Extradition statute

[bluesofa]

Given that there’s been a lot in the press in recent years about extraditing Thais from abroad when they’ve run away to avoid being caught – Thaksin and the Red Bull heir immediately spring to my mind, how does the Thai law work on this subject?

 

The way I read it, there’s a certain length of time the authorities have to bring an accused back to Thailand to stand trial?

If, for example, the statute of limitations expires after say five years for something they’re accused of, all they need to do is stay out of Thailand for that length of time, then they can return with impunity?

 

I’m asking, because as a Brit, I don’t think we have this clause in our legal system, although I’m willing to stand corrected.

 

I was watching the US crime series Elementary, portraying Sherlock Holmes in a modern setting in New York.

In one episode, there was a scenario where the statute of limitations had expired the previous day. After the accused was apprehended by Sherlock, Holmes pointed out that they had checked his travel history, and found he had made a trip to Canada for a couple of days in the past.

The accused was informed that the law stated that if someone accused left the country, the time left for expiry was automatically paused until they returned to the US.

 

Now I have no idea if this is true under US law, but it did seem like it could be a practical way to stop Thais doing the same here.

 

 

[Kwasaki]

This is not UK, in UK if your nicked for criminal it stands.

Thailand will decide l guess when or if you come back so your point is.

[bluesofa]

11 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

This is not UK, in UK if your nicked for criminal it stands.

Thailand will decide l guess when or if you come back so your point is.

As the text was about extraditing Thais from abroad, my point is exactly what I wrote in my last sentence:

"Now I have no idea if this is true under US law, but it did seem like it could be a practical way to stop Thais doing the same here."

 

[Kwasaki]

3 minutes ago, bluesofa said:

As the text was about extraditing Thais from abroad, my point is exactly what I wrote in my last sentence:

"Now I have no idea if this is true under US law, but it did seem like it could be a practical way to stop Thais doing the same here."

 

 Extraditing is a bit of political subject l don't know what agreements Thai gov has with other countries.

My guess is if Thai gov is holding someone like from another country because they've done something wrong in Thailand and the country in question like say Russia recently they are given an amount to pay into the Thai gov gratitude fund.

 

What the US gov does l think is that they think they have the rights to the whole world to do whatever they want whenever they feel like it.  

[IDP1]

Money talks, bullshit walks... Mr Redbull is looking untouchable at this point

[Bastos60]

In the case of Mr. Redbull, he can flee to a lot of countries without risking to be extradited, since it is possible he could get sentenced to death.
 

 

[soisanuk]

First, it appears OP is speaking on two issues.  One is Extradition and the other is Statute of Limitations. The first depends on the terms of an Extradition Treaty between Thailand and other countries (where the individual is located). It is possible the terms may have a time limit from when the crime was committed until the person is found, but it would depend on the specific treaty with the country where the person was found. As mentioned, many countries will bar extradition of an individual if the penalty for the crime is death - The US or US State Governments, in order to extradite someone where the extradition would be barred because of the death penalty, often agree to waive the death penalty as being a consequence if they are found guilty.

 

The statute of limitation is based on the law where the crime was committed. It relates to the time from when the crime was committed to the time the person is formally charged with the crime.  This often can vary depending on the nature of the crime, e.g., in many countries, there is no statute of limitation on murder, but for other less serious crimes there may be a such a limit.

 

In the USA, leaving the jurisdiction of the State in which the crime was committed usually "tolls the statute," meaning any time outside the State's jurisdiction is not counted against the time limit for filing charges. Once formal charges are filed, the statute of limitation no longer applies.  Likewise, if it is a Federal crime, it tolls the statute for anytime the perpetrator leaves USA territory.  This may or may not be the case under Thai law.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by soisanuk
correction

[Suradit69]

20 hours ago, bluesofa said:

Now I have no idea if this is true under US law, but it did seem like it could be a practical way to stop Thais doing the same here.

Not sure how this would stop Thais or anyone else from leaving the jurisdiction where a crime is committed. And in most cases in the US it is not a "US law" that applies, it is the individual state's law. For some crimes there is no statute of limitations. 

 

In some countries/states, including Thailand, you can be convicted of a crime in your absence, so running away doesn't gain you an advantage in terms of passage of time. 

 

Despite the notion that random farang watching Sherlock or who qualify as Bar Stool Crime Scene Investigators (BS-CSI) the legal system in Thailand is unlikely to be wowed by their clever armchair perceptions.

 

Maybe you could turn your attentions to curing cancer after watch ER.

 

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3ed3f3b0-8055-481d-b184-3c40a7312c9a

 

 

Quote

 

Thailand November 29 2016

Recent amendments to Thailand’s criminal law make it harder for convicted criminals who do not appear for sentencing to appeal their cases. Under the current law, defendants who are on the run are able to file higher court appeals through a lawyer. The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) has now closed this loophole, and the amendments are awaiting final signature to become effective.

Under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), a defendant is required to appear before the court to hear judgment. If the defendant fails to be present in court through no fault of his or her own (e.g., they, in good faith, were unaware of the court date), issuance of the judgment is suspended until the defendant actually appears.

However, if the court has any suspicion that the defendant purposely avoided the judgment hearing, an arrest warrant will be issued. If the defendant is not arrested within one month from when the warrant was issued, the court can issue the judgment without the defendant being present.

Importantly, if the court convicts the non-appearing defendant, that defendant still has the right to appeal the judgment to the Appellate Court or the Supreme Court. In other words, even a fugitive has the legal right to appeal his or her conviction, under the current process.

Substantive efforts to change this law began in March 2016. NLA members submitted a proposal to the President of the NLA to amend the CPC. They argued that allowing absconding defendants to appeal was against public policy and principles of fair justice. The proposed amendments stated that if a defendant wanted to appeal a Criminal Court judgment, the defendant should be required to physically appear before court officials.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by Suradit69

[dansbkk]

Good luck if you can only base your legal knowledge on fictional TV shows. Remember, they are for entertainment, and not always realistic or factual.