Why would anyone want a Thai life sentence?

(The equivalent of 99 years)

 

Question: - Take two UK prisoners detained in Thailand, one with a 33 ½  year sentence and the other with a life sentence.  Who will be released first?

 

Answer: - The life sentencer!

 

Do you think that is strange – We do and here is why the UK Government has got away with it:-

 

The Prisoner Transfer Treaty between Thailand and the UK states that a transferring prisoner with a determinate sentence, i.e. a number, cannot have their sentence altered, but will serve their Thai sentence subject to the UK early release provisions (currently at least half of their sentence).  However, if a prisoner transfers to the UK, who was given a life sentence in Thailand, because the UK do not have a fixed life sentences (the minimum term to be served is fixed by the sentencing judge), before that prisoner transfers to the UK, the UK fix that prisoners minimum term to be served, which is unlikely to be as much as half of 33 ½ years!  

 

You can see for yourself in the case of Soyege what a minimum term is likely to be!! Take that case for example.    That prisoner had a Thai life sentence.  The UK originally set that prisoner’s minimum term at twelve years (which was agreed by Thailand).  That prisoner transferred to the UK in 2003.   Because that prisoner had already served at least eight years in Thailand (because that is the length a life sentencer must serve before they can transfer to the UK), that prisoner had four years at the most to serve in the UK.  So in total that prisoner would have served twelve years at the most, provided she was released on licence at the first application (as you know the prisons in the UK are full, so she was very unlikely to be refused to be released unless she was dangerous.)

 

Since that agreement, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allowed Soyege’s case to be referred to the High Court, once she had transferred to the UK.  The court considered, despite the original ‘twelve year’ agreement between the UK with Thailand, that her minimum term was four years!!!  Hardly a life sentence!

 

Take the prisoner with the 33 ½ year Thai sentence.   That sentence cannot be altered, so even if all the paperwork was ready for that prisoner to transfer after they had served the four years in Thailand that they are required to serve before they transfer, they would still have 29 ½ year left.  That would be their UK sentence and they would serve at least half of that in the UK, i.e. 14 ¾ years – longer than the life sentencer had to serve in total (remember the 33 ½ year sentenced prisoner has already served four years in Thailand in addition to the 14 ¾ years.)

 

The Foreign Office knows about this inconsistency, but has refused to confirm it.  Luckily we now have confirmation this is correct and we are not just making these figures up!  You can see the case of Soyege for yourself of this website, which is the judgement from the High Court.

 

Does this seem fair and is this how we want our law to work?   

 

Even if you don’t support a Thai prisoner’s pardon application – we hope you think differently after reading this, even if you just support it for this reason alone so we can pressure the law to be changed to be consistent   Unless the determinate sentenced prisoners are pardoned, or the UK law/Transfer Treaty is amended, they will spend the rest of their life in prison for, probably, a small offence, whilst serious offenders walk free!  Soyege’s crime was far more serious than the prisoner who received the 33 year 1/2 sentence, yet she will be out of prison before!

 

Many prisoners refuse to transfer to the UK in hope the Transfer Agreement or UK law will be changed.  If they transfer now, they will serve their sentence as the agreement stands now, despite any future change.

 

We have raised this with the Foreign Office two years ago and nothing has been done – two years in a Thai prison can result in a prisoner’s death.  Why does nothing seem to have been done about this inconsistent agreement?  It is not just the Thai Agreement to blame for this inconsistency, but the British law, which allowed this huge inconsistency – whether purposely or in error!

 

We do not criticise Soyege because who would blame her.  She was lucky, but most aren’t.   If the UK can do this for one, then why can’t they do it for all?   The UK legislation is the reason she got the result she did.

 

Although technically, Soyege could be on licence for the rest of her life, the determinate sentenced prisoner would be on licence until the end of his sentence i.e 33 ½ years.   There is a possibility Soyege could apply for her licence period to end after many year (probably by the time a determinate sentenced prisoner’s licence ends!)  As long as Soyege complies with her licence, then she will not return to custody, although a determinate sentenced prisoner will not have that opportunity to behave and stay out of prison after four years despite his crime being less serious.

 

If you are unfortunate to fall fowl of the Thai law, try and get a life sentence, or commit a huge crime, because you can transfer to the UK and be released from prison quicker.

 

 

THE THAI LEGAL SYSTEM IS BAD, BUT THIS EXAMPLE OF THE UKs JUST LEGAL SYSTEM IS WORSE!

---

In the Matter of Adelo Soyege

Ref. No: 2005/6/MTS

[2005] EWHC 2648 (QB)

High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division

 

QBD

 

Before: Mr. Justice Crane

 

Thursday, 1 December 2005

 

Judgement

 

1 Adelo Soyege was sentenced in Thailand to life imprisonment. Following her repatriation to the United Kingdom, her case has been referred to the High Court by the Secretary of State under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 273 for the making of an order under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 section 82A. Such an order sets the minimum that she must serve before being considered for release on licence.

