Re: "We were forced to smuggle drugs" : Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:06 am  

no doubt they have been very dumb - seduced by the chance of a free first class trip to Peru and a few grand to go shopping with, all for bringing a couple of bags back with them. It is hard to have much sympathy with them to be honest.

Even if there story is true and they were under duress, it looks like they had plenty of time to escape during their week in Peru. Even if they didn't want to go to the local police, they could easily have gone to the British Embassy.

Re: "We were forced to smuggle drugs" : Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:51 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

No idea ... tell you what, let's just speculate without any corroborated facts.

Sorry, I thought that was just an off topic board on an RL forum site. When did it switch, what is it now?

-------------------------------------------------

I just find the evaporation of concern for threatened families the moment they are busted smuggling a flaw in their argument. I read a little about Lindsay Sandiford, who tried to use this defence in Bali. She claims she smuggled drugs because her family were threatened if she didn't, but when busted she helped cops bust a few of her contacts. Are we supposed to believe that the drug rings are willing to harm families of people who refuse to smuggle drugs, but if their smuggler gets caught and informs to the cops on them they are okay with that, the threat has now expired.

Re: "We were forced to smuggle drugs" : Tue Aug 20, 2013 12:18 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Sorry, I thought that was just an off topic board on an RL forum site. When did it switch, what is it now? ...

It's still an off-topic forum.
You can still post your opinion and I can still criticise opinions formed without the benefit of the facts.

Problem?

Re: "We were forced to smuggle drugs" : Tue Aug 20, 2013 12:33 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Irrelevant. You didn't know that IF a person can prove they acted under duress then that is a defence. It is. Now you know. If you would like a detailed judicial discussion of the principles, then the case of R. v. Lambert, [2001] UKHL 37 may shed some light for you. Specifically drugs cases, the Canadian case of Ruzic in 2000 was one such acquittal. A US case of Thaiton-Arriola (and 13 others) had a similar outcome. I'm sure if you bothered to do a bit of research yourself you would find more examples, but even if there were none, it wouldn't alter the fact of the availability of the defence, which then the accused need only establish on the balance of probabilities. Thaiton-Arriola was the first case I looked at. That's not a similar defence at all. He took a job as a fisherman that seemed to be some sort of cover for a drug smuggling ring. Being on a boat and not allowed to leave is a completely different proposition than going to an airport with a million dollars of drugs in your bag. R v Lambert. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... gina-1.htm Is there a later appeal after that? He claimed that he didn't know he was carrying the drugs, that was rejected and he got 7 years. Marijana Ruzic. I bet she was pretty. I just think if drug smugglers are going to get off with that kind of defence then surely every decent international drug ring should include a smashing up of the smugglers parents car/house to establish that they are being forced to do it. Just reading about what happened, there is pretty much no way of the courts in Canada establishing whether she had been forced to smuggle drugs because he had threatened her mother or she was doing it because he was her gangster boyfriend and this was a thrill to her and her new exciting job. 6 Ms. Ruzic arrived in Budapest on April 26. Late that evening, she boarded a plane to Athens, where she arrived early the next day. She then purchased a ticket to Toronto. She missed that flight, exchanged her ticket for the next available flight, and left for Toronto two days later, on April 29. Her mother's in danger if she doesn't smuggle drugs. She's bought a ticket to fly from Athens to Toronto but she misses that flight. Because she's missed her flight the next available flight is in two days time. Isn't her mother in severe danger now because she's 2 days late delivering over a million dollars worth of drugs? If your mother's life depended on you catching a plane, would you miss the plane? She claims that she cannot trust Belgrade police. But that obviously extends to Budapest police, Athens police and Toronto police. The only time she decided she could trust someone was when she was busted smuggling drugs. THEN it was safe to name the man who was supposedly threatening her mother.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Irrelevant. You didn't know that IF a person can prove they acted under duress then that is a defence. It is. Now you know. If you would like a detailed judicial discussion of the principles, then the case of R. v. Lambert, [2001] UKHL 37 may shed some light for you. Specifically drugs cases, the Canadian case of Ruzic in 2000 was one such acquittal. A US case of Thaiton-Arriola (and 13 others) had a similar outcome. I'm sure if you bothered to do a bit of research yourself you would find more examples, but even if there were none, it wouldn't alter the fact of the availability of the defence, which then the accused need only establish on the balance of probabilities. Thaiton-Arriola was the first case I looked at. That's not a similar defence at all. He took a job as a fisherman that seemed to be some sort of cover for a drug smuggling ring. Being on a boat and not allowed to leave is a completely different proposition than going to an airport with a million dollars of drugs in your bag. R v Lambert. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... gina-1.htm Is there a later appeal after that? He claimed that he didn't know he was carrying the drugs, that was rejected and he got 7 years. Marijana Ruzic. I bet she was pretty. I just think if drug smugglers are going to get off with that kind of defence then surely every decent international drug ring should include a smashing up of the smugglers parents car/house to establish that they are being forced to do it. Just reading about what happened, there is pretty much no way of the courts in Canada establishing whether she had been forced to smuggle drugs because he had threatened her mother or she was doing it because he was her gangster boyfriend and this was a thrill to her and her new exciting job. 6 Ms. Ruzic arrived in Budapest on April 26. Late that evening, she boarded a plane to Athens, where she arrived early the next day. She then purchased a ticket to Toronto. She missed that flight, exchanged her ticket for the next available flight, and left for Toronto two days later, on April 29. Her mother's in danger if she doesn't smuggle drugs. She's bought a ticket to fly from Athens to Toronto but she misses that flight. Because she's missed her flight the next available flight is in two days time. Isn't her mother in severe danger now because she's 2 days late delivering over a million dollars worth of drugs? If your mother's life depended on you catching a plane, would you miss the plane? She claims that she cannot trust Belgrade police. But that obviously extends to Budapest police, Athens police and Toronto police. The only time she decided she could trust someone was when she was busted smuggling drugs. THEN it was safe to name the man who was supposedly threatening her mother.

