Sandra Gregory refused entry to Thailand

Post by **charlesh** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:54 pm

I do not have a degree in jurisprudence however I can't see how a royal pardon can be transferred to another country for a person convicted in the country of the said royal person to the person who was incarcerated elsewhere. Does not compute SteveG. A pardon in absentia - why bother? If that was the case it would indicate a gross travesty and the lawyers would be rubbing their hands together for a chance at unlawful imprisonment etc.

Wait to you bleeding hearts see a person lapsing into a coma from an OD no doubt supplied in some way by the same get rich quick nongs that are the subject of this discussion.

Praise to sarge and buksida for their stiff views on kiddy fiddlers. It's obviously not capital punishment that is the issue but the nature and magnitude of the crime!!!!

Post by **nanyang** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:14 pm

caducus wrote: It is generally accepted nowadays that capital punishment is outmoded, barbaric and ineffective as a deterrent - whatever the crime.

It is also generally accepted that capital punishment prevents re-offending.

Post by **STEVE G** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:36 pm

charlesh wrote:I do not have a degree in jurisprudence however I can't see how a royal pardon can be transferred to another country for a person convicted in the country of the said royal person to the person who was incarcerated elsewhere. Does not compute SteveG. A pardon in absentia - why bother? If that was the case it would indicate a gross travesty and the lawyers would be rubbing their hands together for a chance at unlawful imprisonment etc.

I'm not totally sure how this works, but I don't think a Royal pardon means you are innocent, It just means that you've been forgiven which is not the same thing.

Post by **migrant** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:49 pm

STEVE G wrote:
charlesh wrote:I do not have a degree in jurisprudence however I can't see how a royal pardon can be transferred to another country for a person convicted in the country of the said royal person to the person who was incarcerated elsewhere. Does not compute SteveG. A pardon in absentia - why bother? If that was the case it would indicate a gross travesty and the lawyers would be rubbing their hands together for a chance at unlawful imprisonment etc.
I'm not totally sure how this works, but I don't think a Royal pardon means you are innocent, It just means that you've been forgiven which is not the same thing.

I believe you are correct, and that may be a reason she was refused. In Thai authority eyes, right, or wrong, I would think she has the equivalent of a early release, not time served.

Post by **lomuamart** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:00 pm

Here's something to look at:
http://www.correct.go.th/eng/deathpenalty.htm
I've read the book and from what I remember there was a King's pardon from the death penalty to life imprisonment.
However, as an British subject, Sandra Gregory was eligible for release after a number of years under the Thai/UK prisoner exchange treaty. She therefore had to serve a proportion of the remaining sentence in a UK jail.
If I remember the book correctly, she claims that a Royal pardon was issued whilst she was in a UK prison and that seems suspect to me (but who am I to know). She already had been pardoned.
Either way, she was thrown out of the country afterwards and there is a difference between deportation and being declared persona non grata. My understanding is that in the former instance you can apply for a visa after a number of years - even if granted, there's no automatic right of entry. In the latter, there's no way back, ever.
I'm not trying to moralise here, just trying to state the law as I think it may be.

Post by **dtaai-maai** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:07 am

All of which is very well, but why didn't they just refuse the visa application...?

Post by **STEVE G** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:10 am

Here is the archived news story about her release following a Royal pardon:

Royal pardon for drugs smuggler
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/845138.stm

Post by **redzonerocker** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:02 am

buksida wrote:
So you agree with the death sentence for drug offenders in Thailand where murderers, rapists and child molesters get far more lenient treatment?

