A 40-year-old Australian national was granted bail by the Thai Region 2 Appeal Court today in the sum of 800,000 (AUS$30,573) on a charge of possessing ‘Ice’  – crystal methamphetamine.

Jacob Dade Davies from Melaney, Queensland, had earlier been refused bail by Pattaya Provincial Court, as earlier this year in case YO17/58 he had been convicted of possession of  a Class A drug fined 14,000 Thai baht (AUS$535.52) and given a 15 months prison sentence suspended for 2 years.

As the cash goes into the court if he breaks his bail terms and conviction could see him doing ten years in prison there is considerable speculation as to whether Mr.Davies will stick around for his trial.

In court as guarantor was Australian Scotsman David John Hanks, 66, former owner of ‘The Masquerades brothel in Keysborough, Victoria.

Hanks, now a moneylender on a retirement visa was acquitted earlier this year or racketeering charges.  It was alleged that he charged 60 per cent per month for his loans to Russians in the resort.

Hanks’ partner fellow Scot Brian Goudie, formerly Goldie,  did not attend. He was due to surrender in a nearby court on a charges relating to revenge porn on a former woman partner and setting her up to face licensing charges.

Normally those arrested on drugs charges in Thailand have little chance of getting bail. The maximum penalty for drugs offences is death by lethal injection.

But Pattaya Court and its associated appeal court are renowned for its ground breaking legal decisions.

The legal victory for Davies, born on May 16 1975, comes as even a greater surprise as his senior adviser Goudie, is currently appealing a three year jail sentence for posing as a lawyer to cheat an elderly female client out of 7.8 million Thai baht (Aus$300,000) a large part of which was bail money for her son.

Triumphant legal team Hanks and Goudie with former lawyer


  1. So basically what you are saying AD, is that this "Pattaya Court and its associated Appeal Court" are as bent as a corkscrew?
    Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.
    If even the Courts of the Realm are corrupt, are twisted, what hope is there for Thai society?
    Words fail me. I cannot bring myself to say what I think of Thai society for allowing this state of affairs to develop.

    1. Not unusual at all. The man has been charged but not found guilty of an offence whilst serving a suspended sentence. By Thai standards a large security has been placed to secure bail and his reappearance.

      People skip bail in every country that does not keep people locked up on charges, keeping them locked up not just costs the state money, it is locking them up without being found guilty and sentenced.
      Bail should be a right in any civilised country. Those who abuse it face steeper penalties when returned.

    2. Just last week at Phuket Provincial Court the judge dismissed my case against a thief/fraudster as 'no one had seen him do it'. This after two independent eye witness testimony as to the crime. This was also the reason given by the local prosecutor who was subsequently transferred, along with the bent police captain. AND this reason having already been overturned by the Attorney General's Office in Bangkok. The level of corruption here is off the charts and getting worse. Disgusting little country. I hope it implodes.

  2. Bail should NOT "be a right in any civilized country." And indeed it IS NOT a right in many civilized countries.
    Many factors come into play before a Court grants bail – one of those factors being the question "is the defendant a flight risk?"
    I would submit that in this case the answer is most definitely yes – given that the defendant had already received a suspended sentence for a separate offence.
    I would further submit that it does not take the brains of a rocket scientist to see that he would be a flight risk, and that most Courts in most civilized jurisdictions would refuse him bail for that reason.
    But as AD has intimated, the Courts in Pattaya dance to their own tune.

  3. Megalodon.

    Do you know anything about this man, the circumstances of the case, or in fact have anything at all to base your assessment of the 'risk of flight'.

    What on earth makes you believe from reading an article on the internet that you have more knowledge to assess the 'flight risk' – more qualified than a sitting judge of the Court of Appeal who would have the case file before him and extensive background information on the accused.

    If your logic applied the owner of this site should not have been granted bail due to his two convictions and four outstanding cases, using your logic a clear 'flight risk'.

Comments are closed.