Benny Benham Jantharakul - Thailand

December 05

Benny is a Swedish national, now aged 36. He is shown above on the right, in the red and white shirt, playing a Thai traditional musical instrument.

While traveling in south east Asia in 1995 with his Thai wife, Benny decided to settle in Thailand and start a business in Phuket province. Events including police corruption led to him being unlawfully deported and put on a blacklist of persons declared dangerous to Thailand’s national security. He challenged this, but there was no response from the immigration authorities. Benny went back to Sweden for two years and then returned to Thailand.

In August 2000 Benny was helping a friend with a case against a Syrian man. Benny himself was lodging a complaint against a policeman who had taken $6000 from him. This was eventually dropped but 2 weeks later, the policeman arranged for a raid on Benny’s home with the assistance of the Syrian. Using documents from the immigration case of 1997 and seeing that Benny had 2 computers and related equipment, the policeman arrested Benny and charged him with computer hacking and forgery.

Though the charges were dropped after four days, Benny’s passport was never returned. Neither was he released. New charges of extortion and kidnapping were pressed against him. It appears that the same Syrian was behind all of this and Benny was told that if he paid him 400,000 Baht he could go free. Benny refused to do so. Charges of armed robbery were added to the indictment. For reasons unknown, the Swedish Embassy stopped visiting him and a promise to visit ‘in a week’, turned into a wait of 15 months. He received no medical care and lost 20kg in weight. His lawyer at the time cheated him, taking his money and his car.

The current case against Benny is that, along with five others, he beat and robbed the Syrian. No stolen property was found. There were no witnesses to the assault and robbery. The victim had no injuries, nor did he seek medical help. He is reported to have gone to a hotel bar immediately after the alleged attack and waited 14 days before making a complaint.

After 14 months, Benny was tried alone; nothing is known of the 5 remaining co-accused. He was convicted of assault and sentenced to 21 years imprisonment. Fourteen months were added for possession of a gun without a license.

Benny appealed and was acquitted, but the prosecution appealed against this to the Supreme Court, who ruled that Benny was guilty and his original sentence was to stand. Benny is now making a formal complain to the King of Thailand. His complaints against the police officer and 9 prosecution witnesses were accepted and all of the above face charges of perjury.

Benny has learnt Thai and has become an expert in helping fellow prisoners gain the few rights they are entitled to, such as using radios, obtaining newspapers, stopping the use of shackles, and allowing foreigners to phone their families.

Fair Trial Issues

1. When questioned at the Crime Suppression Division, Benny had no legal representation, as the lawyer provided was watching Thai boxing on TV instead of advising Benny. The only people present were a Lieutenant Colonel of the police force and Benny.
2. Benny’s complaint against his accuser was disregarded by the police.
3. No translator was present, and Benny could not understand the charges made against him.
4. At the sentencing hearing, the court falsely claimed that Benny said he was in hospital at the time of the alleged incident.
5. Though the Lieutenant Colonel admitted in court that Benny and the Syrian had known of each other before the alleged incident, the court did not take this into consideration in passing the guilty verdict. The Syrian lodged the complaint nine days after Benny had helped his friend with a complaint against the Syrian.
6. The initial prosecutor seemed intent on a fair trial. However, he was removed and replaced by another prosecutor who coached the complainant before and during the trial, with no intervention by the judges. The complainant was shown court papers before testifying.
7. At the appeal, the judges clearly stated in their reasons for the acquittal that Benny’s prior dealings with the Syrian meant that the latter’s testimony was unconvincing.
8. Benny was forced to state that he had never had a licence to possess a gun. He didn’t want to do so because he has never had a gun, so never needed a licence. The statement was used to convict Benny, as “where the defendant says he had no licence to possess a gun, it means he had a gun without licence”.