Arrest warrant for “David” over kicking Thai doctor in Phuket

The Phuket Provincial Court has issued an arrest warrant for a foreign businessman, identified as “David,” who is accused of assaulting Dr Thandao Chandam — commonly known as “Dr Pai”—after he failed to appear in court for the appeal verdict. 

The case stems from an incident on February 24, 2024, in which David, reportedly the owner of an elephant sanctuary in Phuket, allegedly kicked Dr Pai in the back while she was sitting near the steps of his luxury beachfront villa in Yamu, Thalang District. The assault case gained significant public attention.

Initially, the lower court acquitted David, citing the principle of reasonable doubt. However, Nipit Intarasombat , a former Democrat MP for Phatthalung province and current legal counsel for Dr Pai—filed an appeal. The Court of Appeal Region 8 scheduled the reading of the appeal verdict for April 21, 2025.

But David, along with his attorney, failed to appear at the scheduled court session, sending only a legal representative instead. The court deemed this as an act of evasion and subsequently issued an arrest warrant.

Nipit revealed that he took on the case at the request of Dr Pai’s father and agreed to represent her pro bono. He said he wanted Dr Pai to know that justice still exists and can be found.

Following the arrest warrant, the court has rescheduled the reading of the verdict to May 23.

Nipit revealed that the lower court’s decision to acquit the defendant, citing that the ruling was based on the notion of “reasonable doubt” due to the ambiguity between guilt and innocence. 

Nipit said he filed an appeal specifically targeting the court’s assessment of the case’s reasonableness. He argued that the testimony from Dr Pai and her colleague, also a medical professional, was consistent and credible. “If she hadn’t been assaulted, how could she have filed a report? There were actual injuries,” Nipit emphasised. 

According to Dr Pai’s account, someone approached her from behind, and she heard the sound of a kick. Though she couldn’t determine whether it was a knee or another part of the body, she clearly felt an impact and sustained injuries to her back.

“The court ruled that because she didn’t see the actual kick, they had to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. But my argument is: she reported the incident immediately, and had visible injuries. It’s difficult to believe those injuries came from any other cause,” said Nipit.

When the Court of Appeal scheduled the verdict reading, the defendant failed to appear. According to initial information, David may have already left the country. “Whether he’s fleeing or not, I can’t say,” Nipit added, “but legally, the court has determined it constitutes evasion—and that’s why the arrest warrant was issued.”

Nipit expressed confidence in the appeal he filed, citing the strong credibility of the witness testimony. He challenged the defence’s claim that the defendant sustained injuries by tripping on the stairs—an explanation that emerged only days after the incident. “ This indicates that he was indeed present at the scene, but we believe the testimony from Dr Pai's side carries more weight”, said Nipit.

The case has become one of the most talked-about legal matters in Thailand in 2024, drawing widespread public criticism over the inappropriate behaviour of a foreign national. The assault triggered protests demanding the deportation of the foreign businessman, calls for investigations into his business dealings, the establishment of his foundation, and even led to the discovery of firearms in his possession. Authorities also uncovered several other instances of misconduct.

As public pressure mounted, discussions began over the possible revocation of David’s visa. However, immigration enforcement must await the final legal outcome before any deportation measures can be taken.