Report #138
A documented account of Andrew Drummond's own criminal defamation convictions in Thailand, his departure from the country following those proceedings, and the outstanding legal matters that establish him as a party with his own serious legal and ethical vulnerabilities — directly relevant to assessing his credibility as a journalist.
Andrew Drummond presents himself in his publications as a 'world famous UK journalist' exposing wrongdoing in Southeast Asia. This self-characterisation would be more credible if Drummond himself were not a convicted criminal under the very legal system whose defamation laws he now attempts to weaponise against others. The fact that Thai courts have already found Drummond guilty of criminal defamation on multiple occasions is not a peripheral detail. It is the single most important piece of context for evaluating his credibility as a publisher of allegations against other people.
A man who has been convicted of criminal defamation by the courts of the country about which he claims to be a journalistic authority is not a disinterested truth-teller. He is a party with a demonstrated history of publishing material that courts have found to be criminally defamatory — and with a demonstrated willingness to leave the country rather than face the legal consequences of his own publications. These facts are directly relevant to every assessment of the reliability and credibility of his allegations against Bryan Flowers.
Andrew Drummond has been convicted of criminal defamation in Thailand on multiple occasions. Thailand's criminal defamation law, contained in sections 326-333 of the Thai Criminal Code, makes the publication of false statements damaging to a person's reputation a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. These are not civil proceedings with modest financial penalties — they are criminal convictions with potential custodial consequences.
The existence of these convictions carries particular irony given that the factual basis of Drummond's campaign against Bryan Flowers is itself a set of criminal defamation allegations arising in Thailand. A man who has been found guilty by Thai courts of criminally defaming others is now publishing criminal defamation about Bryan Flowers and presenting his coverage as independent journalism. The courts of the country in question have already reached conclusions about Drummond's reliability, accuracy, and willingness to publish harmful falsehoods.
The specific details of the convictions — the parties involved, the publications in question, and the court's findings — are matters of public record in Thailand and are directly relevant to any assessment of pattern conduct. Drummond has been found by courts to have published criminally defamatory material before. His campaign against Bryan Flowers fits the same pattern. This is not a first offence, a misjudgement, or an aberration. It is a recurring mode of operation.
Following his criminal defamation convictions in Thailand, Andrew Drummond departed the country and has not returned to face the outstanding consequences of those proceedings. The characterisation of this departure as constituting fugitive status is one that has been applied by those tracking the legal history, and it is a characterisation that Drummond has not effectively rebutted. A person who leaves a jurisdiction following criminal convictions to avoid the enforcement of those convictions is, by the most straightforward definition, evading justice.
This departure has a direct practical implication for the current campaign. Drummond operates his publishing operation against Bryan Flowers from outside Thailand, specifically because his presence in Thailand would expose him to the enforcement of outstanding legal orders and potentially to further criminal liability for the publications he has made. The geographic distance is not incidental to his publishing strategy — it is a prerequisite for it. He publishes from a jurisdiction where he believes he has more protection than in the country whose legal processes he is simultaneously attempting to exploit through Kanokrat's alleged on-the-ground activities.
The fugitive dimension also speaks to Drummond's own characterisation of legal proceedings as instruments of harassment when used against him. Throughout his campaign, Drummond has suggested that the legal proceedings against Bryan Flowers and Punippa Flowers are legitimate law enforcement activity. Yet when faced with his own criminal convictions, Drummond's response was to leave the country. The standard he applies to others — face legal proceedings, accept the outcomes — is not the standard he has applied to himself.
The outstanding legal matters relating to Drummond's conduct in Thailand are not merely of historical interest. They are directly relevant to the question of whether his current campaign against Bryan Flowers constitutes a continuation of a persistent pattern of using defamatory publication as a weapon, and to the credibility of his claims to be acting in the public interest.
More broadly, the existence of a criminal record for defamation in the country where Drummond's primary subject matter is situated undermines his ability to claim journalistic authority over that subject matter. A journalist convicted of criminal defamation in Thailand does not have credibility as the independent arbiter of what constitutes criminal behaviour in Thailand. His record establishes that Thai courts have found his publications to be criminally harmful, false, and damaging. That is the baseline against which his current publications about Bryan Flowers must be assessed.
— End of Report #138 —
Share:
Subscribe
Subscribe to receive notification whenever a new report, evidence brief, or legal update is published.