely different one in getting any decision enforced.

Being held in lengthy custody in the UK without charges being brought is, as far as I know, only at the prerogative and with permission of the Home Secretary. There are a few Muslim extremists held under this edict, one of who was recently finally extradited to the US and others may well follow him out of the country. Persons may not be detained by the UK police for more than 24 hours but this may be extended to 36 hours with the express permission of a Police Superintendent, and for up to 96 hours with the permission of a magistrate. An exception is made to those arrested under the Terrorism Act and these persons may be held for up to 14 days. I very much doubt the veracity of a statement on this subject a few posts above.

You are talking about being held in jail and the only reference to this guy going to jail was by a poster who says he spent one night in jail. The other comments are understandable and understand this may likely be dealt with in a civil matter in the US too but not only do we not know all the facts but more importantly, in Thailand individuals are free to bring criminal charges on their own and although not the same a bit similar to filing a civil complaint against somebody that can also be dismissed if without merit, not filed properly or for a host of other reasons.

Bottom line is guilty or not it is a nightmare to be in a country, where you don't speak the language (according to his Facebook he knows English, Indonesian, Melayu), and get caught up in their legal system that is much different than your own.

It is bizarre that an individual can bring a private criminal complaint don't you think? Would be better if this was only possible from the police who judge if the accusation is worth pursuing.

[darrendsd]

Supposedly this has gone on for three years ... right or wrong sometimes it is better to just suck it up and pay then worrying about being right. How much can the furniture have cost compared to lawyer fees and what has been reported he has had to deal with including appeals to the Supreme Court.

And why would somebody need an exit visa if the case had been cleared? If he thought the matter was cleared up. I'd think he would just head to the airport. I am not experienced in such matters but thought you only need an exit visa if you were a citizen of a nation that has travel restrictions or there were legal issues such as an ongoing case which seems to be the circumstances here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...hester-20589033

Had a friend in a similar situation a few weeks ago, he had to get a letter from the court to say the case was concluded and show this letter to Immigration at the Airport before he could fly, this was around 2 weeks after his case ended, without that letter he would not have been able to leave Thailand

[Remix4]

I don't think that this matter would ever have got to court in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service would have decided that there was little hope of a conviction and decided that they had better things to do with their time. I assume there would be only one avenue open for the complainant and that would be to resort of Civil law which means that the defendant could leave the country unhindered. My guess is that there are a few living here in Thailand that have taken advantage of that. Further more it is one thing to win a civil case and and entirely different one in getting any decision enforced.

Being held in lengthy custody in the UK without charges being brought is, as far as I know, only at the prerogative and with permission of the Home Secretary. There are a few Muslim extremists held under this edict, one of who was recently finally extradited to the US and others may well follow him out of the country. Persons may not be detained by the UK police for more than 24 hours but this may be extended to 36 hours with the express permission of a Police Superintendent, and for up to 96 hours with the permission of a magistrate. An exception is made to those arrested under the Terrorism Act and these persons may be held for up to 14 days. I very much doubt the veracity of a statement on this subject a few posts above.

You are talking about being held in jail and the only reference to this guy going to jail was by a poster who says he spent one night in jail. The other comments are understandable and understand this may likely be dealt with in a civil matter in the US too but not only do we not know all the facts but more importantly, in Thailand individuals are free to bring criminal charges on their own and although not the same a bit similar to filing a civil complaint against somebody that can also be dismissed if without merit, not filed properly or for a host of other reasons.

Bottom line is guilty or not it is a nightmare to be in a country, where you don't speak the language (according to his Facebook he knows English, Indonesian, Melayu), and get caught up in their legal system that is much different than your own.

It is bizarre that an individual can bring a private criminal complaint don't you think? Would be better if this was only possible from the police who judge if the accusation is worth pursuing.

Totally agree. Thailand also allows private prosecution lawyers and in this case they had both a public and private prosecutor (not sure how common this is in other countries)

[Thai at Heart]

I don't think that this matter would ever have got to court in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service would have decided that there was little hope of a conviction and decided that they had better things to do with their time. I assume there would be only one avenue open for the complainant and that would be to resort of Civil law which means that the defendant could leave the country unhindered. My guess is that there are a few living here in Thailand that have taken advantage of that. Further more it is one thing to win a civil case and and entirely different one in getting any decision enforced.

Being held in lengthy custody in the UK without charges being brought is, as far as I know, only at the prerogative and with permission of the Home Secretary. There are a few Muslim extremists held under this edict, one of who was recently finally extradited to the US and others may well follow him out of the country. Persons may not be detained by the UK police for more than 24 hours but this may be extended to 36 hours with the express permission of a Police Superintendent, and for up to 96 hours with the permission of a magistrate. An exception is made to those arrested under the Terrorism Act and these persons may be held for up to 14 days. I very much doubt the veracity of a statement on this subject a few posts above.

You are talking about being held in jail and the only reference to this guy going to jail was by a poster who says he spent one night in jail. The other comments are understandable and understand this may likely be dealt with in a civil matter in the US too but not only do we not know all the facts but more importantly, in Thailand individuals are free to bring criminal charges on their own and although not the same a bit similar to filing a civil complaint against somebody that can also be dismissed if without merit, not filed properly or for a host of other reasons.

Bottom line is guilty or not it is a nightmare to be in a country, where you don't speak the language (according to his Facebook he knows English, Indonesian, Melayu), and get caught up in their legal system that is much different than your own.

It is bizarre that an individual can bring a private criminal complaint don't you think? Would be better if this was only possible from the police who judge if the accusation is worth pursuing.

Totally agree. Thailand also allows private prosecution lawyers and in this case they had both a public and private prosecutor (not sure how common this is in other countries)

If nothing else, i am getting an education about the Thai system.

Can the accused sue for loss of earnings?

[mca]

Mr Chestnutt's parents, Pat and Bruce Chestnutt,

I've got a mental image of a couple of squirrels sitting in a tree with one in a flat cap smoking a pipe and the other in a hairnet and rollers....

Edited January 16, 2013 by mca

[monkeycountry]

Just out of general curiosity. If someone (not Mr. Lee) is forced to stay in Thailand by a court, has no money and no family or bank who can/will pay, and is not allowed to work in Thailand. Then who pays for food, shelter etc? Is Thailand, or the persons home country legally obliged to pay?

[monkeycountry]

"He has to wait for a visa to be approved, allowing him to leave Thailand.

But that itself is not without drama, as it will cost him £800 in fines for overstaying a visa he never had."

Minor detail, but Thailand in a nutshell :-D