Thai woman's third visit is to sue Government

By THERESA GARNER

On her first visit to New Zealand Pimthong Udompun was turned away at the airport, and on her second she was locked in a police cell.

On her third trip here she climbed into the witness box.

The Thai woman is seeking compensation for the "cruel and degrading" treatment she claims to have suffered at the hands of immigration officials and police while trying to enter the country for a holiday.

She claims that she was denied access to sanitary protection over two days during her period.

During a four-day hearing in the High Court at Auckland this week, Ms Udompun gave evidence in her claim for damages of $250,000 for humiliation and pain.

The claim, taken under the Bill of Rights against the Minister of Immigration and Minister of Police, seeks the court's disapproval of the conduct of the Government officials and the potential negative effect on New Zealand's reputation.

The 36-year-old fruit seller and mother of two from north-east Thailand says her human rights were violated and that she was falsely imprisoned.

Also in dispute are whether her personal needs were met while she was detained, and whether as a detainee under the Immigration Act she was entitled to an interpreter.

In 1999, Ms Udompun was turned away at Christchurch Airport and flew back to Thailand without being spoken to by an official.

On her second visit in 2000 she was taken from Auckland Airport to Papakura police station, and held for a total of 50 hours.

Speaking through an interpreter yesterday, Ms Udompun told the Weekend Herald she had gone to court to "set the record straight".

"I didn't do anything wrong.

"I was locked in prison for two nights bleeding with a heavy period. I had blood all over me and I felt terrible. My heart just sank. It is a nightmare I will never forget."

She said she came to New Zealand for a holiday and still had no idea why she was turned away.

"I don't know the law of this country. I'm just a normal person with no criminal record."

Her lawyer, Olinda Woodroffe, said the situation could have been avoided with the help of an interpreter. She said New Zealand relied on tourism and language schools' revenue, and needed to re-evaluate procedures. "We need to accommodate the fact that we invite these people with language difficulties in. Their needs when they arrive in airports must be catered for."

She told the court that immigration officers should have "stepped outside the pegs of New Zealand's ethnocentric assumptions to listen and make decisions with an open mind".

Eleven police officers and two immigration officers have given evidence in the Crown case.

The Crown says that on both visits officials decided Ms Udompun was not a "bone fide tourist".

The Crown says that Ms Udompun was "properly denied entry to New Zealand on both occasions, properly detained pending departure on both occasions and properly treated while in detention".

The Crown disputes that any request was made for sanitary products for Ms Udompun, or that if it was made, that it was declined.

Justice Paul Heath reserved his decision.