2 Her offence was an attempt to smuggle 4.52 kilograms (calculated at 100% purity) out of Thailand at Bangkok Airport on 2 August 1995, bound for ultimately for France, having smuggled the heroin into Thailand. The heroin was in her travelling bag, hidden in a recently stitched compartment. There is no information to suggest that she was more than a courier. She pleaded guilty at court and was sentenced to life imprisonment on 15 March 1996, rather than capital punishment, in the light of that plea.

3 She was repatriated to the United Kingdom under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984. Before her repatriation the matter was referred to the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf. By letter dated 2 June 2003, he said:

"The quantities of heroin involved were very substantial. The only mitigating fact of which we are aware is the plea. We do not know what assistance, if any, Ms Soyege gave the authorities. It may be thought desirable to find out whether any significant assistance was given, but on the assumption that this is not the case my minimum period would be 12 years"

4 I have seen no information about the question of assistance, but the letter from Ms Soyege's solicitors dated 29 October 2004 does not suggest that assistance was given and I conclude that none was given.

5 In the letter dated 4 January 2005 referring the matter to the court, it is said that she and the Thai and Uk governments agreed to the transfer in the knowledge that the Lord Chief Justice had recommended that she should serve a 12 year minimum term.

6 The procedure for consulting the Lord Chief Justice is not set out in the 1984 Act and I assume that it was an informal procedure, designed to provide the Minister with the information he required under section 1(4) of the 1984 Act. The procedure for repatriation requires the issue of a warrant under the 1984 Act. I have not seen the warrant and I do not know whether it referred to the recommended minimum term. On 17 September 2004 the Home Office Lifer Review and Recall Section informed Ms Soyege that the relevant part of her sentence for the purposes of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 was 12 years.

7 Section 273(1) of the 2003 Act requires the Secretary of State to refer the case of a transferred life prisoner, which would include this prisoner, to the High Court "for the making of one or more relevant orders". By subsection (3), a "relevant order" means --

"(b) in any other case [that is, any case in which the sentence would not under the law of England and Wales be fixed by law], an order under subsection (2) or (4) of section 82A of the [2000 Act]"

8 Section 82A provides in subsection (4) for cases in which the early release provisions should not apply. This is clearly not such a case. The relevant subsection is (2), which reads:

"The part of his sentence shall be such as the court considers appropriate taking into account --

(a) the seriousness of the offence, or any combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it;

(b) the effect of any direction which it would have given under section 87 below [now section 240 of the 2003 Act] (crediting periods of remand in custody) if it had sentenced him to a term of imprisonment; and

(c) the early release provisions as compared with [section 244(1) of the 2003 Act]."

9 In order to arrive at the minimum term, it is necessary to consider, as the Lord Chief Justice was considering, what sentence would be passed for such an offence in England and Wales. The guideline case is R. v. Aramah (1982) 76 Cr.App.R.190, as modified by R. v. Aranguen [1995] 16 Cr.App.R.(S) 407. For large-scale importations of Class A drugs, including heroin, where the weight of the drugs at 100% purity is of the order of 500 grams or more, sentences of 10 years and upwards are appropriate. Where the weight at 100% purity is of the order of 5 kilos or more, sentences of 14 years and upwards are appropriate.

10 Ms Soyege's solicitors submit that the ill health of Ms Soyege's elderly father, confirmed by a medical report, and the effect of imprisonment in Thailand on Ms Soyege should be taken into account. However, personal factors cannot make a significant difference in sentencing for this kind of offence and I would not reduce the term on those grounds.

11 It is submitted by Ms Soyege's solicitors that the appropriate determinate sentence for such an offence committed in England would be between 10 and 14 years. I agree, and I think that the Lord Chief Justice must have had such a bracket in mind. However, in fixing a term under section 82A the court would have regard to the plea of guilty. I see nothing in the 2003 Act to indicate that the normal consequences of a plea of guilty, apparently entered at the earliest possible moment, are not relevant for present purposes. Applying a one-third reduction in accordance with the Guideline Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, I consider that a sentence of 12 years would be reduced to 8 years.

12 It has been the practice in fixing the minimum term to halve the appropriate sentence: R. v. Szczerba [2002] 2 Cr.App.R.(S) 86. And that is enshrined in section 82A(3)(c) of the 2000 Act, as amended. That is because the minimum period to be served by a life prisoner must be equivalent to the part of a prison sentence to be served by a prisoner receiving a determinate sentence before release on licence. 8 years becomes 4.

13 From the resulting 4 years must be deducted the period in custody on remand: see section 82A(3((b). She spent 225 days on remand. The effect of that deduction is that the minimum term runs from the date of arrest and being taken into custody.

14 These conclusions lead to a minimum term very much less than the term than the Lord Chief Justice proposed and hence very much less than was accepted by the two governments and by Ms Soyege. I have considered my conclusions with great care, in case the perception of the Thai Government might be that the United Kingdom had not followed the authoritative guidance of the Lord Chief Justice. However, whatever was understood and whatever the warrant indicated, Parliament enacted the 2003 Act after the date of the Lord Chief Justice's letter. I am bound to apply the provisions of the 2003 Act and of section 82A, which in my view leave no room for taking into account the expectations of the governments or the acceptance of the defendant.

15 The order that I make under section 82A is that the early release provisions shall apply after Ms Soyege has served 3 years and 140 days. Thus she is entitled already to consideration for release on license.