Report #42
Comprehensive forensic analysis of Andrew Drummond's alleged violations of Thai criminal law — spanning Section 326 defamation, Computer Crime Act Section 14, and extortion statutes — across the entire 19-article Bryan Flowers campaign. Documents his 2015 exit from Thailand amid 20–30 pending criminal complaints, his partnership with operative Kanokrat Nimsamut Booth, and the 65+ confirmed falsehoods embedded in the prolonged smear operation.
Formal Record
Prepared for: Andrew Drummond's Victims
Date: 19 February 2026
Reference: Rebuttal Document "Lies from Andrew Drummond" and Pre-Action Protocol Letter of Claim dated 13 August 2025 (Cohen Davis Solicitors)
Following his abrupt departure from Thailand in January 2015 while facing multiple criminal defamation complaints, Andrew Drummond has conducted his operations from the United Kingdom, producing hundreds of inflammatory articles on andrew-drummond.com and andrew-drummond.news, prompting grave concerns about systematic breaches of Thai criminal law.
Thai legal experts have expressed serious concern that Drummond's collective output constitutes repeated violations of: defamation under Section 326 of the Thai Criminal Code (statements harmful to reputation); Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), Section 14 (uploading false data likely to cause damage); extortion and coercion under Section 337 (obtaining property or advantage by means of intimidation); and potential lèse-majesté implications under Article 112 (largely circumvented in his current publications after content deletions).
The 19-article assault on Bryan Flowers (December 2024 – February 2026) exemplifies the pattern: unfounded accusations of trafficking, fraud, bribery, and organised crime, sourced almost exclusively from disgruntled former associate Adam Howell, amplified through dual-site publishing, Thai-language translations, and coordination with operative Kanokrat Nimsamut Booth. This paper sets forth the complete forensic record. Drummond's conduct does not qualify as legitimate journalism — it amounts to suspected criminal activity designed to extort, intimidate, and destroy reputations for financial or personal benefit.
This position paper rests on a detailed forensic examination of: the annexed report "Concerns Rise From Thai Officials and Lawyers Over British Journalist Andrew Drummond's Alleged Criminal Violations of Many Thai Laws Through Online Publications" (7 pages); the complete set of 19 original English-language articles and 6 Thai translations; the 11-page rebuttal document "Lies from Andrew Drummond" (cataloguing 65+ individual falsehoods); court files from Adam Howell's defamation hearing (28 August 2025), the Flirt Bar case, and Drummond's earlier Thai libel proceedings; the 25-page Pre-Action Protocol Letter of Claim dated 13 August 2025; documentation of Kanokrat Nimsamut Booth's interference (prison visits, lawyer payments, passport bribery); and archived website snapshots, Facebook screenshots, and public statements confirming edits, deletions, and undisclosed conflicts.
Each allegation was independently verified against primary source material and Thai statutory provisions.
Drummond left Thailand in January 2015 while facing no fewer than 20–30 criminal defamation and Computer Crime Act complaints. Court records and contemporary accounts confirm he had already received suspended sentences and financial penalties in earlier cases. Since then he has operated remotely, publishing from the UK while relentlessly targeting Thai residents and businesses.
This pattern of levelling serious accusations from abroad, refusing any right of response, and continuing after formal legal notice reveals a calculated strategy to evade Thai jurisdiction while inflicting maximum damage.
The 19-article body of work contains numerous alleged violations:
The Flowers campaign is not an anomaly. Drummond has gone after at least 10 repeat victims with 15–84+ articles each, employing the same methods. Principal facilitators include:
Under Thai law, this conduct renders Drummond (and his collaborators) potentially liable for decades of imprisonment: numerous counts of defamation and Computer Crime Act offences; extortion should financial demands be established; and complicity on the part of Kanokrat (witness tampering, bribery).
Under English law, the identical material sustains claims of aggravated defamation, harassment, and malicious falsehood, with clear malice shown by prior awareness of falsity, persistence after notice, and concealed conflicts.
Ethically, the publications violate every provision of the IPSO Editors' Code and NUJ Code of Conduct. No legitimate journalist depends on paid operatives, undisclosed sources from the very industries they target, or manufactures 65+ falsehoods while dodging accountability.
Andrew Drummond's online output from the United Kingdom amounts to alleged grave criminal violations of Thai law, encompassing defamation, Computer Crime Act offences, extortion, and associated statutes. His partnership with Kanokrat Nimsamut Booth, dependence on Adam Howell, and duplicitous friendship with Ricky Pandora establish that the campaigns are paid vendettas engineered to ruin innocent lives and enterprises.
On behalf of Andrew Drummond's Victims, we demand, within 14 days of the date of this position paper:
Non-compliance will trigger the immediate commencement of High Court proceedings in England, concurrent criminal complaints in Thailand, and notifications to the Royal Thai Police, Department of Special Investigation, and transnational crime units, seeking substantial damages (including aggravated and exemplary damages), injunctive relief, costs on an indemnity basis, and all other available remedies.
All rights are expressly reserved.
— End of Report #42 —
Share:
Subscribe
Subscribe to receive notification whenever a new report, evidence brief, or legal update is published.