I certainly don't, the punishments do not fit the crime by any means, I'd rather hang a child molester than someone who smuggles a bit of dope - but maybe I've got things the wrong way round

firstly, no, i don't agree with the death penalty for drug offenders but it common knowledge that for drug offences in thailand (& many other places!) the penalty is death.
whether that has ever been implemented i don't know

but there can't really be any excuses if you're caught

what i can't except is she had her sentence reduced to 25 years then served only 4

, hardly justified imo.
& she was hardly just smuggling a bit of dope

:?

for the record, i would be all for the death penalty to be reintroduced for certain crimes & i think the decision once the culprit has been found guilty, should lay with the family of the victim.
if a member of my family was brutally murdered, raped or molested i'd quite happily pull the lever myself

Post by **buksida** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:34 am

Each to their own rzr, we agree on a few points and disagree on a few more, such is life.

Post by **komfortablynumb** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:57 am

Agree buksida.
Always a contencious issue.
If Sandra had applied for a visa to apologise to the King and the LOS.
Thus maximizing publicity.
Would that have been better?
Such is life.

Post by **margaretcarnes** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:53 am

what i can't except is she had her sentence reduced to 25 years then served only 4

, hardly justified imo.
& she was hardly just smuggling a bit of dope

:

That puzzles me too, but I'm sure all the correct procedures and diplomatic niceties were followed in regard to His Majesties' wishes. It still doesn't seem right to serve only 4, regardless of where.
In fact recalling her book, Sandra Gregory actually said she had a rougher time in the English prison than in Bang Kwang, and would have preferred in some ways to do her time in the latter. She seemed quite naievely shocked by the UK system. Let's not forget this supposedly 'intelligent' woman knew exactly what she was doing, and showed completely disrespect for a country she is supposed to love.
Another thing puzzling me now is the fact that she had a possible death sentence - albeit commuted - for less than 90 grams. I'm not condoning any drug smuggling here. It causes deaths. End of story. But I did think that amount was under the amount which carries the death penalty in LOS?
Maybe she did genuinely think she could make amends back in Thailand in some way. Personally I can't believe her lack of respect for the country, and for it's Monarchy, especially by trying to return just a couple of days before His Majesties birthday.
She did the crime. She didn't do the time.

Post by **richard** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:01 pm

Hear hear Mags

sargeant · Post by **sargeant** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:11 pm

One question i would like answered is how much did she make from her book if she had a nice little earner from that and it gets a boost again from this disgraceful conduct plus a slack handful of talk show appearances Plus a degree inside
it sends the message take the piss and you will win
If the original sentence had been carried out we would not be having this debate and the message that would have sent would still have some meaning

Post by **STEVE G** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:57 pm

For doing what she did in a SE Asian country you deserve more than four years just for stupidity.
Carrying drugs gives the police an excuse to do anything they want to you.
I knew of a case in Indonesia where a Chinese girl I'd met was shot dead by the police over drugs, a Dutch guy who ended up in jail and an Englishman who was beaten up to the point of being hospitalised.
If you're carrying drugs nobody will care what happens to you.

Post by **Wanderlust** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:54 pm

Sorry to take this on a bit of a tangent, but as far as the punishments go it really depends on what you are trying to achieve with them. The death penalty prevents reoffending completely. Long jail terms (if served) also achieve this but there is a small chance of reoffending on release. If the aim of the punishments is to deter people from offending in the first place, it is clear in this and other instances they don't work on some people and I wouldn't mind hazarding a guess that even if there was no punishment for drug smuggling the vast majority of people, as now, would not do it because of the implications it has for others. Same with murder, rape and child molesting. I am totally against the death penalty for any crime because of the possibility that the wrong person is convicted, and the message that it sends out - 'If someone does something wrong you hurt them' - it is not a message I want my kids hearing. It is the behaviour of wild animals, not sentient beings. I do think that all sentences should be served in full with no remission and that prison conditions should be harsh, particularly for first offenders regardless of the crime, and agree with buksi that the sentencing here is a bit out of whack; it should be life imprisonment for murder, child molesting and rape, and long sentences for violent crimes and drug smuggling. However the police and courts system here also needs drastic improvements because of the number of incorrect arrests and convictions that happen, as well as the arrests and convictions that don't happen.

Hua Hin Forum

Sandra Gregory refused entry to Thailand

Re: sentence

Re: sentence