Christopher Saines: Aussie lawyer CEO found dead at a Thai massage parlour in Koh Samui
Christopher Saines, the 43-year-old CEO of Brisbane-based law firm GLG Legal, was discovered unresponsive around 6am on Monday at the Siam Touch Massage parlour on the popular tourist island of Koh Samui.
Emergency services were called to the shop in Bo Phut, close to the villa where Warne died, around 7am after a masseuse noticed the lawyer wasn't breathing.
Police Lieutenant Colonel Phumaret Inkong from Bo Phut Police Station said officers found Mr Saines 'lying dead' when they arrived at the parlour near Chaweng Beach.
'He had just finished getting a massage, dressed, and went to the bathroom. Then, he asked to sit and rest on the bed for a moment, and he simply fell asleep,' he said.
'The masseuse said that he was snoring so loudly that they had to ask the guests nearby if they wanted to change rooms. He stayed like that until around 3am, when the shop closed, and the masseuse left him to sleep in the room.
'At around 6am, she came back up to wake him, but he didn't respond. She then called her friend to help check on him. That's when they discovered that he had passed away. It's believed that he died some time after 4am.'
Mr Saines was staying with his family at $4,000-a-night boutique hotel, Villa Mia. Police believe he left the luxury villa around midnight and paid 400 baht ($AU 19) for a one-hour traditional oil massage.
Initial inquiries indicate that the lawyer died of heart failure, the
Daily Mail
reported.
Mr Inkong revealed that officers found a zip lock bag in Mr Saines' trouser pocket, containing a white powdered substance.
'We can't confirm it yet, it needs to be sent for lab analysis,' he said.
'From initial field testing using police reagents, it's presumed to be an illegal drug, but we're not sure if it's actually cocaine.'
Mr Inkong said police are not treating Mr Saines' death as suspicious, as there appeared to be no sign of physical struggle or injury.
'Right now we are waiting for the results of the drug test and the autopsy report, which may take several days depending on the case, but we will try to expedite it as quickly as possible,' he said.
Mr Saines' wife was informed of her husband's death at 3pm on Tuesday.
His body is now at Surat Thani Hospital for a post-mortem examination.
Mr Saines has been described as an 'active member of the legal community' in a biography on the GLG website.
He was a member of the Queensland Law Society, committee member of the International Bar Association, committee member of Basic Rights, and a board member of Aged Care Review.
The Nightly has reached out to GLG Legal for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
5 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Melbourne star Steven May banned for three games for high hit on Carlton's Francis Evans
The AFL tribunal has taken an eternity to make decision on Melbourne star Steven May, who was cited for a controversial collision that concussed Carlton's Francis Evans on Saturday night. May faced the tribunal via a video hook-up on Wednesday night, with the tribunal eventually deciding — after deliberating for more than hour — the All-Australian defender was banned for three games. May was cited for rough conduct in an incident that divided the AFL world. It was reported that insiders at the AFL believed the case to be the most challenging they had seen in years. Experts were also divided, with some believing that May had to make a contest of the situation, while others have suggested he needed to slow down or deviate when he realised he was on a collision course with Evans. Star Channel 7 commentators Daisy Thomas and Kane Cornes both believe May had little choice but to contest the ball and make contact. Thomas said ahead of the tribunal: 'My mind would be blown if he does not get off. This is a footballing act to its core.' But North Melbourne great David King said May needed to be punished because Evans was hit 'with the absolute point of the shoulder' and May hit him 'flush' The AFL's match review officer Michael Christian graded May's contact as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact. But May told the tribunal on Wednesday that he could not believe he didn't take possession of the ball. 'I thought I did everything right, so I'm just a bit shocked,' he said. May and Evans clashed at speed, but Evans arrived a fraction of a second earlier than his opponent, getting his hands to the ball before May caught him high. Melbourne lawyer Adrian Anderson said there were nine reasons why the incident wasn't rough conduct, which included both players were travelling at pace, May was 'contesting the ball', the ball's bounce was 'unexpected', May didn't move off line, he didn't jump off ground, and May was significantly taller than Evans. Before the final decision was handed down, the tribunal deliberated for over an hour leading one tribunal reporter to wonder if the panel had gone into ghost mode. 'Has the Tribunal f***n ghosted me?' Fox Footy reporter David Zita wondered on social media, while a fan said: 'Ghosted all of us ...' Zita continued as he waited for the verdict: 'I'm sorry, but what the actual f***.' Eventually, the tribunal panel released its findings, deciding May was banned for three games. Even immediately after the incident there was debate on the hit, with Blues coach Michael Voss saying May's act was fair. 'Both players were in line with the ball and seemed to be attacking it,' he said post-match. 'Both sort of making a play at the ball, maybe one person was one step late, and obviously then the incident happens. 'But for Frankie (Evans) to be able to hold his line with a pretty strong man coming the other way was a pretty important moment in the game.' And Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin said May's intent was 'clearly' to win the ball. 'If you just look at his pure intent, it was purely for the ball and it was unfortunate,' he said. Goodwin said the AFL was doing an 'unbelievable' job in trying to eradicate concussion from the game. 'It's important that we limit it as much as we can but there will be football incidents where someone is concussed,' he said. May was concussed himself in a separate incident and was already ruled out of the Round 20 game.
