150 years for 1.3 grams of class 1 drugs and the Death Penalty

The second of this month disturbing reports concerns four Malaysian Gentlemen and the notable, but by no means unusual mishandling of their criminal prosecution and later, appeal.

All four were arrested in 2003, in a so called ‘sting’ operation (better known as entrapment but that’s another story) when trying to hand over a consignment of what was supposed to be ecstasy to undercover police posing as buyers. They were jointly charged with the import, possession and sale of 640 ecstasy pills whose combined weight in pure substance was tested by the police laboratory and found to be a remarkably low 1.3

grams in total. Basically the ‘E’s’ were duds. On 24th April 2004 in Rachada Criminal Court three of the four men accused gave a guilty plea in order to avoid the death sentence. They were convicted and each sentenced to 50 years imprisonment while the fourth Gentleman fought the charges at trial and won his case. He was dismissed from the court, freed, whereupon he returned to Malaysia.  The three convicted men immediately launched an appeal against the severity of their sentences, asking the court for a reduction. After all, a combined total of 150 years prison servitude for a mere 1.3 grams of a class 1 drug was bound to seem a little excessive, even to the most hard nosed of appellate court judges, or so they hoped. The appeal was eventually scheduled for 2 years later, on June 13th this year. However on the day, the hearing was opened and immediately adjourned because only 3 of the original 4 defendants were in attendance according to the judge. This adjournment obviously came as a bit of a surprise to the remaining 3 as the record clearly showed that the 4th defendant had beaten the charges and had been released. It seemed a little late for this clown of a judge to be asking of his whereabouts now, some 2 years after he was freed! Nevertheless, another hearing was scheduled for one month later and an arrest warrant issued for the 4th defendant to ensure his appearance in the court. Nobody had the balls to question the judge over how the Thai police were to track down and arrest a man that had left the country after the original court had released him, but the judge, not allowing a small oversight such as this to stand in the way of justice ordered the new appeal to go ahead on July 13th 2006. This time things took a really bizarre turn when the judge read out a new sentence of ‘Death’ to be bestowed on the, perhaps thankfully, totally oblivious 4th defendant who had so cleverly evaded capture and avoided an appointment with fate by, er, staying at home I suppose?

Meanwhile, the 50 year sentences of the three men in attendance were maintained by the judge.

As of yet, nobody has been able to explain to me how a man who was found innocent of all charges and released can consequently be found guilty and sentenced to death by an appellate court in absentia some 2 years later?

The prosecutor had the option to appeal the original courts decision to free him on the day of the verdict but failed to do so and he was subsequently released following the rule of law. One wonders under which procedure the appeal court judge had the power to overturn the original courts findings, particularly when his own courts remit was only to hear the appeals against severity of sentence from the 3 remaining Gentlemen, originally found guilty as charged?

But the story does not end there. A few days ago the three remaining Malaysians who had presumed they had lost their appeal were informed that once again they were to return to court to have their appeals heard yet again, this time on August 15th . Everything that went on in the last two appeal court sessions, they were told, had been ‘cancelled’, wiped from the record, and this new hearing would again consider their appeals: This time there has been no mention of the ‘fourth man’. Who can tell what has been going on in judge’s chambers (never mind his head) since their last appearance?

But no matter what fate eventually befalls the first three gents, I think it would be prudent to let their friend, the ‘fourth man’ know that it’s perhaps not a good idea to return to Thailand……..EVER!!!!