Thai visitor's compensation slashed by court

Pimthong Udompun

The Court of Appeal has slashed the amount of compensation awarded to a Thai visitor for human rights breaches - including police failure to provide her with sanitary products - from $50,000 to $4000.

Pimthong Udompun came to Christchurch in 1999 but was put on a plane back to Thailand the next day because she did not have a visitor permit.

When she arrived in Auckland the following year, she was also ordered to leave. She was held at Papakura police station for the next available flight two days later.

She had a heavy period but was not given access to sanitary products. Mrs Udompun had begun menstruating on the flight from Bangkok to Auckland.

In a 69-page ruling handed down yesterday, the Appeal Court said she went for 23 hours without sanitary products.

The court upheld a 2003 High Court ruling that failure by Papakura police to provide her with some help, although not deliberate, was unacceptable.

But the five judges disagreed that Christchurch Airport officials and police at Auckland Airport breached the Bill of Rights Act as the High Court judge accepted.

Justice Paul Heath earlier ruled that an appropriately qualified interpreter should have been made available to Mrs Udompun in Christchurch and she should have been properly informed in a language she understood of her right to consult a lawyer in Auckland.

Justice Heath said section 23 of the Bill of Rights was breached when airport police failed to allow her to get a change of clothes from her luggage before she was detained at Papakura and when Papakura police failed to make sanitary products available.

He said it was important that people wanting to visit New Zealand knew the courts would act to ensure immigration procedures were carried out legally.

But the Appeal Court said even if Mrs Udompun had been questioned through an independent interpreter at Christchurch Airport, it was highly likely she would still have been refused entry.

The judges also disagreed that a breach of rights occurred at Auckland Airport.

Damages awarded for those two claims were therefore overturned.

Police were ordered to pay $4000 in damages for the breach at Papakura, but blame was not assigned entirely to them.

The judges said Mrs Udompun had several opportunities to ask for sanitary products before being taken to the station, including on the flight from Bangkok and when she spoke to a male interpreter at Auckland Airport.

They said 23 hours was a significant time and Papakura police exacerbated the situation by failing to provide Mrs Udompun with a shower, change of clothes and a means to communicate her need for sanitary products.

"We do, however, consider that Mrs Udompun must bear some responsibility for her predicament in that she did not source sanitary products before she was at the police station."

One judge disagreed. Justice Grant Hammond said the case showed the "reception system" for illegal immigrants was inadequate and the public dimension of the case had not been fully explored. He said $4000 was "distinctly inadequate".

Mrs Udompun's lawyer, Olinda Woodroffe, had not spoken to her client, but expected her to be disappointed with the reduction in compensation but pleased with the ruling relating to police failure to provide sanitary products.

"She will be happy as a woman that her suffering has been recognised."