West Australian
5 hours ago
- West Australian
Melbourne star Steven May banned for three games for high hit on Carlton's Francis Evans
The AFL tribunal has taken an eternity to make decision on Melbourne star Steven May, who was cited for a controversial collision that concussed Carlton's Francis Evans on Saturday night. May faced the tribunal via a video hook-up on Wednesday night, with the tribunal eventually deciding — after deliberating for more than hour — the All-Australian defender was banned for three games. May was cited for rough conduct in an incident that divided the AFL world . It was reported that insiders at the AFL believed the case to be the most challenging they had seen in years. Experts were also divided, with some believing that May had to make a contest of the situation, while others have suggested he needed to slow down or deviate when he realised he was on a collision course with Evans. Star Channel 7 commentators Daisy Thomas and Kane Cornes both believe May had little choice but to contest the ball and make contact. Thomas said ahead of the tribunal: 'My mind would be blown if he does not get off. This is a footballing act to its core.' But North Melbourne great David King said May needed to be punished because Evans was hit 'with the absolute point of the shoulder' and May hit him 'flush' The AFL's match review officer Michael Christian graded May's contact as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact. But May told the tribunal on Wednesday that he could not believe he didn't take possession of the ball. 'I thought I did everything right, so I'm just a bit shocked,' he said. May and Evans clashed at speed, but Evans arrived a fraction of a second earlier than his opponent, getting his hands to the ball before May caught him high. Melbourne lawyer Adrian Anderson said there were nine reasons why the incident wasn't rough conduct, which included both players were travelling at pace, May was 'contesting the ball', the ball's bounce was 'unexpected', May didn't move off line, he didn't jump off ground, and May was significantly taller than Evans. Before the final decision was handed down, the tribunal deliberated for over an hour leading one tribunal reporter to wonder if the panel had gone into ghost mode. 'Has the Tribunal f***n ghosted me?' Fox Footy reporter David Zita wondered on social media, while a fan said: 'Ghosted all of us ...' Zita continued as he waited for the verdict: 'I'm sorry, but what the actual f***.' Eventually, the tribunal panel released its findings, deciding May was banned for three games. Even immediately after the incident there was debate on the hit, with Blues coach Michael Voss saying May's act was fair. 'Both players were in line with the ball and seemed to be attacking it,' he said post-match. 'Both sort of making a play at the ball, maybe one person was one step late, and obviously then the incident happens. 'But for Frankie (Evans) to be able to hold his line with a pretty strong man coming the other way was a pretty important moment in the game.' And Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin said May's intent was 'clearly' to win the ball. 'If you just look at his pure intent, it was purely for the ball and it was unfortunate,' he said. Goodwin said the AFL was doing an 'unbelievable' job in trying to eradicate concussion from the game. 'It's important that we limit it as much as we can but there will be football incidents where someone is concussed,' he said. May was concussed himself in a separate incident and was already ruled out of the Round 20 game.
Sydney Morning Herald
6 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
When I visited Sydney, I was shocked by the antisemitism I encountered
We found the park with relative ease. But the mysteries of Google Maps did not guide us to the entrance. We turned into Dent Street hoping that might lead us to the entrance, but in truth we had no idea where to look. Then we saw just what you're looking for when you want directions – a young family, a friendly Aussie mum, dad and kids all on bikes with smiling faces under law-abiding helmets. We pulled up and asked. They obligingly directed us to the entrance and with abounding friendliness wished us a great day in the park. The amicable civility portended a happy day. Then as I wound up the window and pulled away, the Aussie dad called out 'Free Palestine'. I was momentarily shocked. Then I turned the car around and pulled up beside him again. I wound down the window and asked why he thought it was OK to single out Jews and call out provocative slogans. His answer was at once outrageous and hilarious. 'I wasn't doing that, but I saw your kippas [skull caps]'. Perhaps I should have realised at that point that I was talking to more of an idiot than an ideologue and driven off. But I did not. I replied with the obvious: that's my point – why do you think it is OK to single out Jews for your commentary? He replied: 'I just wanted to see if you agreed with what I said.' Apparently, having thought more deeply about the matter, Aussie dad now thought that with his kids around him on bikes and my three little grandsons in the back seat eager to get to the park, this was an opportunity to call out a provocative slogan to invite discussion about one of history's most intractable geopolitical conflicts. I don't think so. Loading I told him I thought he was a disgrace to Australian society. I drove off while he continued to tell me he just wanted to see if I agreed with him. In fairness, he did so without rancour or aggression – quite a nice guy, really. Then came the jeering laugh of moral righteousness as I drove away. So, where does this leave us? What do we call it when a seemingly pleasant person singles out other people on the basis of their race, with provocations? I thought that was racism pure and simple. And when it is directed at Jews, I thought that was antisemitism pure and simple. But the man I encountered would no doubt be horrified by the suggestion that he is a racist or an antisemite. On the contrary he is the guardian of morality, the protector of the colonially oppressed. By calling out the Jew in public for the tragedy that has befallen the Palestinian people, he is a hero of good conscience. It is all the more perilous that this well-meaning chap is clueless as to his own moral failing – perhaps much like Joseph Banks himself, an unashamed champion of colonisation (and thereby forced dispossession) of a land to which his people had no right or connection. In the end, I do not think I need, and I most certainly do not intend, to hide or cower. My intuition is that the lovely Irish woman need not be as concerned, and the outwardly pleasant dad is an outlying sanctimonious fool. I am the product after all of generations in this great country. 'She'll be right' and 'no worries' have historically been effective antidotes to Australians' anxieties. They also make for good recipes for inaction. It is hard to know whether those renowned Aussie epithets are the products of cheerful optimism or national indolence. I harbour a sickening suspicion that I may be mistaken. For the sake of Australia's social fabric and the future of its communal cohesion, I hope my intuition and historic optimism is well placed.
