Thailand applies for extradition of Thaksin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 040949.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7040949.stm)

I knew this would happen, it was writing on the wall - what next I wonder!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7040949.stm

I knew this would happen, it was writing on the wall - what next I wonder!!

My money says that they will never get it. Thaksin will return to Thailand, when he is ready and willing.

... I haven't read the law on what constitutes an extradition from UK to Thailand, its only the beginning - however, Thailand do seem to be pursuing this quite seriously. But the UK government will not let him be extradited if they feel he is under some kind of threat - it also takes years to get these type of things underway.

Don't hold your breath guys, 'Money talks' no matter where you are residing!

But the UK government will not let him be extradited if they feel he is under some kind of threat

You seem to suggest that he has some sort of refugee status. AFAIK he hasn't asked for any such thing. If that were the position of HMG on extraditions nobody would ever be extradited. I suspect this trip is largely pre-election symbolism.

Manchester City's ownership is a mere sideshow. If he becomes ineligible to own it, he will have to sell it. I'm sure there will be plenty of dubious characters happy to take it off his hands at a knockdown price in a forced sale. Not that I would suggest that people who own English football clubs are necessarily dubious characters. :clown:

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

governments protect each other.

[Brad the Impala]

governments protect each other.

If it goes the same way as Pinochet, Thaksin will have to claim to be senile to avoid extradition!

Basically the problems Thailand faces (regarding extradition) are quite simple:

In order for the U.K to issue an extradition order, a request has to be made to the Home Secretary. He will then issue a certificate to the request stating that he had documents showing that the crime for which the request was made is covered by an existing extradition treaty, and that he had evidence or information that would justify the issue of a warrant for arrest in the UK, within the jurisdiction of a judge of the court that would hold the extradition hearing.
Thailand would also have to provide prima facie evidence in support of their request for extradition, prior to a certifcate being issued.

So if Thailand was unable to supply an Existing treaty which covered the alleged crime; proof that said offence is also an arrestable offence in the U.K, and solid evidence that there was a case to answer, then the Home secretary would have no option under the Extradition Act 2003 than to refuse to issue a certificate, without which no judicial proceedings can take place.

The reason that the offence has to be an arrestable offence in the U.K is that once the Home Secretary issues a certificate to a request, the person has to be arrested. So they will have to prove that if Gordon Brown (or his wife in the case of the Rachada-Phisek land deal) had carried out the same actions in the U.K, then they would be arrested..

[Hmmm]

To those of you who know something about UK extradition law, is the standing of the government requesting extradition a factor, either legally or at least practically ? i.e. does an unelected government installed after a military coup have the same legal status to request extradition as a 'democratically' elected government ?

To those of you who know something about UK extradition law, is the standing of the government requesting extradition a factor, either legally or at least practically ? i.e. does an unelected government installed after a military coup have the same legal status to request extradition as a 'democratically' elected government ?


Thailand is at present a country without legal government headed by rogue generals and martial law. I guess an extradition is not possible towards such a place, but will certainly be reconsidered once the 23 December elections have taken place. Hopefully not only Khun Thakson, but also the generals will be judged one day.

So they will have to prove that if Gordon Brown (or his wife in the case of the Rachada-Phisek land deal) had carried out the same actions in the U.K, then they would be arrested.

I doubt it has to be at PM level. I think corrupt officials have been prosecuted in the UK in the past e.g. Poulson. In any case there doesn't have to have actually been an analogous case. The test is whether if there were such a case in England, would it be prosecutable in legal, not political terms.