Re: "We were forced to smuggle drugs" : Tue Aug 20, 2013 12:37 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Problem?

Just your attitude.

Re: "We were forced to smuggle drugs" : Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:06 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

<snip>.

So after all that, do you now agree that a drugs mule who can prove they acted under duress does have a defence?

Re: "We were forced to smuggle drugs" : Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:17 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Will they do it in Peru, I wouldn't be betting on it, the criminals are probably more powerful than the government, will probably include the government, no wonder Paddington wanted out.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if these two were simply a 'make weight' as part of a bigger operation. I wouldn't be shocked at all if the security forces in Lima were "in" on the entire operation.

There are a lot of temptations here for a naive 22-year-old - more money than you'll earn in a year working the bars, free coke before you go, a nice hotel while you're there - it still remains that they're probably collateral damage in a bigger importation. We aren't talking about some two-bit operation supplying a bit of brown to junkies in Harehills here, we're talking about multi-million pound organised operations.

So two young, white, western girls are offered up as a settlement for a relatively small amount of cocaine. "Here you go, here's your PR moment. Just make sure your back is turned when our big shipment goes out next week, OK?"

Re: "We were forced to smuggle drugs" : Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:16 pm  

bramleyrhino wrote:

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if these two were simply a 'make weight' as part of a bigger operation. I wouldn't be shocked at all if the security forces in Lima were "in" on the entire operation.

There are a lot of temptations here for a naive 22-year-old - more money than you'll earn in a year working the bars, free coke before you go, a nice hotel while you're there - it still remains that they're probably collateral damage in a bigger importation. We aren't talking about some two-bit operation supplying a bit of brown to junkies in Harehills here, we're talking about multi-million pound organised operations.

So two young, white, western girls are offered up as a settlement for a relatively small amount of cocaine. "Here you go, here's your PR moment. Just make sure your back is turned when our big shipment goes out next week, OK?"

I wouldn't be surprised if there was another few mules on the plane they were supposed to be on. From what I read somewhere, these 2 were arrested even before they checked in at the airport, they hadnt even got to the security desks. That to me looks like they were offered up as a decoy to distract from a bigger shipment.

Re: "We were forced to smuggle drugs" : Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:13 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Just your attitude.

It's not going to change any time soon.

Please do carry on, I have nothing to add to my earlier comment.

Re: "We were forced to smuggle drugs" : Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:45 pm  

bramleyrhino wrote:

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if these two were simply a 'make weight' as part of a bigger operation. I wouldn't be shocked at all if the security forces in Lima were "in" on the entire operation.

There are a lot of temptations here for a naive 22-year-old - more money than you'll earn in a year working the bars, free coke before you go, a nice hotel while you're there - it still remains that they're probably collateral damage in a bigger importation. We aren't talking about some two-bit operation supplying a bit of brown to junkies in Harehills here, we're talking about multi-million pound organised operations.

Could agree with this, whilst Peruvian authorities are busy being photographed and slapping each other on the back, a bigger shipment is on its way to Madrid. Where it is not met by paid off customs officers, who, after receiving a "tipoff" are busy watching the incoming flight from Thailand, Pakistan, Amsterdam or Columbia.

The girls have admitted to bringing something back, they didn't know wether it was money guns or drugs. For that reason I have no sympathy. For those who do, what if it was their 3rd run and thanks to people like them, a number of tourists on Ibiza had overdosed this summer. Would you still have sympathy?

So two young, white, western girls are offered up as a settlement for a relatively small amount of cocaine. "Here you go, here's your PR moment. Just make sure your back is turned when our big shipment goes out next week, OK?"