BULLET PROOF JACKET CASE
HK photographer allowed to leave Thailand, still faces charges

BANGKOK - A Thai court on Monday said a Hong Kong photographer detained for carrying a bullet proof jacket and helmet was free to leave the country, although he still could face five years in jail on a weapons charge.

Anthony Kwan Hok-chun, who works for the Hong Kong-based Initium media group, was held by police on August 23 after trying to depart Suvarnabhumi airport.

He had been in the country to cover the aftermath of the deadly Bangkok shrine bomb and had packed the personal protection equipment as a precaution for the assignment.

He was arrested as he tried to leave the country for having a flak jacket and a helmet in his hand luggage and was bailed nearly two days later and forbidden from leaving the country.

Both items are classified as weapons under Thai law and Kwan was charged with breaching the country’s Arms Control Act.

At a bail hearing at Samut Prakhan provincial court Monday morning, the photojournalist was returned his passport and told he could leave, Kwan and his lawyer told AFP.

However the charge remains in place and he must return for a further bail hearing on September 17.

"I got my passport back, still waiting for the paperwork," Kwan told AFP in a text message after the hearing.

Asked whether he would leave Thailand he replied: "No plan as of now. Need to discuss with my lawyer and company."

Sirikan Charoensiri, his lawyer, confirmed the court’s decision.

Thailand’s classification of common protection equipment as a weapon that needs to be licensed has been criticised by media groups, who say such precautions are vital in a country where political violence routinely spills onto the streets.

Attempts by media groups over the years to seek permission from authorities to carry such items have fallen on deaf ears despite the country’s long history of deadly street protests and a festering insurgency in the deep south.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/HK-photographer-allowed-to-leave-Thailand-still-fa-30268301.html

-- The Nation 2015-09-07

It is (almost) common sense to let him go then quietly toss the charge into the trash bin and send him an email later saying "Sorry about that and you don't need to come back now".

That would be applied common sense. Rarer than hens teeth in Thailand.

Or better still just let him leave the country in the first place,he was leaving

with the "weapons of war",not trying to enter.or he could have said he did

know it was in his luggage, worked for someone else with a gun !

regards Worgeordie

Is the country getting sillier or what?

A doctor locked up as a danger to society and now a journalist detained for a helmet and jacket. I have seen those helmets for sale in Thailand.

And the other two who were shot before. Still no closure.!

Is the country getting sillier or what?

A doctor locked up as a danger to society and now a journalist detained for a helmet and jacket. I have seen those helmets for sale in Thailand.

Even sillier is the notion that a helmet and flak jacket are considered weapons. Don't most weapons have a trigger or button to push??

Is the country getting sillier or what?

A doctor locked up as a danger to society and now a journalist detained for a helmet and jacket. I have seen those helmets for sale in Thailand.

Even sillier is the notion that a helmet and flak jacket are considered weapons. Don't most weapons have a trigger or button to push??

Seems like you've never waged war against the Helmet-hurling Huns of Hungary.

The journalist should just point to an article of the last journalist shot and killed here during

civil unrest. It can be dangerous for journalists.

Since when is the fuzz dictating what to wear?

Or is the fuzz looking for their picture being taken for their local newspaper.

Sillyness at best.

perhaps he was a foreigner not feeling safe.

So a bullet-proof jacket is a banned weapon?

In that case, during the "re-enactments" of high-profile crimes, why do the police give a weapon (b-p jacket) to the accused?

W< T < F< is wrong with a lot off countries including Thailand It is illegal to have a bullet proof vest,,,So they are really saying that you are not allowed to protect your own life if you think a vest could save you,,,,What in the name of Satan is wrong with this world?????

You are not allowed to save your own F,,,c,,g life but you will get jailed if you take someones life,,,SOMETHING VERY WRONG,,,Please explain!!!

Is the country getting sillier or what?

A doctor locked up as a danger to society and now a journalist detained for a helmet and jacket. I have seen those helmets for sale in Thailand.

Even sillier is the notion that a helmet and flak jacket are considered weapons. Don't most weapons have a trigger or button to push??

They are if you put them in a pillow case...

An annual freshman pillow fight at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point turned bloody this year when cadets swung pillowcases packed with hard objects, injuring 30 cadets... Some cadets swung pillowcases believed to have been packed with their helmets

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/853803-annual-pillow-fight-at-west-point-turns-violent;-30-injured/

This 3rd world country is a complete joke !!!

this case is beyond belief does it really matter what you wear aboard a plane what harm could it cause this is about as petty as you can get .

So my motorcycle helmet is a weapon, but if I don't wear it I can be fined, but if I take it out of the country it's a weapon and I can be tossed in jail. Hell's bells, I'm confused.

Note to self: Jackets that stop bullet's are weapons. I wonder how the applies to bullet resistant glass. I remember watching of CCTV video of some luck guy who happened to have have his life saved by having bullet resistant glass in his side window as hit man attempted to whack him with a silenced pistol.

These must be rules that only apply to farang and the average non-elites.

Freakin' amazing in only a TIT sort of way.

So my motorcycle helmet is a weapon, but if I don't wear it I can be fined, but if I take it out of the country it's a weapon and I can be tossed in jail. Hell's bells, I'm confused.

Note to self: Jackets that stop bullet's are weapons. I wonder how the applies to bullet resistant glass. I remember watching of CCTV video of some luck guy who happened to have have his life saved by having bullet resistant glass in his side window as hit man attempted to whack him with a silenced pistol.

These must be rules that only apply to farang and the average non-elites.

"So my motorcycle helmet is a weapon", Yes if it is blue and has the word "PRESS" on it.

Edited September 7, 201510 yr by Basil B

Bullet-proof vests (body armour) are considered 'weapons' in many developed/1st world nations.

An explanation as to why, in straightforward English, can be found by using a search engine.

From the criminaldefenselawyer.com website:

"The effectiveness of body armor is unquestioned—studies have shown that it dramatically decreases the wearer’s chances of death. It is precisely the effectiveness of body armor that has led lawmakers to regulate it so that criminals do not get the protection it provides. Restrictions include laws on how a vest may be purchased and by whom, to criminal penalties for illegal possession or use during a crime."

Another from the Queensland (Australia) Weapons Act 1990. Weapons Categories Regulation 1997:

"6 Category E weapons

(1) A bulletproof vest or protective body vest or body armour designed to prevent the penetration of small arms projectiles is a category E weapon.

(2) In this section—

body armour—

(a) means an article designed for anti-ballistic purposes that is designed to be worn on a part of the body; and

(b_) does not include a helmet, or other article, designed for sight or hearing protection."

Edited September 7, 201510 yr by Stray

http://www.establishmentpost.com/thailands-arms-control-act-lost-in-translation/

Well did they charge that police for trying to carry a pistol on board in Tokyo airport?

After "unnamed and un-prosecuted" gunmen killed a Japanese reporter back in 2010 (and it seems that no one will ever be held accountable for all that killing altogether), reporters should be allowed to wear bullet proof vests.

Since they are not allowed to possess or wear bullet proof vests, does that mean they are required to remain sitting ducks? And why weren't Suthep's people arrested for having them?

Those questions were rhetorical....